Mr. FLOOD. This completes our hearings on the 1973 budgets for the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare, and the related agencies. PREPARED STATEMENTS We have a number of statements which have been submitted to us by interested individuals and organizations as well as from several Members of Congress. These statements will be placed in the record. In accordance with our usual custom, we will hold the hearing record open for 1 week for the purpose of premitting additional statements, which we understand are on the way, but which we have not yet received, to also be included in our hearings. (The statements referred to follow :) AID TO FEDERALLY AFFECTED SCHOOL DISTRICTS STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN HAROLD T. JOHNSON OF CALIFORNIA Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose with one exception, the proposed revisions in the method of distributing Federal funds to areas heavily impacted by children of parents working for the Federal Government. The funding for Public Law 874, section 3(b) category should not be reduced. This is especially true since the rate of payment for category 3(b) children, whose parents either work or live on Federal property, is one-half the rate of payment for category 3(a) children, whose parents reside on and are employed on Federal property. While it is true that the parents of category 3(b) children often pay residential property taxes, it is no less true that their employer, the Federal Government, pays no taxes. It has been shown that taxes on business and industrial activities are of approximately equal importance with residential property taxes in the financing of nonfederally affected schools. Consequently, areas in which the Federal Government is the major employer must operate their schools on a definitely impaired tax basis, and Federal payments on behalf of category 3(b) children are both necessary and just. This is a time of general financial distress in public education. Every one is familiar with the severe strains on school budgets, and the pattern of unsuccessful school bond elections across the country. The proposed changes in funding Public Law 874 will cost the schools in the Second Congressional District of California an estimated $692,900, a decrease of 44 percent in the funds they will receive in fiscal year 1973, as compared to the funds they are receiving in the current fiscal year. It will cost school districts in the State of California an estimated $23 million, or a decrease of approximately 31.8 percent. In a time when school costs are driving property taxes and State taxes to unbearable levels, this kind of action is not in the national interest. The money "saved" at the expense of education through the proposed revisions does not begin to cover some of the wasteful cost overruns in other areas of Government. This kind of proposal can only make one wonder how genuinely committed the Nixon administration is to property tax relief for the average taxpayer. Whatever the original intent of Public Law 874, it did not evolve to its present form by accident. The Congress amends legislation as new problems arise and as they are recognized. Public Law 874 has been meeting a real and legitimate need, and to cut it back now would ignore the substantial impact of nonmilitary Federal activity on school districts. No one disputes the initial burden of a new Federal activity on local schools near Federal installations, and research has shown this to be of a continuing nature. In a program as extensive as Public Law 874, it is to be expected that the application of a single formula will, due to varying circumstances in different areas, result in some overpayments and underpayments. The existence of local discrepancies should not be taken as grounds for attacking the overall levels of program financing or the basic concepts of the program. In addition to the proposed cutback in section 3(b) payments under Public Law 874. I hope the subcommittee will take a long look at the absence of any request for funds in the Nixon administration's budget for section 2 (removal of land from local tax rolls by Federal acquisition), section 3(e) (school districts affected by cessation or decrease of Federal activity), section 3(c) (4) (special deficit rate of payment when 50 percent or more children reside on Federal property), and section 4 (sudden and substantial increase of children resulting from Federal activities carried on directly or through a contractor). The one revision I do support is to provide 100 percent of entitlement for Indian children whose parents work or reside on Federal property. This would provide much needed support for many rural school districts with small populations and small tax bases. There are many such districts in my congressional district, and I know from firsthand experience with these school districts and my own prior experience as a school board member what a difficulty budgetary situation exists in these communities. In summary, payments under Public Law 874 as they are presently made are necessary and just. Cutbacks in funds to public schools at this time would only make more severe the crisis in school financing we are already