for each person to fill out. Nobody gets off this carousel. We just keep spinning around and around. What you are telling us is that you are unable to help yourselves, that you need that little bit of Washington participation, which is what leads us to this administrative nightmare. I see no hope.

Ms. SABOL. I am not sure we are saying there has to be a little bit of Washington participation in everything we do.

Mr. CORMAN. You might not object to getting out of LEAA, but the police chiefs want us to get out of social services, but not LEAA. What do we do?

Ms. SABOL. There has to be some kind of priority system and whatever kind of funding patterns are designed, those patterns are designed so we don't get where we want to go. We cannot demonstrate that we have invested enough money in preventive services so that something can really happen. We need that opportunity.

Mr. CORMAN. You are addressing my fundamental question. My fundamental question is this:

Do these sovereign States have the capacity to function in any way without Washington participation? Is there anything they can do to avoid Washington setting guidelines, and setting priorities, and sending the States some funds?

I am convinced if we had a matching fund program that permitted a city to get 90 percent of the cost of a purple cow, there would be a purple cow in every city in the United States.

Ms. PARRY. You are dealing with an extraordinary, and complex, and big issue. Fortunately, we don't have to advocate for the police here, but police costs do remain in general, local expenditures around the country. I think the issue is particularly for urban centers and for States with high poverty levels, whether we can continue to serve our populations without assistance from Washington and to what degree that assistance goes and where it is targeted, is extraordinarily important because that will have set the priorities for what happens to people in our cities.

So we ask you to think through what you do, not necessarily bail us out of everything.

Mr. CORMAN. I think the States need fiscal relief and I believe they would get it if we assumed the responsibility for a minimum living standard for everybody. There must be something the States can do for themselves. I really question if there is very much left in public services that does not get touched in some way by Washington, which only complicates the issues.

If you would tell me that the States of New York, Kansas, and Ohio do not have the conscience and capacity to deliver social services, I would say, fine. We will make it a Federal program, and you can be relieved of it. But don't tell us that perhaps your States can do it, and while you don't want the Federal Government to hamper you in anyway, you do want Federal participation.

Instead of having a partnership with every program, perhaps we could have an understanding that we will do "this" and won't expect help from you. You will do "that" and we will leave you alone. But the problem is--what is "this" and what is "that"?

Whoever is on the witness stand always convinces us what we must continue to keep the programs going, but to stop directing them with all the Regulations we issue.

91-668-77—21

Ms. PARRY. In New York City, where we told you we are spending $250 million for foster case services, $70 million of that is tax levy money. I don't want you to believe the localities are not putting in an extraordinary share of what is going on now.

Mr. CORMAN. They are putting in too much now and I would like to see them relieved of some problems, but I think this is what has led to the complexities of administering these programs. Fortunately for all of you, this is one man's view.

Mr. SCHWERTFAGER. I will add a few comments to what I said earlier.

I indicated our usage of title IV-B, for example, using that one title program itself is very minimal compared to the type of funding Ohio has used for child welfare services. In the State of Ohio, through our State legislature, and I think appropriately so, expanded our child neglect and abuse laws and supportive services through legislative mandate. On January 1, we mandated a review system of all children this placement cycle rather than waiting for Federal legislation or rules that require that accounting for money and children, so I think we have taken strides to move ahead in this

area.

I believe the State of Ohio is interested in proceeding. I think because of the other constraints on budget, if not increased costs and the inflationary costs, particularly in some of these areas of operation in child welfare, the need is for increased title IV-B for some of these specialized preventive services that we have identified. Mr. CORMAN. Thank you all very much.

Our next witness is Mr. Michael Cortés. We welcome you to the subcommittee. We appreciate your coming on short notice.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL CORTÉS, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA RAZA, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. CORTÉS. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I am Michael Cortés, and I am here on behalf of the National Council of La Raza, of Washington, D.C., where I am employed as director of legislative analysis.

The council has been in existence since 1968 and is devoted to the improvement of the economic, social, educational, and cultural wellbeing of the more than 11 million Chicano and other Latino people of the United States.

