of the Missouri Office on Aging; Mr. Ron Jensen, who is the executive director of the Nebraska Office of Aging; and the representative of the Kansas Office of Aging. Do I have the gentleman's name?

Let me ask you, do we have someone representing the State of Kansas, their office of aging?

Apparently not.

Mr. Welty, may we begin with you and receive your prepared state

ments.

Let me make this clear. If witnesses have a prepared statement, that statement will appear in toto in the record. They are free to highlight it, the points, and free to make it anyway they want, rest assured.

STATEMENT OF EARL R. WELTY, DIRECTOR, MISSOURI OFFICE OF AGING, REPRESENTING STATE OFFICES OF AGING, A PANEL

Mr. WELTY. Thank you very much, Senator.

I have to admit I don't have a prepared statement because running between Columbia and here trying to catch you on the right day put me out of touch with my office.

I would like to make some comments.

I think you should know that we just returned from a meeting with the Administration on Aging in Washington and we found what the Administration plans are for the Older Americans Act. As director of the State office division for Missouri, I think you should know that I have been administering the program, directly responsible for it, for 3 years. For 1 year prior to that I was the assistant administrator for the title III portion of the Older Americans Act.

I happen to believe that the Older Americans Act has been most successful since its implementation in 1965. I am thoroughly convinced that the various services developed through that act, such as a senior citizens' transportation need program, have been extremely successful and at a very good savings for older people.

When I went to Washington and heard the Administration on Aging, I had hoped to see a new bill which would build upon what we have already done. I am afraid I am a little disappointed.

I went to Washington knowing what I call, of sort, a father-knowsbest syndrone in Washington-whatever the Great Father says, he knows best; and we should try to implement as best we can the ideas we get in Washington. I was more shocked than usual

I think you here in the audience who are from Missouri know that the Missouri White House delegates were elected on a regional basis within the State, and that they were selected by their peers, and that we hope to keep them in the future as sort of area consultants, as you will, and sort of a hearing place for older people and a voice of older people to report back to us what the problems are.

When I got to Washington, I was very shocked to find the increase we received as a result of the White House Conference in title III funds, approximately $400,000 we were given by Congress, had, in fact, been programed for us by the Administration on Aging the day after the White House Conference. I haven't had much time to do my own programing, but I know I didn't and don't want to do specifically what they decided we were going to do with it.

My feeling was that it really well paid the White House delegates for their efforts when Congress passed a very nice supplemental appropriation. The President was in favor of it, also. What I saw was more meals programs, more good transportation programs, more homemaker services; and when I got back, I found that this was not the intention of the Administration on Aging. So before we even have a new Older Americans Act bill passed, we are locked in with a dictate, so to speak, on funding that we already have.

I won't read you everything said in Washington; but, in essence, what we were given says, Thou shalt not spend the money in any way other than in the ways we are suggesting or you may have problems later.

Let me tell you what they intended for us to do with this year's supplemental appropriation.

Senator EAGLETON. Mr. Welty, may we have that statement for the record, though, that outlines the

Mr. WELTY. Yes, sir.

(The information referred to is as follows:)

INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY STATE AGENCIES ON AGING

These remarks are a result of information supplied at the February 1972 meeting of State Agencies on Aging and the Administration on Aging on the Administration's strategy for a new Older Americans Act.

The Administration on Aging intends to use the $18 million in the 1972 supplemental appropriations under Title III of the Older Americans Act for area planning activities. In our opinion, this use of funds breaks faith with the White House Conference on Aging. We did not hear any delegates say they believed more planning was needed. They did, however, indicate the need for funds to provide for services. It is our expectation the Administration will force us to spend these supplemental funds for planning by imposing new regulations and standards to circumvent the law. We feel Congress passed the supplemental appropriations to provide more services. Present regulations permit Title III funds to be spent on training services, or planning.

Plans for fiscal 1972 by the Administration are as follows:

The Administration intends to set priorities for the states and to impose standards. Priority setting should be left to the state. Standards must be flexible enough to fit local situations. Our past experience has shown the Administration does not understand local differences.

Apparently, the Administration hopes the new Act will require a state matching of 25% of the total cost of administration. We believe the state should contribute 10% of the total cost in view of inadequate state funds being available. Aging, within the state, must compete for the limited funds. The 15% share, if required, may doom the state agency.