The CHAIRMAN. The Chair observes our colleague from the Senate, the Honorable John Carroll from the great State of Colorado.

John, we welcome you back to the Ways and Means Committee which served as your committee for some time when you were a Member of the House. We appreciate your taking time from your busy schedule to come to us this afternoon.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN A. CARROLL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

Senator CARROLL. Mr. Chairman, I am always delighted to appear before this most important committee of the House of Representatives and to meet with some of my old friends.

Today I appear only briefly. I want to associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues. Congressman Rogers of Colorado, and Congressman Aspinall. This has to do with a subject with which I have been familiar at least for 25 years. In our State about 25 years ago we set up an old-age assistance program. I think we have one of the outstanding programs of the Nation. This question of residence requirements is deeply involved with our Constitution. This is the purpose of my coming. Our medical care program is imbedded in our Constitution. We have a $10 million annual medical care program limited to that amount. If more people came in to share in it, less money is left for the others.

It came as a complete surprise to me that there is some attempt to reduce the residence requirements for my State, and for all States, down to 1 year. This would deal a devastating blow to my State.

There would be the question of how long it would take to amend the Constitution, the uncertainty about our medical care program, the uncertainty about our monthly pension benefits.

It has recently been brought to my attention how detrimental the legislation which is before this committee would be to our State and to some 50,000 pensioners. I have been informed-this is from the press-that the Colorado Welfare Board went on record late Friday, this last Friday, as opposing the proposal that would reduce to 1 year the State's residency requirements for the old-age pension. I ask unanimous consent at this point to put this article in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, that may be done. (The article referred to follows:)

[From the Denver Post, Feb. 10, 1962]

WELFARE UNIT OPPOSING CUT ON RESIDENCY

The Colorado Welfare Board went on record late Friday as opposing a proposal that would reduce to 1 year the State's residency requirement for the old-age pension.

A resolution attacking the proposal by President Kennedy was unanimously adopted by the seven-man board which governs the State pension.

Colorado's constitution stipulates that oldsters must have been residents of the State for at least 5 years before they are entitled to draw the pension.

The Kennedy administration has proposed to Congress a complete overhaul of the Nation's welfare program. Under this proposal, States, to be eligible for Federal assistance for pension programs, must not have residency requirements for the pension in excess of 1 year.

Spokesmen for pension organizations have pointed out that, if the Kennedy recommendations become law, Colorado will be forced to change its constitution and reduce the State's residency requirement.

This, it is feared, will lead to a heavy influx of oldsters into the State. Colorado, which now pays pensioners $108 a month, has the second highest pension in the Nation. It is topped only by Connecticut, which pays $110 a month.

The board said in its resolution that a heavy increase in the number of pensioners would have an adverse effect on the pension medical program.

That program, limited to $10 million a year under the constitution, has run in the red the past 2 fiscal years.

About 50,000 senior citizens now are receiving benefits under the old-age pension program.

Guy R. Justis, State welfare director, was directed by the board to write the Colorado congressional delegation to ask them to oppose any change in residency requirements.

In other action, the board heard a report that a State-based cost-of-living index under preparation the past 2 years at the University of Colorado will be finished in April.

Dr. Morris Garnsey and Dr. Leslie Fishman, CU economics professors, told the board a fourth and final sampling of prices in Colorado will be made next week.

The board authorized CU to develop the State cost-of-living index to use in determining the old-age pension, which, under the constitution, is pegged to prices.

NO BLS SAMPLING

In the past, the board, in setting the pension award, has used the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics index. But this has been called into question since, in the past, the BLS has not taken price samplings in Colorado.

A State index will be a better guide to the costs that Colorado pensioners must meet, board members were told.

Senator CARROLL. I have other articles here.

Our State legislative body is in session today. The senate with only one dissenting vote opposes this legislation. The house also has passed a memorial opposing this change.

Frankly, I cannot understand why this legislation is proposed at this time and I am sure President Kennedy himself has not been advised what this program would do to the number of States that have a residency requirement that is over 1 year. It is my understanding that there are 19 States that have residence requirements of 5 out of 9 years.

Mr. Chairman, many years ago when I was a member of this committee, I listened to the arguments pro and con among ourselves as to the contribution on the part of the Federal Government to many States. Some of us we thought had more progressive programs than others and therefore were entitled to a larger cut of the pie because of grants and matching requirement.

I observe here that Arkansas has a residence requirement of 3 out of 5 years.

I observe that here are Arizona and California and Colorado and Florida and Indiana and Iowa, some 19 States, all requiring residence of 5 out of the preceding 9 years.

It is my sincere hope that this committee will not act hurriedly on this matter. Give the Congress a chance to work it out, think it out. I do not think it comes in good grace, in a year when we have more problems than we can handle now, to load this problem on top of the Congress, either in the House or in the Senate. I would say it will take constructive thinking for years ahead.

I observe my distinguished friend from New York. I know the residence requirement in New York. Perhaps some day we can move into that category. But it has to be done slowly because of the constitutional problems involved in some of our States, and equally because of, a tremendous influx of people coming into States like Colorado. They come from neighboring States that have a pension program of $68 or $72. Our top payment is $108. Our average is about $98. We already have problems with new people flooding in on us. These are problems that have to do with schools, metropolitan problems, and water pollution. This change would compound our difficulties.

I hope that this committee, as I know it has always done, will give very careful consideration to the problems of the States.

My State does not want this. To the contrary, as I have indicated. the Colorado Welfare Board and the legislative body itself are violently opposed to the passage of this legislation at this time.

Gentlemen, I shall be glad to submit myself for questioning if any questions are desired.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator, we appreciate your coming to the committee to give us your thinking on this particular point.

