Y /045-•

ci -I-14 OVERSIGHT HEARING ON OLDER

GOVERNMENT AMERICANS

Storage UMENTS 

UN 28 1971

THE LIBRARY

KANSAS STATE UNIVERSI-HEARING

BEFORE THE

SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NINETY-SECOND CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

INVESTIGATION OF THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT OF 1965, TO

PROVIDE GRANTS TO STATES FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT,

MAINTENANCE, OPERATION 'AND-EXPANSION OF LOW COST

MEAL PROGRAMS, NUTRITION TRAINING AND EDUCATION

PROGRAMS OPPORTUNITY FOR SOCIAL CONTACTS AND FOR

OTHER PURPOSES

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, D.C., MARCH 10, 1971

Printed for the use of the Cbmmittee on Education and Labor

CARL D. PERKINS, Chairman

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

60-329 WASHINGTON : 1971
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR

CARL D. PERKINS, Kentucky, Chairman

EDITH GREEN, Oregon

FRANK THOMPSON, JR., New Jersey

JOHN H. DENT, Pennsylvania

ROMAN C. PUCINSKI, Illinois

DOMINICK V. DANIELS, New Jersey

JOHN BRADEMAS, Indiana

JAMES G. O'HARA, Michigan

AUGUSTUS F. HAWKINS, California

WILLIAM D. FORD, Michigan

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

JAMES H. SCHEUER, New York

LLOYD MEEDS, Washington

PHILLIP BURTON, California

JOSEPH M. GAYDOS, Pennsylvania

WILLIAM (BILL) CLAY, Missouri

SHIRLEY CHISHOLM, New York

MARIO BIAGGI, New York

ELLA T. GRASSO, Connecticut

LOUISE DAY HICKS, Massachusetts

ROMANO L. MAZZOLI, Kentucky

HERMAN BADILLO, New York

ALBERT H. QUIE, Minnesota

JOHN M. ASHB ROOK, Ohio

ALPHONZO BELL, California

OGDEN R. REID, New York

JOHN N. ERLENBORN, Illinois

JOHN R. DELLENBACK, Oregon

MARVIN L. ESCH, Michigan

EDWIN D. ESHLEMAN, Pennsylvania

WILLIAM A. STEIGER, Wisconsin

EARL F. LAND GREBE, Indiana

ORVAL HANSEN, Idaho

EARL B. RUTH, North Carolina

EDWIN B. FORSYTHE, New Jersey

VICTOR V. VEYSEY, California

JACK F. KEMP, New York

PETER A. PEYSER New York

SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

JOHN BRADEMAS, Indiana, Chairman

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

LLOYD MEEDS, Washington

JAMES H. SCHEUER, New York

JOSEPH M. GAYDOS, Pennsylvania

WILLIAM (BILL) CLAY, Missouri

SHIRLEY CHISHOLM, New York

ELLA T. GRASSO, Connecticut

ROMANO L. MAZZOLI, Kentucky

JAMES G. O'HARA, Michigan

JOHN H. DENT, Pennsylvania

OGDEN R. REID, New[York

ALPHONZO BELL, California

EARL F. LAND GREBE, Indiana

ORVAL HANSEN, Idaho

EDWIN D. ESHLEMAN, Pennsylvania

JACK F. KEMP, New York

PETER A. PEYSER, New York

(U)
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON OLDER AMERICANS

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 1971

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION,

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 2 p.m., pursuant to call, in room 2261,

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Brademas (chairman of

the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Brademas, Mink, Meeds, Scheuer, Clay,

Chisholm, Reid, Peyser, Quie, and Steiger.

Staff members present: Jack G. Duncan, counsel; Marty LaVor,

minority legislative associate; Gladys Walker, clerk; and Christina

Orth, assistant clerk.

Mr. BRADEMAS. The Select Subcommittee on Education, of the

Committee on Education and Labor, will come to order for the purpose

of an inquiry in the nature of an oversight hearing into certain aspects of the operations of the Administration on Aging in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

The Chair wants to particularly extend a warm welcome on behalf

of all the members of the subcommittee to a number of our visitors on

Capitol Hill today.

Most particularly Mrs. Mary Kochka, who is president of the

District of Columbia unit of the National Retired Teachers Association, and to Mr. A. E. Casgrain, the president of the National Capital

Chapter 100 of the American Association of Retired Persons.

It is the Chair's understanding that there are in Washington today

20 members from throughout the United States of the NRTA and

AARP Legislative Council who are here meeting in Washington for

their annual conference.

Indeed, the distinguished ranking minority member of this subcommittee, Mr. Reid, of New York, earlier today addressed a number

of you on the subject matter of our hearing.

The Congress established the Administration on Aging in 1965

because of a feeling in the House and Senate that with the changes in

American society and the changes in the demography of our country

brought about in large measure by advances in health care, there had

come into being a very large number of citizens of this country whose

interests required that there should be established in the Federal

Government an agency with particular concern for their interests.

Of course I refer to the some 20 million older Americans, nearly 5

million of whom now live in a condition of poverty.

The Chair would observe that this later figure he understands is a

climbing one for the number of the aged living beneath even the low

(1)
2

poverty line, $1,700 annually for a single person. That rose in 1968

and 1969 as it would appear that the number of aging poor is increasing.

The Administration on Aging, to reiterate, was established for the

purpose of attending to the needs and concerns of all aging in our

country.

