Secretary RIBICOFF. Yes. There is no change in that law at all, sir. We recognize the existence of that law. We bring it right in to cover the welfare recipients who come in there. Mr. DEROUNIAN. That is all, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions? Mr. Secretary, the record may not be quite clear on one point. In response to Mr. Knox's question did you make it clear that, if the provision of the bill before us relating to that subject matter is passed, Michigan would or would not have to change this provision, that without the passage of the bill it will have to change by September 1, 1962? Secretary RIBICOFF. It is not a question of changing the law. This is the law. Basically what this committee did was to give an opportunity to those States whose legislatures were not in session to amend their laws to comply. The CHAIRMAN. What is the effect of this bill on that? Secretary RIBICOFF. What this bill actually does is it reaches the objective that the States sought to reach and which Secretary Flemming said was illegal. In other words, the States were faced with a great dilemma. Some of the States, including Michigan, felt that there were abuses in some of these homes, so, therefore, they cut off the families from getting aid because a home was unsuitable. Now, faced with a dilemma and recognizing that some of these homes were unsuitable, Congress first extended the time for compliance and then enacted a provision to allow Federal funds to be used to take care of these children in foster homes. Previously there were no matching Federal funds for foster care so the State was in the dilemma of not taking care of the child in his home and yet there was no place to put the child. The Congress in its wisdom made it possible for the States to go ahead and make the changes and take the actions that were needed; but they still have until September 1, 1962, to conform their laws to the Federal law. The bill before you today provides no change in the law as it now exists, but the Congress last year provided for an extension to September 1, 1962. The CHAIRMAN. There was no provision prior to the act of last year for matching funds for children in foster homes. That provision is being made permanent? Secretary RIBICOFF. We recommend that the provision be made permanent. The CHAIRMAN. What I am trying to find out is this: In the light of the fact that it would be permanent would these States that you refer to still have to amend these original acts? Secretary RIBICOFF. Yes, because, you see, Secretary Flemming said their action was arbitrary, and yet I recognize the dilemma that these States found themselves in by not wanting children to stay in improper and unsuitable homes, so we made it possible for the State to comply and accomplish the objective of removing children for unsuitable homes, but not at the sole cost of the State. The States would still have to comply, and to my knowledge we have had no discussion or communication from any of the States that have been out of compliance indicating that this was a hardship. Is that not right? I do not recall any. There was long discussion with those State authorities, and you might recall in conference, Mr. Chairman, that Senator Long had brought this up. The feeling of the conferees, and many of the conferees were from States that were covered by this problem, was that with what had been done with the foster home provision with the extension of the date for compliance with the Flemming ruling to September 1, 1962, for the three States that needed amendments to their laws, there would be no problem in any of the States to comply. The CHAIRMAN. What I am trying to ascertain, Mr. Secretary, is whether or not the States that are involved recognize that there must be a change in State statute by September 1, 1962, modification of it, or something to enable them to proceed in this direction to accomplish their objective. Secretary RIBICOFF. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. They understand that? Secretary RIBICOFF. Each State understands it, and they understand it very well. The CHAIRMAN. And they are willing to make those changes in their State statutes? Mr. MITCHELL. They understand that they will have to change their State laws by September 1. Secretary RIBICOFF. Whether the Michigan Legislature or Louisiana will make the change we do not know, but we have not received any communication from the Governors of these States or from the welfare administrators indicating that they would not make these recommendations to their legislature. The CHAIRMAN. We did two things last year in the Congress, as I remember. We adopted this provision of 1 year for foster homes and then we suspended the effectiveness of the Flemming ruling until September 1, 1962. Secretary RIBICOFF. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. There is nothing in this bill before us that makes that suspension of the Flemming ruling permanent? Secretary RIBICOFF. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. So that actually action would have to be taken by at least two State legislatures to amend their laws by September 1, 1962, even though we pass this bill? Secretary RIBICOFF. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. What we would be doing in this bill is to provide a permanent method of getting at the problem that these States envisioned existed and they are accepting this solution of that problem, I understand from you. Secretary RIBICOFF. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KNOX. Will you yield, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Mr. Knox. Mr. KNOX. Mr. Secretary, in endeavoring to try to refresh my memory of a year ago on this subject matter I recall that the State welfare department of Michigan declined to make payments because of unsuitable housing, and it was the directive from the Department here in Washington that ordered them to pay them or the funds would be cut off. Is that not correct? Secretary RIBICOFF. Yes. That was the ruling of my predecessor and I did not change that ruling, just to put this in historical perspective, which sometimes is very important. Mr. Knox. It is perfectly all right with me if you put it in that perspective, because I believe that is where it came from. It came from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare prior to your becoming Secretary of the Department. That does not cure the ills that were fostered by your predecessor if the ruling still stands. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions? Mr. Secretary, again we thank you and those at the table with you for your appearence this morning and the assistance that you have given us in understanding the provisions of the bill before us. Without objection the committee will adjourn until 2 o'clock in room P-15, this afternoon on another subject; and until 10 o'clock Friday morning to resume hearings on this subject. (Whereupon, at 12 noon, February 7, 1962, the committee was recessed to be reconvened at 10 a.m. on Friday, Feburay 9, 1962.) PUBLIC WELFARE AMENDMENTS OF 1962 FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1962 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C. The committee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in the committee room, House Office Building. Hon. Wilbur D. Mills (chairman of the committee) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please be in order. Our first witness this morning is our colleague from Colorado, the Honorable Byron G. Rogers. Mr. Rogers, we appreciate your taking time from your busy schedule to come to the committee; and you are recognized. STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON G. ROGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to state that the Honorable Wayne N. Aspinall, Representative from the Fourth Congressional District, has authorized me to speak on behalf of himself as it relates to this particular matter. My name is Byron G. Rogers. I am a Representative from the First District of Colorado, which is the city and county of Denver. The Federal Government should not compel the States to reduce the residence requirement to 1 year to be eligible to receive old-age assistance contributions. Local responsibility is assumed by the States and the Federal Government makes contributions to the approved State plans. A requirement of only 1 year of residence in a State to participate in the old-age assistance program will discourage local participation. The State of Colorado has led all others in attaining a level of old-age assistance which is actually comparable with decency and good health by providing in its State constitution and statutes the most liberal program of old-age assistance and medical care for the aged to be found in the United States. The people of the State of Colorado, relying upon the formula announced by the Congress of the United States that the residence requirements were 5 years out of the preceding 9, adopted an outstanding program and demonstrated that liberal old-age assistance laws are desirable and economically sound. Few would be tempted to weather a 5-year residence requirement to obtain the increased benefits provided by Colorado's constitution and enabling statutes. It is unthinkable that the reliance which Colorado placed upon the residence requirements as fixed by Congress 80118-62-21 |