Page images
PDF
EPUB

STATEMENT OF BARBARA D. McGARRY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE AMERICAN PARENTS COMMITTEE, INC.

Mrs. McGARRY. Mr. Chairman, since our statement is, perhaps, overcondensed, and the total reading time is under 10 minutes, with the committee's permission I would like to read it, and then answer any questions the committee may have.

Senator ANDERSON. You may read it, Mrs. McGarry.

Mrs. McGARRY. To a national organization such as the American Parents Committee, which has devoted its 18 years of existence solely to the support of Federal legislation benefiting children, the 89th Congress has achieved outstanding advances, particularly in the field of education. In tribute to these achievements, we feel that never before has there been more significant recognition of our greatest national resource-our Nation's children.

It is with appreciative awareness of this deepening national interest that we appear before this distinguished committee today, to express the support of the American Parents Committee of the following provisions for child health and welfare, under the proposed Social Security Amendments of 1965:

Title II, section 201. Increase in maternal and child health services. Section 202. Increase in crippled children's services.

Section 203. Training of professional personnel for crippled children.

Section 204. Payment for inpatient hospital services.

Section 205. Special project grants for health of school- and preschool children.

Section 211. Implementation of mental retardation planning.

Title IV, section 401. Public assistance amendments-Increase for AFDC program.

We are especially indebted to Dr. Martha Eliot, a member of our board of directors and former Chief of the U.S. Children's Bureau, for her constructive suggestions on many of these provisions. At our last annual board of directors meeting in January 1965, American Parents Committee Chairman George I. Hecht, Dr. Eliot, and other members discussed the prototype bill containing these provisions, subsequently incorporated into the general bill before you today. It was unanimously recommended, as our February 1965 American Parents Committee report indicates, that we support these increased authorizations for children.

Increases in the amounts authorized for maternal and child health services will, in the words of House Report 213

Assist the States to move toward the goal of extending such services with a view to making them reasonably available to children in all parts of the State by July 1975.

The American Parents Committee wholeheartedly supports greater implementation of these services. We concur in the House report's belief that:

Increases in the child population and the cost of medical care, wide variations among the States in maternal and infant mortality, and the uneven distribution of basic health services indicate the need for additional Federal support in order to help States make their maternal and child health services available to children in all parts of the State.

We support the recommended increases for these services of $5 million for the fiscal year 1966, and $10 million for each fiscal year thereafter.

Section 202. Differences in the extent of crippled children's services are considerable throughout the States, and, as reported

Indicative of the need for considerable growth of these programs in many States *** the major reason for these deficiencies in State programs is inadequate funds.

In 1963, 375,000 children received medical services under this program, a national rate of 49 per 10,000 children under 21 years of age. State by State, however, the rate of service varies from the high of 124 per 10,000 to a low of 12. Many crippled children, or children with potentially crippling conditions, as has been brought out by previous testimony, are not receiving needed care because their individual conditions may not be included in their own State's program.

To broaden and unify the conditions under which all crippled children may receive needed treatment, the American Parents Committee supports the recommended increases in Federal participation of $5 million for fiscal year 1966 and $10 million annually thereafter.

Section 203. For the training of professional personnel for the care of crippled children, we are gratefully aware of the bill's inclusion of mentally retarded children, and those with multiple handicaps, which has not been stressed, perhaps, enough. In our support of the mental retardation amendments of 1963, we had urged the authorization of funds for training professional personnel, doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, as well as for the construction of facilities for the mentally retarded. We therefore welcome the opportunity to support the recommended authorizations of $5 million for fiscal 1957, $10 million for fiscal year 1968, and $17.5 million for each fiscal year thereafter, implementing a program of grants to institutions of higher learning for training of such professional personnel.

Section 204. Section 204, which we consider vitally important, of the bill, providing for

payment of the reasonable cost *** of inpatient hospital services

under State plans for maternal and child health services and crippled children's services, is endorsed by the American Parents Committee, with our firm belief that no child should be denied needed hospitalization because of indigence.

