Senator MAURINE NEUBERGER, THE BOYS & GIRLS AID SOCIETY OF OREGON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MAURINE: As you would know, we are all very much interested in H.R. 10606, which is currently under consideration by the Senate Finance Committee. The House Ways and Means Committee made some major changes in the bill as originally introduced and we are hoping that some of the original provisions might be restored by the Senate. 1. They omitted the provision for the training of social work personnel through contracts with schools. The national shortage of professional qualified people in child welfare is marketly retarding the ability of community services to provide adequate care for children. I certainly hope that the Senate will be able to include in the bill some provision of Federal scholarships for social work personnel. 2. They omitted the authority for service to be purchased from nonprofit private agencies. Such arrangements can be highly beneficial to both public and private agencies through the full utilization of existing services. 3. They added a new provision entitled "Use of Payments for Benefit of Child." This appears to be undesirable as it opens up the possibility of the extensive use of vouchers, which have not worked well in the past, and it also appears to permit States to deny assistance for a parent while continuing it for a child. In effect, this would merely reduce the income for all members of the family as they would all have to live on what they received. 4. They increased the matching formula for OAA, AB, and APTD. There were no increases in the matching funds for programs affecting children. This would still further increase the discrepancy between the two groups, although our maximum need as we look to the future is the protection of our children. I know how interested you are in all matters concerning social welfare and hope that you will be able to help make improvements in this bill. Cordially, STUART R. STIMMEL, State Director. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ON SERVICE TO UNMARRIED PARENTS, Hon. HARRY FLOOD BYRD, Chairman, Committee, on Finance, April 16, 1962. DEAR SENATOR BYRD: The National Association on Service to Unmarried Parents is following with interest and concern the proposals for amendments affecting public welfare, contined in H.R. 10606. This association has on its national committee representatives of 7 national agencies in the welfare field, and has a membership of some 250 local or statewide committees and agencies, voluntary and public, and both welfare and health, together with 150 interested individuals. We We are glad to see that many of the proposals of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare have been passed by the House of Representatives. are sure that these, if enacted into law, will facilitate constructive services. are, however, concerned about some points, and hope that the Senate will give thought to them. They are: Residence laws.-With mobility of people very closely related to developments in industry, agriculture, and other fields, restrictions on meeting emergency needs impose hardships on people, and an unreasonable burden on voluntary agencies. It was a disappointment that the recommendation for change, including a financial incentive to the States to eliminate residence as a factor in eligibility, was not passed by the House of Representatives. We hope that the Senate will give thoughtful consideration to this. Protective payments.-We recognize that there are a few families and individuals for whom an unrestricted cash payment is not practical or wise; but we think that the proposals (as now contained in sec. 108 of H.R. 10606) gave sufficient authority to deal with these unusual needs. The amendment passed by the House of Representatives fails to safeguard human rights and dignity in line with the original intent of the Social Security Act. Aid to dependent children.-We recognize real progress in the provisions to permit the use of ADC funds for eligible children who are placed in foster homes or institutions, when that is for the best interest of the child. We note a proposal to amend this provision to permit assignment of funds to juvenile courts for such use. We believe that responsibility for the program should be a responsibility of the child welfare services, because of their experience and the skills that they have developed for this program. We know that there are occasional instances in which continued supervision by a juvenile court is indicated, but in these cases cooperation between the two agencies is not only possible, but is presently in effect. Matching funds.-There is great disparity in matching funds between those designated for the aged, blind, and disabled, and those for families with needy children. We hope that there will be thoughtful attention to the needs of children and youth, and to the importance of constructive, forward-looking services for them. Provisions for training in social work.-The shortages of social work personnel are staggering, and it is clear that welfare programs, to give present help to people and provide constructive influences in looking to the future, need staff with skills that come out of good training. It is important that plans be made to recruit and train more social workers. We urge the importance of stipends to individuals for study, and also grants to schools of social work and other institutions of learning. Very sincerely yours, EDITH F. BALMFORD, WASHINGTON, D.C., April 16, 1962. SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE, Washington, D.C. GENTLEMEN: In your consideration of H.R. 10606 I hope that you will give consideration to the following very minor technical amendments which I am calling to your attention: In new section 409 (a) (4), page 35, line 8, after the words "performing work" insert "or taking an approved course of training designed to facilitate return to regular employment." The reason for this suggested amendment is that I think that in the case of a relative taking such a course the same arrangement should be made for the care and protection of the child during absence from home while taking such a course as the present provision gives to a relative who is "performing work." In new section 106 (a) (1), page 36, line 20, after the words "any such income" insert "while taking an approved training course designed