While S. 1318 cannot, and does not, correct the basic economic conditions which favor the children of settled, native-born and Caucasian families, it makes sure that the young products of such basic economic maladjustments are given some measure of security and health care. III. Absence of a means test: The Congress of American Women especially wants to call this committee's favorable attention to the absence of a means test in S. 1318. The principle that good health, medical care and welfare services when needed are as much the inalienable right of every American child as is public education is a sound one. The bill is correct in establishing this principle as part of the law of the land. Conditioning the bill's benefits on financial need would divide our children according to the financial status of their parents, setting up un-American class barriers between well-to-do and less fortunate families. According to Dr. William C. Menninger, formerly chief psychiatrist of the War Department's Psychiatric Division, the major factor behind the personality difficulties that caused 43 percent of the Army's medical discharges and 39 percent of its induction center rejections was relief psychology developed by depression children. The Congress of American Women feels that we have had enough "poor man's medicine." No longer can we permit self-respecting but poor families to allow their children to suffer from ill-health and curable physical defects because they are "too proud" to ask for help. No longer can we deny any American child full opportunity for physical, mental, and emotional growth and well-being. For all the reasons cited above, the Congress of American Women urges the speedy enactment of S. 1318. Senator DONNELL. Mrs. Vaughan, you spoke of your organization, the Congress of American Women. I understood you to say it was a young organization? Mrs. VAUGHAN. Yes. Senator DONNELL. When was it formed? Mrs. VAUGHAN. On International Women's Day last, last March 8. We had our first working conference on May 25. Senator DONNELL. March 8, 1946, it was formed? Senator DONNELL. And approximately how many members does the organization have? Mrs. VAUGHAN. I cannot tell you exactly what the membership is. It has not been broken down yet. Senator DONNELL. Could you give us approximately the number? Mrs. VAUGHAN. There are several thousand direct members, plus affiliated organizations representing nearly half a million men and women. Senator DONNELL. Is the active organization quite widely scattered over the United States or is it concentrated? Mrs. VAUGHAN. At the moment most of the membership, or a good proportion of the membership, is in New York City, but chapters are also in the process of formation, and in some cases have been formed in Pittsburgh, Chicago, Philadelphia, and a number of other cities. Senator DONNELL. The greater numbers are in New York City? Mrs. VAUGHAN. Yes, sir. The organization was born in New York City. Senator DONNELL. Mrs. Vaughn, have you studied the subject of care for mothers and children? I mean to say, have you done so in school? Mrs. VAUGHAN. You mean am I a professional child care worker? Senator DONNELL. No. Have you studied it in your school work? Where have you studied it? Mrs. VAUGHAN. I studied child psychology at Barnard and George Washington University, but that was a long time ago. I have since then worked in the field of child care in a non-professional capacity with parents' organizations, and so forth. Senator DONNELL. Have you been employed by the Federal Government at any time? Mrs. VAUGHAN. Yes, I have. I was employed by the Farm Security Administration and the War Relocation Authority. Senator DONNELL. When did you complete your course at Barnard? Mrs. VAUGHAN. Oh, dear me. I don't remember the exact date. Senator DONNELL. I do not want the exact date. Mrs. VAUGHAN. The class of 1935. Senator DONNELL. And you came to George Washington. University after that? Mrs. VAUGHAN. That is right. Senator DONNELL. When did you finish there? Mrs. VAUGHAN. About 1939. I took evening courses there. Senator DONNELL. Did you start upon your public employment after that, or had you already been employed by some governmental authority before you finished? Mrs. VAUGHAN. I think in 1936 was when I first went to the Farm Security Administration. Senator DONNELL. And for how long a time were you with the Farm Security Administration? Mrs. VAUGHAN. These figures may not be accurate. About 5 years. Senator DONNELL. That would be around 1941. Mrs. VAUGHAN. Yes. Senator DONNELL. And after 1941 what work did you undertake? Mrs. VAUGHAN. Then I was with the War Relocation Authority for about a year. Those dates I am not absolutely sure of. Senator DONNELL. That would be somewhere around 1942, approximately? Mrs. VAUGHAN. Yes. Senator DONNELL. Then what did you do? Mrs. VAUGHAN. I was a housewife for a while and I worked for the CIO-Congress of Industrial Organizations. Senator DONNELL. How long were you with the CIO? Mrs. VAUGHAN. For only a few months. Senator DONNELL. While you were with the CIO, what type of work did you do? Mrs. VAUGHAN. Organizing work. Senator DONNELL. Organizing chapters of the CIO? Mrs. VAUGHAN. That is right. Senator DONNELL. And you were with them for a few months? Mrs. VAUGHAN. That is right, and then I went to New York. Mrs. VAUGHAN. February, 2 years ago. Senator DONNELL. February 1944? Mrs. VAUGHAN. That is right. Senator DONNELL. What have you done since then? From that time until now? Mrs. VAUGHAN. I was research editor of Modern Industry magazine. Senator DONNELL. Who issues Modern Industry? Mrs. VAUGHAN. It is published by Magazines of Industry, Inc. It is an independent management publication. Senator DONNELL. Where is its office? Mrs. VAUGHAN. 