Section 205. In a 5-year program of comprehensive health care, through special project grants for low-income school and preschool children, the bill responds to one of the greatest challenges to our national future. The safeguarding today of the physical and emotional health of our citizens of tomorrow is our greatest social security as a nation. The challenge and its proposed solution are reported as follows:

Many childhood disabling illnesses both physical and emotional have their origin in infancy or in the preschool years * * *. In school health programs, the availability of community resources to which children can be referred for diagnosis and treatment is the critical factor ***. Your committee's proposal will make possible programs organized to make maximum use of available community medical services, and to bring about a better distribution of the lowincome patient group among public and voluntary community clinics and hospitals *** It would reduce the numbers of children of preschool and school age who are hampered by remediable handicaps, and provide necessary

medical and dental care for children of low-income families who would not otherwise receive care.

For this program of grants to State agencies, to medical and dental schools, and to teaching hospitals, we support the recommended authorization of $15 million for fiscal 1966, $35 million for fiscal year 1967, $40 million for fiscal year 1968, $45 million for fiscal year 1969, and $50 million for fiscal year 1970, with the provision that no more than 75 percent of the cost of such grants derive from Federal funds. Section 211. The American Parents Committee urges authorization of the recommended $2.75 million for each of the next 2 fiscal years, for the development of State plans to combat mental retardation.

Section 401. For the AFDC program under the public assistance amendments, beginning January 1, 1966, the Federal share of payments would be increased by an average of about $1.25 a month for needy children. The ceiling for this program would be raised from $30 a month to $32 a month. In the words of the committee report, We feel that, "The level of aid provided the needy justifies this modest increase."

For the privilege of presenting our views before this distinguished committee, our organization is deeply appreciative, with the hope that all American children will be the beneficiaries of this legislation.

Thank you.

Senator ANDERSON. Thank you. You recognize there may be some changes in these authorizations that you mention on the last page; for instance, $15 million for fiscal 1966, fiscal 1965 has only 45 days to

run.

Mrs. MCGARRY. Yes.

Senator ANDERSON. And the bill might not be through by that time and therefore if we trimmed some of those down you and your organization would understand it?

Mrs. MCGARRY. Yes, of course it would, sir.

Senator DOUGLAS. Aside from the general questions we could ask Mrs. McGarry, I might observe that had a modest share in the development of public sentiment for and the drafting of the original Social Security Act of 1935. At that time we were reproached for advocating this program on the ground that we were lessening the responsibility which children should bear for the support of their parents in old age. The same charge is now being made against those of us who are supporting the King-Anderson bill and the present bill, that we are reducing the family solidarity and weakening the responsibility which children should have for the care of their parents.

Now I am sure it will be argued that these provisions which you advocate diminish the responsibility which parents owe to their infant children, that we are substituting State support and State aid for parental responsibility.

Now, what would be your reply to this?

Mrs. McGARRY. Sir, this was the very topic of several hours of discussion

Senator DOUGLAS. What was that?

Mrs. MCGARRY. This was the topic of several hours discussion yesterday evening between myself and another member of the committee. I am not authorized, of course, to speak for the committee to this point, but I think

Senator DOUGLAS. Aren't you authorized to speak in defense of these grants for children?

Mrs. MCGARRY. Oh, yes, yes. But a personal observation I have
Senator DOUGLAS. Yes.

Mrs. McGARRY (continuing). Would be the result, of course, of this particular question which, perhaps, couldn't be anticipated in the report, and what I am saying is in defending our request for these authorizations, I know, our committee feels, that we have no intention whatever of supplanting parental obligation by Government support. This would not serve the ultimate purpose of the children.

Senator DOUGLAS. I know, but every time we provide a governmental support you reduce the liability of the parents to provide that support voluntarily on the basis of affection, so obviously in advocating these programs appropriations you must think that parental responsibility is not enough.

Mrs. McGARRY. In extreme cases of emergency illness, where the families may be, perhaps, financially devastated by physical or mental disability, cases like that, emergency situations, we feel no child should be denied needed care because of the family emergencies.

Senator DOUGLAS. You would preserve this only for emergency situations?