to facilitate return to regular employment." The reason for this amendment is that I believe that the expenses incident to taking a training course, such as carfare, any needed supplies in connection with the course, and so on, should be considered in determining need, as well as the expense attributable to participating in a work relief program. Both these minor amendments, I believe, will make it more possible for families receiving aid to dependent children to participate more readily in training courses designed to facilitate return to regular employment. Very truly yours, OLGA S. HALSEY. GEORGIA FEDERATION OF THE BLIND, INC.. Hon. HARRY F. BYRD, U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, DEAR SENATOR: The Georgia Federation of the Blind, a statewide organization dedicated to the advancement of the social and economic status of blind persons and other physically handicapped through employment opportunity and improved services, so as to reduce dependency, strongly favors H.R. 10606 and earnestly urges your favorable consideration. Cordially yours, WALTER R. McDONALD, President. RESOLUTION OF GEORGIA FEDERATION OF THE BLIND Be it resolved by the Board of Directors of the Georgia Federation of the Blind this 14th day of April 1962, at Atlanta, Ga., That the Senators and Representatives from the State of Georgia to the U.S. Congress are urged to support the provisions of H.R. 10606 or the modifications of that bill as hereinafter set forth, and further that a copy of this resolution be sent to the members of the Senate Committee on Finance with the urgent request that said bill be favorably reported to the Senate. 1. We heartily endorse the aim set forth in section 101 and elsewhere of improving services so as to prevent or reduce dependency through the increased assistance payments and otherwise. 2. We believe that the provisions relating to aid to needy families with children in sections 102, 109, 131, 134, 135 represent considerable progress in this field, and we endorse this improved program. 3. There is in the country as a whole and especially in the State of Georgia a scarcity of properly trained social workers. Such a program as is contemplated in this bill cannot be effectively carried out without an adequate supply of such trained workers. We, therefore, endorse the provisions of part B of this bill (section 123 to encourage and assist with the training of such personnel). 4. We strongly urge the enactment of section 136 1602 (b) of this bill which will permit the permanent coexistence in the States of Missouri and Pennsylvania of the State-financed plan for aid to the blind and State-Federal program. The experience of 12 years has shown that this so-called “dual program" has resulted in an excellent record of increased self-sufficiency on the part of recipients. 5. We feel that any citizen of the United States should be free to move from one State to another for reasons of health, economics, or family convenience and that he should not be unduly penalized because of such change of residence. We, therefore, feel that the amendment to section 1602 (b) inserted by the Ways and Means Committee should be stricken out or that provisions be made so that no residence requirement would be made for eligibility for assistance which is in excess of the time required for the establishment of legal residence for the purpose of voting in the State concerned. 6. We would approve the inclusion of medical aid for blind or disabled persons as provided in the new title XVI. We feel, however, that a more reasonable means test should be provided than that which now seems to be in use under the medical care provisions of title I. 7. In order to encourage and assist disabled persons to attain or retain selfsupport, we would favor the extension of the exempt earnings provision which now applied to blind persons under title X to disabled recipients under the provisions of title XIV. Adopted April 14, 1962. Attest: WALTER R. McDONALD, President. JOHN R. PRICE, Secretary. PENNSYLVANIA ACADEMY OF OPHTHALMOLOGY & OTOLARYNGOLOGY, Hon. HARRY F. BYRD, Chairman, Senate Finance Committee, DEAR SENATOR BYRD: We would like to enter our protests to a provision in bill H.R. 10606 entitled Public Welfare Amendments for 1962. Under section 1602, part “(12) provide that, in determining whether an individual is blind, there shall be an examination by a physician skilled in the diseases of the eye or by an optometrist, whichever the individual may select." This statement equating the optometrist with an eye physician in the determination of blindness is false, misleading, and not in the best interest for the health and welfare of the general public. In the determination of blindness, as to its causes and its manifestations, there is a need for a thorough medical examination and a critical evaluation of the findings by an eye physician. Blindness determined by optometrists with their lack of medical training can only be a limited an insufficient appraisal of the true condition. This lack of medical training could unwittingly prolong a remedial condition or give a hope less prognosis in cases of blindness which could be cured by medical or surgical therapy. We would appreciate your help in eliminating the misleading provision, “or by an optometrist, whichever the individual may select," when the welfare bill comes up for consideration. Yours truly, GEORGE E. MARTZ, M.D. Hon. HARRY FLOOD BYRD, CHILD WELFare Board OF SUMMIT COUNTY, Chairman, Committee on Finance, DEAR SENATOR BYRD: We wish to call your attention to H.R. 10606 (Public Welfare Amendments of 1962). As a local public tax supported agency serving dependent and neglected children we are intensely interested in this bill. We feel it has much merit and will go a long way in solving some of the extremely pressing problems of child welfare which exist in America today. Our experience shows that American families are becoming more mobile with each passing year. Our economy demands a fluid labor force and migration of families seems to be indicated in light of the present-day economy. Yet when adversity strikes these families we fall back on our outmoded residence requirements. We question the value of restrictive residence requirements. We would urge, however, that if residence requirements are necessary that they not be for more than 1 year, otherwise they would impose undue hardship. This