Mr. MILLS. I understand that. It will apply to those in OASI one way, who are in the same economic circumstance with somebody else not deriving benefits from OASI.

Mr. BOGGS. Do we have any breakdown of how this would work on a statewide basis?

Mr. SCHOTTLAND. Yes.

Mr. BOGGS. Is that in the record?

Mr. SCHOTTLAND. No; but we could insert it in the record.

Mr. MILLS. Let us insert it in the record at this point, if you will. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will be included in the record at this point.

(The information referred to follows:)

Estimated distribution by State of estimated national decrease in Federal funds for OAA' under 50-50 matching on new cases receiving OAA to supplement OASI benefits, fiscal year 1958

1 Based on an estimated 67,500 new OAA-OASI recipients by December 1957 distributed among States as total OAA-OASI recipients were distributed in February 1955.

Source: U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Social Security Administration, Bureau of Public Assistance, Division of Program Statistics and Analysis, Apr. 13, 1956.

Mr. MILLS. If it is desirable with respect to OASI, I think it would be desirable across the board, with respect to recipients of any and all retirement systems, but the question in my mind first of all, of course, is whether or not we want to do this with respect to any of these groups. Why do we not just merely extend this matching formula that was written in, in 1952? Why do we not just make it permanent? Do you think we might reach the time when the Congress will let it expire?

Mr. SCHOTTLAND. No, but we do think that there needs to be a reassessment of the total formula.

Mr. MILLS. Pardon me for interrupting you, but I wondered if this date of June 30, 1959, not being an election year, had any significance in that respect.

Mr. SCHOTTLAND. I think it might have significance, but it is not the basic reason for the proposal.

Mr. MILLS. I doubt that the Congress would desire to let it expire even in a nonelection year.

Mr. SCHOTTLAND. The reason we set it at June 30 is that we feel it ought to expire at the end of a fiscal year. At least, State legislatures are in a bad spot when they are not quite sure about it. They know that Congress will not do it, but still the law does expire, and they are in a very peculiar position. We felt it ought to be June 30, and rather than suggest June 30 of 1958, which would be such a short period, we suggest the next year.

Mr. MILLS. I understand it should expire at the end of a fiscal year, but my query is whether or not any of us think that we will let it expire. If we do not think we will let it expire, why be bothered with an extension each year, why not just make it permanent?

Mr. SCHOTTLAND. Our only position there is that we hope that by that time we will come up with some proposal for a change in the formula. We think that there is some change in the formula indicated.

Mr. MILLS. I am somewhat intrigued with your use of the expressions "self-support" and "self-care," in that I do not fully understand what you mean. I think that I know what those terms mean, but selfsupport to me means something other than the connotation that you give it here, I believe. Do you mean that you are getting these people prepared through the new program that you are undertaking in this bill to remove themselves from the welfare roll? Is that what suggesting? Or is self-support that they can cook their meals and take care of themselves without some outside help while receiving funds from the welfare department within the State?

you are

Mr. SCHOTTLAND. We are including both in these terms, and both are being now done by the States. The concept of self-care is a concept of people being able to take care of themselves more adequately, and self-support that they actually be self-supporting. We have a large number of persons going off the public assistance rolls monthly, and it is an important reason for closing out cases. They are going off because they are self-supporting, and they are either getting a job or it may be it is an ADC case, where the mothers are being reunited with the father, or for some other reason. Maybe it is a blind case where we have put them through some rehabilitation training and they have gotten a job, or a disabled case.

So it is both the concepts of being able to take care of themselves better and working to rehabilitate them so that they may be selfsupporting on their own.

Mr. MILLS. But it does not include the situations within a State where the test of need has been made more stringent to the extent that an individual is removed because of that?

Mr. SCHOTTLAND. No, this has nothing to do with that. This has to do with services to enable States to increase their work in self-support and self-support activities.

Mr. MILLS. What is the reason for the sixth suggestion here, elimination of the requirement that children between the ages of 16 and 18

be in regular attendance at school to be eligible for aid to dependent children? Is that not sort of a regressive step?

Mr. SCHOTTLAND. No; it does seem so when you do not know the background of it. This is to take care primarily of children who cannot be in school after 16. That is feebleminded children and others, who are on ADC and get to be 16.

Mr. MILLS. Why do we not say just what we mean then and not open the door entirely to the elimination of the requirement that whoever is looking after this child will keep it in school until it has completed school?

Mr. SCHOTTLAND. There are so many different kinds of situations, and we did not know quite how to spell it out. You have your child who should not be going to school and cannot profit by it because of mental defect or other reasons; and you have your disabled child, with other disabilities, who should not be going to school. You may even have a child at 16 or 17 that has graduated from high school and does not intend to go on any further, but for some reason or other, he is unable to work and he is part of the dependent family.

There are all of these kinds of situations, and although we have no intention that the ordinary able-bodied child should not go to school, we did not know how to spell out all of these situations which now cause such unfairness to some families.

Mr. MILLS. Do you not think that we should continue the requirement in law that the able-bodied child should be in regular attendance at school in order to be eligible for aid to dependent children?

Mr. SCHOTTLAND. We do not think the fear that you have there, Mr. Mills, is too real. We think that the largest number of cases are those that really should not be in school or for whom suitable school facilities are not available and we think it is unfortunate that we just drop them off ADC, particularly the most needy cases such as the feebleminded children. There are others, and we just drop them off at 16, whereas another child going to school gets assistance until he is 18.

Mr. MILLS. I understand, and I am not quarreling with your concern about the requirement with respect to the feebleminded child who should not be dropped from the rolls just because he cannot go to school. All of these children on dependent care who receive aid are not feebleminded. Many of them are very healthy children, and if they are to receive Federal funds and State funds for this purpose we should insist that they attend school. I think that we should do it by law and not leave it to regulation or administration. I wish you would think more about that point.

