serve the aged. The director of this department served as a member of the Governor's advisory committee on aging for 2 years.

NEGRO OLDER POPULATION SMALL, BUT GROWING

In the way of observations, I would like to state that the present Negro population in San Francisco and the bay area is a small one. However, the plight of this group dramatically shows the neglect which the community has shown the Negro and has shown the aged. In the next 10 years, a much larger group of this area's aged will be represented by those who migrated to this area 15 years ago. Greater opportunity must be provided for the present general Negro population to secure employment which is commensurate with its ability and private housing placed on an open occupancy market if the story of the aged is to show changes 10 years from today.

I should like to congratulate this committee for its interest in this subject of aging and of the role which the Negro plays in the total picture and to express my appreciation for the opportunity to be heard.

Senator MCNAMARA. Thank you very much. You have certainly made plain on the record that the problems are intensified for all minority groups, not just the Negroes.

Mrs. SMITH. All groups, yes.

Senator MCNAMARA. I am sure your testimony here is going to be very helpful to the committee, and we appreciate it very much.

Mr. McLain, I know you could take considerable time in explaining your experiences, and your reputation is well known throughout the country. We are very happy to have you here. You have a prepared statement, and it will be printed in its entirety in the record. (The prepared statement of Mr. McLain follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEORGE MCLAIN, CHAIRMAN AND PRESIDENT, CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL WELFARE, AND NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL WELFARE Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is George McLain. I am chairman of the California Institute of Social Welfare and president of the National Institute of Social Welfare. Both these organizations are nonprofit corporations, and both are concerned with the pressing problems of America's aged population. Unlike most other groups interested in the elderly, the California and National Institute of Social Welfare engage in dynamic activities aimed at improving the lot of our deserving oldsters.

From our large headquarters building in downtown Los Angeles, we direct a massive educational program for the benefit of our members. This consists of a regular, 15-minute daily radio program carried on 23 stations throughout the State; a monthly, 16-page newspaper, and a variety of special pamphlets, booklets, and other material of interest and value to the aged, which is mailed directly to our members from our modern, well-equipped production department. We also conduct approximately 200 public meetings per month throughout the State. The building itself and all the equipment is owned outright by the elderly members of the institutes, incidentally.

Facilities in the headquarters include a radio broadcasting booth, a high-speed printing plant, addressing and mailing equipment, offices for all departments, and a spacious clubroom where members may while away their leisure hours playing cards or dominoes, watching television, reading, or simply sipping coffee and chatting with old friends.

We also offer our members an efficient welfare counseling service. Headed by Frank Gardner, a trustee of the California institute, and a former member of the California State Social Welfare Board, this service has been responsible for the recovery of more than $300,000 illegally withheld from oldsters by various

county welfare departments in the State. We are understandably proud of this record, and equally proud that we are the only organization in California that offers such a service to bewildered and often frightened oldsters. However, I often wonder how many hundreds of thousands of dollars are wrongfully withheld from other senior citizens who do not know of our organization and have no one to help them when county welfare departments arbitrarily cut off or slash their grants. The total must reach a staggering figure annually.

Another important activity of the institutes is the old folks lobby, probably the most unique lobby in the Nation. Supported entirely by the members of the institutes, the old folks lobby appears regularly on the scene in Sacramento during legislative sessions, pleading the cause of the aged. It also goes to Washington, D.C., where we vigorously support all legislation that promises benefits for the elderly. As head of both the California and National Institutes of Social Welfare, I also lead the old folks lobby, both here in California and in the National Capital. The welfare of our senior citizens has been my sole career for more than 20 years and I feel equipped to speak in their behalf without qualification.

I have taken the time of the subcommittee to outline the activities of the institutes of social welfare only to demonstrate the vigor and intensity of our program. It is my hope that this knowledge will reveal to the subcommittee how eager even determined-our senior citizens are to gain a greater measure of social justice in this Nation.

As I mentioned in a statement submitted to this subcommittee while you were holding hearings in Washington, D.C., the needs of the elderly fall into three classes: Economic, medical, and housing. In my earlier statement, I dealt with these needs in some detail, as they are affected by public assistance programs, so I won't pursue that subject further at this time. Suffice it to say that America's treatment of its aged under public assistance is woefully inadequate, and in some cases, downright shameful.

