primary objective. We are cognizant of the provisions of the KerrMills, we do know that the bill is pending in New Jersey. It has not been implemented in New Jersey.

We do not feel that Kerr-Mills is the answer as has been demonstrated by itself, by what has happened in the State of West Virginia, and through the statements such as made by Governor Swainson of Michigan.

This is practically a failure, the Kerr-Mills bill.

We do not say that it should not remain in effect, but only as a supplement to King-Anderson.

Mr. DANIELS. The Kerr-Mills bill predicates need on the basis, or predicates a system based on need, is that not so?

Mr. VOLOSEN. The Kerr-Mills bill certainly subjects the individual to a means test, and we are aware of individuals who have made statements to us that although they are in need they would never subject themselves to this type of degradation as it is put. Because the KerrMills bill does not only, depending on the State that you go into, subject the individual to the means test but also subjects the members of his family to the means test.

Mr. DANIELS. Thank you, sir.

Mr. ELLSWORTH. It might interest you to know that we who were in West Virginia last Friday and the testimony from the heads of the State department of social welfare, because of the difficulty in administering the Kerr-Mills bill, told us that 51 percent of the time of all of their employees the department had to be spent on this one aspect of their overall program.

Mr. VOLOSEN. Well, there are many reasons why it is a failure in West Virginia, but I don't think this is the place that we would have to get into it.

Mr. ELLSWORTH. You mentioned that you were with the United Automobile Workers. Do you have a United Automobile Workers retirement program here as they do in other areas?

Mr. VOLOSEN. Yes. I am a member of the United Automobile Workers and I am also executive secretary of its retired workers department in the State of New Jersey.

We have over 100,000 members of our international union who have already retired and a substantial portion of those reside in the State of New Jersey.

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Do you have any figures on how many are in New Jersey?

Mr. VOLOSEN. Not offhand, not at the moment.

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Do you have a club and do you have any activities? Mr. VOLOSEN. I can give you a typical program of the organization in Plainfield.

Plainfield was the location of the Mack Truck Corp., which moved to Hagerstown, Md., and left some of our 3,000 members more or less on their own. In that one local union we have approximately 700 people who have retired, 600 of them who are still alive and this is the reason I say we cannot give you accurate figures and at least 500 of them living right within the community adjacent to their place or former place of employment.

Mr. ELLSWORTH. We had testimony from the Los Angeles retirement director concerning the various activities, their meetings, their attempts to furnish recreation programs and social programs.

Do you do any of this here?

Mr. VOLOSEN. Yes. Well, we have done this in the State of New Jersey. We have worked with other organizations. Through assistance to them we have financially, particularly, made a contribution to the senior citizens center in Elizabeth, N.J.

We have also given some support to centers in Paterson and Hackensack. However, we ourselves have not been involved in a center program. But only acting as part of the group.

It is our thinking, and as far as we are concerned, that we do not intend to operate any such center as an organization unto itself, but expect to work along with the community and be a part of the community groups that are interested in doing this.

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Is Mr. Gray going to appear for Mr. Compton also?

Mr. VOLOSEN. I don't know whether Mr. Compton will be here today. I understand that Mr. Gray is here and possibly may appear for the United Automobile Workers.

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Fine. There was a little conflict in the letters we got from Mr. Compton and the telephone calls we got. Mr. Gray

wrote me.

Mr. DANIELS. Thank you, Mr. Voloson, for your testimony.

I should notice that the school class is also accompanied by another teacher, Mr. Edwin Skladany, who is a teacher of social studies at the New Brunswick High School.

I would like to ask Mrs. Antheil and Mr. Skladany both to rise so that the audience may meet you. Thank you very much.

I am now going to call upon Mr. Ellsworth, who is special adviser to this committee in making this study, to explain to you the difference between the Kerr-Mills bill which is presently a Federal law, and the proposed King-Anderson bill which is now pending in Congress and which is the subject matter of a great deal of discussion. In fact, it is one of the most vital bills pending before the 87th Congress which is now in session.

