We applaud the extension of coverage contained in the bill and particularly support those amendments having to do with public-assistance provisions and material and child welfare. Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: It seems that each election year the raising of social security is good politics and that 1958 is no exception. I have read where the House has recently passed a bill raising social security immediately and of necessity raising the rates on both the employee and employer but not until after election. This sounds like politics when you give the raise now and charge the people for it later. In my opinion, any raise in social security or any change for that matter should be deferred until after the present long-range study of the whole socialsecurity system is completed. I also believe that with the recession we have had this year that the increased costs to both the employee and employer will be harmful to the economy. Let us defer any change until it can be considered without the pressure of an election in the offing. Very truly yours, ROBERT S. MCKAY II. THE ROBINSON CLAY PRODUCT CO., INC., Hon. HARRY F. BYRD, Chairman, Senate Finance Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR BYRD: The increase in old-age benefits and old-age-benefit tax on employers and employees, proposed under H. R. 13549, is not, in my opinion, a properly timed or well-planned legislative program. You have undoubtedly given the bill thorough consideration. I wish, however, to communicate to you my reaction to the proposed changes and ask that you reconsider the following aspects of the problem. 1. Increased costs of doing business.—The proposed increase in tax (a change in tax rate from 24 percent to 21⁄2 percent and in taxable earnings from $4,200 to $4,800 per year) will raise the per employee cost from $94.50 to $120 at the maximum limit and represents a 27 percent additional old-age-benefit tax. An increase in an individual business expense of 27 percent is not only excessive but ill-timed in that we are in an economic period when industry in general and our company specifically have had an uphill battle to produce profits. The additional cost to our company would be a significant amount, difficult to recover through increased selling prices. 2. Inflationary effect.-Increased benefits to retired workers and the increase in fringe benefits to active employees has obviously an inflationary tendency since productivity is not changed. Hence, the Federal Government, which has been actively opposing further inflation, would, by H. R. 13549, be feeding the inflationary trend. 3. Lack of thorough planning.-Increased benefits without adequate actuarial studies is an illogical procedure. Private insurance companies with annuity or retirement policies have not been able to develop practical programs similar to the increased benefits granted under H. R. 13549. I believe that a necessary preliminary before such a bill includes a thorough actuarial review including the possibility of definitely funding the program. While cradle-to-grave security is, of course, desired by all, I cannot understand how benefits of $127 per month or $1,524 annually can be provided with contributions of $8,400 from employers and employees over a 35-year period. Will you, therefore, lend your support to the defeat of the present H. R. 13549 and recommend the return of the bill to committee for further investigation? Yours very truly, W. E. ROBINSON, President. DAYTON CARBIDE TOOL COMPANY, INC., Senate Finance Committee Chairman, Hon. HARRY F. BYRD, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We see where the House of Representatives passed a bill, H. R. 13549, increasing old-age benefits and its taxes, and will soon be heard by the Senate. We believe the matter warrants more consideration than the November elections, and urge nonpartisan thinking with facts and figures being employed to substantiate any decision. These facts and figures should be obtained by the congressional study of social-security financing now in process. Therefore, no decision should be rendered until this study is completed and compiled into readable facts. Tax increases of any kind can only add to our woes as a small business, and this would be multiplied if proven unnecessary. We trust you will give this your undivided attention. ROBERT J. HAINES, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer. THE GREENFIELD PRINTING & PUBLISHING CO., Senator HARRY F. BYRD, Senate Finance Committee Chairman, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: It is disappointing that apparently we are faced with another round of price increases and inflation. It seems too bad that the steel manufacturers found it necessary to increase their prices, which will, of course, be reflected in our cost of living. It is our understanding that you are now giving thought to increasing the social-security payroll tax rate and tax base. If this is done, how can we expect labor and business to keep the wage scale and products prices at their present level? Apparently there just does not seem to be an end to the continual increase in the cost of living. We would like to suggest that you give long and careful thought to any increases in our tax schedule. As manager of a small business, we find it increasingly difficult to stay competitive. Yours truly, Hon. HARRY F. BYRD, WILSON L. MOON, President and General Manager. Chairman and members, Senate Finance Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: LOS ANGELES, CALIF. To increase social-security taxes on 75 million working Americans to pay increased benefits to 12 million on social-security rolls will add to inflation and create additional burdensome tax load for business. We urge that no socialsecurity changes be made pending the filing of the study of the Advisory Committee which is evaluating the program. Past election year liberalizations largely responsible for present financial imbalance in system we count on fiscal integrity of Senate Finance Committee to keep this issue in proper perspective. Respectfully, GEORGE B. GOSE, President, Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce. Hon. HARRY F. BYRD, Chairman, Senate Finance Committee, BOSTON, MASS., August 11, 1958. Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: Referring to H. R. 13549, at present before the Senate Finance Committee, section 206 of this bill repeals section 204 of Social Security Act which in part provides that workmen's compensation payments shall be deducted from socialsecurity benefits based on disability. Elimination of this deduction would be a potent factor in destroying disabled workers incentive to return to work. It would result in increased cost to employers, both for social security and workmen's compensation insurance. It would weaken the object of our workmen's compensation law which is to rehabilitate injured workers as soon a spossible for their own good and for the benefit of society. Strongly urge that section 206 of the bill be stricken out. GREATER BOSTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, PAUL T. ROTH WELL, Chairman, National Affairs Committee. Hon. HARRY F. BYRD, Chairman, Senate Finance Committee, NEW YORK, N. Y., August 11, 1958. Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: The National Medical Foundation for Eye Care, recognized spokesman for American Ophthalmology in public affairs, respectfully requests that the following statement be accepted as part of the official record of the Senate Committee on Finance, for consideration by your committee in its deliberations on proposed amendments to the social security law. Ophthalmologists are doctors of medicine, who, by training and practice, are competent to render every kind of scientific diagnosis and medical and surgical treatment of the human eye, including refraction. Optometrists are not doctors of medicine, and, under the laws of the several States, are not permitted-nor are they educationally qualified-to diagnose diseases of the eye or diseases of the body manifest in the eye, nor to administer drugs or medicines, nor to perform surgery on the eye. Their proper and legal field is the measurement, through refraction, of the physical powers of the eye and the prescription of glasses for the correction of such visual deficiencies as may be so corrected. In view of these facts, we respectfully express our firm opposition to the amendment proposed to your committee on August 8, 1958, by V. Eugene McCrary, and on behalf of the American Optometric Association, which would provide that in the Social Security Act "the services of optometrists would be available to beneficiaries of health programs financed in whole or in part by funds appropriated from the Treasury of the United States ***" We also wish to reiterate our opposition to the amendment proposed to the House Ways and Means Committee on June 18, 1958, by William P. MacCracken, Jr., on behalf of the American Optometric Association, which would provide that in the Social Security Act "and in all Federal legislation and regulations the terms 'health care' and 'medical care' shall be deemed to be synonymous" ***, etc., to which Mr. McCrary alluded in his testimony on August 8, 1958. The effects of this principle, as already applied to the Federal program for aid to the blind, through the 1950 amendments to title X of the social-security law, are flagrantly contrary to the public interest and specifically to the welfare of many persons adjudged to be blind on the basis of optometric "examinations." Evidence can be produced to show that in some cases proper treatment has been delayed, or possible rehabilitation or cure denied, because of diagnosis rendered by others than fully qualified medical practitioners. The optometric claims to competence in the field of ocular pathology made by Mr. McCrary before your committee on August 8, 1958, are in several instances belied by statements originating from optometric spokesmen and organizations. In the article, Optometric Jurisprudence, in the New York County Optometric Society Bulletin, volume 4, June 1957, by Harold Kohn, counsel to the American Optometric Association, this statement occurs: "An optometrist is concerned solely with the correction and improvement of vision and the accomplishment thereof without the use of drugs, medicine, or surgery." In a letter signed by Andrew J. Denman, O. D., chairman, interprofessional committee of the Georgia Optometric Association, addressed to Georgia ophthalmologists on date of November 26, 1957, the following statement was made: "Most of our college and university programs in optometry today consist of 2 years of liberal arts or science and 4 years of professional training. Even though study is made of ocular pathology, it is given and intended as basic knowledge only in order that optometrists be capable of recognizing a diseased condition that must be referred to you and your colleagues for attention. We do not attempt to diagnose or treat, as that is the job of the medical doctor." Whenever blindness exists, it is the result of disease or injury, conditions which can be diagnosed and treated only by a physician. Moreover, every time a patient is adjudged blind on the basis of an optometric recommendation, an opportunity is lost to determine the true medical cause of blindness and to appraise the chances of rehabilitation or cure. The statement of Mr. McCrary to the effect that "Everyone is conscious of the shortage of physicians * * *" is made without a shred of supporting data. Furthermore, it utterly fails to justify the utilization of any personnel other than those fully qualified by virtue of medical training to perform a medical task. To state, as this law now states, that "in determining whether an individual is blind, there shall be an examination by a physician skilled in diseases of the eye or by an optometrist” * * * is to characterize the optometrist as the equivalent of a physician skilled in diseases of the eye-a theory untenable in fact and dangerous to the public welfare. We respectfully urge that the amendments proposed by Mr. McCrary and Mr. MacCracken be rejected and that your