I am very much afraid we should find that the creation of a separate Commission on Aging would tend to be duplicatory in nature and, hence, raise many difficult administrative problems. To superimpose such a new agency on top of the several departments and agencies now providing services for older people would almost surely make for confusion in the States in their relation to the Federal Government.

Now, I am mindful, of course, that this position may seem contradictory to you in view of our long advocacy of the creation of commissions on aging within the States. The explanation of our position lies mainly in the fact that there is a basic and compelling difference-beyond mere size and complexity-between the situation in the Federal Government and in the States.

The difference is that within the Federal Government responsibility for a majority of the operating programs on behalf of older persons have been placed within a single Department-the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. This is true whether the measurement is made in terms of dollars expended, persons served, or specialized personnel employed. You are all aware of the Department's many programs in income maintenance, health and rehabilitation, control of foods and drugs, education, support of research and training, care of the mentally ill, and of the rapidly growing role of the Special Staff on Aging. It is our opinion that any new programs, such as those provided in the bill, could be effectively administered within the Department in relation to existing programs.

The next bill which I should discuss with you is the one which I am sure you have heard a great deal about and that is H.R. 4222, the King-Anderson bill to provide health insurance for the aged under social security. You are aware, of course, that there is much controversy about this bill but if we can get it out of the Ways and Means Committee we expect it to pass. President Kennedy has designated it as a very important piece of his domestic legislative programs and he expects to put a great deal of effort behind it.

As you remember, the last session of Congress passed the Kerr-Mills Act which had two titles, one designed to improve the medical care for the people under old-age assistance and the second was to establish a new category which would be called medical assistance for the aged. That assistance was for "medically indigent" persons; those who can take care of their other needs but are not able to take care of medical bills. The Department has recently released a complete report on the first year's experience in providing medical care through public assistance programs under the Kerr-Mills legislation. Frankly, it is somewhat disappointing.

The report shows that now 26 States and two jurisdictions have set up medical assistance for the aged programs for low-income elderly persons in the first year of operation. The report reveals a considerable range between the patricipating States both in the number of persons receiving medical care and the personal expenditures. For instance, the number of persons ranged from fewer than 100, in the Virgin Islands, up to almost 30,000 in the State of New York. The average per-person expenditures ranged from less than $100 to $507. Ninety-two cents of every dollar spent was in three States, New York, Massachusetts, and Michigan. In transmitting this report to the Ways and Means Committee, Secretary Ribicoff said that he felt the findings of the Bureau supported the conclusion that "To rely on existing public assistance legislation alone as a means for meeting the medical care needs of aged persons would not only fail to cover many aged people in need but would also be very costly in general revenues."

The President and this Department believe that the first line of defense is to establish health insurance under the social security system with the cost financed over the entire working lifetime of each person. Obviously we will need something like Kerr-Mills in the future, even if the health insurance bill should pass, to take care of the people who for one reason or another are not covered under social security. I believe the Secretary told you what he had on his mind in relation to the health insurance bill. Consequently I will only hit some highlights tonight.

The King-Anderson bill would immediately cover people over 65 who are eligible for benefits under social security or the Railroad Retirement Act, and the millions who will become 65 in the future. These people would have the means to pay for the brunt of health care they need under a prepaid, spread the cost, Government insurance program on a national scale. I think you have been given a one-page description of the benefits under the program. Briefly, there are 90 days inpatient care in a hospital, with a deductible minimum

The

$20 and a maximum deductible of $90; up to 180 days in a skilled nursing home if that visit follows a visit to a hospital; outpatient diagnostic care with a $20 deductible for each diagnosis and 240 visits a year to provide home care. program under the bill would not provide care itself. It would simply provide the means of payment for care.

To finance the health insurance program each of us who work would have our social security deduction increased one-fourth of 1 percent of the first $5,200 of our earnings (instead of the first $4,800, the present base). The average deduction would be about $1 a month. The employer would match the deduction. Self-employed persons would contribute three-eighths of 1 percent. The recipient would not have to have his affairs investigated or take a means test before he receives payment. He would simply collect with dignity what is his by statutory right.