Mr. Ellsworth, would you be kind enough to explain what the present law is and how the present law would be affected by the proposed King-Anderson bill.

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Just to go back a little bit, most of you are familiar with the proposal of Congressman Forand to put into effect a law which would provide automatically for people who qualify for social security benefits certain medical care under the social security provisions. Congressman Forand is no longer in Congress; he resigned last year, and the proposal that is now before Congress is the KingAnderson bill, which again you would automatically qualify for once you qualified for social security benefits.

Last year the American Medical Association supported and still supports the Kerr-Mills bill, which has been passed on a national level. The Kerr-Mills merely provides money for States who want to set up a program known as the MAA, Medical Assistance for the Aged, money for which they can then set up matching money to provide a State program.

As most of you are aware, there is already in every State, practically, a public assistance program for people who are completely indigent, which furnishes them medical care. I am sure there is one in New Jersey.

Mr. VOLOSEN. There is, Ted.

Mr. ELLSWORTH. I am not familiar with the New Jersey law, but under this you have to pass a means test, which means you may be allowed to have $1,500 in real property. You may be allowed to have $60 a month income or whatever the provisions are, and they vary by each State.

The difference in the Kerr-Mills bill is that the Federal Government has provided additional money for people who may not be able to pass a means test in each State, but who still cannot meet their medical bills. For example, if your program here says that you can only earn half, $1,500 in real property, under the Kerr-Mills bill you could set up a different provision in order to furnish medical care. I wonder if that is clear to everybody, because it is a little confusing if you are not familiar with it.

There are two sets of standards, one for general assistance and one for medical assistance. You may meet the standard for medical assistance but still not be able to meet the standard for general assistance, as Mr. Volosen said. This is based on a means test and you must declare what your income is and what property you own. In some States it goes further to members of the family.

As Mr. Volosen stated, the labor unions and senior citizens clubs generally are opposed to this and support the King-Anderson bill. The King-Anderson bill would provide first care for everybody who is currently on social security. The King-Anderson bill would provide care for everybody who reaches 65 when they are eligible for social security benefits, and those are on a national basis.

Briefly, this is what the bill would provide, and it is primarily a hospital bill. It will provide or I should say it will give institutionaltype of care under this bill, it does not include doctor services except in a very minor way.

It provides up to 90 days of paid-up hospital services, with the exception of a $10-a-day deductible for the first 10 days.

Mr. DANIELS. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. DANIELS. Mr. Edward Gray.

Mr. VOLOSEN. He will be here this afternoon.

Mr. DANIELS. No answer.

Next is Mrs. Phyllis Greer, is she here?

She told me she had a conflict this morning and she would try to be here. She said she would try to get over here before lunch.

Are there any witnesses who would like to testify this morning? If there are, will you step forward and give your name, please.

TESTIMONY OF EDWARD RASP, REPRESENTING THE ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PERSONS, NORTH ESSEX CHAPTER, BLOOMFIELD, N.J.

Mr. RASP. I would like to testify.

Mr. DANIELS. Will you spell your last name, please?

Mr. RASP. R-a-s-p.

Mr. DANIELS. Do you represent any particular organization?

Mr. RASP. I am representing the American Association of Retired Persons, Bloomfield, North Essex Chapter.

Mr. DANIELS. Where do you live, sir?

Mr. RASP. I live at 655 East Passaic Avenue in Bloomfield.

Mr. DANIELS. Do you hold any official title with the American Association?

Mr. RASP. I am legislative chairman.

Mr. DANIELS. Where is this association located?

Mr. RASP. The American Association for Retired People is a national organization of some 500,000 members. We have about 12,000 members in New Jersey. Our local chapter is in Bloomfield and North Essex. We have about 200 members, it is very new. We didn't receive this letter from our Washington_headquarters until Saturday and for that reason I am not prepared to go into any detail. I am down here to make an appearance, but I did want to get into the record that our Washington office gave us this information which would naturally be a guide to us in that it considers that it would be a significant step forward if the Fogarty bill, H.R. 1014, were passed.

And for these reasons I did want to get in the record and make an appearance here, and I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity of appearing.

