The temporary provision enacted last year under recession conditions which increased the Federal financial participation and also the maximum of such participation should be allowed to expire on June 30, 1962. Only 15 States took advantage of this and many families were merely transferred from general assistance to aid to dependent children. In many States, such families are taken care of through this State and local program. The increases in the Federal grants under titles I, X, and XIV (old-age assistance, aid to the blind, and aid to the permanently and totally disabled), proposed by section 132 of the bill, are not justified. There has been no significant change in the cost of living since the last previous increase in Federal sharing and the national chamber recommends such increases be disapproved. Finally, the chamber urges the committee to reject the proposal in section 141 which would provide additional Federal grants to those States combining their plans for the aged, blind, and disabled. A trend is apparently developing of progressively relieving States of the responsibility in meeting the financial nees of people under the four grant-in-aid public assistance programs. This trend should be reversed and, wherever possible, greater flexibility and authority be extended to the States so they may better adjust each of the programs to meet changing needs in their States. I would appreciate your making this letter a part of the record of your current hearings on H.R. 10606. Sincerely yours, THERON J. RICE, Legislative Action General Manager. STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION WITH REGARD TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE AMENDMENTS OF 1962 The 1,600,000 member organization of Farm Bureau has always taken a vital interest in the public welfare programs which have been operated both by the States and the Federal Government. Because of this and our continued interest, we would like to comment briefly on the bill which is before this committee, H.R. 10606. We support the objectives of this legislation "to improve, redirect, and tighten up Federal-State cooperative public welfare programs." At the December annual meeting, the elected voting delegates of the member State Farm Bureaus adopted the following policy: "We recommend that State Farm Bureaus request State legislatures to provide for publication of welfare rolls. We also urge more local and State control of welfare programs. "Efforts to take care of our needy people often lead to abuse by some individuals. Aid to children from broken homes has encouraged modes of living which are a discredit to any society. Unrealistic welfare programs tend to perpetuate generation after generation of families on relief. Efforts of local administrators to correct such abuses are often hampered by Federal welfare programs. We support changes in Federal law and regulations which would bring about such corrections." In line with this policy, we recognize that there is much value in H.R. 10606 as it was approved by the House. However, there are still some parts of the bill to which we are opposed. This bill, in its broad application, moves in the right direction in that it gives the individual States more authority and greater flexibility in the control of their own welfare programs. It allows the States to initiate some new programs and to use some discretion in the application of the Federal-State program to reduce the abuses in the social security program without losing the Federal share of the financing. Under the present law, the States have tried to institute programs which would reduce the welfare load and exclude the "freeloader." The Federal Government has indicated that such actions by the States in many cases would be in noncompliance with the Federal regulations and that if such action were carried out, the Federal matching funds would be withdrawn from the State. This has been a serious deterrent to the reorganization and adoption of programs to eliminate the abuses of welfare programs. We are pleased to note that under the House-passed bill the States will be given more freedom and greater control over the operation of welfare programs. This bill will permit the removal of the people from the assistance rolls who are not really entitled to be there, and if it is carried out as intended, it would eliminate some of the abuses in connection with the aid to dependent children program. It also provides that various methods may be used by the States to see that aid to dependent children payments are used in the best interest of the child, and it also authorizes the State to use third parties in the welfare of the child where it is determined that the parent is incapable of managing funds. These are some of the provisions of the bill which farm bureau supports. However, there are two provisions in the House-passed bill to which we object. The pending bill would authorize the increase to 75 percent Federal matching in all public assistance titles for certain services to be specified by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. Examples of such services are counseling, vocational training and medical care in some cases. The increased allowance under this percentage ratio could also be used in training personnel employed in State or local welfare agencies. We strongly object to the increase in this Federal matching program and recommend that the existing law, which authorizes assistance on a 50-50 basis, be continued. We believe that the increased percentage allowance in the category will result in more Federal control rather than less, and it is estimated that the cost will be at least $40 million. The other feature of this bill to which we have objection is the increase in the Federal matching formula for the aged, the blind, and the disabled. The estimated cost for this program is $140 million. We believe it is unwise to burden the budget with this extra authorization which is in excess of the President's budget request and which we understand was not recommended by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. We, therefore, propose that the committee amend H.R. 10606 by deleting from the bill those provisions dealing with the increases relating to services and training in the public assistance program and the Federal matching formula for the aged, the blind, and the disabled. FAMILY & CHILD SERVICES OF WASHINGTON, D.C., To: Senate Finance Committee From: Family and Child Services of Washington, D.C. Family and Child Services of the District of Columbia was established