however, the principle of direct money payments to the vast majority of families in need. 5. Work training programs should be inaugurated for those recipients of public welfare where such programs will not be detrimental to the proper care and development of children and where such work training programs, in fact, provide for development of a skill which will serve as an aid to future gainful employment. 6. A substantial increase in child welfare services funds is warranted in keeping with the expanding child population of the Nation including consideration of day care services. 7. Extension of the present temporary provision of the Social Security Act which permits aid to dependent children and payments to families of unemployed parents. We believe this will act as a deterrent to desertion of the unemployed father as a condition for making children eligible for assistance. S. Provision should be made for the needs of the second parent in assistance grants when such second parent is in the home, to avoid undue economic hardship on the part of dependent children. 9. That we reiterate our longstanding American Legion position that assistance to children be based on the studied needs of the family situation and not on an arbitrarily fixed family ceiling; and, be it further Resolved, That we recommend a family centered approach in the aid to dependent children program which is in keeping with our American Legion child welfare tradition of strengthening the home and improving family life. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS, SANTA CLARA CHAPTER, May 15, 1962. Hon. HARRY F. BYRD, Chairman, Senate Finance Committee, DEAR SENATOR: In accordance with your letters of April 14 and May 10, we are pleased to send you a statement for inclusion in the records of the Finance Committee hearings on H.R. 10606. The Santa Clara chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, whose 220 members are very much concerned about the recent attacks made on social welfare, and particularly the aid to dependent children program, are most happy to support the efforts of Congress to prevent or reduce dependency. H.R. 10606 contains, in our opinion, many excellent provisions which will help California, as well as the other States, do a better job. We commend the increased Federal matching for service costs, the extension for 5 years of assistance to needy children of unemployed parents, the inclusion of both parents in the ADC grant, the increased authorization for child welfare services, and the incentive for employment, particularly allowing the older children in these families to keep their earnings for educational purposes. In our opinion, the establishment of a program for day care services is one of the most constructive features of the proposed legislation as it will result in the rehabilitation of many mothers, keep families together and in many cases prevent juvenile delinquency. Although the number of children who could be cared for through Federal funds is relatively small, these funds would stimulate the States to develop day care services. California is ahead of most States, in that it supports through State and county funds, a widespread day care program. However, because of rapidly growing child population there are not enough facilities at present to care for all the children whose mothers go to work. Santa Clara County is doing a fine job in the licensing of foster day care facilities and day nurseries, but more still needs to be done. We believe that all adults including most mothers with small children should be given an opportunity for employment or training for employment when this is necessary. Work is therapeutic for adults and also helps children grow up in a normal atmosphere instead of making them as different from other children in homes where the families are self-supporting. The Santa Clara County Welfare Department is service oriented but because of insufficient funds for staffing it is difficult to do as thorough a job as is sometimes necessary. More Federal funds as proposed in this bill would release more money for additional staff. We realize that for some very small groups of families receiving public funds, grants in kind with proper controls are temporarily essential at some point as part of a long-term plan to help the family with money problems. In general, however, we believe that people can better be educated to spend money wisely by having it to spend, rather than by the use of grocery orders and other payments in kind, which do not provide the experience for learning. In addition such practice encourages dependency, thereby negating the stated purpose of H.R. 10606. We recommend the omission of section 107A of the bill which amends section 405 of the Social Security Act by adding "Use of payment for benefit of child." We do not believe that proper controls exist in this section. We approve giving the States the option of combining the adult titles because our ultimate goal is a comprehensive noncategorical social welfare program with need the only requirement. We disapprove the discriminatory treatment in the ADC category and should like to see the Federal maximum raised. Although we appreciate the fact that this bill makes improvements by including both parents in the grant and continuing ADC to unemployed parents, it is still difficult for us to assume that it takes less than one-half to support a mother caring for a dependent child than it takes to support one aged blind or disabled adult. We should like to see the Federal maximum in ADC raised. For future consideration we wish to go on record in favor of eliminating that ancient relic of Elizabethan poor law-the residence requirement. It is our belief that a mobile working population is in the public good and that workers tend to follow employment opportunities. In the agricultural economy of Santa Clara County migratory labor serves a valuable need; yet these workers and their children are gravely penalized by this requirement. We supported the original administration proposal which recommended the limitation of residence requirement for all categories to 1 year and promised incentives to States abolishing such laws. Our association believes that public welfare services should be available to Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands, and that they should participate under the same policies and financial provisions as do the 50 States. Testimony before the Ways and Means Committee from responsible persons in Puerto Rico revealed that although this Commonwealth is making strong efforts to improve the condition of the needy, their public assistance grants are unrealistically low, thereby causing much suffering. We are most appreciative of the fact that Congress is considering amendments to the public assistance and child welfare titles of the Social Security Act. It is important that the programs be changed to meet changing conditions. Because of the