Our board of directors includes academicians, agency administrators, attorneys, elected officials, and leaders of community organizations from throughout the Southwestern, Midwestern, and far Western United States.

The council has over 80 local affiliates, including community development corporations, private social service organizations, community organizations, and local area federations.

We strongly oppose H.R. 4138, H.R. 4139, and H.R. 5039 because of the inequitable hardships each of them would impose on members of our communities. My testimony offers the following observations: One: There is no evidence of widespread or disproportionate abuse of the supplemental security income-SSI-program by noncitizens.

Two: The proposed legislation would tend to undermine our Nation's efforts to aid Indochinese and other political refugees granted permanent residence in the United States.

Three: Legislated restriction of benefits is a relatively inefficient method of discouraging potential freeloaders from immigrating to the United States.

Four: Needy, deserving, permanent residents and future citizens of our country would be deprived benefits in an inequitable way, contrary to the congressional intent that SSI be an assistance program of last resort.

Five: The proposals are contrary to the founding spirit of our Nation, turning against the longstanding American tradition of enrichment and growth through immigration.

Six: There is no evidence of widespread or disproportionate abuse of SSI by noncitizens. The Social Security Administration's statistical reporting system does not collect any data on citizenship of recipients. There are no caseload statistics indicating the proportion of SSI recipients that are noncitizens, nor are there any statistics concerning the length of residence of immigrant SSI recipients.

The only reports on the subject of which I am aware are recent reports by the press in the San Francisco Bay area. I understand that the reports are purely anecdotal, and are not supported by reliable statistics of any kind.

I have contacted our affiliate in the bay area, the Spanish-Speaking Unity Council in Oakland, in order to compile some additional anecdotal information on reported problems about SSI benefits going to noncitizens.

I was also assisted by the Centro de Información, which assists needy individuals in security social security and other services in the east bay area. The caseworkers I interviewed at the Centro, and the Social Security Administration staff who work with me, provided me with actual SSI case histories, some of which I will describe shortly.

Contrary to published reports in the bay area press, it appears that the incidence of SSI eligibility among immigrant noncitizens, or aliens as they are popularly known, is below the rate for the United States as a whole under current law.

In addition, among the noncitizens who are eligible for SSI, there is a tendency to underutilize the program. The Social Security Administration has collected statistics on one subgroup, the 144,000 Indochinese refugees admitted toward the end of the war in Vietnam-1,500 of these refuges-approximately 1 percent-are receiving SSI.

This compares with 2 percent among the public at large who receive SSI. Furthermore, it appears that the Indochinese have a higher rate than the very large number of Spanish-speaking noncitizens who have immigrated to this country. Immigrants from Western Hemisphere countries come here to work, and typically do not seek out SSI, welfare, or other benefits, even though are sometimes eligible.

I would like to cite some actual case histories from the San Francisco Bay area, to illustrate my point. I have changed the names, in order to protect their privacy.

Sonia Terrones immigrated to the United States from Mexico 15 years ago, to live with her single daughter in Oakland. Although she was eligible for SSI by virtue of her age, she was supported completely by her daughter. She did not apply for SSI until this year, when she was 80 years old. She did so only after her daughter was laid off work and could not find another job. Under H.R. 4138, her benefits would be terminated.

Linda Cortés, who is 46 years old, was admitted to the United States by the Immigration and Naturalization Service on a permanent resident visa in 1973. Two years later, she underwent surgery which left her a paraplegic. Unable to continue working, she lived on her savings and her family's resources until 1977, when she applied for medicaid only. The Welfare Department referred her to SSI, and she became an SSI recipient. Under H.R. 4138 and 4139, she would be denied benefits.