agency has been participating in a program for training social work personnel through Federal child welfare service funds. We can speak very highly for this program as it has resulted in upgrading the quality of services offered by this agency and has resulted in a far more efficient use of our tax dollar. We would defend this program and would point out that there has been a flow of trained personnel from the schools of social work to the public agencies and from thence to the voluntary agencies. If we are going to do some preventive work and not just pick up the victims of society's disorganization, this training program must be continued. We view with concern increasing the limit of voucher payments to relief by 5 percent. We consider this to be an excessive increase and inadvisable as it does not work to the best interests of families on relief and, in return, to society. It would appear that voucher payments or so-called protective payment should not be more than one-half percent. The provisions of the bill entitled "Use of payments for benefit of the child" appears to be a most dangerous provision and must be carefully studied before the final version of the bill is approved. If assistance is denied to a parent while continued assistance be given to a child under care by that parent, results would be most undesirable. The obvious result would be that of reducing the amount of assistance a child would have as the parent would in many cases be forced to sustain himself from the allowance provided the child. Consideration should be given as to how services could be provided for the protection of children when complaints are made by police, churches, social agencies, neighbors, or relatives. Oftentimes a child is being abused by the parent who himself does not recognize what he is doing and whose child needs some form of protection. If provision is not made for action on the part of an agency, as a result of a complaint of a third party, then protective services as such, cease to exist. This agency views with dismay the proposal that the matching formula for old age assistance, aid for the blind, and aid for the partially or totally disabled, should have preferential treatment over assistance to children. The discrep ancy which has been reflected too long in inadequate grants for children should not be increased. We do not oppose more generous support for the needy, aged, and handicapped, but the gross injustices of widening further this discrepancy in face of the fact that children actually require more food, clothing, etc., than do these handicapped, does not justify such an action. We in America deplore our increases in juvenile delinquency, we testify to our great concern for the welfare of our coming generations and then we neglect the most disadvantaged of all because they are children. Your consideration of the points we have discussed above will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Hon. MAURINE B. NEUBERGER, VICTOR H. ANDERSEN, Executive Director. STATE OF OREGON, STATE PUBLIC WELFARE COMMISSION, Salem, Oreg., April 18, 1962. U.S. Senator, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR NEUBERGER: The State public welfare commission at a recent meeting requested that I call to your attention a serious omission in present Federal public welfare provisions and in pending welfare legislation (H.R. 10606). We refer to the fact that Federal requirements for the aid to dependent children program permit no special consideration of earnings of children as distinguished from the consideration of other income a child might have, such as old-age and survivors insurance benefits, Indian benefits or veterans benefits The members of the Oregon State Public Welfare Commission feel strongly that in order to develop sound work habits and ambition in ADC children, a share of their own earnings must be disregarded in determining the families' need. The amount disregarded should be in proportion to the amount of their earnings and should be available to the children to meet expenses not covered by the assistance payment. The Federal requirements for the aid to dependent children program currently allow States to give special consideration to the income of children if they have special needs either current or anticipated that cannot be met through the assistance payment. These could be such things as medical care costs, participation in school band or orchestra, Boy Scout, or 4-H activities or even future college or vocational training. States are only permitted such policy provision, however, if they allow any income of the child to have equal consideration, whether it is earnings or benefits payable from treatment as an incentive to the child. We believe a reasonable share of them should be disregarded completely in determining need for public assistance. Oregon law for some years has contained a provision that the first $10 per month earned by such a child and one-third of all additional earnings were to be disregarded in determining need for ADC whenever the Federal regulations permitted. If the Federal requirements were changed, Oregon would be able to take advantage of the change. Any efforts you can make to secure such revision in the Social Security Act will have our enthusiastic support. If our opinion should be expressed to members of the congressional committee involved, we will appreciate your advice. Respectfully yours, Hon. DENNIS CHAVEZ, ANDREW F. JURAS, Administrator. NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CHAVEZ: I very much appreciate your reply relative to the letter which I sent you expressing certain comments on the appropriations for radiological health, hospital construction, and tuberculosis. The executive committee of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officers has supported an amendment to the Social Security Act to increase the authorization for maternal and child health grants as well as those of crippled children to the various States. The bill is H.R. 10606. While the State of New Mexico has been generally considered on the basis of minimal grants, perhaps this bill will help satisfy our State's need in these two areas. I would very much appreciate your scrutinizing its content with our own State in mind. Our maternal and child health program is supported entirely by Federal funds which are inadequate for the establishment of prenatal and well |