I observe my distinguished friend from New York. I know the residence requirement in New York. Perhaps some day we can move into that category. But it has to be done slowly because of the constitutional problems involved in some of our States, and equally because of, a tremendous influx of people coming into States like Colorado. They come from neighboring States that have a pension program of $68 or $72. Our top payment is $108. Our average is about $98. We already have problems with new people flooding in on us. These are problems that have to do with schools, metropolitan problems, and water pollution. This change would compound our difficulties.

I hope that this committee, as I know it has always done, will give very careful consideration to the problems of the States.

My State does not want this. To the contrary, as I have indicated. the Colorado Welfare Board and the legislative body itself are violently opposed to the passage of this legislation at this time.

Gentlemen, I shall be glad to submit myself for questioning if any questions are desired.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator, we appreciate your coming to the committee to give us your thinking on this particular point.

Are there any questions?

Thank you very much.

Senator CARROLL. I thank the chairman and members of the committee for their courtesy in permitting me to come at this time.

Mr. KEOGH. Mr. Chairman, I would be derelict in my devotion to our distinguished former colleague if in lieu of questions I did not have the record note with what pleasure we always greet you when you come over to the important side of the Capitol as you have today.

Senator CARROLL. I want to say to the able Congressman from New York that on many occasions, I have told some of my colleagues that this is the more important side of the Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mintener?

Mr. Mintener, will you please identify yourself for the record by giving us your name, address, and capacity in which you appear?

STATEMENT OF BRADSHAW MINTENER, CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE; ACCOMPANIED BY REV. SHELDON RAHN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST IN THE U.S.A. Mr. MINTENER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Bradshaw Mintener, chairman of the Department of Social Welfare of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. I am a Methodist, a practicing attorney in Washington, and a former Assistant Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, in 1954-56.

I want to take this occasion, Mr. Mills, to thank you and your colleagues for giving us the opportunity of appearing here today and expressing our views on this important legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. We welcome you to the committee, sir, and you are recognized.

Mr. MINTENER. I have with me, Mr. Chairman, Rev. Sheldon Rahn, who is the executive director of the Department of Social Welfare of the National Council of Churches. He will be prepared and very

happy to endeavor to answer any specific questions which you and your colleagues may have with reference to our statement.

On June 4, 1958, the general board of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. adopted "A Pronouncement on the Churches' Concern for Public Assistance" which asserted that the churches have a responsibility—

** to advocate programs which will make available to needy people the whole range of services which may help them become self-supporting and selfrespecting persons.

This statement of general board policy also asserts that:

Local churches should become vitally concerned with the administration of public assistance programs in their communities and at other governmental levels. They should work to the end that all these programs have available for their administration personnel adequately trained to meet the variety of needs which the recipients of public assistance will have.

The National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. has also recognized that—

The people who receive public assistance benefits ordinarily have special needs in addition to money.

The June 1958, statement of the general board goes on to—

call upon our churches to encourage all people to grow in personal, family, and social responsibility, to help them find increasing faith in God and in His love for all men

The general board of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. clearly supports the improvement of public welfare services and the stated purpose of this bill which is to prevent and reduce dependency and provide rehabilitation opportunities for those who are now dependent on public assistance.

We wish to comment on the following aspects of this proposed legislation:

I. FEDERAL FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION IN COSTS OF SERVICES (PART A)

H.R. 10032 would provide that State and local departments administering the public assistance program could provide social, psychiatric, and rehabilitation services in any of three ways: (1) by developing or extending a qualified staff in the State or local department itself, (2) by contract with nonprofit private agencies, and (3) by contract with other units of State and local government.

There are some 4,000 church-related health and welfare agencies in the United States under Protestant and Eastern Othodox auspices. A number of these sectarian agencies may be in a position to sell a limited amount of service to their State or county and may do so when local community planning indicates this would be desirable. Private agencies have a great tradition of pioneering service in this country and will continue to contribute an indispensable share of the total health and welfare services of the Nation.

Some agencies, however, might be tempted to enter into purchaseof-service contracts as a way to aggrandize their budgets and prestige at public expense without reference to the welfare planning needs of the whole community. Should this happen, neither private or publicly administered services would develop properly and the major goal of H.R. 10032 might be effectively frustrated.

We have reason to believe that our constituency is in substantial agreement regarding certain principles which should guide churchrelated health and welfare agencies in the acceptance of tax funds. There is general agreement that church-related agencies may accept per diem payments on a case-by-case basis for services purchased by Government for individuals, under the following conditions:

A. That the policies and procedures of the agency are not interfered with beyond minimum standards [ed.: determined by government] and providing that the agency accepts its responsibility to report fully on individual cases as may be required by Government. B. That the individual served has the right insofar as possible to choose the agency which is to perform the service.

C. That the agency is making available to the total community in competent fashion an essential community service.

D. That the acceptance of such funds by a church-related agency should not mean that the possibility of public provision for such services is thereby ruled out.

E. That in its overall financing, the agency should not become financially dependent upon the per diem payments by Government for its continuance as an agency.

F. That this compensation is not used for religious ministrations. Perhaps the biggest danger in retaining an authorization in H.R. 10032 for the purchase of service from nonprofit private agencies will be the tendency in some States and counties to ask private agencies to sell service as an improper substitute for the development of publicly administered services. In such communities, the function of private agencies can be distorted, the springs of private philanthropy and private initiative dried up and quality and coverage in public services retarded.