The purpose of the hearings today will be to seek answers to a

number of issues of concern to members of our subcommittee including

the following:

Some of us are very deeply concerned about the potential effects

of the cutbacks in funding announced for the budget of the Administration on Aging and the budget requests submitted. That agency

would receive only $29% million for fiscal 1972 under the budget

proposal of the Administration as compared to $32 million which the

Congress appropriated last year and $105 million which Congress

had authorized to be expended for fiscal 1972.

A second issue of concern to some of us is the apparently very slow

pace at which preparations for the White House Conference on Aging,

which is scheduled for November—December, are proceeding.

A number of spokesmen for organizations who represent older

Americans have been in touch with members of this subcommittee to

voice their apprehensions about this slow pace.

A third concern which has been brought to the attention of members

of the subcommittee is the effects of recent reorganizational changes

which some of us fear have the effect of downgrading the Administration on Aging. Within recent months, for example, two of the major

programs for the aging, research and training of personnel to work

with the older persons have been transferred out of the Administration

on Aging to the Social and Rehabilitation Service.

Another issue which is related to the one that I have just listed is

the apparent intention of the Administration to transfer two of the

most promising programs within the jurisdiction of the Administration

on Aging, the foster grandparent program and the retired senior volunteer program, which is known as the RSVP program, to a new volunteer

program which is scheduled to be established by the Administration.

All of these questions raise in the minds of—at least the Chair—and

think some other members of the subcommittee the question of

whether or not the administration is in effect violating the intent

of Congress as expressed in 1965 in establishing the Administration

on Aging for the purpose of serving as a focal point for the concerns

of older Americans. Because some of us are fearful that the administration is, in effect, dismantling, taking apart the Administration on

Aging, and we are concerned that it is being eroded, both eroded and

buried.

It is therefore our hope that the distinguished commissioner of the

Administration on Aging, Mr. Martin, with respect to whose dedication to effective action on the problems of aging I think there can be

no question—Tam anxious to pay very high tribute to Mr. Martin in

this respect—we look forward to hearing from him and his colleagues

on the kinds of problems that I have mentioned and related problems.

We are very pleased to have with us on our subcommittee today

the distinguished ranking minority member of the full committee,

Mr. Quie.
0

We are also glad to have with us a member of another committee

who has given great leadership in this field, Mr. Pryor of Arkansas.

Go ahead, Mr. Martin.

STATEMENT OF JOHN B. MARTIN, COMMISSIONER ON AGING,

ADMINISTRATION ON AGING; ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES B.

CARDWELL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, COMPTROLLER; HOWARD

A. COHEN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR LEGISLATION

(WELFARE) ; AND JOHN D. TWINAME, ADMINISTRATOR, SOCIAL

AND REHABILITATION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,

EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, we have no microphone today so, in

deference to the audience, to enable them to hear the discussion, I

thought I would stand over here.

I am here with some of my colleagues, Mr. James Cardwell, who is

Assistant Secretary, Comptroller, of the Department of Health,

Education, and Welfare; Mr. John Twiname, Administrator of the

Social and Rehabilitation Service, of which the Administration on

Aging is a part; and Mr. Howard Cohen, who is Deputy Assistant

Secretary for Welfare Legislation in HEW.

They are here to answer whatever questions you may want to address

to them after I have covered this particular material.

We welcome the opportunity to appear before you to discuss matters

which we think are germane to the well-being of retired and aging

citizens, specifically those programs authorized by the Older Americans

Act. As part of that discussion it is important to view the Older Americans Act in the context of all Federal efforts which attempt to meet the

needs of older. persons.

Mr. Chairman, the basic strategy of this administration with regard

to meeting the needs of older persons is to provide them with increased

purchasing power so that they can obtain needed goods and services

with the greatest exercise of freedom.

The administration was pursuing this strategy when the President

signed into law a 15-percent increase in old-age and survivors, insurance

benefits effective January 1, 1970, and continues to pursue it by supporting another OASDI increase in the fiscal year 1972 budget retroactive to January 1971.

Another component of the strategy is the administration's support

for automatic cost-of-living increases in social security benefits so older

Americans on fixed incomes will never again have to bear the brunt of

inflation which damages their purchasing power.

There are a number of other changes to the Social Security Act

which have been proposed by the administration. The most important

of these are the changes in the retirement test, the provision under

which social security benefits for an individual under age 72 are withheld or reduced if he earns more than the exempt amount—currently

$1,680—in any year.

The administration proposed the elimination of the dollar-for-dollar

reduction on earnings above $2,880, and proposed that benefits be

reduced by only $1 for each $2 of earnings above the annual exempt

amount, regardless of how much is earned. At the same time we proposed an increase in the annual exempt amount from $1,680 to $2,000.
4

1\,, Ir. Chairman, these retirement test changes would result in about

$450 million in additional benefits being paid in the first full year.

These benefits would go to about 1 million beneficiaries, including 400,-

000 who would not receive benefits under present law.

The keystone of the strategy, however, is the measure on which the

administration and Congress are currently working under which all

older persons in the United States, without regard to the State in which

they live, would be guaranteed a federally financed minimum income

administered under national eligibility standards.

The individual States could, of course, supplement this income maintenance. An important aspect of this measure which the administration has under further study is the administration of this program

through the Social Security Administration. If this is done, we may

simplify and speed the process of making income assistance benefits

to lower income older persons so desperately in need of additional

funds, but who often have been reluctant to apply at State welfare

offices with all the demeaning aspects of the present system. This

measure will dramatically narrow the poverty gap for nearly all Americans who are older than 65.