As you distinguished gentlemen must have learned during previous hearings, there is bitter discontent among the elderly of this great Nation. And unless some steps are taken immediately to alleviate the suffering and hardship the aged must accept under our present programs, we can expect a major social upheaval. There are now 14 million voters of 65 years or older in the United States. There are 20 million men and women of 60 or older. The ranks of these senior voters are growing with explosive speed, as science prolongs life. Gentlemen, how long do you think these older voters are going to stand for virtual economic slavery? Not indefinitely, that's for sure. History shows us that when a sizeable bloc of a nation's people suffer the same injustices, face the same problems and find no sympathy or understanding in their leaders, they revolt. I don't mean that America's old folks are going to storm the Capitol with pitchforks and scythes. But they will rebel at the polling places, unless they see concrete proof that America is at long last going to establish a realistic program to insure their security in the later years of their lives.

I needn't mention that irresponsible leadership of a nationwide movement of elderly citizens could bring economic disaster to the United States with the adoption of some "pie-in-the-sky" program that would enslave generations to come in order to meet outlandish demands of crackpot schemers.

That is why it is so important that action be taken now. Responsible men in Government must demonstrate to the elderly of the Nation that America is not going to neglect its oldsters forever.

The elderly are not blind. They can read. They learn of advances made in other countries, countries considered far behind this great land of ours. Their discontent grows when they hear that the United States makes lavish gifts and loans to foreign nations while our elderly are hungry at home. This feeling is intensified with the knowledge that the very countries who accept our aid often use American dollars to establish old-age security programs vastly more generous than our own.

Does this make sense, gentlemen? I say, "No."

Yet, this is precisely what has happened in many European nations. Italy has been enriched by billions of dollars in American foreign aid. And Italy has steadily improved its old-age security program. It has also launched one of the world's most ambitious housing programs for the elderly. In the big Italian cities, many gleaming new apartment houses are rising, designed especially for the aged. The low countries, Belgium and Holland, are noted for their sympathetic treatment of the elderly. Busdrivers alight from their buses and help the

aged on and off. Clerks in stores brush past younger customers to give preferential treatment to older folks. And in these countries, too, we find that American money has helped to established progressive programs for old-age security.

Why is it that the United States is so fearful of offering Government aid to its own needy elderly, and yet encourages foreign lands to use our handouts for this very purpose? It doesn't make sense.

Year after year, we find sensible proposals in behalf of the elderly running head-on into ironclad opposition in Congress. The Forand bill is a case in point. This measure, authored by Representative Aime Forand, a Rhode Island Democrat, would offer free medical care and hospitalization to all persons receiving social security. Everyone knows that medical costs are one of the most serious problems of advanced years. Old folks visit their doctors much more often than the young. The time they spend in hospitals is many times longer than it is for younger people. At today's skyrocketing prices of medical and hospital care, illness is often a financial catastrophe for the retiree. He has less income, and the unavoidable costs of care are higher than ever.

The Forand bill, which would protect the sacred right of the patient to choose his own doctor, would solve this problem for millions receiving small socialsecurity payments. It would do this through a small payroll tax, and set up a system for payment of physicians through the social-security fund.

Think of what an advance this would be. Millions of old people, now desperately worried over the prospect of illness or accident, could face the uncertainties of the future with confidence. Not only would it protect the physical health of these senior citizens, but it would ease one of the greatest single causes of mental deterioration, worry. I, for one, am confident the Forand bill would be a tremendous step forward in America's treatment of her aged.

But the Forand bill is now bogged down in Congress, hobbled by high-powered opposition from the American Medical Association, some insurance groups, and others. Apparently, these interests would rather see the elderly perish for lack of medical care than surrender one iota of their dictatorial control in the medical and hospital fields.