I have described only briefly some of the pending legislation before the Congress. Certainly the Congress has demonstrated time and time again its interest in aging people. I believe it is incumbent upon this Department and for all of you working in the States to assemble our best judgment as to what legislation we believe to be most effective and satisfactory and what in the end will serve the needs of the aged. Certainly, a challenge confronts us all, that is to tap the great amount of talent and experience in our States and communities and to focus it on the problems of our older people.

Mr. TED ELLSWORTH.

SAN DIEGO, CALIF., May 5, 1962.

DEAR SIR: My name is William Mitchell. Recently I was talking to Bill Burns, editor of the Labor Leader, about the struggle some of us oldtimers have to keep the ball rolling and stay out of bankruptcy and the doctors clutches. He referred me to you.

I am 77 years old and have been in California since October 1910. In 1953 I moved to San Diego from Los Angeles and after I had been here a year or so my wife, who is 71, was stricken with Parkinson's disease and is a chronic case with all the various disabilities, such as partial paralysis, senility, weak articulation, etc.

I am a cabinetmaker and general woodworker with a lifetime of experience, and have a cabinet contractor's State license, and I think I could work up a business in this line if there was some way my wife could have medical attention and be taken care of while I am working but as it is I must put in several hours a day cooking, cleaning up, etc.

Our joint social security is $142.50 per month, which helps a lot, but leaves us in the "red" on monthly expenses which generally include doctor, nursing (and sometimes hospital care) and household expenses.

A doctor told me recently I should put her in a home for old people at $250 to $350 per month and tried to get me to sign for it but could offer no solution when I asked him how that could be done on $142.50 per month social security. Social security is my best source of finance as my cabinet income is not plentiful and has been very meager this year, averaging less than $50 per month.

My wife has next of kin in Los Angeles (sister, brother, daughter, etc.) but they are not willing to help her to the extent that I could get a rest or any time to relax or recuperate.

I have been steady on the job for 6 years, day and night, and no relief in sight and do not know how she would be taken care of if I had a sick spell. She has no insurance and is practically helpless if there is nobody at hand, sometimes having lain on the floor for hours after a bad fall, and she has many falls.

If this case should be in line with your category of help for old people, we could certainly use some of it, and maybe I could get some relief from this permanently tired feeling which I seem to have now as a steady diet.

Thanks for your kind consideration.

Sincerely,

WILLIAM MITCHELL.

STATEMENT BY V. S. PEELING, HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER, DARIEN, CONN.

A NEGLECTED PROBLEM

Among all the articles published about teachers' retirement, I have yet to see one discussing a problem that involves a certain group of teachers-those

who have made a career of teaching, and who have not wished to stay all their lives in one State or perhaps even in the same part of the United States. Retirement pension in most States requires a minimum of 20 years in the State which pays the bill. Ten years of teaching in the public schools of another State may be accepted to make up the 30 years, but no more. This means that a young teacher must do all his moving in the first 10 years. If he changes to another State after 31, then he must pay the penalty in additional years of teaching not required of the stay-at-homes, or he must take a lower pension. Thus, if a teacher moves to another State after 15 years, he forfeits 5 years toward his pension. If he move after 20 years, he forfeits 10 years. If he has the temerity to move after the age of 45, he pays the terrible price of losing his pension altogether, since he must stop teaching at the age of 65 and he must have 20 years in the last State to get a pension at all.

During recent years I have met an increasing number of teachers who are being compelled to work an extra 5 or 10 years simply because they did not remain in the same State. It is obvious that this situation is very unfair to many teachers, and certainly quite cruel to the group that dared to move after the age of 45.