Mr. Chairman, I would now like to answer one of the issues

mentioned in your Friday letter inviting the Department to this

hearing—the projected transfer of the foster grandparents program

and the Retired Senior Volunteers Program from the Administration

on Aging to other arms of government.

While this transfer has not been finalized, and many details still

must be resolved, it is being worked on within the Department and at

the President's Office of Management and Budget. There has been,

perhaps, some misunderstanding with regard to the rationale for

uniting these programs in one agency concerned with volunteers, but

there is, in my opinion, considerable merit to bringing together the

various volunteer programs.

First, let me establish that the people involved in both the foster

grandparents program and RSVP are volunteers. These programs

involve people who receive less than the prevailing wage in a public

service program designed to provide vitally needed public services,

including, specifically, person-to-person services.

The people in these programs are motivated by a desire to serve

their communities and their fellow citizens. They do not enter these

programs primarily to receive the dollar value of their efforts. This is

clearly the case in RSVP, and it is the case in the Foster Grandparents

program, although some people may argue that Foster Grandparents

is, in part, an income maintenance program.

The reasonable stipend the foster grandparents receive compensates

them for their services in the same way the minimum stipend which is

provided to the volunteers who serve in the Peace Corps and in

VISTA is compensation.

We do not think that the transfer of these two programs will in

any way hinder the nonmonetary benefits being received by the aging

participants. As this committee knows, the focus of these programs

is very much upon the benefits derived by the participants themselves.

The opportunity to work with people of all generations will, we think,

increase the benefits to individual participants.

Mr. Chairman, it is very important to look at a picture somewhat

larger than that of the possible transfer of two programs from the
5

Administration on Aging to a new agency. One of the reasons for such

a transfer would be to fulfill the President's desire to restructure some

of our governmental machinery so we can, in the President's words,

"forge an alliance of the generations."

The President summed up the mission of this new agency when

he said:

Let us work together to seek out those ways by which the commitment and the

compassion of one generation can be linked to the will and the experience of another

so that together we can serve America better and America can better serve mankind.

A new volunteer agency which brings together the now widely

dispersed volunteer programs would make available a pool of people

with a wide range of different talents, energy levels, capabilities,

interests, and yes, even ages. We would be able to experiment with

different ideas in getting voluntary efforts channeled constructively.

We could, for instance, experiment with the sending of volunteer

teams of younger and older volunteers into a community to work on

environmental problems or training-teaching programs for disadvantaged youths. The new agency could develop model programs to

utilize the talents and energies of older volunteers and younger

volunteers.

Another issue in which you expressed particular interest in your

March 5 letter was funding of the fiscal year 1972 foster grandparents

and title III community services programs.

As you know, the total resources expended at the Federal level on

aging programs is large and growing. During the past 3 fiscal years,

total Federal outlays in aging have Increased from almost $34 billion

in fiscal year 1969 to more than $42 billion for fiscal year 1971.

Within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, these

outlays have increased from about $28 billion in fiscal year 1969 to

over $35 billion in fiscal year 1970. Most of this increase is found in the

budget of the Social Security Administration which increased its

expenditures from just under $26 billion to more than $32 billion

during this time period.

Because the budget for the Administration on Aging amounts to less

than 1 percent of HEW's expenditures for the aging in 1971—$27

million compared to almost $36 billion, the specific 1972 budget for

AOA should be viewed within the context of our total effort and in the

light of the administration's various strategies to improve health care

for all Americans and income maintenance programs for the aged.

The proposed budgetary reduction in both of the programs Which

you mentioned in your letter is not because they are bad programs or

unsuccessful programs. In fact, we are quite proud of the success of the

foster grandparents program and of many of the community service

programs that have been developed during the past several years.

The proposed reductions result from an attempt to sharpen our

focus as to what the most productive role of the Administration on

Aging should be and how best to accomplish this mission.

The Foster Grandparents Program, which involved about 4,000

persons in fiscal 1971, has three basic objectives:

To help older persons find useful roles in their communities;

To provide needed services to children; and, finally,

To supplement the income of lower income elderly persons.
6

We think that the third function of the Foster Grandparents Program—income supplementation—is becoming less and less significant

as the level of social security benefits and public assistance payments

continues to increase.

Therefore, the President's budget shifts emphasis to the retired

senior volunteer approach which will provide service opportunities to

approximately 30,000 volunteers in 1972. The $3 million decrease in

Foster Grandparents Program is more than balanced by a $4.5 million

increase in the Retired Senior Volunteer Program, and reflects a

decision designed to provide expanded service roles for older persons

with an increased number of service opportunities.

We will make every effort to insure that no individual foster grandparent loses his position as a result of this redirection of effort. The

program level will be reduced by not filling jobs vacated through

normal turnover until the reduced operating level is reached.

Our proposed reduction in the community service programs under

title III reflects our assessment that the most productive role for the

Administration on Aging and its counterpart State agencies is not that

of supporting small direct service programs for the elderly, but rather

one of leadership and the development of model programs designed to

bring together existing resources to the benefit of the elderly population.

It is important to note that this year, while we are reducing Federal

support of community programs—a reduction from $9 million in 1971

to $5.35 million in 1972—we are requesting $4 million for further

development of areawide model projects—an increase of $1.8 million

over the 1971 level. This supports our basic objective of finding new

and better ways of mobilizing all available resources on behalf of

aging Americans.