Mrs. McGARRY. Where the parents are unable to provide needed physical, medical care for their children.

Senator DOUGLAS. Isn't that true in a very large percentage of the cases, the poverty of the parents is such that they cannot provide adequate medical attention for their children?

Mrs. McGARRY. I think that is exactly the purpose of these provisions. Don't you, Senator?

Senator DOUGLAS. I am trying to draw you out and give a better defense for this than you are making.

Senator ANDERSON. He is trying to get you to answer it.

Senator DOUGLAS. Isn't it true that a very large percentage of the parents are unable to make these payments?

Mrs. McGARRY. That is under section 205.

Senator DOUGLAS. Isn't it also true that a certain percentage of the parents are unable to determine whether or not the child does need treatment; isn't that true?

Mrs. McGARRY. You mean it is a matter of parental evaluation of the needs of the child.

Senator DOUGLAS. Ignorance. First inability on the part of the parents and, second, ignorance.

Mrs. McGARRY. On top of which you may have apathy.

Senator DOUGLAS. What?

Mrs. McGARRY. On top of which you may have indifference or apathy.

Senator DOUGLAS. Now you come to a third factor, indifference of the parents.

First, let us take ignorance of the parents. Isn't it true that many parents do not know of the defects of their children or do not have the knowledge to understand what these defects are? Isn't that true? Mrs. MCGARRY. Yes; I believe it is, sir. You cannot penalize a child for his parents' ignorance.

Senator DOUGLAS. Now we come to the third, indifference of the parents or apathy of the parents.

Now, should the child be sacrificed because the parents are indifferent or apathetic toward the child?

Mrs. McGARRY. We certainly feel not.

Senator DOUGLAS. Isn't it true that the common law, while it recognizes parental duties, and that these responsibilities are the first line of defense, also holds that where the parent is delinquent in these matters it is proper for society to step in and provide this protection; isn't that true?

Mrs. MCGARRY. That is correct.

Senator DOUGLAS. If the parent abuses a child, the child can be taken away from him: isn't that true?

Mrs. McGARRY. Yes, sir; in 33 States.

Senator DOUGLAS. If the parent encourages and permits the child to engage in immoral practices; what is the situation then?

Mrs. MCGARRY. We have just had a case like that in my own State of Maryland.

Senator DOUGLAS. This is not used to supplant good parents or parents who can afford the services themselves or who know the difficulties to which children are exposed and are alert to them, but to the residual cases; isn't that true?

Mrs. MCGARRY. I should say so; yes.

Senator DOUGLAS. Mrs. McGarry, I wish you would preach this from the housetops and not compel us to draw this from you by a long process of examination.

What is more, you come in here and advocate this, but we have to go out and face the voters. We have to go out and face the organizations in the country which are opposed to the whole program on the grounds which we have mentioned. While you, perhaps, do not want to deal with the aged, shouldn't you furnish some defense to this bill if it is passed in this form so far as it deals with children? Your work is not done when we get this measure through. A great many groups come in and urge us on, and then when the battle is going on out in the country they go off for the weekend and forget it.

This is one of the difficulties with the lobbying organizations. All they are interested in getting is a law, and not seeing that public opinion is developed to support the law.

Mrs. MCGARRY. May I offer an observation, Senator?

Senator DOUGLAS. Yes, please.

Mrs. McGARRY. Two days ago I sent in the draft for publishing of our national newsletter defending these very points I have submitted for your committee's consideration this morning. It will be distributed nationally within this coming week, this very topic.

Senator DOUGLAS. Well, I am glad.

We find, for instance, with many educational associations, if I may speak very frankly, they come in and urge appropriations for Federal aid to education. Then when we go out in the country trying to defend this they are absent. In fact, I frequently see the local members of the National Education Association working against the very measures which they have supported down here; I want to say that it gets some of us a little bit fed up because we feel that many of these organizations-I do not necessarily mean you-push us to the fore, and then stand by and watch the principles which you advocate here in Washington defeated in the Nation at large and those of us who have supported these principles sacrificed and frequently stabbed in

« PreviousContinue »