Are there any questions?

Thank you very much.

Senator CARROLL. I thank the chairman and members of the committee for their courtesy in permitting me to come at this time.

Mr. KEOGH. Mr. Chairman, I would be derelict in my devotion to our distinguished former colleague if in lieu of questions I did not have the record note with what pleasure we always greet you when you come over to the important side of the Capitol as you have today.

Senator CARROLL. I want to say to the able Congressman from New York that on many occasions, I have told some of my colleagues that this is the more important side of the Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mintener?

Mr. Mintener, will you please identify yourself for the record by giving us your name, address, and capacity in which you appear?

STATEMENT OF BRADSHAW MINTENER, CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE; ACCOMPANIED BY REV. SHELDON RAHN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST IN THE U.S.A. Mr. MINTENER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Bradshaw Mintener, chairman of the Department of Social Welfare of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. I am a Methodist, a practicing attorney in Washington, and a former Assistant Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, in 1954-56.

I want to take this occasion, Mr. Mills, to thank you and your colleagues for giving us the opportunity of appearing here today and expressing our views on this important legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. We welcome you to the committee, sir, and you are recognized.

Mr. MINTENER. I have with me, Mr. Chairman, Rev. Sheldon Rahn, who is the executive director of the Department of Social Welfare of the National Council of Churches. He will be prepared and very

happy to endeavor to answer any specific questions which you and your colleagues may have with reference to our statement.

On June 4, 1958, the general board of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. adopted "A Pronouncement on the Churches' Concern for Public Assistance" which asserted that the churches have a responsibility

to advocate programs which will make available to needy people the whole range of services which may help them become self-supporting and selfrespecting persons.

This statement of general board policy also asserts that:

Local churches should become vitally concerned with the administration of public assistance programs in their communities and at other governmental levels. They should work to the end that all these programs have available for their administration personnel adequately trained to meet the variety of needs which the recipients of public assistance will have.

The National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. has also recognized that

The people who receive public assistance benefits ordinarily have special needs in addition to money.

The June 1958, statement of the general board goes on to

** call upon our churches to encourage all people to grow in personal, family, and social responsibility, to help them find increasing faith in God and in His love for all men

The general board of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. clearly supports the improvement of public welfare services and the stated purpose of this bill which is to prevent and reduce dependency and provide rehabilitation opportunities for those who are now dependent on public assistance.

We wish to comment on the following aspects of this proposed legislation:

I. FEDERAL FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION IN COSTS OF SERVICES (PART A)

H.R. 10032 would provide that State and local departments administering the public assistance program could provide social, psychiatric, and rehabilitation services in any of three ways: (1) by developing or extending a qualified staff in the State or local department itself, (2) by contract with nonprofit private agencies, and (3) by contract with other units of State and local government.

There are some 4,000 church-related health and welfare agencies in the United States under Protestant and Eastern Othodox auspices. A number of these sectarian agencies may be in a position to sell a limited amount of service to their State or county and may do so when local community planning indicates this would be desirable. Private agencies have a great tradition of pioneering service in this country and will continue to contribute an indispensable share of the total health and welfare services of the Nation.

Some agencies, however, might be tempted to enter into purchaseof-service contracts as a way to aggrandize their budgets and prestige at public expense without reference to the welfare planning needs of the whole community. Should this happen, neither private or publicly administered services would develop properly and the major goal of H.R. 10032 might be effectively frustrated.

We have reason to believe that our constituency is in substantial agreement regarding certain principles which should guide churchrelated health and welfare agencies in the acceptance of tax funds. There is general agreement that church-related agencies may accept per diem payments on a case-by-case basis for services purchased by Government for individuals, under the following conditions:

A. That the policies and procedures of the agency are not interfered with beyond minimum standards [ed.: determined by government] and providing that the agency accepts its responsibility to report fully on individual cases as may be required by Government. B. That the individual served has the right insofar as possible to choose the agency which is to perform the service.

C. That the agency is making available to the total community in competent fashion an essential community service.

D. That the acceptance of such funds by a church-related agency should not mean that the possibility of public provision for such services is thereby ruled out.

E. That in its overall financing, the agency should not become financially dependent upon the per diem payments by Government for its continuance as an agency.

F. That this compensation is not used for religious ministrations. Perhaps the biggest danger in retaining an authorization in H.R. 10032 for the purchase of service from nonprofit private agencies will be the tendency in some States and counties to ask private agencies to sell service as an improper substitute for the development of publicly administered services. In such communities, the function of private agencies can be distorted, the springs of private philanthropy and private initiative dried up and quality and coverage in public services retarded.

To achieve an effective approach to the development of private and public services will require both (1) self-discipline and self-regulation on the part of private and sectarian agencies themselves and (2) some minimum safeguards embodied in Federal law.

The only safeguard now provided for in H.R. 10032 is the phrase

services which cannot be as economically or as effectively provided by the staff of such State or local agency and are not otherwise reasonable available to individuals in need of them

More specific minimum criteria will be needed if the Congress does not want to hurt the many private nonprofit agencies which do want to regulate themselves without being penalized for doing so by the irresponsible actions of a few private agencies which might try to exploit these new Federal funds without regard for the local planning and service needs of the larger community.

We suggest consideration of the following minimum criteria:

1. That purchase of service from nonprofit, private agencies be limited to a case-by-case purchase, prohibiting a lump-sum contract (this would not apply to purchased research).

2. That when service is purchased, it be purchased at the full cost of the service rather than requiring private philanthropy to subsidize such service from limited voluntary funds.

3. That, in turn, nonprofit, private agencies which choose to sell service be required to operate within salary ranges, personnel qualifications and other personnel standards which are equivalent to those