faced with. Thank you. DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JONATHAN B. BINGHAM OF NEW YORK Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to present my views to your distinguished subcommittee on the need to expand Federal assistance to the developmentally disabled-the mentally retarded and victims of cerebral palsy and epilepsy. In March of this year, I urged your subcommittee to support a supplemental appropriation of $83,285,000 for the Developmental Disabilities Services and Facilities Construction Act (DDSA). At the time, I noted that unless we fully fund DDSA, "thousands of helpless retarded persons will be forced to live indefinitely under dehumanizing and brutal conditions." Mr. Chairman, the crisis conditions at our State schools and institutions for the developmentally disabled continue and additional funds remain urgently needed. The Congress and the Executive have made unmistakeably clear the Federal Government's pledge to aid the developmentally disabled and their families and ease what President Nixon has called "the cruel bane of mental retardation." When DDSA was begun with much fanfare in 1970, Congress authorized $130 million for fiscal year 1973. In the President's budget request for fiscal year 1973, the Executive seeks only $21.7 million, or what the Congress appropriated in fiscal year 1972. I have no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that your subcommittee will recommend substantially more than what the President seeks because, in the past, you have shown great compassion and concern for these needy Americans. I ask you today to follow through on the commitment Congress made 3 years ago and propose full funding for this vital program. First, the States are facing a severe crisis in care for these helpless Americans. I have recently received letters from six State mental health directors which outline the desperate plight of States and their need. The situation in these StatesIllinois, Kansas, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, and Oregon—mirrors that in almost every other State. The local governments are hurting for money to aid the mentally retarded. Also, I have an updated version of a chart, prepared by the National Association of Coordinators of State Programs for the Mentally Retarded, which I gave the subcommittee last March, which reveals current estimated need in this field of some 40 States and establishes the desire of the States for full funding for DDSA. Both the letters from the State directors and the needs chart appear after my remarks. Second, the States have the present capacity to spend the authorized amount. In processing applications for fiscal years 1971 and 1972, States have been beseiged with requests for funds totaling from three to 10 times their allotment. Many requests had to be denied despite critical need. Further, Mr. Chairman, during debate on my amendment to the second supplemental appropriation bill to increase fiscal year 1972 funds for DDSA, mention was made of amounts appropriated but unspent in the fiscal years 1971 and 1972 budgets. While some States have been slow to utilize funds under DDSA, this is not the case throughout the Nation. Many States quickly exhausted their small DDSA allotment. Also, delay in utilization by some States is primarily traceable to the fact that the Nixon administration delayed preparing the regulations enforcing DDSA. Rules for spending fiscal year 1971 funds became available only last December. It is unfair to criticize State governments for failing to commit their allotment when the Federal Government took so much time drafting the ground rules for spending the money. Third, the formula Congress devised for DDSA grants distorts the effect of the aid. Under DDSA, every State is entitled to a minimum allotment of $100,000. The spreading of funds across the Nation prevents concentrating scarce resources where the need is greatest or the machinery most able to utilize it. Also, this system is unfair to the larger States in yet another respect. Under the system, the larger States' per-person share is but a fraction of most States. In fact, to reach a “break-even point," where States would receive an equal per-person share, Congress would have to appropriate about $65 million. Even that amount would not enable many States to help their retarded properly. In New York, with over 750,000 developmentally disabled, it is conservatively estimated that 60 projects are "ready to go" if adequate funding (approximately $9 million) were provided by the Federal Government. Full funding of DDSA would make it possible for States to aid thousands more developmentally disabled this coming year. Fourth, under the President's budget, funds for the retarded would not be stable for fiscal year 1973, but in fact would be cut back. A 5-year spending chart on selected Federal aid programs, also prepared by the National Association of Coordinators of State Programs for the Mentally Retarded, reveals: (a) The administration plans a reduction in DDSA staffing funds but has no plan to use the savings for other DDSA purposes; (b) HIP-HIST (hospital improvement program and hospital in-service training program), two projects