RESEARCH AND TRAINING CONSOLIDATION

Another question raised by the chairman in his letter was why the

research and training components were transferred from the Administration on Aging to the office of the administrator of the Social and

Rehabilitation Service. Let me make clear that only part of these

responsibilities have been assigned to the office of the administrator.

There are, I think, several sound reasons for such a transfer.

The Social and Rehabilitation Service, which includes the Administration on Aging, is the major Federal effort to bring needed services

to our citizens in a coordinated manner. Through this integrated

approach linking together a number of otherwise independent social

service and rehabilitation programs within this service, a more

coordinated and comprehensive approach can be taken to the problems which face all our citizens.

Under the Social and Rehabilitation Service the programs

authorized by such laws as the Older Americans Act, the Vocational

Rehabilitation Act, and the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and

Control Act, each maintain their own administrative integrity while

utilizing the services and expertise created by the other acts.

It was in terms of this context that recent actions were taken to

strengthen, not weaken, our research, development and training

programs for the aging.

First, with regard to all research activities of the Social and Rehabilitation Service, we felt the priorities and concerns of the Ad-
7

ministration on Aging should be considered and taken into account. To

do this, we thought it was necessary to give access to funding resources

over and above those now available under title IV of the Older

Americans Act.

To accomplish this AOA has been asked to spell out objectives for

older Americans and the knowledge constraints which need to be

overcome to achieve these objectives. We expect that it will be possible

to design projects which will furnish the necessary knowledge we need

to achieve those objectives.

In our method of operation I become, in effect, the program manager

for all projects having to do with the demonstration of improved

service delivery systems for older people, whether under the provisions of title IV of the Older Americans Act or other SRS authorities, such as the Social Security Act.

I determine who will be directly responsible for each project, where

the project will be, which ones will be approved or disapproved, working collaboratively with the Office of the Administrator.

All projects which are up for continuation awards, that is those

initiated in prior years, require my approval.

Additionally, it is expected that not only will I determine how those

projects will be monitored, but upon their completion, how the

methods and techniques demonstrated by those projects will be

integrated into on-going service programs so as to improve the wellbeing of older persons in their everyday living.

While the technical research competence rests in the Office of the

Administrator, the major program designs and applications are made

by the Administration on Aging.

Just as an illustration of what has happened during this year, which

may serve to assist in this regard, while $800,000 was available for

new starts in fiscal year 1971 under title IV of the Older Americans

Act, under our new arrangement if was possible for the Administration

on Aging to "tap into" other sources of SRS support amounting to

more than an additional $1 million for the support of projects and

programs dealing with the elderly. It is our expectation that by

managing our money in this creative way we can maximize the use of

Federal funds to meet the multiple needs of our Nation's people,

expecially the needs of America's older citizens.

With respect to the central Office of Research and Demonstration,

all research technicians in SRS have been transferred to that office,

including those in AOA. A division on aging is an important unit in

that office. The director of that division remains my research liaison

to the office and I confer with him daily. The major function of this

central office is to take the expressed program problems and objectives

from each administration and develop a coherent research and demonstration strategy that combines overlapping interests. Thus, AOA will

have a direct input not only on title IV activity, but on all other

research activities that affect the aging, including research and

demonstration projects for medicaid, income maintenance, social

services, and rehabilitation.

The research professionals specializing on the aging will have a

better opportunity to interchange ideas and knowledge with other

researchers and to stimulate their thinking concerning the application

of other SRS programs to the needs of the aging.

60-329-71-2
8

With respect to training activities under title V, the relationship

of AOA to the Office of Manpower Development and Training is

similar to that in research except that the training specialists are

retained in AOA to manage directly those grant programs unique to

AOA's interest. Overall manpower development strategy and standard

setting for SRS-related State agencies will be coordinated by the

SRS Office of Manpower Development and Training.

Mr. Chairman, we have attempted to answer directly and honestly

the specific questions you raised in your recent letter. ( The letter did

not contain any reference to the White House Conference on Aging,

but I am prepared to answer such questions as you may have in that

regard.)

Yet, in doing so, we feel we may not have addressed the underlying

issue and the real purpose in your calling this hearing: What is the

future of the Administration on Aging?

Considerable energy has already been devoted to the redesign of

the direction of the Older Americans Act and we expect to devote

more to it before a bill is forwarded to the Congress for a renewal of

its charter. We anticipate that when this process is completed a product

will be transmitted in the form of proposed amendments to strengthcii

the effectiveness of the Older Americans Act.

Throughout the development of all the Nixon administration's

legislative proposals, we have given considerable attention to the

problem of how to stimulate general purpose government at all levels

to be responsive to those groups whose needs are to some extent

special in character—the preschool child, the delinquent, the nonEnglish speaking and, of course, the aging.

How do we at the Federal level assure that the needs of older

persons for improved transportation, for more recreation, for useful

activities in which to serve the community, for group dining programs,

for alternatives to long-term care, are met?

We believe that part of the answer is found by haying a strong

advocate in the Federal Government with an across-the-board

responsibility for input into all programs affecting aging people.

There is a good case to be made for the proposition that the advocate

must not be burdened with the administration of individual programs

after they have become established. After all, the individual programs

by themselves, are only, at best, small pieces of a much larger picture.