Now what does this discrimination imply? It implies that the teacher who stays in the same State (at least after the first 10 years) deserves a pension; that the one who moves-regardless of the reasons-is less deserving, and is therefore penalized; that the one who changes after 25 years does not deserve any pension at all. It implies that all traveling should be done in the twenties— none after that. If the teacher disregards this discrimination, then he will suffer, so he had better stay put. In other words, he can neither seek new challenges nor accept a better job, he is frozen. Now actually it would be better for the more mature teacher to seek "new frontiers" than for the inexperienced one who is less capable of benefiting by changes. Can it be that the educational system which encourages summer travel, study abroad, exchange teaching, etc.-can this system maintain that change is bad? It would seem that the teacher who desires new surroundings, new experiences, and new challenges should be encouraged and rewarded, not discouraged and punished. Research in a Connecticut town of 18,300 revealed these figures: 28 teachers have forfeited from 1 to 10 years because of moving to another State, and 1 faces the dreary prospect of no pension at all-18 years of out-of-State teaching wiped off the slate. Thus a total of 152 teaching years have been lost to this group that did not stay put. If 29 teachers in 1 town (10 percent of the teaching staff) are suffering from this injustice, how many in the 153 towns in Connecticut? And how many in the 50 States altogether? The magnitude of the problem is very clear.

Let us suppose that it is granted that the teacher who gives 20 or 30 or 40 years to the public schools of the United States (wherever these schools may be located) deserves a pension on the same basis as the one who does not move, then another problem arises: Who is to pay the pension? It hardly seems fair that the last State, which may have had only 10 years of the teaching time, should "foot the bill." Furthermore, the States which give good pensions are already staggering under the load. Therefore, it is neither fair nor practical to request State aid in this matter. The problem is nationwide, and should be solved by the Federal Government which has declared itself eager to advance education in all its aspects. The money necessary would be a negligible sum to the National Government, but what a tremendous difference it would make to the teachers involved. Surely now is the time to wipe out this black spot on our educational system, for as the matter now stands, the ambitious, eager, energetic, and adaptable teacher is being punished for having the very qualities that help to make a superior instructor.

STATEMENT OF FRIEDA REICHER, PRESIDENT, FOUNDATION FOR COMMUNITY AID TO MENTAL PATIENTS

Chairman O'Hara, members of the committee, may I identify myself for the record? I am Frieda Reicher, founder and president of the Foundation for Community Aid to Mental Patients. The foundation has been incorporated in the State of Virginia in 1953. A bill is pending in Congress to incorporate the foundation as a national organization by an act of Congress. With your permission I include a copy of the foundation's program for the record.

The first year of retirement from the active labor market decides the course retired persons follow in the utilization of leisure time. Self-reliant imaginative people use their leisure time to stimulate the aging body and mind toward constructive activities to maintain and further develop dynamic interests in dayto-day living. Their interests should include the stimulation of travel in planned leisure time for many of them, a realization of a life's longing to see our vast and beautiful country.

We

Our organization approved the objectives embodied in Senate bill 2779. highly approve the joint bill H.R. 10014 before your committee which provides an instrument for the coordination of beneficial services for aged persons.

Mr. Chairman, may we recommend the consideration by your committee of an additional objective to the 10-point declaration of objectives embodied in the joint bill; namely, a continuous study of the healthful utilization of leisure time by retired persons.

1. All emphasis should be placed on health instead of illness in the legislative program for the expenditure of public funds for the benefit of the aged.

2. Additional funds should be included in the joint bill for a cost study of an aid program for retired persons who are physically fit to travel within the United States (a) for educational or recreational purposes; or (b) for the pleasure of visits with friends or members of the family in distant parts of the States.

Such a program to provide aid in meeting the costs of travel for retired persons should be implemented through our free enterprise system by an arrangement with the tourist industry, to provide at a nominal fee overnight accommodations for retired persons while in transit. Reimbursement by Federal funds to the tourist industry for their services to the aged can be met by a similar system of stamps to be redeemed at local banks, such as the system used by the Department of Agriculture in the purchase of additional food by low-income families.

The transportation industry should receive comparable compensation for low-cost travel services for retired persons.

These services to physically fit retired persons should be made available under law regardless of income from retirement funds.

Equal privileges under the proposed program should apply to the "rich,” who are after all a minute segment of the aged population in our communities, in order to eliminate a means test as a qualification for aid to the aged in transportation.

Costs for the program can be justified in the general interest of public welfare.

Mr. Chairman, may we ask for the privilege to submit at a future date a statement for the record in support of our request?