To achieve an effective approach to the development of private and public services will require both (1) self-discipline and self-regulation on the part of private and sectarian agencies themselves and (2) some minimum safeguards embodied in Federal law.

The only safeguard now provided for in H.R. 10032 is the phrase—

services which cannot be as economically or as effectively provided by the staff of such State or local agency and are not otherwise reasonable available to individuals in need of them

More specific minimum criteria will be needed if the Congress does not want to hurt the many private nonprofit agencies which do want to regulate themselves without being penalized for doing so by the irresponsible actions of a few private agencies which might try to exploit these new Federal funds without regard for the local planning and service needs of the larger community.

We suggest consideration of the following minimum criteria:

1. That purchase of service from nonprofit, private agencies be limited to a case-by-case purchase, prohibiting a lump-sum contract (this would not apply to purchased research).

2. That when service is purchased, it be purchased at the full cost of the service rather than requiring private philanthropy to subsidize such service from limited voluntary funds.

3. That, in turn, nonprofit, private agencies which choose to sell service be required to operate within salary ranges, personnel qualifications and other personnel standards which are equivalent to those

under which public agencies providing the same kind of service are operating. When civil service ranges are below standard from the point of view of private agencies involved, they may be expected to work for the improvement of civil service ranges.

Unless a reciprocal clause of this kind is included in the Federal statute, private agencies will have a natural tendency to accept purchased-service funds, add $50 or $100 to the civil service salary range and then proceed to outbid public agency counterparts for the limited number of qualified personnel available.

If this should happen, the possibility of building quality into new or extended public services would be destroyed, and the steady deterioration of public services which do exist would be guaranteed.

In some communities, private agency salaries and standards are better than public agency and civil service standards. In other communities, public agency standards may be superior to those of many of the private agencies. To protect both private and public agencies from distortions in development based on differentials in salaries and personnel standards instead of on sound community planning, we would recommend that further study be undertaken of these factors.

Our churches and church-related agencies are in fundamental agreement that aceptance of public funds by a church-related agency should not mean that the possibility of public provision for such services is thereby ruled out.

But this possibility will be ruled out unless more specific criteria such as we have here referred to are included in the Federal statute and interpreted in regulations from the Secretary.

Many of the technical questions involved in the proper development of private and public services can best be handled through the welfare planning councils which are now at work in most of the larger American communities. The department of social welfare will continue to encourage church-related agencies and institutions to give themselves fully and frankly to the cooperative planning activities of these community welfare councils. Certainly, State and local public assistance units of government should also be expected to make every possible use of these centers of citizen and cooperative agency research and planning for local health and welfare needs.

II. RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS, INTEGRATION OF CATEGORIES AND
EMPLOYABLE FATHERS (PT. A)

On December 8, 1960, the General Board of NCCCUSA adopted a further position entitled "The Churches' Concern for People Without the Necessities of Life" which states:

That the churches be urged to work for availability of adequate public assistance for all needy people; the elimination of State and local residence requirements for public assistance: and the replacement of Federal aid for certain categories of people by a single program based solely upon need, and That the aid to dependent children prgoram be modified immediately

(1) To prevent discrimination against children because of the circumstances of their birth, and

(2) To eliminate the requirement that employable fathers be absent as a condition of eligibility.

Naturally, we are greatly encouraged and pleased to see substantial advances made on the elimination of residence requirements, the option to States to integrate public assistance categories, and the provission in H.R. 10032 which would permit aid to dependent children funds to be paid to families where both husband and wife are in the home.

III. ERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS (PT. B)

In its June 4, 1958, pronouncement, the General Board of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. recognized the urgent need for trained personnel. The provisions of H.R. 10032 in this regard are clearly of the utmost importance to the development of preventive, protective, and rehabilitation services.

Congressman Mills, and ladies and gentlemen of the Committee on Ways and Means, let me thank you for your courtesy and for the opportunity to share these viewpoints from our churches with you. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Mintener, for bringing these views to the committee.

Are there any questions?

Mr. ALGER. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Alger.

Mr. ALGER. I wish to ask a question or two to be sure I understand. Mr. Mintener, you are suggesting then that church-related agencies sell their services to the Government?

Mr. MINTENER. Make them available to the Government.

Mr. ALGER. I am quoting you. You used the word "sell." I am not haggling over the word. You just say sell their services. Do you not see that when the church-related agencies take money it is expected that they will be regulated by the Government? We at the Federal level as a matter of fact now have to lay down the guidelines for Federal spending because at least Congress has the responsibility as watchdog of the purse strings and all that to lay down the conditions by which the taxpayers' money is paid out. So you know it is an axiom without question when we distribute money at the Federal level we have to lay down the guidelines in regulations accompanying that money.

Mr. MINTENER. We would hope that such guidelines or such criteria would be such that these agencies could live under them.

Mr. ALGER. I am sure we would have the best intentions but I believe it is an axiom without contradiction that Federal money will necessarily be accompanied by a certain degree of Federal control.

Do you see no clash whatsoever in your views expressed here today in the separation of church and state, a principle that we all champion?

Mr. MINTENER. I cannot see all the possibilities. I would certainly hope that this would not result in any clash between church and state. I hope that we can keep that separate.

Mr. ALGER. Is your hope well-founded?

Mr. MINTENER. I hope we can keep that separate. I am an optimist.

Mr. ALGER. If you take some money from Uncle Sam, the church, you see no clash at all?

Mr. MINTENER. All I can say is that we hope this will not occur.