Advocacy, of course, takes many forms. It means strengthening the

capacity of the Administration on Aging to develop programs for operation by others, to furnish technical advice on how to improve the

circumstances of the elderly, to call to the attention of policymakers

the implications for older persons of proposed policy changes, and to

design the best possible models for the delivery of specific services

for the elderly.

It is our hope that by expanding the purchasing power of older

people on the one hand and by attempting to make functional units

of government at all levels responsive to their needs for certain

special services on the other, we can reduce the need and rationale

for categorical programs. Reasonable men, to be sure, can differ and

debate the merits of this approach. We believe, however, that is a

reasonable way to proceed.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much, Commissioner Martin.

As you already observed, the bells are ringing, but we might as

well go ahead and then at some point we can recess and return.
9

Commissioner, let me thank you again for your statement, and put

two or three questions to you, if I may.

There are two or three principal issues as I see it in respect to what

you have said. First of all, let me be to the point. It is my own judgment that the transfers that you have been engaged in, both taking

away research and training and now taking away RSVP and Foster

Grandparents, represents a clear violation of the intent of Congress as

expressed in the legislative history of the establishment of the Administration on Aging in 1965.

I call to your attention the language in the House report that year:

The Administration on Aging would have coequal status with the Social

Security and Welfare Administrations. Thus the older population would be

meaningfully represented in the upper echelons of the Federal Government. The

proposed Administration on Aging would establish a high-level agency with

responsibility to take action.

I call to your attention on March 31, 1965, when the bill, the Older

Americans Act was passed, that Members of the House of both parties

interpreted the bill as requiring that the Administration on Aging be

separate from and coequal with the Social Security Administration

and the Welfare Administration.

Indeed, it must be obvious, Mr. Commissioner, from the fact that

you are a presidential appointee, that we in Congress of both parties

felt very strongly that the needs of older Americans should have the

highest visibility possible and that you were not to be buried and

overwhelmed and cast and relegated to one side.

You will recall, Mr. Commissioner, that on the 24th of September

at a hearing before this subcommittee, I said at that time that the

administration was busily engaged in putting you out of business.

Go back and read that. I hate to have found myself so accurate a

prophet because they were slowly strangling the Administration on

Aging then and are proceeding apparently with some success.

I realize that it is apparently happening in the OMB.

I would regard that as a new acronym, "Older Man Bad." That

seems to be the new meaning as we live in this town, in a world of

acronyms, and it would seem that the OMB has got itself very busily

engaged in trying to put the AOA out of business.

So the structure, the programs that you are proposing seem to me

to militate in the direction of my first point.

And, second, the budget cuts which are really quite savage, seem

to me to underscore that point also. They are taking away some 30

percent of your budget for title III community programs. You are

being subjected to a cut in Foster Grandparents from 10.5 to 7.5

million, with a cut of 2 million in research and training.

Yet you tell us that all these moves are wonderful. They are just

giving you new strength, new vigor for the Administration on Aging.

I don't want to ask you if you really believe all that, Mr. Commissioner, because I have great regard for you, but I would be grateful

if you could make any comment on what I have said.

How can you possibly justify what you are doing if the people in

OMB can read the English language and have any respect for what the

legislative branch of Government has written?

Mr. MARTIN. Let me say first I am very familiar, of course, with

the history of the act and very much concerned that it be carried out

as far as we are able to carry it out. The present location of the Ad-
10

ministration on Aging, however, was established some years ago,

back in 1967, when SRS was created. SRS, and the present administration, does not have direct responsibility for that particular act.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I am just as critical of that act as I am of the present

one

• Mr. MARTIN. So far as the present situation is concerned, I may say

that we have found a great number of opportunities in SRS to work on

behalf of older people by working closely with the other commissioners

of the other SRS bureaus. I think this is a real advantage, a real plus

for us in that regard.

So far as the budget cuts are concerned, as I indicated in my presentation, you have to view them in relation to other budget increases.

The cut in title III money has to be considered in relation to the

increase in areawide programs, and the cut in Foster Grandparents has

to be considered in relation to the much greater increase in the RSVP

programs.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Are you suggesting you can now do a lot of things

under the new proposed change that you could not do before?

Mr. MARTIN. I am suggesting that there is some redirection of

effort here and that we think that in both long and short run—and

I am reminded of your quote to me the last time I appeared that "in

the long run we are all dead"—we will be able to get a bigger output,

or a bigger reward, for the expenditure of the money which is appropriated.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I also said last time when you predicted passage

last year of the welfare program that yours was a touching, childlike

faith, and I would have to reiterate that observation with respect to

the point you just made.

Mr. MARTIN. We are coming back to Congress with a revised

program, and I may have some comment at that time, but for the

moment that would be my response to your question.

In order to understand the changes in the budget you have to look

at the whole budget. With the exception of the reduction in research

and training money, which was general throughout the agency and

more heavy in other parts of SRS than in the aging section, the reduction is only about $350,000.

Mr. BRADEMAS. What is your total fiscal request for AOA for the

next fiscal year?

Mr. MARTIN. OUT total request is $25,850,000.

Mr. BRADEMAS. That is less than one-tenth of the amount of money

that is presently being lobbied for by the administration for simply

developing the two SST prototypes.

I only make that observation in respect of what is wrong with this

country these days, that we cannot even come up with a mere pittance

for programs that affect the destinies of 20 million Americans where we

seem to be quite anxious to come up with 10 times and more that

amount of money for other programs.