In lieu of the Forand bill, the elderly are offered so-called protection by private insurance companies. Inspired by the AMA in its panicky fear that the Forand bill might be approved, these "over 65" insurance policies offer the scantiest of health protection for the aged. Payments under the plans cover barely half of ordinary hospital costs, and medical indemnities are correspondingly low. This, of course, is in line with the AMA's hypocritical policy of "protecting the patient's responsibility to pay part of his medical bills." This protection is hardly welcome to an old man or old lady who receives an income of say, $80 or $90 a month. I daresay most would cheerfully take a chance on a plan that lets the social-security fund pay the whole bill, regardless of the cost. The United States is fortunate in having its Social Security Act. It is broad enough to encompass the Forand bill and offer decent health protection to our elderly,without a major legislative overhaul.

But while we are discussing the Social Security Act, let me say this: As it stands, it is a mockery to our old people. Benefits are too low. Coverage is too narrow. True, many groups have been brought under social security in the past few years. Most working people of today will qualify for some benefits when they retire in the future. But there are still millions who will never receive a cent in social security unless the program is made truly universal. Social security should offer protection to everyone in later life.

Social security should be a real retirement program. As it stands now, it is merely a "supplement." Supplement to what? Who can afford a private retirement plan at today's insurance rates? Surely not the great mass of working men and women who can barely get by from day to day in our inflationary age. They must depend on social security for their retirement.

I recommend that our present Social Security Act be revised drastically, that it include everyone of 60 years or over, whether they ever worked a day in their lives. Social security payments should be geared to the Federal minimum wage law, now about $173 per month. How can this Government conclude that a working man or woman must have at least a dollar an hour to live on but an old person can get by on about half that? There should be a realistic floor for minimum payments unde social security. About $100 per month would be a reasonable figure.

Naturally, this would mean an eventual end of public assistance for the aged. But think of the savings that would be possible by eliminating the thousands

upon thousands of investigators, so-called welfare visitors, and other assorted snoopers who are taking tax money to "police" the old-age pension rolls. If all our old folks received a check in the mail every month, the same as those on social security, they wouldn't require all the endless processing, questioning, and so forth that is practiced by our local welfare departments in administering the old-age pension program. Incidentally, these welfare workers constitute one of the greatest burdens carried by the taxpayers. In California, we have a State department of social welfare with thousands of employees assigned solely to the aged. Then, all of the 58 counties have their own welfare departments, with additional thousands of employees. Multiply this by the 50 States in the Union and the product is frightening.

Wouldn't it be more practical to blanket all the elderly under a real social security program, with pensions as a matter of right, rather than harass them into their graves, penniless and broken in spirit, under the existing “need” concept?

If necessary, this country could follow the example of many foreign nations, and include the Federal Government as the third party in our social security system. Most of the governments of Western Europe share in the costs of old-age security, contributing into a central fund along with employers and employees. Why not the United States? I think it is time that this great Nation, now enjoying the greatest period of prosperity in history, devoted some of its wealth to its people. By taking practical, considered steps to secure the later years of our citizens, we will win more friends abroad than we can ever hope to attract by our frenetic grandstanding in the missile and space arenas. Many of our erstwhile friends abroad have lately become disillusioned with the American ideal. They realize that we have lost the global lead in social progress. are puzzled and worried by our neurotic preoccupation with "hell" bombs, interplanetary missiles, and other instruments of cosmic war. Let's settle for a decent defense of our Nation, and put our riches to work in a more fertile field-that of building a more perfect social order for our citizens. Then we will gain real respect-and real friends.

They

In considering improvement of our social security system, the fluctuating cost of living should be an important factor. We have seen how little retirement plans, carefully nurtured by prudent oldsters throughout their earning years, have been melted to a fraction of their original worth by steady, creeping inflation. Social security payments should safeguard against future tragedies of this kind by providing for automatic increases in times of rising prices, and corresponding reductions in a declining economy. Not only would this protect the recipient, but it would provide a valuable cushion in our country's economic life. Another escalator should be written into the act, regarding eligibility age and unemployment. When millions are out of jobs, the retirement age under social security should be lowered. When jobs are scarce, the age could be lifted, but in no case higher than 65.

These two economic controls could virtually wipe out the possibility of depression in the land, by speeding up or slowing down the amount of spendable cash put into circulation through the social security program.