347 Madison Avenue, New York. Senator DONNELL. How long were you with that publication? Senator DONNELL. Then, beginning last March, what have you done from then? Mrs. VAUGHAN. Since that time I have been a housewife and mother. I have worked with the Congress of American Women. Senator DONNELL. You are not on a salary? Mrs. VAUGHAN. That is right. Senator DONNELL. You are not? Mrs. VAUGHAN. I am not. Senator DONNELL. And you have your home in New York? Senator DONNELL. And you have a family, I take it? Mrs. VAUGHAN. That is right. Senator DONNELL. That is all. Senator PEPPER. Thank you very much, Mrs. Vaughan, for coming here and giving us your views and helping us. We will take a recess until 2 o'clock, and reconvene at that time. (Thereupon, at 1:15 p. m., a recess was taken, to reconvene at 2 p. m.) AFTERNOON SESSION Senator PEPPER. The committee will come to order. Miss Lenroot, please. Miss Lenroot, we will welcome your state ment. Of course, for the record, you are Miss Katharine Lenroot, Chief of the Children's Bureau of the Department of Labor. STATEMENT OF KATHARINE F. LENROOT, CHIEF, CHILDREN'S BUREAU, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Miss LENROOT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am very happy to appear before your committee in support of S. 1318. I have not been informed concerning the relationship between this bill and the program of the President. I regard it as essential to push forward now in developing health and welfare resources for the children of our Nation and for their mothers during the maternity period. Testimony already presented to this committee by Dr. Martha M. Elliot, Associate Chief of the Children's Bureau, in hearings on the national health bill (S. 1606), expressed for her and for myself our support of that bill and of the national health program. That testimony contains ample evidence of the urgent need for immediate advance in extending health protection and medical care to our children. The tragic waste of the human resources of our country and the individual suffering and sorrow caused by such waste have been 'reflected in mortality rates and in findings of Selective Service. This committee has not considered prior to the hearings in this bill the equally pressing need for extending and developing further the child-welfare programs now available in only a small proportion of the counties of the United States. Neglect to provide for the social needs of children is reflected by rising rates of juvenile delinquency and by childhood unhappiness and failure to make normal adjustments in school or community life. I should like to submit for the record a copy of the testimony which I submitted on May 29 to the Subcommittee on Aid to the Physically Handicapped of the Committee on Labor of the House of Representatives. This statement includes a general discussion of the needs of children for health and welfare services and a more detailed discussion of the proposals for childwelfare services incorporated in House bills identical with S. 1318 and the reasons why such a program is needed. (The document referred to is as follows:) TESTIMONY ON MATERNAL AND CHILD WELFARE ACT OF 1945 H. R. 3922, H. R. 3994, H. R. 4059, AND S. 1318) SUBMITTED TO SUBCOMMITTEE ON AID TO THE PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON LABOR (By Katharine F. Lenroot, Chief, Children's Bureau, U. S. Department of Labor) I would like to express my support of the proposed preamble1 to these bills (H. R. 3922, H. R. 3994, H. R. 4059, and S. 1318) that has been agreed upon by Senator Pepper and the chairman of this committee. When appearing before the Senate Committee on Education and Labor, Dr. Eliot, the Associate Chief of the Children's Bureau, expressed in my behalf as well as for herself support of the President's national health program and of the National Health Act of 1945 (S. 1606). Titles I and II of the Maternity and Child Welfare Act of 1945, to which we are addressing ourselves today, have the same general objective as the maternal and child health part (title I B) of S. 1606, though they go beyond that part in making possible payment for medical care for any child and for mothers in maternity. They provide as did title I B of the National Health Act of 1945, for an extension of the crippled children's services which is urgently needed. The proposed preamble to S. 1318, H. R. 3922, H. R. 3994, and H. R. 4059 and the additional proposal to specify the amounts to be authorized for appropriation during the second year of the expanding program make clear the intent of the sponsors to regard this program as a potential part of the national health program, to be coordinated with and fitted into any over-all program that the Congress may develop. With this approach I concur. That there is need for action now to provide funds to aid the States in expanding their services to mothers and children no one denies. The only differences of opinion lie in the way in which it should be done. I am here to lay before you the need to act at this time to provide for the health and welfare needs of children. The future of our Nation lies with our children. The kind of responsibility which we assume for child health and child welfare in the programs which we are discussing today will affect the way in which they will be able to assume responsibility for tomorrow. What we do for our children we, in this sense, do for ourselves, and what we do for all of the people we do for our children. 