in 1882 under the name of Associated Charities to meet the relief and welfare problems of that day. It has operated continuously since then under various names but always with the same objective of meeting the ever-changing community needs. It it now the largest private agency in the District of Columbia serving all people regardless of race, creed, or economic position. Its program includes a professional and confidential counseling service on personal and family problems, supplemented by a licensed adoption service; foster home care for children in need of temporary care; foster family day care for the children of working mothers, and summer camping for boys and girls between the ages of 9 and 12. The agency also carries on research to perfect its methods. The board of directors of the agency has authorized the filing of the following statement relative to the public welfare bill H.R. 10606, currently under consideration by the Senate Finance Committee: The board endorses the provisions in H.R. 10606 providing for counseling and special aid to people who need help to prevent their becoming dependent. This emphasis on prevention and rehabilitation is a field in which the agency has had long experience and deep interest. From its experience it can say with authority that such programs to be successful demand social workers with the highest qualifications whose caseloads are small enough to make concentration on individual problems possible. The board, therefore, pleads that every means, both State and Federal, be employed to overcome the present shortage of trained personnel in the field of social work. The restoration of the original proposal to authorize Federal funds for fellowship and scholarship aid and for grants to schools of social work would do much to meet this imperative if a true preventive and rehabilitative program is to achieve any measure of success. The board would like to voice its deep concern with the inclusion of section 107 (a) in the present bill. The board feels very strongly that while "protective payments" to other than a relative are justified when the welfare of a child is at stake. This method should be used sparingly and within prescribed limits such as are embodied in section 108 of the bill. The board is of the opinion that the inclusion of section 107(a) vitiates every protective feature of section 108, giving as it does a free hand to each State to set up its own criteria, however restrictive or punitive, for aid to dependent children. Present Federal requirements and those concentrated in section 108 protect the State and local publie welfare departments against ill-advised or localized pressures leading to departure from sound policy. The administration of stable welfare programs throughout the 50 States would be jeopardized if each, each year, has to fight battles against vocal or powerful minorities whose interest is not in the well-being of children. Mrs. WAYNE COY, Chairman, Public Issues Committee. FAMILY SERVICE ASSOCIATION OF GREATER BOSTON, Hon. HARRY FLOOD BYRD, Senate Finance Committee, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR BYRD: At its meeting on May 8, 1962, the executive committee of this association voted to express to you and the members of the Senate Finance Committee the support of the association for favorable action on H.R. 10606, Public Welfare Amendments of 1962, which is now before the Senate Finance Committee for consideration. The Family Service Association of Greater Boston, a large, nonsectarian, voluntary family counseling agency, views H.R. 10606 as a basically sound step toward a more effective public welfare program. In our opinion, the proposed legislation would provide the necessary leadership for a philosophy of public welfare which would include provisions not only for adequate financial grants to those in need but also for a program of skilled professional social services toward rehabilitation, self-care and support. We are concerned, however, that amendments to the original bill, H.R. 10032, eliminated: (a) the forward-looking provisions to restrict residence as a requirement in establishing eligibility for public assistance, (b) the provision for direct grants to institutions of higher learning for the training of social workers, without which the effort to secure an adequate supply of qualified social workers for public welfare field will be limited seriously, and (c) the carefully considered provisions related to protective payments which, as revised in H.R. 10606, now fail to provide the minimum standards necessary for nondiscriminatory, constructive, and stable programs at the local level. We urge respectfully that serious reconsideration be given to restoring these deletions and amendments to H.R. 10606 in order to insure that this generally sound bill might be even more sound as an instrument for efficient care and service to those in need. Sincerely yours, JOHN E. ROGERSON, President. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF NEZ PERCE COUNTY, Re H.R. 10032, Public Welfare Amendments of 1962. Member of Congress, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. HARDING: As chairman of the Welfare Committee of the State of Idaho County Commissioners and Clerks Association, I and other members are interested in the amendments effecting foster home care of all children within our counties and the State of Idaho who are qualified to receive such care. Although there are many facets of this legislation of interest to counties, it is felt there is one area where a concerted county effort could result in a solid accomplishment. There was some success in acquiring a temporary amendment last year, providing for Federal assistance to children in foster homes. However, it was limited to children placed there by a court order declaring their home unsuitable and who were receiving ADC aid at the time they were so placed. I urge that any dependent child in a foster home should be entitled to Federal assistance the same as a child in the ADC family. I am requesting that you contact the House Ways and Means Committee, Wilbur D. Mills and the Senate Finance Committee, Harry F. Byrd, asking them to introduce and support the following amendment, and also that you support the same: "Section 408 of the Social Security Act authorizing Federal sharing under title IV in foster care of children should be expanded to include a dependent child placed in a foster home by any approved State procedure and without regard to whether the child was receiving ADC at the time he was placed in the