few who would inflict punishment on the helpless, and it is for that reason that we urge that the Senate Finance Committee and those officers empowered to do so strike from this bill section 107 (a). In fact, we feel it serves only to weaken the bill, and urge that instead we utilize section 108 as a measure for safeguarding individual rights and to provide ways of meeting the special situations in the matter of protected payments. The strength of section 108 may be found in its approach, and I quote, "to helping the recipients achieve as soon as possible the capacity for adequate management of funds.” Other discussion and other statements regarding support of certain protective and rehabilitative aspects of this total bill are included, but we are mostly concerned about section 107(a), sir. Senator LONG. Let me say to you about section 107, I believe that does refer to the problem that exists in Louisiana. I did not create that problem. I found myself somewhat in the middle of it when it was created because there you had a situation where the State government, by an act of its legislature and State authorities, was in conflict with the position of the Federal Government. I believe they were in disagreement over 1,700 cases out of 70,000 dependent children cases. Now, the great problem there was, to so many of us whether 70,000 children were to be eliminated from assistance because of a disagreement over 1,700 cases. I think the disagreement involves a much smaller number of cases today than it did at that time. There has been indication on the part of those of us in Congress of a desire to be reasonable in working this matter out, and I am pleased to say that there is some indication that the State legislature is going to try to meet the Federal Government half way in resolving this matter in a way that both sides could agree to be reasonable and fai under the circumstances. I am sure you realize there is something of a problem there. Miss JOHNSON. Well, my organization believes firmly in the Federal-State partnership. It is not for lessening the influence and the power of either group. But we do feel-I just came from a meeting where we were talking about the same thing-we do feel that the Federal Government has to-until some more improvements are made in the area of human relations-to have an increasing responsibility for building in what I would like to call minimum requirements for safeguarding the individual rights of others. It is a partnership matter-and the States rights question is not the real issue-when once we spend these funds we should enter into the kind of partnership arrangement that will assure that every citizen, regardless of who h is, if he qualifies, gets equal treatment. (The prepared statement follows:) STATEMENT BY CERNORIA D. JOHNSON, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE, NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE, ON PUBLIC WELFARE AMENDMENT OF 1962, H.R. 10606, SUBMITTED TO U.S. SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Cernoria D. Johnson and I serve as Washington representative for the National Urban League. The National Urban League, with its central office in New York City, is a network of affiliated voluntary social service agencies operating in 62 major industrial cities of the Nation, serving more than 60 percent of the total urban Negro population. These league affiliates are manned by 500 professionall trained social workers, who possess a variety of experience in community service. Enhancing and supplementing the work of the employed staff are some 6,000 community leaders, Negro and white, who without compensation bring to the work of the league a virtually limitless reservoir of strengths, skills and talent. This far-flung interracial force of volunteers is dedicated to the Urban League goal of equal opportunity. Evidence of the league's concern for the public welfare issues covered in H.R. 10606 may be found in a half-century record of service as it has sought to help solve the Nation's racial problems. Today we join other private voluntary agencies in heartily endorsing the new emphasis on prevention and rehabilitation as expressed by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare in many aspects of the Public Welfare Amendments of 1962, H.R. 10606. The Congress of the United States, and other Federal bodies, are to be commended for their forthright and determined attack upon the mounting complexities of public welfare. Among these overwhelming problems, the Urban League recognizes the need for public assistance by some fellow Americans. One major approach in meeting this increasing need is through sound and equitable legislation. Such legislation can evolve from the supportive teamwork of private and governmental groups counseling together on welfare issues. An overview of this legislation reveals many strengths to be found in such instances as 1. the extension of ADC to the needy children of unemployed parents, the scheduled increases in the authorization for child welfare services and the establishment of day care programs; and 2. the provision for 75-percent Federal financial participation in the cost of services to families through the guarantee of more assistance from public welfare workers in self-help pursuits with the clients The Urban League believes that it can perform a valuable service to the committee by expressing its views regarding some aspects of the bill. Therefore it wishes to specifically call attention to section 107(a) which does not provide the necessary safeguards for families dependent upon public assistance From its inception, the Social Security Act has sought to safeguard individual rights and entitlements. The act encompasses regulations based upon reasonable nationwide goals and standards which have served throughout the years to maintain a constructive and stable program. The proposal for amendment suggested in section 107 (a) would lessen some of the safeguards. A new provision for restricted payments of aid to families with dependent children has been added with a clause which justifies our concern. This clause states: the State agency may provide for such counseling and guidance services with respect to the use of such payments * * in the best interest of such child, and may provide for advising such relatives that the continued failure to so use such payments will result in substitution therefor of protective payments •* or in seeking appointment of a guardian or legal representative *** or in other action authorized under State law which is deemed necessary to protect the interest of such child; and any such action taken by the State agency pursuant to such State law, other than denial of such payments with respect to such child while in the home of such relative, shall not serve as a basis for withholding funds from such State *** and shall not prevent such payments with respect to such child from being considered aid to families with dependent children." This portion of section 107(a) creates concern, and much misgiving, with the broad authority granted States, permitting them to not work with the problem through the method of a third party "protective payment" or "legal guardian" but permits "other action authorized under State law which is deemed necessary to protect the interest of such child" short of actually denying assistance. Further, section 107(a) would produce practices that could serve to destroy self-respect without guaranteeing that cash payment would reach the child (or children) involved. It would give States an opportunity to exercise punitive measures against relief clients, particularly minority group members, who are incapable of defending themselves. In the instance of voucher payments, local welfare offices could be subjected to many pressures from vendors, landlords, and others. Moreover, it does not guarantee that payments will be made for benefits of the child since past experience has shown that merchandise can be traded for many things. Section 108 of H.R. 10606 represents the sounder approach to the granting of assistance in the form of "money payment" to the responsible relative. Under this provision, for so-called "protective payments," the money might be paid to a third party "who is interested in or concerned with the welfare of such child and relative" providing a number of conditions were met, i.e.: (1) An individual determination in each case reviewed and approved at the State level, (2) full payment of budgetary need, (3) special work with the mother or other relative to help her achieve better management, (4) periodic review, and (5) an appeal procedure. Under the original proposal of the administration, this authority would have been limited to one-half of 1 percent of the caseload. This limitation was raised by the House to 5 percent.1 The Urban League suggests the elimination of section 107(a) based upon the permissiveness it may provide for more experiences such as the Newburgh incident; the Louisiana ADC case; and now the Birmingham, Ala., situation, where Negroes are denied surplus commodities because of their search for equal opportunity. The dangers inherent in this section stem not from the good intent of the legislators who seek to improve the welfare of all citizens, but is found in the hands of the few who would inflict punishment upon the helpless. Therefore, we urge that the Senate Finance Committee, and those officers empowered to do so, strike from H.R. 10606, section 107(a). It serves only to weaken the bill. Instead, section 108 should be utilized to continue as a measure for safeguarding individual rights and provide for ways of meeting special situations in the matter of protective payments. The strength of section 108 may be found in its approach "to helping the recipient achieve as soon as possible the capacity for adequate management of funds.” Senator LONG. That concludes the public hearing on H.R. 10606, and the committee will stand in adjournment subject to the call of the Chair. (By direction of the chairman, the following is made a part of the record :) Hon. HARRY F. BYRD, Chairman, Senate Finance Committee, THE WOMEN'S CIVIC LEAGUE, INC., DEAR SIR: The Women's Civic League is deeply concerned about the unnecessary pyramiding of welfare programs and strongly urges you and your committee to do all in your power to stem the rising tide. Mr. Ribicoff has confirmed the fact that the present welfare program is not doing the job it was set up to do and has proposed many changes in the program which are supposed to get people off the public assistance and back to useful, productive roles in society. All of these changes will require both additional services and large expenditures of money. However, none of the changes recommended can be effective unless the administration is willing to revise the basic social security premise, which states that the needy person has a "right" to this money; that he may spend it without any restrictions; that he need assume no responsibility. To spend $193 million more without revising these basic tenets of welfarism is unrealistic. The prgoram will simply become more inefficient in more directions. Before granting any increase in welfare funds, we earnestly suggest a complete overhaul of the existing program and of the procedure's requiring mountains of "paperwork" which consumes most of the social worker's time. Yours truly, Mrs. FRANK Z. OLES, 1 Statement made by Elizabeth Wickenden, technical consultant on public social policy for the assembly, at the request of its committee on social issues and policles in further explanation of the issues involved in the provisions of the bill for protective payments and other measures to "prevent abuses in aid to dependent children payments." PACIFIC OAKS, Hon. HARRY FLOOD BYRD, Chairman, Senate Finance Committee, Pasadena, Calif., March 7, 1962. DEAR SENATOR BYRD: May we recommend your favorable consideration of the principle of Federal aid to day care for children who for one reason or another must be cared for outside their own homes? There is precedent for Federal concern for young children in the Lanham Act which established day care centers to enable women to work in defense industries during World War II. At the close of World War II everyone expected women to "go home" but they didn't. Reasons for this appear to be multiple changes in family values have occurred, there is need for womanpower in the labor forces-whatever the