I have taken 5 minutes and would yield to the gentleman from

New York who, I may say, is the initiator and the principal sponsor

of the RSVP program, Mr. Reid.

Mr. REID. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Martin, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Twiname, and Mr. Cardwell, I am

delighted that you are with us today and I appreciate the explicity

of your testimony thus far.
11

I will ask one question, and then we will recess. Let me start on a

positive note by saying I am delighted that you recognized RSVP by

putting $5 million back behind it. I think this is one of the most

potentially creative areas.

I know you felt this for some time. However, I note this will only

permit about 30,000 volunteers. As you and I know, it is possible this

program could reach 1 to 2 million volunteers. So I take this as an

earnest indication of things to come, and I am glad that at last there

are funds in the pipeline.

I am frank to say, however, that when I look at the total budget

here in relation to the fact that we have not only 20 million senior

Americans, but in fact another 20 million in their fifties—so we are

talking about almost 40 million Americans—that the cut in the budget

fills me with total lack of enthusiasm.

It seems to me that the senior citizens in America for many years

have been very badly short-changed. For example, I hope the day will

come when there will be no earnings limitations on social security.

Also, I think it has been impossible for many senior citizens to live

under social security, and I hope the administration will support a

10- or 15-percent increase as well as remove all income limitations.

But beyond that what I would like to ask you to focus on, when we

come back, Mr. Chairman, if we may, is the basic concept of what

you see in the future for the Administration on the Aging and the kind

of budget priority that you are going to fight for to start meeting one

of the very clear needs.

Rather than address myself to some of the specific interchanges I

think the important thing is the character of the commitment for the

future.

If you will forgive us, we will recess and come back to that point.

Mr. BRADEMAS. The subcommittee will recess and come back just

as soon as we have voted.

(A recess was taken from 3 to 3:15 p.m.)

Mr. BRADEMAS. The subcommittee will resume.

Mr. Reid was putting questions, when we recessed, to the Commissioner. Mr. Reid, do you wish to resume?

Mr. REID. Let me restate in part the last question, which was to

ask you to address yourself to the basic concept relative to the Adminstration on Aging, to the kind of priorities you are going to fight for,

to what your plans are on new legislation for extension on the Administration of the Aging and to the kind of priority you think ought to

be attached to this. If you look at this program here, you see some

elements that are being transferred. You see some amounts of money

that are being cut.

I think this subcommittee is interested in the forward planning

and the magnitude of the effort that will be forthcoming.

Mr. TWINAME. May I take a turn at this?

I am John Twiname, Administrator of Social and Rehabilitation

Service.

I want to express my own concern here and commitment in this

field. It is not our intent, the Secretary's, nor mine, to downgrade the

Administration on Aging, to phase out or dismantle. Sometimes, in

either making changes or in the transfer of a program, we have a

tendency to look at it in a simple form, as somebody losing power.
12

It may seem that the Administrzi [ion on Aging faces that kind of

possibility, but nothing could be further from the truth. We have the

real problem of finding how in a department with a $38 million

budget for the aging, to make a commissioner who is administering a

program of $25 or $30 million, to really have the impact that I think

the Administration on Aging should have.

One of the problems is if we do get programs started and spend the

time presiding over those small programs alone, it is a trap in which

the Administration on Aging is shackled and prevented from making an

impact on those larger programs that really have great import to older

Americans.

So it is our hope—and we have one hope in using the authority in the

act for area models for example—to demonstrate how we can develop

new programs and get other resources committed on behalf of the

aging, and in this process we will also be developing new amendments

to the act to come and discuss with this committee.

It is very much our intent to strengthen and improve the effectiveness of the Administration on Aging within the Department and for

that matter within the administration.

So we would like to propose some amendments early enough for

good, thorough consideration by this committee, that will help us do

that.

Mr. REID. I appreciate your comments and your assurance that you

want to, Mr. Twiname, strengthen the Administration on the Aging.

As I understand it, however, the research funds in SRS for which you

are particularly responsible, are being cut from $3,250,000 to $2.8

million.

I don't think there is a soul in the country that thinks $2 million is

adequate for research for the problems of nutrition and other questions

affecting the future of our senior citizens.

I share your hope that these endeavors will be strengthened, but I

am not reassured by seeing cuts in a fundamental area such as research.

Mr. TWINAME. I would like to speak to that. I think the Administration on Aging research and training concerns are subject here

to the same reexamination in research and training that has gone on

throughout the Department.

We are taking a time when we are looking at how we have conducted research, particularly in the past where we don't feel we have

gotten enough transfer of the knowledge of the investments that have

been made in research. And we are trying to construct the way we do

business in an improved manner that would make sure that the benefits of research are more quickly utilized by the on-going Federal-State

programs. And for that matter, by voluntary agencies. So there is no

special singling out of the Administration on Aging in the reductions

for research and training.

As a matter of fact, it is in that broader context that Commissioner

Martin and I have made this arrangement by which he can have a

managerial control and a direction over funds that are beyond the

Older Americans Act. Whereas, under the budget constraints for fiscal

year 1971 there would be new start money of $800,000 for the aging,

by making this arrangement for surveillance over the other funds, the

Social Rehabilitation Service might have for research in the areas of

the aging, we can get an extra million dollars. This is a very important

thing to us. It is one of the ways we have tried to show a special

concern and priority for the aging in this particular time.
13

Mr. REID. Thank you.