Eduardo Colunga immigrated to the bay area 212 years ago from Panama. He brought his wife and three children with him. He was employed until he was injured on the job in 1976, and he has been unable to return to work since. After his injury, his 3-year-old daughter, Odelia, contracted gangrene in her left leg. The family then applied for AFDC and medical assistance. Delays were encountered in the application, and the gangrene progressed to the point where amputation was eventually necessary. The welfare department refused to grant AFDC until the family first applied for SSI, and so the Colunga family eventually became SSI recipients at the welfare department's insistence. Under H.R. 4138 and H.R. 4139, the Colunga family would lost SSI benefits.

Raul and Pilar Saavedra entered the U.S. illegally 25 years ago in order to find work. In 1976, when Raul was 85 years old, and his wife Pilar was 70, they arranged with the Immigration and Naturalization Service to obtain permanent resident visas. At that time. they had been receiving a small amount of title II benefits for 2 years. When they came into the Social Security office to report a change of address last year, their claim representative encouraged and persuaded them to apply for SSI. Under H.R. 4138, they would lose the SSI benefits they have just begun to receive."

In the opinion of Social Security and other caseworkers in the San Francisco Bay area that I have contacted, the cases described here are typical of the noncitizen SSI recipient population.

This contrasts with the reports in the bay area press about exploitation and implied abuse of SSI by noncitizens.

Seven: The proposed legislation would tend to undermine our Nation's efforts to aid Indochinese and other political refugees granted permanent residence in the United States.

Since World War II, the United States has admitted 144,000 Indochinese refugees, over 1 million Cuban refugees, and a variety of others. Unlike the typical immigrant to the United States, these groups are not rigorously screened by the Immigration and Naturalization Service for the ability to support themselves in our country. The reason, of course, is that our national policy has been to provide refuge for these selected groups. Because the elderly, blind, and disabled among them are often ineligible for medicare, title II,

and othr kinds of assistance, SSI has been available as assistance of last resort. All three of the proposed bills would remove that resource to refugees our Nation has decided to shelter.

Eight: Legislated restriction of benefits is a relatively inefficient method of discouraging potential freeloads from immigrating to the United States.

Responsibility for evaluating the ability of prospective immigrants to support themselves currently rests with the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service-INS. Caseworkers I have contacted feel that the incidence of SSI eligibility among immigrant populations is below the national average, suggesting that INS' efforts at screening have been effective.

INS makes its determinations at the administrative level, in accordance with present law. They are able to exercise some discretion which leaves them in a position to take humanitarian and practical factors into consideration on a case by case basis. For example:

Miguel López is a Mexican national who was working in this country illegally at the time he was struck by a passing automobile. After he was deflected off the windshield of the car, the angry occupants of the car got out and beat him. Miguel was hospitalized for 5 months, during which time he had three operations attempting to insert metal plates into his skull. He remains unable to work. INS in San Francisco placed Miguel on its docket of deportable aliens, but has decided not to pursue the case during his continued medical treatment. Under the three proposed bills, Miguel's SSI benefits would be terminated, in spite of INS' determination that he should be allowed to remain in this country so that he could receive treatment.

INS' screening procedures remain a far more effective means of discouraging potential freeloaders from entering the country. At the same time, INS' discretionary authority avoids some of the unwarranted and unnecessary human suffering that the proposed legislative remedies would cause.

Nine: Needy, deserving, permanent residents and future citizens of our country would be deprived of SSI benefits in an inequitable way, contrary ot the congressional intent that SSI be an assistance program of last resort.

It is my hope that the case histories I have recounted so far demonstrate the sort of unnecessary human costs of the proposed legislation. Given the inequitable consequences illustrated by these cases, and given the lack of data of the actual extent of the abuses the proposed legislation seeks to remedy, it is clear to the National Council of La Raza and its local affiliated organizations that none of the three bills should be enacted.

Ten: The proposals are contrary to the founding spirit of our Nation, turning against the long-standing American tradition of enrichment and growth of our country through immigration.

Of the more than 11 million Latinos in the U.S. today, many are descended from Spanish settlers present in this country at the time the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock. Others of us have immigrated into the United States over the years. While our numbers still do not approach the size of some other immigrant groups, such as the