It has been proposed almost continually during the past several years that steps be taken to provide jobs for the elderly, to junk the concept that a man or woman is old at a certain age and should be forced into retirement. We agree with this principle. But we are also realistic enough to know that most of our oldsters are unable to work, even if they could find jobs. Moreover, we now have upward of 3 million younger men out of work in this country. It hardly seems sensible to start a drive to employ the elderly, while family men can't find work. At the same time, I favor a revision of the Social Security Act to permit retirees to make far more than the $1,200 they are now permitted to earn and still receive old-age benefits. At least twice that amount-or $2,400would be more proper.

At this point, it might be well to consider once again the plight of those on public assistance-Federal-State old-age pensions of the noncontributory variety. Because of the old-fashioned "need" concept, and the Federal requirement that all outside income, earnings and resources, must be taken into consideration. hundreds of thousands of elderly men and women are vegetating in enforced idleness. This is true, even though the medical authorities and the social scientists tell us that inactivity is the very worst thing for the aged.

Why not let these old people engage in some worthwhile activity, if they like? Let them make, say, $50 a month at babysitting, gardening, or whatever other

light employment they can find. All our lives Americans are taught the principles of self-help. We admire the self-made man. Horatio Alger is still one of our ideals. But when we get old and have lived up all our savings, our Government comes along and says, "Here's a little handout for you. It's probably not enough for you to live on decently. But if you try to earn any money to improve your position, you'll be penalized. We'll take away your handout!" I say it's not fair.

Another field in which this subcommittee can make worthwhile suggestions is in the area of surplus foods. Eight billion dollars worth of nourishing foods lies wasting in sealed warehouses while our old folks exist on substandard diets. In the last session of Congress, a food-stamp amendment was tacked onto a foreign aid food bill, to permit this Government to make some of this surplus available to our own needy. President Eisenhower signed the measure. But then Secretary of Agriculture Benson arrogantly announced that he had no intention of putting it into effect for our own people. Because the present program, which permits the States, at their own expense, to distribute foods to the hungry, is not effective, Congress must keep faith with the people in 1960, and make the program mandatory.

I believe that the recommendations I have made here today are long overdue, even though they may seem drastic to some. It has been almost 25 years since the Social Security Act went into effect, in January 1935. At the time, the people of America were assured that it was a beginning toward real protection for old age. A quarter of a century has gone by. We have witnessed country after country overtaking us in our progress toward social perfection. Some are countries that suffered terrible devastation in the most destructive war in history. Yet the United States wallows in apathy toward the segment of its population that most deserves justice-its elderly. It is now time for bold, decisive action. Social security must be brought up with the times, to offer a rightful share of America's unprecedented abundance to the men and women who helped to make this Nation the greatest power on earth.

Thank you for your very kind attention.

STATEMENT BY GEORGE MCLAIN, CHAIRMAN AND PRESIDENT, RESPECTIVELY, CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL WELFARE, AND NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL WELFARE, LOS ANGELES, CALIF.

Senator MCNAMARA. You may summarize in your own manner, but first, will you indicate, please, the lady who is with you? Mr. McLAIN. Mrs. Myrtle Williams.

I appreciate very much having the opportunity to appear before your great committee today. I believe that millions of elderly folks all over the United States have a little more hope now that the Senate has created this committee, not only to hold hearings back in Washington, D.C., but to go out among them in the grassroots, and to me, who has been in the field of this work continuously for the past 20 years, I realize the tremendous amount of good and the knowledge your hearings will bring to the Members of Congress and the effect it will have upon future legislation. I think the Senate is to be commended particularly with the fine personnel on both sides it has put on this committee, and it has been my pleasure in the times I have been back in Washington, D.C., to observe you, Senator, in action, and I am impressed that this committee rated such a humanitarian as Senator Pat McNamara to head this committee. I am not trying to stir you up, Senator. I say that with all the sincerity at my command.

I would like to correct what appeared to be a slight misconception on the part of one of our earlier witnesses before this committee, that California has a greater percentage of population than any other State in the Union. I would like to say we are No. 2 down on the list in