Mr. DANIELS. Mr. Rasp, I believe you stated that your national organization had an organization of 500 million. Do you mean 500 million members? Or do you mean to say 500,000?

Mr. RASP. A half a million, 500,000.

Mr. DANIELS. The record will be corrected accordingly.

Do you have anything further to add?

Mr. RASP. That would be beyond the realm of possibility.

Mr. DANIELS. How many members do you have in the State of New Jersey?

Mr. RASP. I understand from the Washington office that it is between 12,000 and 15,000. We are growing very rapidly.

The national organization was only organized in 1958.
Mr. DANIELS. How are your chapters set up locally?

Mr. RASP. Well, we have a regular organization of just members of the national group.

Mr. DANIELS. Are they set up in municipalities or on a statewide basis?

Mr. RASP. No, we take in, for instance, the North Essex County area we have at present eight chapters in New Jersey and in seven different counties.

Mr. DANIELS. Set up on a regional basis then?

Mr. RASP. We are expanding very rapidly.

Mr. DANIELS. Thank you, sir.

Mr. RASP. You are welcome.

Mr. DANIELS. Is there anybody else to be heard?

TESTIMONY OF FRANK SWEYGART, REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PERSONS, UNION COUNTY, N.J.

Mr. SWEYGART. Mr. Chairman, I am merely here as an observer of the American Association of Retired Persons representing Union County.

Mr. DANIELS. Your name, sir?

Mr. SWEYGART. Sweygart, S-w-e-y-g-a-r-t.

Mr. DANIELS. Your address, please?

Mr. SWEYGART. 735 Jersey Avenue, Elizabeth, N.J.

Mr. DANIELS. Do you desire to make a statement?

Mr. SWEYGART. I just want to corroborate what Mr. Rasp said about our national organization being in favor of passage of the bill. Mr. DANIELS. Thank you.

Is there anybody else?

TESTIMONY OF MRS. WALTER MOLYNIEUX, PRESIDENT OF NEW JERSEY ASSOCIATION OF HOMES FOR AGED, ALSO NATIONAL BOARD OF NEWLY FORMED NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR NONPROFIT HOMES

Mrs. MOLYNIEUX. I am Mrs. Walter Molynieux of Morristown, N.J.

Mr. DANIELS. Have your organizations taken any position with reference to the pending legislation?

Mrs. MOLYNIEUX. The Kerr-Mills, we have.

Mr. DANIELS. What is your position?

Mrs. MOLYNIEUX. We are in favor.

Mr. DANIELS. You are in favor with respect thereto?
Mrs. MOLYNIEUX. We are in favor.

Mr. DANIELS. Thank you.

Dean Weidner, would you care to make an appearance?
Dean WEIDNER. Yes.

Mr. DANIELS. Dean Weidner, I am happy to welcome you here before this committee and we appreciate your appearance and I am sure you have a good and valuable message for us.

Dean WEIDNER. Thank you very much. Actually what I would like to do is read into the record a statement by Dr. Ernest E. McMahon, a dean of the university college and university extension division and director of the institute of management and labor relations, Rutgers, the State university.

I am the associate dean in charge of the university extension division and as such Dean McMahon represents a broad adult education function performed here at the university.

Dean McMahon's statement is as follows, and I quote:

STATEMENT BY DR. ERNEST E. MCMAHON, DEAN OF UNIVERSITY COLLEGE AND THE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION DIVISION, AND DIRECTOR OF THE INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AND LABOR RELATIONS, RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY

The educational and organizational resources of the universities are not being brought to bear effectively upon the problems of old age and of preparation for old age. In a society with an increasing percentage of elderly citizens, with forced retirement practices, and with increasing pressures upon the work force because of automation and related technological advances, there should be a concerted effort to focus attention on the problems of aging in the same manner as attention is now being focused on urban problems through foundation grants and governmental action. Funds are necessary for pilot projects, for research, and for educational activities. Educational resources exist, but we lack the financial resources to marshal them.

I make this statement as former chairman for Middlesex County of the White House Conference on Aging, as a former mayor of