committee amend the provisions of Public Law 734 of 1950, section 341, subsection (E), clause 10, by striking out the words "or by an optometrist, whichever the individual may select," thus making this clause to read: "(10) provide that in determining whether an individual is blind, there shall be an examination by a physician skilled in diseases of the eye." CHARLES E. JAECKLE, M. D., Secretary, National Medical Foundation for Eye Care. UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION NO. 5179, Oakland City, Ind., July 31, 1958. Mr. WINFIELD DENTON, House of Representatives. DEAR SIR: By the action of UMW Local Union 5179, Oakland City, Ind., was to request you to hold the tops for benefits to $4,200 per year. By this we mean if a person makes $4,200 they would be entitled to the full amount, or $126.50 per month. There is a large percent of the working people that will not make the $4,800. That is why we want to hold it to $4,200 for top benefits. Yours truly, EMIL DOUGAN, Recording Secretary. CHICAGO, ILL., August 13, 1958. Senator HARRY F. BYRD, Chairman, Senate Finance Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. HON. SENATOR BYRD: Representing the International Association of Accident and Health Underwriters, an organization of 93 State and local associations comprised of individuals engaged in merchandising health insurance, I submit to you a statement for the record on pending social-security amendments (H. R. 13549). We concur in the statement made before your committee August 12 by John H. Miller. We wanted to appear before your committee, but realize you have a crowded schedule. Should there be further hearings, we feel we could supply helpful information. More than 500 bills were related to social security in recent House committee hearings. It has been difficult to keep track of the testimony on provisions now incorporated in the bill before you. We feel additional time for hearings should be afforded because many of the provisions in H. R. 13549 received little or no testimony before the House committee. We do oppose two features of the bill: Liberalization of disability benefits is not warranted. One year's experience is insufficient. Costs, we feel, will begin to exceed estimates in the next few years. Increase in wage base from $4,200 to $4,800 is unjustified. Wage base should relate to average earnings of full-time workers. This average is currently $4,100. BRUCE GIFFORD, Managing Director, International Association of Accident and Health STATE OF MINNESOTA, Hon. HARRY FLOOD BYRD, Chairman, Finance Committee of the Senate, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: The Association of State and Territorial Health Officers at its annual meeting in November 1957 in Washington recommended that the association request the Congress to raise the statutory ceiling on maternal and child health and crippled children's funds to $25 million each and to appropriate additional funds to the Children's Bureau for grant-in-aid allocation to the States. I understand this matter is now before the Senate Finance Committee for consideration. The continuing increase in our child population, increased costs, and need for trained personnel necessitate expanding programs in the field of maternal and child health to meet the growing needs of our citizens. In accordance with our customary procedure, we are herewith transmitting to all Minnesota Congressmen a summary of the Minnesota maternal and child health program and some reprints and brochures relating thereto. One of our most effective approaches toward meeting some of the problems of mothers and children is demonstrated by our maternal mortality study, which carefully studies all maternal deaths to find all preventable factors and means of eliminating or, at least, reducing them to the minimum. A similar study of fetal and neonatal deaths (first 30 days of life) provides guidelines to necessary programs for improving the health of mothers and children. As a result, this has been one of the factors in improved medical and hospital care in Minnesota, with resulting decrease in mortality. With 85,000 births in 1957, there were only 17 maternal deaths, a rate of 2 per 10,000 live births, one of the lowest rates in the country. These studies are carried out in cooperation with the State medical and hospital associations. One of our most recent programs is concerned with the leading cause of death in children and, in fact, up to age 35; namely, accidents. Accident and injury prevention is one of our most serious public-health problems. One of the frequent accidents in children is poisoning. To meet this aspect, a poison information center has been established and 15 to 20 regional centers are being developed. In the field of motor-vehicle accidents, we are cooperating in the Cornell automotive crash injury research with the State highway patrol. Other activities include consultation services to physicians, hospitals, nurses, and the public for improvement in maternity and infant care, premature care, control of hospital infections, improvement of nutritional knowledge and practices. In addition to providing advice and assistance to local communities, schools, hospitals, official and voluntary agencies in developing and extending local maternal and child-health programs, we provide refresher courses and in-service training for physicians, school and hospital nurses, and school personnel and expectant parent classes and care of the baby for the public. This includes free educational material, films, and exhibits. The school-health program includes consultation to schools on health services, immunizations, preschool and school examinations, dental health, and workshops for school administrators and teachers. Research on causes of illness and deaths, accidents, and food habits of schoolchildren are an important part of our program. I hope this brief summary will provide you with some useful data of the activities in Minnesota in the field of maternal and child health. Respectfully, R. N. BARR, M. D., Secretary and Executive Officer. 29743--58--20 |