1 Proposed preamble to H. R. 3922, H. R. 3994, H. R. 4059, and S. 1318: "SEC. 2. The Congress finds and experience has shown, especially during the war, that there is need for expansion of maternal and child health and welfare services through aid to the States, and declares that immediate action by the Congress is required to meet these needs. "It is further declared to be the policy of the Congress that the special services for the health of children and their mothers during maternity herein provided for should form a part of any national health program to be authorized by the Congress and should be coordinated with and fitted into any such program." There are about 41,500,000 children in the United States under 18 years of age. There are 22 million babies born each year. Children make up about 30 percent of the population. The family is the first line of defense in the struggle to achieve good health and provide for the welfare of the child, but the family must depend upon public resources for many of the essential elements necessary to the health, growth, and development of children. Thus for over a hundred years it has been recognized throughout the country that education is a public responsibility, and from the foundations of the Republic the State has been recognized as the final guarantor to the child of protection against destitution, neglect, or abuse. Approximately one-half of the families in the United States have no children, but all people have a stake in the welfare of children. For example, everyone benefits from the fact that we have public schools. An educated citizenry is the foundation of free institutions. All people would benefit in some way from public programs which would provide health and medical services for mothers and children, without discrimination because of economic status, race, creed, color, or national origin. Wherever there is a social problem involving children, it is in the interest of everyone that it be dealt with promptly and constructively, for the sake of the child and his personal development, and for the sake of the community, which is injured by delinquency, crime, and dependency. A long stride will have been taken toward this objective should this bill become law. The economic burden of rearing our children falls unevenly among the population. A disproportionately large number of children live in families with low income. The figures for 1941, which was a year of high income with a relatively small amount of unemployment, show that approximately three out of every five children were living in families with incomes of less than $2,100 per year, and four out of five in families with incomes of less than $3,000. Moreover, 80 percent of our children live in families of four or more persons. Children are also concentrated in low-income States. The 1940 census shows that one-half of the children in the United States live in 32 States which get one-third of the national income, while one-half live in 16 States which get two-thirds of the national income. Approximately one-fourth of our children live in the Northeast section that gets 40 percent of the national income and onefourth in the Southeast which gets 12 percent of the national income. Federal funds are needed to assure adequate opportunities for all children throughout the country. Title V of the Social Security Act, under which the present programs_are operating, was written with particular attention to need in rural areas. Now, as then, the burden of care for children falls more heavily in these areas. Farm families have the highest ratio of children to adults, approximately twice that of the large cities. In 1941 farm families had 29 percent of the children in the United States but only 11 percent of the income. Funds available under the Social Security Act have never been sufficient to meet more than a very small fraction of the needs of rural mothers and children. There has been a long-time tendency for trained personnel to concentrate in urban areas. This is particularly true for the experts and specialists. For example, in 1941, 4 percent of the pediatricians were located in places of 10.000 population or less, where 60 percent of the children live, while 38 percent were in places of 500,000 population or more where only 14 percent of the children live. Both State health and welfare agencies are confronted with the need to initiate and carry out plans that will attract highly trained people into the rural areas where relatively more of our children live. Progress has been made in the last 10 years under title V of the Social Security Act in maternal and child health, crippled children's services, and child welfare. More people are receiving service than was possible before the passage of this act, and the services are on the whole of better quality. Valuable experience has been gained-we not only know more about the nature of the problems with which we are confronted, but we have a better idea of how we can work on them. Every State has made a beginning, but in no State at this time are all of the essential services available to children throughout the State. The major rea son for slow development of services has been lack of funds to take the stens which are necessary if services are to be available for all children and for all mothers in the maternity period. These bills would provide services for maternity patients and for children which would be a part of and should be adequately fitted in with the State and local health and welfare services for all the people. They would keep Fed |