reasons, in our democratic society, a woman's free choice about how she will deal with her life is valued. Government reports on women in the labor force indicate clearly that a large number of mothers of children under six are now employed. What happens to their children is not as clear. A very small segment are in group day care programs and licensed foster home day care. Still others are left with relatives and some are "latch-key" children who are left on their own in mother's absence. The social sciences have made abundantly clear that what happens to young children is of great significance not only to the development of individuals but also to the future of society. From the ever-growing knowledge about the range of circumstances which promote healthy early development, we know that a young child absorbs his attitudes and values from relationships to people who are important to him. Providing a young child with the care of a person who is appropriately qualified in personality and preparation is often beyond the buying power of working women. Federal assistance to extend the availability of quality programs would be money well spent in the public interest-helping to conserve our most precious resources, our children. Should you wish further information about day care or how quality can be assured in an expanded program, I should be pleased to send it to you. Sincerely, Hon. LISTER HILL, EVANGELINE BURGESS, Director. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, Chairman, Labor and Public Welfare Committee, MY DEAR SENATOR: As a judge of the Superior Court of California, I sit on all types of cases and matters, including juvenile, domestic relations, reciprocal support. I have been interested in the field of support for children in all of its aspects. It must be confessed that I do not agree with the Federal policy and law which has created and is maintaining a festering sore in the field of so-called dependent children. The Federal policy and law has created a segment of our civilization which is steeped in immorality, having conduct inconsistent with the rules of decent society and which segment is purely parasitical. Under the guise of helping so-called needy children the law and policy is encouraging men and women to create a population of persons who give nothing to society and are a drag upon it. However this may be, I do not believe section 152, page 67 of H.R. 10032 should remain in its present form. I submit that Congressman John Baldwin's amendment to that section should be enacted into law. Obviously the welfare departments of the State are not properly constituted to take care of the work thrust upon them. In our daily operations at grass root level we find it is the probation departments which do the work and are constituted to do it. Respectfully, HILTON H. MCCABE, Judge of the Superior Court. NATIONAL TUBERCULOSIS ASSOCIATION, Hon. HARRY FLOOD BYRD, Chairman, Senate Finance Committee, DEAR SENATOR BYRD: We have followed with great interest the introduction of comprehensive welfare legislation in the current Congress. It is our opinion that the elimination by the House Ways and Means Committee of the section dealing with reduction of residence requirements is most unfortunate. Legal requirements designed to withhold medical treatment in public institutions from nonresidents of a community or State have long served as a deterrent to tuberculosis control. In many areas of the country nonresidents have been prevented from receiving treatment at the time most crucial for their recovery. The wastefulness of such a practice was pointed out in the resolution of the board of directors of the National Tuberculosis Association on January 21, 1961. However, adequate treatment of a chronic, contagious disease is not merely a matter of medical attention. In addition to the shortsightedness of denying treatment until disease is advanced, policies of withholding welfare benefits have often retarded recovery of the sick. It has been the experience of many tuberculosis associations that even when tuberculosis patents are eligible for hospitalization they often refuse treatment because their families are left without means of support and are ineligible for welfare assistance. Nonresidents in many communities are forced to seek support from private agencies which are ill-equipped to offer adequate or constructive help. In the end, such neglect contributes to development of chronic invalidism and dependency, and in the case of tuberculosis, strikes at the basic aim of control, which is to break the chain of infection. From an economic viewpoint the philosophy of residence requirements is in disagreement with the tradition of freedom of movement which has been of such importance in our industrial development. Throughout the literature, an association between tuberculosis and poverty has been demonstrated. In spite of great progress, tuberculosis remains the most costly communicable disease problem in the United States. In 1960, over 55,000 new active cases were reported. If eradication of this disease is ever to be achieved in this country, its control and treatment cannot be hampered by restrictions which in many areas have been unrealistic in their aim and costly failures when the final accounting is done. We hope that your committee will not accept the omission from the legislation of that section which reduces maximum length of residence to 1 year for all welfare categories. Sincerely yours, JAMES E. PERKINS, M.D., Managing Director. Hon. HARRY FLOOD BYRD, Chairman, Senate Finance Committee, SAN DIEGO, CALIF., March 13, 1962. DEAR SIR: We in San Diego are deeply concerned over section 152 of H.R. 10032, the bill now before Congress, regarding dependent children who have been removed from their homes by order of the juvenile court and placed under the supervision of the probation officer. We sincerely urge that you support the amendments introduced by Congressman Utt and Congressman Baldwin. These amendments would maintain the power of the court to act freely without Federal control, and would allow aid for these children. This would most assuredly ease the tax burden of the taxpayers of San Diego. Respectfully yours, Mrs. LEE CABELL JOHNSON. |