Let me redirect one question, however, to Commissioner Martin

because I would very much like to get his specifics about this priority

and the future of the Administration on the Aging.

I note in his testimony the sentence that says, "There is a good

case to be made for the proposition that the advocate must not be

burdened with the administration of individual programs after they

have become established."

That does not totally reassure me as to an expanding role for the

Administration on the Aging. I think there is a lot to be said for the

administration of particular programs, keeping them centralized, keeping your leadership and thrust behind the major momentum, while if

you siphon off the administration of some of the key programs, it

seems to me you are somewhat reduced in strength.

There is an answer to that, but I would be interested in knowing

what is your driving thrust. What is going to make the Administration

on the Aging the coequal of social security or welfare in this government, and how do you see it being invested with clout?

Mr. MARTIN. That is a difficult question to answer briefly. But I see

the role of the Administration on Aging as having possibilities over and

beyond the mere operation of the programs such as we hitve been

operating. I think we have a major responsibility in the area of development of programs, and I think this is where the money can most

productively be spent.

Once a program has been developed and initiated, and there is an

opportunity for it to be spun off to some other agency to operate, the

opportunity should be taken. I think that generally speaking our

greatest success would be in the area of program development.

In the earlier stages of work in the field of aging, there was a small

office on aging in the Federal Government, in which there were

about 20 people working on program development. We now have

three or four. I think that we ought to be beefing up that aspect of

our work. We ought to be beefing up our ability to work with other

organizations, both inside and outside of SRS, and to take advantage

of every opportunity to tap into moneys that exist elsewhere in much

larger quantities, than Congress has ever appropriated for our immediate use.

For example, using our limited funds in a cooperative arrangement

with the model cities program we can work to develop aging programs

in model cities and as a result tap into the large sums which model

cities have available. This is an illustration of the kind of thing I am

talking about.

It seems to me there is the place where moneys can be most productively used.

Mr. REID. If you are expanding the concept, or realigning it, can

we take as an assurance that you will expand the budget as well?

Mr. TWINAME. If I can respond to that, I think Mr. Martin and I

would be together. The question was put earlier, what are you going to

fight for. I believe we can show how we can bring other resources to the

problem from other functional systems, other institutions, other

service deliverers, with some money—and I think you have to have

money. You ask what it takes to have clout. You have to be able to

contribute something when you bring these other resources together.
14

We are discovering how to do that. Because the States and particularly the localities are interested in doing that. There will be a real

focus on the integration of different services that certain target groups

such as the aging really need.

If we can, through the area models come to show how this can be

done in communities and through State governments, I think we will

have a real future and we will fight to make this more effective as the

time goes on.

Mr. MARTIN. And for the money to accomplish that.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Meeds.

Mr. MEEDS. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Mr. Martin, it is good to see you and my commendations on youf

work with the senior citizens programs.

I am going to take the last thing first because I am a little disturbed.

Mr. Twiname, I hate to—and I don't mean to be antagonistic—but

it sounds to me like you have been smoking opium. We have all kinds

of good programs. We know all kinds of good things to do with senior

citizens. There are senior citizens groups in my district that could do

the greatest things in the world, but they do not have the money to do

them.

So, if you come before me to talk about innovating new programs for

senior citizens, there are all kinds of them now that we cannot

finance.

What we need is money. We need money and I am glad the Commissioner added "and the money to make them go."

That was my sermon.

My question is: How much money is being budgeted for all the

service covered by AOA for fiscal 1972 and how much was budgeted in

fiscal 1971?

Mr. MARTIN. You are talking about appropriations?

Mr. MEEDS. Budgeted.

Mr. MARTIN. You are talking about authorizations?

Mr. MEEDS. Budgeting.

Mr. BRADEMAS. There are three different verbs we use around here.

Mr. MARTIN. We asked for $33,650,000.

Mr. MEEDS. In what?

Mr. MARTIN. In 1971; and $25,850,000 in 1972.

But you have to know what causes the difference there. And what

causes the difference is that the 1971 figure includes $1,650,000 for

the White House Conference, which is a nonrecurring item. So we

move that out.

It included $5,800,000 for research and training. That has been

transferred out to SRS.

Mr. MEEDS. Wait. My original question was how much was

budgeted for the same services covered by AOA?

Now, if you are budgeting that somewhere else, you can still count

it, but I want to know where it is.

Mr. MARTIN. The amount budgeted for R. & D. in SRS is $3,650,000

for 1972.

Mr. MEEDS. That is in addition to the $25,850,000?

Mr. MARTIN. That is right.

So you add that to the $25,850,000 to give you your total figure.

Mr. MEEDS. $29,500,000 right?

Mr. MARTIN. Right.
15

Mr. MEEDS. Last year you spent $33,650,000?

Mr. MARTIN. That is correct. Except that a substantial part of the

White House Conference money is carried over.

Mr. MEEDS. We could have increased—you could have asked for

$1.6 million more to do something else this year. The fact is you are

not spending anywhere near this year or not asking for in fiscal 1972

near what you asked for in fiscal 1971; isn't that correct?

Mr. TWINAME. It is $350,000 less or essentially from $27 to $26

million if you add the things that you asked, that were comparable.

Mr. MEEDS. Let us assume that the White House Conference can

be taken out, $1.6 million, so you come up with $32 million in fiscal

1972. And $29,500,000 in fiscal 1972. Right?

That is a cut of what, about 10 percent, 11 percent?