concern of Congress we have made much progress in the 27 years since the enactment of the Social Security Act. We are very grateful for this opportunity to state our views on some of the provisions of this important proposed legislation. Respectfully submitted. LEAH HEROLD LACHENBRUCH, Chairman, Social Policy Committee. THE WISCONSIN OPTOMETRIC ASSOCIATION, INC., Senator ALEXANDER WILEY, DEAR SENATOR WILEY: I am writing to you in reference to the bill, H.R. 10606, which is now in the Senate, pending before the Finance Committee. This bill, as you know, was originally H.R. 10032, title No. 16, the Public Welfare Amendment of 1962. There are those who would like to amend this law to delete optometry and its services from the law, and restrict the public from having its free choice of practitioner for visual care. An amendment of this nature would be discriminatory, to say the very least, if not outright undemocratic. It is for this reason that I write to you to do your utmost to see such action, if instituted, be defeated. Optometrists of today must meet the highest of educational standards to gain entrance to our several colleges of optometry. Once in school they must spend a minimum of 5 years studying the eye and its appendages, both in the normal state as well as the pathological. Upon graduation and receipt of their doctor's degree they must pass both a written as well as a practical test given in each State to prove their proficiency in the eye care field. These tests again include the recognition of all pathological conditions affecting the eye and its appendages. Optometry is the only profession caring for the public's vision which must undergo this testing to gain a license to practice. This is true in every State in the Union. I would like to, on behalf of the Wisconsin Optometric Association, commend you for the splendid job you are doing in Washington, and thank you for the consideration that you have given to our requests in the past. Very sincerely, EARL E. WILSON, O.D., National Affairs Chairman, COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, Subject: H.R. 10606. Hon. HARRY F. BYRD, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR BYRD: Relative to the hearing of the Finance Committee on Public Welfare Amendments of 1962, I wish to express my concern that certain proposals within these amendments may compel the States to organize their public welfare services in accordance with the desires of the Federal authorities and without regard to the differing traditions and needs of individual States. Specifically, it is important that the use of aid to dependent children funds for payment for the care of children in foster homes not require that such homes be supervised by or such placements made by the agency also responsible for the administration or supervision of the ADC program. Here in Kentucky, as in the case of Illinois, we have a separate State department child welfare which is responsible for the licensing of foster homes and the placement and supervision of children in them. Unless the Federal law permits the State department of child welfare to carry out the functions and contracts with the State public welfare agency, then either the department of child welfare must become a part of the public assistance agency or both Kentucky and Illinois must create duplicate foster care programs regardless of the waste resulting therefrom. I strongly endorse the principles embraced in this entire piece of legislation and hope that Congress will appropriate the full sum authorized for the provision of child welfare services. On the basis of both Federal and State services, however, I do not believe the efficient administration of public welfare services requires that they be administered for or within a single department regardless of the desires, wishes, or needs of the individual 50 States. I shall greatly appreciate any assistance that you can give in assuring a sound legislative basis for the development of child welfare services. Sincerely, RICHARD J. CLENDENEN, Commissioner. STATEMENT OF IRVIN P. SCHLOSS, LEGISLATIVE ANALYST, AMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR THE BLIND Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity to present the views of the American Foundation for the Blind on certain provisions of H.R. 10606, the Public Welfare Amendments of 1962. The American Foundation for the Blind is the national voluntary research and consultant agency in the field of services to blind persons. As such, we are specifically concerned about the needs of the nearly 400,000 blind persons in the United States, more than one-third of whom are on the public assistance rolls as recipients of aid to the blind or old-age assistance payments. Generally speaking, the adult public assistance programs as administered in most of the States have been essentially static in character and limited to financial aid at a bare subsistence level and minimum medical care to people unable to support themselves owing to advanced age, severe disability, or both. As is the case with any illness, the best cure lies in its prevention; and this maxim holds equally true for the debilitating social illness in our society called chronic dependency. Fortunately, we already have the preventive mechanism through our social insurance programs. Through their continuing expansion and improvement to provide more adequate benefits for all types of beneficiaries, including health care for the aged, we have the means of preventing in the future the problem of chronic dependency which besets a substantial number of public assistance recipients today. Other means of prevention of dependency not attainable through the social insurance programs are provided in H.R. 10606. Consequently, we welcome this effort to ameliorate the condition of those already on the public assistance rolls. It appears to us that H.R. 10606 has this as its purpose through infusing into these static programs a rehabilitation emphasis designed to promote self-care and self-support and, hopefully, movement off the relief rolls. The bill provides for increased Federal financing to achieve this purpose, and it also provides for the vital ingredient of well-trained personnel at the operating workerto-client level in the States. These are desirable and commendable provisions. We would particularly urge the committee to preserve and strengthen several of the provisions which appear in H.R. 10606 as the result of action by the House Committee on Ways and Means on H.R. 10032, the original public welfare bill it considered. First, we strongly recommend that the provisions requiring utilization of the State vocational rehabilitation agency by the State public welfare agency for clients needing vocational rehabilitation services be preserved as written in H.R. 10606. This will avoid duplication of staff and services largely supported by Federal funds and at the same time assure adequacy of