Mr. SCHOTTLAND. We might be able to work out some wording that would take care of the kinds of cases that we particularly have in mind.

Mr. MILLS. I will jump the rest of the questions I had to the last listed provision, that is No. 9. I would like just a little bit more information, if I may have it, with respect to what you do or what you propose to do with all of these people who are presently administering the program within the States who, I would judge from this statement, are not qualified to administer the programs. What happens to them? Are they released from their jobs and new people come on that have been trained, or do you take these present employees and try to train them?

Mr. SCHOTTLAND. First, we hope that many of the present employees will be trained under this program. But secondly, we do not have to worry about any replacement of present employees because the turnover is now so great that we would not even with this program be able to keep up with just filling vacancies. For many, many years, that would be true. There is no problem of replacement of the workers by new people, the demand is just too great.

Mr. MILLS. How long will they have to go to school under such a program as you contemplate?

Mr. SCHOTTLAND. This program could contemplate very short training, or it could contemplate even up to 1 or 2 years.

Mr. MILLS. Where would they go to school?

Mr. SCHOTTLAND. They would go either to special institutes and facilities that would be arranged or to any of the 65 universities that have approved schools in the field of welfare.

Mr. MILLS. Would you pay them the salary that they presently receive while they are in school plus some expense allowance, or what would be the situation?

Mr. SCHOTTLAND. Well, generally speaking, we probably would use the formula used in other Federal programs, whereby you pay them a stipend, maybe $1,500 or $1,200 a year or something to that effect.

Mr. MILLS. Would the Government pay the tuition in addition to all of that, or would that be considered as a part of the amount paid? Mr. SCHOTTLAND. Different Federal programs work different ways, in that. Some pay tuition plus $1,000 or $1,500 or $2,000, and some pay just the stipend and the person takes care of his own tuition. In this case, each State would decide what it wishes to do, and they would have to comply with general reasonable standards which we would set down. But each State would decide whether it wished to do it one way or the other.

Mr. MILLS. You would set up some standards with which the State would have to abide in this training program. You would say that the employees have to have certain abilities, and what if the State said, "We are not interested in spending any money for that purpose and we think they are qualified at present." Would you withhold the amounts that are available to the States now, unless they did do something about it?

Mr. SCHOTTLAND. This would have nothing to do with it. We would just say to a State if they did not want this, this is not obligatory on States, and if they did not want it, they would not get this money for training, and it would have nothing to do with it.

Mr. MILLS. It is a voluntary proposition and there is no requirement or compulsion upon the State to carry out a training program. Mr. SCHOTTLAND. That is correct.

Mr. MILLS. Now, what is the overall cost of the programs contemplated in these two sets of bills in fiscal year 1957? That is, the additional cost over that which is presently provided.

Mr. SCHOTTLAND. In the two sets of bills for fiscal 1957, the total cost, if I might exclude from the computation the extension of the matching formula

Mr. MILLS. That is $210 million.

Mr. SCHOTTLAND. That is about $165 million in fiscal 1957, because it is only 9 months, you see.

76971-56-4

Mr. MILLS. But it is $210 million for a full fiscal year.

Mr. SCHOTTLAND. Yes, and the remainder of the cost for fiscal 1957 would be I will get that in a moment-I think about $2 million in public assistance, roughly.

Mr. MILLS. $2 million.

Mr. SCHOTTLAND. I think that that is all for fiscal 1957.

Mr. MILLS. $2 million, is that all?

Mr. SCHOTTLAND. The big program would come later.

Mr. MILLS. When the program is in full operation that is contemplated by these bills, what will be the total cost in a given fiscal year?

Mr. SCHOTTLAND. Excluding the matching proposal, the total cost would be roughly about $125 million.

Mr. MILLS. $125 million, so that in fiscal year 1958, the total cost contemplated in the bills would be about $335 million altogether.

Mr. SCHOTTLAND. It will not come up that fast, because some of the medical care proposals will gradually increase and it will not reach its fullest cost until 1967.

Mr. MILLS. What I am trying to get at is this: You say that extension of the present formula for old-age assistance and so forth will cost $165 million in fiscal 1957. That is an additional cost. The other provisions of the bill altogether will cost around $2 million.

Mr. SCHOTTLAND. That is correct.

Mr. MILLS. You are saying $2 million and not $2 billion.
Mr. SCHOTTLAND. It is $2 million.

Mr. MILLS. That is in fiscal 1957, so the reason we do not have more cost is because the programs have really, during fiscal 1957, not gotten underway, and we are not in full operation on those programs. am trying to find out what the cost would be in fiscal 1958, then, Mr. SCHOTTLAND. I just have the figures here, and it will be approximately $278 million.

Mr. MILLS. Altogether, including the extension of the matching formula?

Mr. SCHOTTLAND. That is correct.

Mr. MILLS. Now, is that $167 million additional taken into consideration in connection with the President's budget submitted to the Congress?

Mr. SCHOTTLAND. Yes, it is.

Mr. MILLS. It is included there?

Mr. SCHOTTLAND. Yes, sir.

Mr. MILLS. So this will not in any way change or alter the figures submitted by the President in that connection?

Mr. SCHOTTLAND. That is correct.

Mr. MILLS. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions?

Mr. REED. I just wanted to make an inquiry because I have been greatly interested in watching the development of this program. Under OASI, it has always been claimed that old age assistance would gradually fade out of the picture. Is it doing so?

Mr. SCHOTTLAND. What is happening is this: the incidence, that is the number of persons per thousand persons over 65 is gradually going down. Just a few years ago, for example, when I started in this work, 23 percent of all of the aged were receiving old age assist