Sheppard, who is sitting next to me-will have more to say about the recommendations. First, however, I would like to commend Dr. Sheppard again for the magnificent way that he discharged his duties both as a member and as the Chairman of the Advisory Council. The report of the Advisory Council is, in my judgment, one of the most effective documents ever produced for a congressional committee, and I would like to submit it for inclusion in this hearing record. Senator EAGLETON. It will be made a part of the record. (The information referred to follows:) SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR STRENGTHENING OCTOBER 1971 Printed for the use of the Special Committee on Aging U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1971 SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING FRANK CHURCH, Idaho, Chairman HARRISON A. WILLIAMS, JR., New Jersey HIRAM L. FONG, Hawall ! LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL THE W. E. UPJOHN INSTITUTE FOR EMPLOYMENT RESEARCH, Senator FRANK CHURCH, Senate Special Committee on Aging, DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: The Advisory Council on September 29 is pleased to forward to you its final report on recommendations for changes in the organizational structure of Federal agencies designed to achieve more effective implementation of a national policy for America's aged population. While it is a carefully considered report, this by no means implies that we believe no further improvements in our suggestions are possible. The report is intended instead as a new start at intensive, fruitful discussion and debate that will result in organizational changes that are needed to enhance the status of Americans as they move into and live through their "Third Age." Our statement is not the final blueprint. It is important to note that the Advisory Council, in its full session, and in the meetings of the subcommittee assigned to work out a draft report for consideration by the larger group, encountered no acrimony or insoluble disagreements concerning the reasons for these necessary changes and the concrete proposals for governmental reorganization for the aged, spelled out herein. This report expresses, therefore, the consensus of a large group of men and women representing a wide variety of organizations, political and academic viewpoints. It is a synthesis of the experiences and insights of competent individuals dedicated to the practical application of gerontology. Performing as Chairman of such a group was a pleasant and gratifying experience. The Council as a whole wishes to state its appreciation for being asked by you to make what we think is a positive contribution to the solution of the problems of a growing population of senior citizens. Sincerely, HAROLD L. SHEPPARD, Staff Social Scientist. Under the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, committees of: the U.S. Congress were instructed to take a much more intensive inter-est than formerly in what was once called "legislative oversight," and which is now described as "legislative review." There is no doubt that the mandate was timely and much-needed. Congressional units and individual legislators quite often discover that their legislative intent is overlooked, balked, or distorted when translated into the operating programs by the Executive. This may be caused partially by honest misunderstanding between the legislative and executive branches. It may be caused by Administration priorities that clash with Congressional concerns. Or it may simply be that agency directors want to do things "their way." In 1965, the Congress passed the Older Americans Act, which established an Administration on Aging within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The AoA was supposed to serve as a focal point for all federal efforts on behalf of aging and aged Americans; it was given powers to issue grants for community projects, research, and training efforts.1 Six years later, however, many members of Congress were alarmed by what appeared to be the accelerating deterioration of the AoA. In 1967, it became a unit of the Social and Rehabilitation Service. In 1970 and 1971, key programs were removed from its direct jurisdiction, and absorbed with other units of S.R.S. Another cause for alarm arose early this year when the Administration budget request for AoA amounted to only $29.5 million, a $2.5 million reduction from the previous fiscal year. Alarmed by this and by earlier developments, the Senate Committee on Aging and the Subcommittee on Aging of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare called joint hearings on "Evaluation of the Administration on Aging and Conduct of the White House Conference on Aging." 2 Testimony by leaders of the field in aging at those hearings confirmed the widespread feeling that the original purposes of the Older Americans Act had never been fulfilled, and that in fact, the prospects for fulfillment seemed more remote in 1971 than they had in 1965. This sense of urgency evidently was transmitted to the Administration. A few days before the first joint hearing, it was announced that Mr. Arthur Flemming-former Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare would serve as full-time Chairman of the White House Conference on Aging. At the April 27 joint hearing, present H.E.W. 1 The full text of the Older Americans Act, as amended, appears as Appendix 2 of this document. 2 In Washington, D.C., on March 25, 29, 30, 31, and April 27. (V) |