Legislation has been prepared to implement this recommendation. The welfare commission adopted a new policy governing payment of out-ofState grants after the committee raised the question and noted that Oregon was more lenient than the Western States as a whole. The welfare commission policy places a maximum time limit of 1 year or such shorter time as eligibility may be determined with the exception of persons out of State currently who have been given prior assurance by the welfare commission of continuation of such grants, and with the further exception of emergency cases, including those too ill to move, or similar emergencies. This action replaces the policy of permitting continuation of grants until the recipient has established welfare eligibility in his new State of residence. The practical effect was that Oregon would pay aid for up to 5 years to a person no longer residing in Oregon. At its September 30, 1960, meeting the welfare commission was advised that between 500 and 600 persons received out-of-State grants, less an undetermined number of persons residing in Oregon with Idaho post office addresses. There was no estimate of the cost other than to note that medical and nursing home care were not paid to out-of-State recipients. The welfare commission's action brings Oregon into line with its neighbors, according to a survey of the 10 West Coast and Rocky Mountain States made by the committee. Subject to exceptions, the majority of the Western States have a 1-year or less maximum on continuation of such aid. California declares a recipient ineligible immediately if he does not intend to return and allows 1 year if there is intent to return. Washington continues grants after a temporary period only when absence is enforced or for essential health or social reasons. In view of the heavy demands on Oregon taxpayers and inadequate funds for special needs of our citizens, there is little justification to continue to support in another State a welfare recipient who has relinquished his Oregon citizenship. Oregon's responsibility should end when a person leaves for another State. (e) Form of welfare administration Recommendation No. 5: No change should be made in the present commission form of administration of the State public welfare commission. Both this committee and the Governor's advisory committee on reorganization of State government oppose changing the State public welfare commission from a policymaking to an advisory agency. The majority of the States administer public welfare through a policymaking board or commission appointed by the Governor. In Washington the Governor appoints the welfare director and is responsible for administration of public assistance. California employs a hybrid system whereby the Governor appoints the director and is responsible for administration, but an appointive board makes policy. In response to the committee's inquiry, Mrs. Azile H. Aaron, public assistance representative in the regional office in San Francisco of the U.S. Bureau of Public Assistance, said: "*** in choosing the particular form of administration, much depended upon the history and tradition of the State. In this connection we agreed that Oregon's commission structure had for a long period of time provided stable administration in which the continued advice and interest of responsible community members had played a major part, and that any change in this structure should be considered carefully in order to be sure that the gains of a new plan would offset the losses." The Governor presently exercises a certain degree of control over welfare administration through his department of finance and administration and the biennial budget presented to the legislature. However, placing welfare administration under the direct control of the Governor would mean, on the basis of the experience of other States, that the welfare administrator or director would change each time a new Governor assumed office. The experience of the State of Washington is that placing welfare administration in the hands of the Governor subjects public welfare administration to partisan political pressures to the detriment of sound fiscal and administrative standards. Former Governor Sprague summed up his advisory committee's conclusions on the form of welfare administration in his column published in the Oregon Statesman: "There is much to be said for the use of boards and commissions in administration. Where lay persons are used they bring a broad experience in affairs, 80118-62 42 usually take a very great interest in the work assigned them. Citizen participation is helpful in keeping the public informed about government and alert to its needs. Among these commissions are the highway commission, the board of higher education and the welfare commission. "Our committee decided to recommend no change in their status. It was pointed out that a board whose members hold overlapping terms is able to provide a stability and a continuity of policy in administration which is helpful to the employed staff and to the public being served." Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., February 20, 1962. DEAR MR. MILLS: Enclosed is a letter I have received from Mr. Dill D. Beckman, director, Vocational Rehabilitation Department, South Carolina State Agency of Vocational Rehabilitation, concerning H.R. 10032. The National Rehabilitation Association has proposed three amendments to the bill according to my information, and I am requesting the committee to include this correspondence in the record of the hearings. Kindest regards and best wishes. Sincerely yours, ROBERT T. ASH MORE. SOUTH CAROLINA STATE AGENCY OF VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION, Hon. ROBERT T. ASHMORE, DEAR CONGRESSMAN: On February 1, 1962, 87th Congress, 2d session, House bill No. 10032 was introduced as an amendment by the Honorable Mr. Mills as proposed by the administration to the present Social Security Act to the public welfare program. It is our opinion that if this bill is passed in its present form it would greatly jeopardize and confuse the operation of the programs in the field of rehabilitation and especially the program operating under the Vocational Rehabilitation Act. The National Rehabilitation Association is proposng three amendments to the administration bill which we would urge you to support. The amendments are as follows: Amendment 1: (a) Page 5 before line 5: (b) page 8 before line 7: (c) page 11 before line 3: (d) page 14 before line 1: and (e) page 60 before line 24, insert: "Any service referred to in clause (4) (A) and (B), of a kind available under a State program administered by an agency of the State other than the State agency, shall be provided through such other agency of the State except to the extent agreed upon by the State agency and such other agency of the State." The purpose of this amendment is simple. In the administration's bill, public welfare agencies in their efforts to rehabilitate applicants for, or recipients of, public assistance, subject only to the regulations of the Secretary, could at their discretion provide the rehabilitation services themselves or purchase them from other agencies. This amendment would require that public welfare agencies provide such rehabilitation services through other State agencies which administer such services. In other words, if a public assistance agency provides Vocational rehabilitation for its clients, it must do so through the vocational rehabilitation agencies. Amendment 2: After the word "subject": (a) On page 5, line 17; (b) on page 8, line 12; (c) on page 11, line 15; (d) on page 14, line 13; and (e) on page 61, line 11, insert "to the conditions of the preceding sentence and". This is a "conforming" amendment, making amendment No. 1 effective in another section of the same bill. Amendment 3: Amend the bill by striking out all matter after the word "Secretary": (a) On page 15 at line 18, through line 22; (b) on page 16, at line 5, through line 10: (e) on page 16 at line 16, through line 20; (d) on page 52 at line 16, through line 21, and in lieu of the matter struck out at each place, in the bill, insert the following: "and provide for entering into cooperative arrangements with other agencies of the State primarily responsible for providing similar or related services, for their maximum utilization in providing services herein authorized." This is an amendment to the State plan provisions. The administration bill requires that the public welfare plan include provisions describing the steps to be taken to insure maximum utilization of the services of other agencies providing similar or related services. Cooperative agreements are not required. The NRA amendment requires the public welfare agencies to enter into cooperative agreements with other State agencies providing rehabilitative services to assure maximum utilization of the services of these agencies. NRA does not mean to imply that it has been the intent of the administration to encourage a duplication of services at the State level. On the other hand, the Secretary would no doubt attempt by regulations to prevent such action. NRA feels that it is preferable to have this concept written into the law. We would appreciate greatly your contacting the members of the Ways and Means Committee or appearing in person before this committee in the support of these amendments. In South Carolina, we would like to state that we have a wonderful working relationship with the department of public welfare and in addition to the relationship we have agreements with the welfare agencies that potential applicants who may profit from rehabilitation services are referred to the rehabilitation department. You know we have offices throughout the State providing rehabilitation services in all the counties and the rehabilitation counselor works closely with the local welfare agency and county officials. Usually a referral from the welfare department is given priority. If these amendments, as proposed by the rehabilitation association, are accepted the rehabilitation program could continue its smooth operation at less cost to the taxpayer and would avoid duplication of services. You know, Congressman Ashmore, that it takes time to build a staff to do a particular type of work. The vocational rehabilitation department has qualified personnel to do the job and we have years of experience that is needed in working with agencies carrying on the services of rehabilitation. Yours truly, DILL D. BECKMAN, Director, Vocational Rehabilitation Department. STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Mr. LEO H. IRWIN, Chief Counsel, Committee on Ways and Means DEAR MR. IRWIN H.R. 10032 provides in part that effective July 1, 1963, a State cannot require more than 1 year residence immediately preceding date of application for old-age assistance, aid to the blind, and aid to the permanently and totally disabled. Texas will have extreme difficulty in complying with this compliance date. At the present time the Texas constitution provides that assistance money not be given until one has resided in Texas 5 years out of the previous 9 years and 1 year immediately preceding application. This applies to old-age assistance, aid to the blind, and aid to the permanently and totally disabled. Being in the constitution it is not subject to being easily and quickly removed. The only way an amendment to the constitution can be effected is for the Texas Legislature by two-thirds majority to submit an amendment to be voted upon by the people. This can be done only by a regular session of the legislature-not at a special session. The next regular session of the Texas Legislature meets in January 1963. While it is theoretically possible for that session to submit an amendment, set a date for a special election, and get approval of the voters of Texas by July 1, 1963, in actuality it would be rather difficult. Among other things, a special election for that purpose only would have to be called which would cost several hundred thousand dollars to hold. In Texas we ordinarily set constitutional amendments to be voted on at a general election. The next general election after our next regular session of the legislature meets is in November 1964. This seems to be the earliest practical time to amend our constitution to get it in line to reduce the residence requirement to 1 year or to abolish it entirely. If our residence requirement could be changed by a simple act of the legislature, it would be one thing, but having to go through all the mechanics of submitting an amendment and getting it voted on and approved makes the date of July 1, 1963, an almost impossibility in our State. We strongly urge that the date for compliance be changed from July 1, 1963, to June 30, 1965, or at least until after the general election in November 1964. To fail to do this would jeopardize Federal matching for the categorical matching programs in our State. I desire this to be made a part of the record of the hearings on H.R. 10032 Yours very truly, JOHN H. WINTERS. STATE OF VERMONT, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Re amendments to H.R. 10032 Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, DEAR MR. MILLS: The administration's proposed public welfare bill seems to us a much needed new approach to implement and make effective today's concept of rehabilitation as the constructive counterforce to total dependence. We do wish to support and strongly urge acceptance of the amendments proposed by the National Rehabilitation Association to assure that services referred to in clause (4) (A) and (B) shall be provided through the already established vocational rehabilitation agencies in each State. If not spelled out as proposed in the National Rehabilitation Association sponsored amendments it would be possible, and in some States probable, that duplicate rehabilitation programs would exist. In Vermont public welfare and vocational rehabilitation have worked in close cooperation for many years. Such a working relationship is not only effective in providing the needed rehabilitation services but is also good economy. We, therefore, express herewith the conviction that the amendments proposed by the National Rehabilitation Association are most appropriate. Sincerely yours, FRANCIS S. IRONS, Director. Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, NEW YORK, N.Y., February 13, 1962. Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, The National Association for Retarded Children and its more than 950 member units throughout this country support the amendments introduced by Mr. Whitten, National Rehabilitation Association, to H.R. 10032, the public welfare bill. We do not wish to detract in any way from the forward-looking provisions of your bill but feel strongly that Mr. Whitten's amendments assure progress in public welfare without interfering with existing services rendered by the State rehabilitation agencies. VINCENT J. FITZPATRICK, President. Re H.R. 10032. MILWAUKEE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, DEAR SIR: I have read the above bill submitted to the House of Representatives. In general I am sympathetic with its purpose, particularly with the parts providing additional reimbursement for services given to families on assistance. There are two sections of the bill which I believe are aimed in the right direction, but do not go far enough. They are as follows: Section 106 (incentives for employment through consideration of expenses in earning income): Provision is made for additional expenses which may be "reasonably attributable to the earning of any such income." It seems to me that this is in the right direction, but does not go far enough. Section 107 (protective payments under dependent children program): Provision is made under this section to make payments to "another person who is interested in or concerned with the welfare of such child and relative." The above provisions are restricted by the limitation that they can apply to "one-half of 1 per centum of the number of other recipients of aid to families with dependent children for such month." Our experience would indicate that there would be more than the above percentage of families who would need help with management problems. We further believe that the use of the so-called other person would not be as effective as vendor payments made under reasonable standards by the Department itself. We submit as an alternative the bill known as the Zablocki bill and introduced by Congressman Clement Zablocki-H.R. 9168. Very truly yours, J. E. BALDWIN, Director. AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, Re H.R. 10032. Hon. WILBUR MILLS, Chairman, Ways and Means Committee, DEAR MR. MILLS: The hospitals of the country, as you know, are interested in a variety of programs to meet the hospital needs of those persons who are eligible under the so-called categorical indigent groups. We look favorably upon proposals which promise to improve the administration of such programs. However, there is one aspect of this bill which especially concerns us because we are not clear as to what the effects may be. This association has been a strong supporter of the Social Security Amendments of 1960, which you authored, known as the Kerr-Mills act. We believe the program which resulted gives great promise of providing for the health needs of indigent and medically indigent aged persons. In fact, we have felt that this program, by its concentration upon this particular and growing problem, is of primary importance at the present time. The house of delegates of this association at its most recent meeting again emphasized strongly that we make every effort to further the implementation of the Kerr-Mills program within the States. It is our belief that this program for the aged-who are by all odds the largest group of needy people of the four categorical groups-is at a crucial state in its development. Many States have been encouraged to improve and extend programs for the indigent aged and to provide increased financing to pay for their health care. A much smaller group of States has so far developed programs for the medically indigent. It is going to take all the effort, education, and persuasion possible to get some of the States to undertake programs for the medically indigent aged. This would seem to us to be a most inappropriate time for the Federal Government to take any action which might reduce the concentration of attention within the States upon the needs of the aged. By allowing the States the option of intermingling grant funds of all categorical groups, H.R. 10032 may permit the spreading among other categories of health care funds which were intended for the aged. It would be quite unfortunate should the effect of this proposed legislation be to level off the interest and support the States will have for all of the categorical groups and thereby to diminish the concerted effort for the aged that we feel is needed, and which the States are being encouraged to provide. We would therefore urge that careful consideration be given to the possible detrimental effect which the proposed amendments may have upon the implementation of the Kerr-Mills program, particularly at this stage in the development of the program. If the committee, in its reassessment of the Federal Government's concerns for public assistance, intends to consider broadening the scope of such assistance programs, we would urge that consideration be given to the health needs of the general assistance group and to migratory workers, both of which groups are in need of aid and neither of which receives Federal support at the present time. Sincerely yours, KENNETH WILLIAMSON, Associate Director. |