which provide direct assistance to our large institutions, like Willowbrook in New York City, are being phased out, further reducing the Federal hospital support with no increase in alternative programs; and (c) In almost every State, the proposed fiscal year 1973 allotment would be less than in fiscal year 1972, and many cases either below or scarcely above the allotment of 3 and 4 years ago. The chart appears after my remarks. Mr. Chairman, I believe we need to renew our commitment to the developmentally disabled and your subcommittee is in the perfect position to provide decisive leadership. Therefore, I respectfully urge the subcommitee to recommend full funding for DDSA-$130 million in fiscal year 1973. LETTERS TO CONGRESSMAN JONATHAN BINGHAM REGARDING DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES PROGRAM GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF HUMAN RESOURCES, Re developmental disabilities services and facilities construction program U.S. Congressman, Cannon House Office Building, DEAR CONGRESSMAN BINGHAM: Thank you very much for your recent letter regarding your intended support for increased reimbursement under the Developmental Disabilities Act. We in Illinois are certainly encouraged by your action. While a detailed analysis of State needs is underway, a preliminary analysis of grant requests under the program indicates that we have received grant applications totaling $1,996,163 for fiscal year 1971 funds that overall totaled $477.111. While this is not a definitive answer to your question, it does indicate the overall level of need for increased funding under the developmental disabilities program. More specific and detailed information will be forthcoming, but I thought the above would be of interest to you at this point in time. Yours very truly, ARLEN S. GOULD, Developmental Disabilities Advisory Council. STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, Topeka, Kans., April 4, 1972. Hon. JONATHAN BINGHAM, Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. BINGHAM: Thank you for your letter of March 27 describing your intent to increase the developmental disabilities funds to the level authorized by Congress. In your letter you asked for information that would describe the crisis nature of care for the mentally retarded as well as programs that would be able to be funded if there were available moneys. As I have earlier reported to Mr. Bob Gettings, executive director of the National Association of Coordinators of State Programs for the Mentally Retarded, I would estimate that the State of Kansas could very conservatively expend $2 to $3 million on grants for service expansion and service improvement for the developmentally disabled. (We are currently receiving $205,408.) The State could very adequately expend this money within our current status of planning. We have severely curtailed applications for developmental disabilities funds as well as the amounts to be made available to these grantees because of the limit on Federal moneys being made available. Anything that you can do or any efforts that you can initiate to have appropriations meet the congressional intent would be appreciated. Thank you for your interest in this very major problem facing the States. Sincerely, Hon. JONATHAN B. BINGHAM, 23 District of New York, Bronx, New York DENNIS E. POPP, Coordinator, Developmental Disabilities Services. STATE DEPARTMENT OF HOSPITALS, DEAR CONGRESSMAN BINGHAM: Your interest in the developmental disabilities bill I appreciate very much. I hope the following information will be helpful in your struggle to increase the appropriation. In Louisiana we have a well developed baseline of services for the mentally retarded. Crisis circumstances develop because of our inability to expand the existing services to meet the total needs of our citizens. We have eight residential facilities providing care for approximately 3,900 individuals. Our studies indicate that we need at least 1,500 more residential beds to take care of the needs of the individuals who cannot be adequately cared for in any other fashion except in a residential facility. Our master plan calls for the development of our existing schools to meet this expanding need at approximately $10,000 a bed construction cost. Our projected capital outlay cost to meet this need would be approximately $15 million. In day care community centered services, we currently are serving approximately 1,400 people. Our projection estimates that we should increase this number by at least 10,000. At present construction costs, we spend approximately $2,224 per person in day care center construction. Consequently, to fully serve the projected 10,000 new trainees, our construction cost would be approximately $22 million. Operational cost in residential care in Louisiana averages $4,900 per individual. An additional 1,500 residents would increase our present operational budget of approximately $20 million by $7,350,000. The cost of day care in Louisiana amounts to approximately $2,000 per student per year. An increase of 10,000 participants in this program would elevate our operational cost by $20 million. We could not, of course, handle such a massive expansion