foster home." I hope this will give all of the counties in our State some financial assistance and many deserving children better homes to live in. Many thanks to you for your help and all the good things you have done for the State of Idaho. Yours very truly, A. B. MCCREADY, Chairman of Welfare, State of Idaho County Commissioners & Clerks STATE OF NEW MEXICO, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Santa Fe, N. Mex., May 15, 1962. Re Public Welfare Amendments of 1962 (H.R. 10606 and HEW appropriation). Hon. DENNIS CHAVEZ, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CHAVEZ: Some time age we corresponded in reference to this department's views about the pending Federal legislation relating to the administration of the public welfare programs. At that time indications were that the legislation would probably not be scheduled for hearings until sometime late in May or early June. However, I have received notification that the Senate Finance Committee is holding 3 or 4 days of public hearings on the pending bill this week. For that reason I am taking this opportunity to inform you of my views and recommendations regarding this legislation. We are in favor of increased matching provisions. However, we feel that any attempt to allocate Federal matching, based upon identification of social services as opposed to administrative costs and program grant expenditures. is doomed to failure from an administrative standpoint. Under the provisions of the proposed bill social services costs would be available for matching at the rate of 75 percent Federal money and 25 percent State money. It would be an insurmountable task to indentify and segregate service costs from other costs of program administration. We feel that the increases in administrative costs in order to accomplish this task would more than offset the additional funds to be made available. Thus, the proposed plan would result in no increase in rehabilitative services, but instead an increase in the administrative costs of administering the programs. We also object to the present method of determining the matching formulas used in determining State-Federal sharing of actual expenditures for program grants of public assistance. We strongly urge amendment of the existing law and the spending of 75 percent Federal money and 25 percent State money across the board. This action would necessitate changes in three areas: (1) present statutory formulas for determining matching in public assistance grants; (2) present statutory provisions for matching administrative costs connected with categorical programs on the basis of 50-50; and, (3) proposed statutory provisions for matching 75-25 for social services costs. In short, we urge that all costs (including expenditures for grants) in connection with the administration of the categorical programs of public assistance be matched on the basis of 75-25. Admittedly, such a change in the fiscal structure of the public welfare programs would increase greatly the expenditure of Federal funds. However, a State such as New Mexico, lacking in financial resources, would greatly benefit from the proposed action. I thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter. DALE H. HELSPER, State Director. STATEMENT BY U.S. SENATOR JOHN A. CARROLL BEFORE THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE Mr. Chairman, I appear before you with regard to H.R. 10606, the Public Welfare Amendments of 1962, to express the sincere hope that no effort will be made to restore a provision contained in the original bill as introduced in the House. That provision would lower the residence requirements now in effect for recipients of old-age pensions. This proposed change was deleted by the House Ways and Means Committee and is not in the bill before you. I call attention here, as I did before the House Ways and Means Committee, to the memorials passed by the Colorado Senate and House of Representatives, urging that the Congress and the President take no action which would lower the residence requirements now in effect for recipients of old-age assistance. I would like to point out that Colorado, which maintains a highly advanced program of cash benefits and medical care for the elderly, would attract aged persons from other States if the residence requirements were lowered from the present 5 years to only 1 year. This would occur because Colorado is far more generous with its aged than most States in the Union, for our people have taxed themselves heavily to maintain an excellent medical care program for the aged pensioners. There is of course, a limit to what any one State can afford. A heavy influx of old-age-assistance claimants would disrupt the entire Colorado program and inevitably dilute the benefits available to those who helped to build Colorado and paid Colorado taxes over a period of many years. The medical care program of my State is fixed by constitutional provision at $10 million a year. Already this progressive program is straining to meet the needs of 50,000 pensioners, and recently some services have had to be reduced. Another 10,000 or 20,000 recipients would cause a fiscal and constitutional crisis in Colorado. I am confident the committee will take into account the problems of Colorado and of the 22 other States which require residence of more than 1 year for old-age assistance. The Colorado State Board of Public Welfare, which fixes the policy for the old-age-assistance program in my State, also has taken a firm public stand against reducing the residence requirements. I attach hereto a letter of transmittal from Guy R. Justis, director of the State Department of Public Welfare appended to the resolution of the board of public welfare on this subject. STATE OF COLORADO, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Denver, Colo., February 16, 1962. Hon. JOHN A. CARROLL, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CARROLL: Enclosed is a copy of the resolution adopted by the State board of public welfare at their meeting on Friday, February 9, 1962, urging that the Congress of the United States take no action which would cause Colorado to lower its residence requirements for recipients of old-age pension. This resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of the State board. At the request of the State board I am forwarding a copy of this resolution to each member of the Colorado congressional delegation. We would appreciate hearing from you what action, if any, is taken by the Congress in this regard. Sincerely yours, GUY R. JUSTIS, Director. |