May we also recommend the amendment of H.R. 4002, a bill to establish a Youth Corps, for the healthful outdoor training and employment of young men, and to advance the development and management of national resources of timber, soil, and range, and of recreational areas, to spell out the intent of Congress that the Youth Corps Commission be instrumental in the development of recreational facilities in National, State, county, and city parks suitable for the use, enjoyment, and pleasure of retired persons while traveling through the States?

Thank you for the privilege, Mr. Chairman.

THE FOUNDATION FOR COMMUNITY AID TO MENTAL PATIENTS PROGRAM

(1) To establish convalescent homes at a community level for the use of mental patients during the probation period as centers for fellowship, and as centers for vocational rehabilitation and job placement through existing agencies;

(2) To give material aid to individual recovered patients in time of need; (3) To eliminate jail commitments except when unavoidable as to the criminally insane;

(4) To establish psychiatric wards in community general hospitals for the observation, short-term treatment, and outpatient care of mental patients, and where needed, for the commitment of such patients in mental hospitals for protected care;

(5) To provide legal aid as needed for the benefit of the patient and his family, and to speed up the process of communication between the courts and the mental hospital authorities in order to restore legal sanity and full citizenship to medically recovered mental patients;

(6) To arouse public support for the appropriation of funds adequate to meet the minimum standards for medical care in mental hospitals, based on the standards set by the American Psychiatric Association; and

(7) To study problems affecting the full recovery of mental patients; such as the study of commitment laws, special requirements with reference to driver's license, coverage of hospitalization and medical care insurance plans, and studies and evaluation of program in operation in local communities for the benefit of recovered mental patients.

The program of the Foundation for Community Aid to Mental Patients is intensely practical and concrete. It will supplement the educational preventive program of the National Association for Mental Health.

The foundation is registered with the United Community Services at Washington, D.C., nearby Virginia, and Maryland. All contributions are tax free.

Congressman CLEVELAND M. BAILEY,

Chairman, Subcommittee on General Education,
Washington, D.C.:

BOSTON, MASS., July 26, 1961.

Deeply concerned with gross waste of manpower in lack of careful utilization of older people's skills. Our detailed research indicates competence not closely related to age. This broad issue is being confused by special interests. Great need of continuing study and review. On these grounds I wish to endorse bill H.R. 10014, which I understand would provide much needed continuity through creation of bipartisan Federal Commission on Aging.

HUGH CABOT,

Executive Director, Age Center of New England, Inc.

LAKEVIEW, OREG., March 21, 1962.

Hon. CLEVELAND M. BAILEY,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: I have read with interest news items regarding the start of hearings on establishing a Federal commission to deal with the problems of our elderly citizens and your interest in this probe.

A large percentage of the older voters cast their ballots in the last presidential election for the Democratic candidates, regardless of their party affiliation. They believed in so doing a Democratic President and Congress would give more consideration to the older citizen, namely a medical program and a lowering of the age limit for women to age 60 under social security. Thus far no medical aid has been forthcoming and a woman still has to wait until she is 62 before she can receive social security benefits.

All our Congressmen and Senators have to do is look over the "Female Help Wanted" ads in any paper. Invariably, regardless of past experience, 35 is the maximum age limit the employer will consider. Many women who have never worked or are widowed and whose life-savings have been used up due to present high living costs and sickness, are turned down even for common sales work; the same answer "We retire our workers at age 60.”

If the age limit under social security for women were lowered to age 60 it would alleviate cases of dire want and also would enable many many thousands of elderly women and couples to get medical attention and have some funds to pay for same whereas today they just cannot do so and a large percentage just suffer along without any medical help because they cannot pay for it.

The trend of opinion, not only among the older citizens, but also of younger couples who in so many cases are trying to maintain their own home and help support parents, is that "Our Government can throw away the taxpayers' money giving it to all the foreign countries, but what do they care about us when we get old." You probably have heard this yourself, and the trend in this way of thinking is growing.

I think, even if some type of medical aid should be provided, the lowering of the age limit under social security for women to age 60 should be considered of immediate importance, and I do hope if a Federal commission is established or in any case, that this problem will be considered favorably by our President and Congress.

Very truly yours,

Mrs. RUTH L. GROTH.