in any one year. However, graduated over a 5-year period, we could successfully absorb such growth if the funds were available. High on our priority is the need for a comprehensive multidisciplinary diagnostic, evaluation, and training center. Our HEW region is the only region in the United States that does not operate a university-affiliated facility designed to achieve the diagnostic, evaluation, and training services mentioned above. At this time, however, LSU Medical School is ready to launch such a program. Authorization for the development of such a service has been approved by the LSU Board of Trustees; consultant planning services have been retained; an architect has been employed; the building site is already available. Consequently, if Federal funds were available at this time, the construction of this facility could begin immediately. Planning estimates are that the construction cost would amount to $5,278,000. It is also estimated that the annual operational cost of the family would be $1,445,000. The above-mentioned circumstances and program needs constitute my idea of our crisis needs in Louisiana. Additional services, such as community-centered group homes, sheltered workshops, parent counseling and training programs, home health aides, special recreation programs, halfway homes, follow-up and follow-along services, will provide needed support programs to round out our comprehensive service. It is difficult to place an accurate cost figure on the total package. However, we do have, besides the diagnostic and evaluation center at LSU Medical School, at least another million dollars' worth of construction and program activity which could be activated immediately if funds were available. It is my opinion that, besides the residential and day care service needs described above, we can meaningfully utilize a minimum of $2 million per year of Federal funds in developing and improving the supportive services that were also alluded to in the preceeding paragraphs. I hope this information will be helpful. If you think I can provide other assistance, please do not hesitate to request it. Sincerely yours, OTTO P. ESTES, Commissioner, Division of Mental Retardation. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEVELOPMENT DISABILITIES COUNCIL, Hon. JONATHAN B. BINGHAM, Congressman, 23d District, New York, DEAR REPRESENTATIVE BINGHAM: Thank you for your letter of March 27, 1972. I am delighted to learn of your intent to offer an amendment increasing moneys available to states under Public Law 91-517. As you indicate, present appropriations for fiscal year 1972 equal only about one-fifth of the amount authorized by the Congress. Obviously, to have the act fully funded would provide immeasurable benefit to all of the states, including New Jersey, and to the many mentally retarded, cerebral palsied and epileptic citizens and their families. Even without full funding, any supplemental increase in appropriations over and above the present level would provide proportionate assistance in meeting dire needs. Therefore, may I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your efforts in this regard. I will, of course, be happy to be of any assistance I can to you. New Jersey is only now in the process of receiving applications for fiscal year 1972 Developmental Disabilities funds and, consequently, I cannot give you a concise indication as to the exact funding level of projects "ready to go" at the present time. However, for fiscal 1971, applications for D.D.S.A. moneys within New Jersey totaled nearly $2 million, just about evenly divided between service and construction programs. When one considers the facts that potential applicants were very much aware of the very limited nature of available 1971 funds (just slightly over $300,000) and that the act itself was new at the time applications were solicited (meaning that many projects were almost but not quite ready to go and, thus, did not apply), one can assume that the level of funds that could be used if available for fiscal year 1972 should be somewhere in the neighborhood of $3 million, for New Jersey alone. Further, these figures reflect only the need of the private sector and local government within the State. Latest available estimates from State agencies regarding construction of facilities fundable under D.D.S.A. guidelines are well in excess of $100 million. Thus, it is obvious that even New Jersey's share of a fully funded D.D.S.A. program would be significantly insufficient to meet the total need. It is even more obvious how far short of meeting that need is the current level of funding. I hope that this information will be useful to you and that you will not hesitate to let me know if there is anything else I can provide for you. I look forward to hearing of the results of your efforts. Best wishes. Sincerely yours, CATHERINE ROWAN, STATE OF NEW YORK, DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HYGIENE, Hon. JONATHAN B. BINGHAM, Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, DEAR CONGRESSMAN BINGHAM: Thank you for the opportunity to assist you in support of additional funding for the Developmental Disabilities Services and Facilities Construction program. |