services to the individuals needing them. Similarly, we strongly endorse the new title XVI of the Social Security Act as it is proposed in H.R. 10606. This would allow the States to combine the adult public assistance categories and medical assistance for the aged under a single State plan while still permitting the specialized State agencies for the blind in Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Virginia to continue administering that part of the State plan relating to the blind, with all of the advantages of a single State plan accruing to both the State agency for the blind and the general welfare agency in these five States. However, we would like respectfully to suggest that, in its explanation of the provision in the report accompanying the bill, the committee clearly point out that the additional Federal matching for both medical care for the aged and the financial advantages of averaging will be available to the specialized and the general agency in these 5 States as they would be in the other 45 States if they elected the optional title XVI plan for administering public assistance. The American Foundation for the Blind would like to emphasize that it is our firm conviction that retention of section 141 of H.R. 10606 providing for the optional title XVI of the Social Security Act is advantageous to blind persons— not detrimental to their best interests. By electing the title XVI approach, a State would assure its aid-to-the-blind recipients over 65 years of age the bulk of the present title X caseload-the advantage of additional Federal funds for medical care not available to them otherwise. Streamlining the method by which a State receives its share of Federal funds for public assistance payments in no way alters the quality of social services provided to blind aid recipients. Therefore, we strongly urge the Committee on Finance to retain section 141 of H.R. 10606 in its present form. In addition to endorsing the two above-mentioned provisions of H.R. 10606, we should like to recommend changes which, we believe, will strengthen the bill. First, we would suggest that the increase in the Federal participation formula for aid payments in the adult public assistance programs be specifically conditioned upon agreement by the States to pass the higher payments on to individual aid recipients. The intent of the House of Representatives in voting this increase was that it be passed on to individual aid recipients. Second, we would recommend that the committee restore to H.R. 10606 the wording of H.R. 10032 concerning reduced residence requirements in the States. Reducing the maximum residence requirement a State could impose to 1 year. coupled with incentive payments to States, which abolish residence requirements altogether, would be more in keeping with the rehabilitation emphasis of this legislation. Certainly, serious consideration should be given to prohibiting any residence requirement for that portion of an individual's aid payment which is clearly the Federal share. Third, we would recommend the establishment of a program for training social workers who go into the public welfare program through federally supported scholarships and fellowships administered through institutions of higher learning. Properly qualified personnel is the sine qua non of a public welfare program designed to help people to help themselves, so that as many as possible will leave the public assistance rolls and become contributing citizens. Similiar federally supported training programs in other fields have worked well, and we could anticipate the same excellent results in this neglected area. Fourth, we would like to recommend that the authorization for maternal and child health services and crippled children's services be increased on the same basis as the authorization for child welfare services is increased in H.R. 10606. The American Foundation for the Blind has learned of instances from several States where funds had to be raised from private sources to pay for needed eye surgery for visually handicapped children because the State agency administering crippled children's services had no funds available for this purpose. We believe that increased funds, coupled with an intensive education program by the Children's Bureau, would result in improved services to blind and visually handicapped children in terms of restorative eye surgery and provision of special optical aids. Fifth, we would urge the committee to include in H.R. 10606 the provisions of S. 2273, which would authorize research projects in maternal and child health services and crippled children's services. This bill, which was jointly sponsored by Senators Robert Kerr and Lister Hill, complements legislation to establish a National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, thereby fulfilling a vital need in the Children's Bureau program. In conclusion, I should like to state that the American Foundation for the Blind regards H.R. 10606 as generally forward-looking legislation which, with the specific changes we have recommended, should have a considerable impact on public welfare programs in the years ahead. Hon. HARRY F. BYRD, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES, Chairman, Senate Committee on Finance, Washington, D.C., May 18, 1962. DEAR SENATOR BYRD: The Chamber of Commerce of the United States recommends approval of certain provisions in the Public Welfare Amendments of 1962 (H.R. 10606) under consideration by your committee. The National Chamber endorses the proposal to permit Federal grants under the aid to dependent children program in cases where payments are made under work programs and also for retraining (sec. 105(a)). This appears to us as the most important constructive proposal in the bill and should prove very helpful to many adults receiving ADC payments to achieve self-supporting work. The chamber supports the proposed amendment to give to each State greater authority in preventing abuses in the aid to dependent children payments. This includes "protective payments" to assure that the interests of the child are safeguarded (sec. 108), and that such child will not be in want. The chamber also endorses the proposal to make permanent the temporary provision allowing payments to be made to ADC children who are removed by court order from the home and placed in a foster home. Section 101 (a) amends certain provisions of titles I, IV, X, and XIV, with respect to furnishing certain minimum services designed to help assistance recipients to attain self-care, self-help, and to strengthen family life. The chamber agrees that the objectives are most desirable and their implementation and achievement should be encouraged. However, we are opposed to making the furnishing of such services mandatory on each of the States, and also to increasing the Federal sharing in the cost of such services from the present 50 percent Federal matching to 75 percent (sec. 101(b)). |