Secretary RIBICOFF. Yes. That was the ruling of my predecessor and I did not change that ruling, just to put this in historical perspective, which sometimes is very important. Mr. Knox. It is perfectly all right with me if you put it in that perspective, because I believe that is where it came from. It came from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare prior to your becoming Secretary of the Department. That does not cure the ills that were fostered by your predecessor if the ruling still stands. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions? Mr. Secretary, again we thank you and those at the table with you for your appearence this morning and the assistance that you have given us in understanding the provisions of the bill before us. Without objection the committee will adjourn until 2 o'clock in room P-15, this afternoon on another subject; and until 10 o'clock Friday morning to resume hearings on this subject. (Whereupon, at 12 noon, February 7, 1962, the committee was recessed to be reconvened at 10 a.m. on Friday, Feburay 9, 1962.) PUBLIC WELFARE AMENDMENTS OF 1962 FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1962 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C. The committee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in the committee room, House Office Building. Hon. Wilbur D. Mills (chairman of the committee) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please be in order. Our first witness this morning is our colleague from Colorado, the Honorable Byron G. Rogers. Mr. Rogers, we appreciate your taking time from your busy schedule to come to the committee; and you are recognized. STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON G. ROGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to state that the Honorable Wayne N. Aspinall, Representative from the Fourth Congressional District, has authorized me to speak on behalf of himself as it relates to this particular matter. My name is Byron G. Rogers. I am a Representative from the First District of Colorado, which is the city and county of Denver. The Federal Government should not compel the States to reduce the residence requirement to 1 year to be eligible to receive old-age assistance contributions. Local responsibility is assumed by the States and the Federal Government makes contributions to the approved State plans. A requirement of only 1 year of residence in a State to participate in the old-age assistance program will discourage local participation. The State of Colorado has led all others in attaining a level of old-age assistance which is actually comparable with decency and good health by providing in its State constitution and statutes the most liberal program of old-age assistance and medical care for the aged to be found in the United States. The people of the State of Colorado, relying upon the formula announced by the Congress of the United States that the residence requirements were 5 years out of the preceding 9, adopted an outstanding program and demonstrated that liberal old-age assistance laws are desirable and economically sound. Few would be tempted to weather a 5-year residence requirement to obtain the increased benefits provided by Colorado's constitution. and enabling statutes. It is unthinkable that the reliance which Colorado placed upon the residence requirements as fixed by Congress 80118-62-21 should be now found to provide no protection against the threatened influx of thousands of unknown residents who would unquestionably come to the State of Colorado for the sole purpose of seeking increased pensions. If these residence requirements are lowered to 1 year, Colorado's program, which has been one of outstanding leadership in the field in the entire Nation, will be doomed. In that way, a tragic blow will have been dealt to a sovereign State which has contributed much to the cause of decency and health in the well-being of aged citizens. Let the States who advanced the cause of human betterment have a small voice in protecting themselves against those States who drag their feet in matters of this kind. There are three classes of old-age assistance in the State of Colorado. Class A are those beyond the age of 65, who have resided in the State of Colorado for 5 years out of the past 9. Class B pensioners are those between the ages of 60-65 who have continuously resided in Colorado for 35 years. There are 3,749 of these annuitants. Class C pensioners are those who have been confined to public institutions, other than penal institutions. There are 1,575 of these annuitants. May I interject at this point that if the Federal Government is interested in assistance of those past the age of 65 who are confined to the public institutions, they should join in and help the State of Colorado take care of that class. The State pays all class B and class C annuitants. On the class A pensioners, Colorado now pays $108 per month and receives $42.78 annual average from the Federal Government. Compare these payments with the surrounding States and you will find that the Kansas average is $68.72-these are States that border and adjoin the State of Colorado-Oklahoma is $68.33; Wyoming is $64.67; New Mexico is $56.48; Utah is $50.33; and Nebraska is $48.66. Needless to say there are others in that area that pay much less. I am sure you gentlemen will readily recognize that the additional sums that may be received for old-age assistance in the State of Colorado will cause many to come to the State and enjoy privileges that we, in Colorado, had felt belonged to those pioneers who struggled so long to establish the State and who have contributed so much in taxes and have helped to develop our State. In their final years of life they would be compelled to share with those who had not contributed anything to the State of Colorado. It is not fair to require Colorado citizens to make contributions to outsiders. A suggested program of lowering residence requirements by offering to States additional Federal aid would, in effect, penalize the States offering a progressive and advanced program of care for their aged and would actually pull the programs in those socially conscious States down to the level of those not progressively inclined. Backward States should be encouraged and their levels of care raised rather than penalizing those that have offered advanced and more humanitarian service to their aged citizens. That is the extent of my statement. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rogers, we thank you, sir, for bringing this point of view to the committee this morning. Are there any questions of Mr. Rogers? Mr. Mason? Mr. MASON. Mr. Rogers, I am in full accord with the contents of your testimony and I hope the majority of this committee will be in the same accord. Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions? Again we thank you, Mr. Rogers. Mr. ROGERS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. We are pleased to have with us today the Honorable Clement J. Zablocki, of Wisconsin. Would you please identify yourself for the record and proceed as you will. STATEMENT OF HON. CLEMENT J. ZABLOCKI, OF WISCONSIN, ON AID TO DEPENDENT CHILDREN PROGRAM Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to present testimony on the proposed amendments to the Social Security Act embodied in H.R. 10032. I would like to direct my comments to section 107 of the bill, which deals with aid to dependent children. AID INTENDED TO BE USED FOR NECESSITIES OF LIFE To begin, I would like to review the legislative background of this program. There is every indication in the legislative history of the Social Security Act that Congress intended aid for dependent children to be used for the necessities of life. In enacting title IV of the Social Security Act, the 74th Congress referred specifically to "needy dependent children." And again, when the 81st Congress included adults under this program, the law mentioned "the needs of the relative with whom any dependent child is living Congressional debates further reveal that, in using the term "need,” Congress was specifically referring to the necessities of life. The program was not intended to provide the recipients with luxuries, or to furnish them with funds for such unrelated expenditures as the payment of fines, posting of bonds in criminal actions, and the like. To put it another way, the Congress, in enacting the aid to dependent children program, wanted simply to aid local and State welfare agencies in sheltering dependent children against the hardships of privation, in helping them to develop their talents, and thereby aiding them to become useful members of their communities. CONGRESSIONAL INTENT NOT BEING FOLLOWED There is considerable evidence that departures from this congressional intent are becoming rather common today. In my own county-the county of Milwaukee-local government officials have produced a number of cases in which aid to dependent children-instead of being used for the support of such childrenhas been spent in payment of fines for prostitution, for posting of bonds in criminal actions, for liquor, and the like. In Ashland County of Wisconsin, the board of supervisors recently stated that "in many cases, cash disbursed to mothers to feed, clothe, |