Mr. BRADEMAS. If the gentleman would yield, is the gentleman

from Washington—perhaps I am mistaken—not asking about programs which the AOA will no longer control is fiscal 1972. They are

having them taken away.

Mr. MEEDS. I am allowing them to add those.

Mr. BRADEMAS. You are allowing them to fudge to that extent.

Just so we understand.

Mr. MEEDS. Are my figures wrong? I get $32 million as opposed to

$29,500,000 or $2,500,000 total of exactly 10 percent—exactly 10 percent. It is a 10-percent cut for the same services that you had last year.

Is that correct?

Mr. MARTIN. That is correct.

Mr. MEEDS. And we have had during that period of time an

inflationary factor of at least 5 percent in the cost of living; have

we not?

Mr. MARTIN. Somewhere in that neighborhood.

Mr. MEEDS. So this amounts to about a 15-percent cut in the

services for senior citizens covered by AOA programs fiscal 1971 to

fiscal 1972.

Mr. CARDWELL. I think you are pursuing some wrong figures. Let

us try to go down them.

Mr. MEEDS. Did I put down the wrong figure when somebody told

me in fiscal 1971 you asked for $33,650,000?

Mr. CARDWELL. 1971 budget as finally approved by Congress as

applied 

Mr. MEEDS. Wait. Just a minute.

That is not what I asked.

I asked what did you budget.

Mr. CARDWELL. That ends up being the budget.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Wait now.

If the Chair may interrupt—and this is a harsh word he is about to

use, but he is incensed.

Let us have integrity in the use of the language we use. The gentleman from Washington has repeatedly made clear he was not asking

about money Congress appropriated. He was not asking about money

Congress authorized. He was asking about the administration's

budget request.

You have been in the Department of Health, Education, and

Welfare long enough to know that, so don't try to confuse us.

Mr. CARDWELL. The President's budget contained a request for $32

million in 1971.

60-329-71-3
16

Mr. BRADEMAS. And if the gentleman from Washington will yield

there is one thing I don't understand; that is, that the programs to

which he has addressed himself are programs, many of which will no

longer be controlled by the Administration on Aging in the fiscal 1972,

if your proposal goes through, so you are really dropping down to

about $13 million-plus, as I read it.

Mr. CARDWELL. I thought we were talking about integrity before.

Mr. MEEDS. Now I am just trying to get at the funding level. If I

could continue. Was I wrong—did I put down the wrong figure when

I asked for the budget request for 1971 and got $33,650,000? Was

I incorrect?

Mr. CARDWELL. That is incorrect. That is my understanding. You

qualified your request somewhat as follows: You said give me the

figures comparable for the same things. Is that not correct?

Mr. MEEDS. I asked for figures for AOA in fiscal 1971 and what

you are asking for to cover the same programs in fiscal 1972.

Mr. CARDWELL. And the explanation given to you originally

brought out the questions of the difference in the treatment of research

and training and you said, "Let's deal with them on a comparable

basis. Give me the budget on the same basis." And I will be glad to

do that for you if you will permit me. I am not trying to trick you.

Mr. MEEDS. Proceed.

Mr. CARDWELL. The comparable figures are in total, $27.2 million,

1971: That was the budget and that was approved by Congress.

That has been apportioned. That is available to the Commissioner

on Aging.

Mr. MEEDS. Was the budget request $27 million for AOA in fiscal

1971?

Mr. CARDWELL. On a comparable basis.

Mr. MEEDS. Don't give me a comparable basis. Tell me what the

budget request was?

Mr. CARDWELL. $32 million including research and training.

Mr. MEEDS. $33 million even?

Mr. BRADEMAS. $33,650,000. I have the paper right here.

Mr. CARDWELL. The Congress appropriated $1,650,000 more than

our request: $650,000 for the White House Conference, $500,000 for

foster grandparents, and $500,000 for retired senior volunteers.

Mr. MEEDS. Was that all covered in the AOA budget?

Mr. CARDWELL. That is all under control of the Commissioner on

Aging.

Mr. MEEDS. Now for fiscal 1972—and please give me the figure

that AOA will control—is that $25,850,000 budget request?

Mr. CARDWELL. That is correct. But you no longer have a comparable figure because the 1971 figure included the White House Conference on Aging and research and training.

Mr. MEEDS. Let me go about this my way.

In addition to that, you have $3,650,000 which will not be under

AOA but will be under some other agency for research: is that correct?

Mr. TWINAME. No, we could get into administration, but it is still

under the control of the Administrator.

Mr: MEEDS. It is $3,650,000 for research?

Mr. TWINAME. That is correct.

Mr. MEEDS. Is that $2,495,000 altogether?

Mr. TWINAME. I get $30,150,000. I have a different base than you

do.
17

Mr. MEEDS. I am about to take the White House Conference money

off. I understand it is $1,600,000.

Mr. TWINAME. $1,650,000.

Mr. MEEDS. So let us take it off over here for fiscal 1971. Shall we?

So you come up with $32 million.

Mr. CARDWELL. Correct.

Mr. MEEDS. And $29.5 million over here; is that correct?

Fr. CARDWELL. That is correct.

Mr. MEEDS. For fiscal 1972?

Mr. CARDWELL. Correct.

Mr. MEEDS. We are dealing with comparable programs, are we not?

Mr. CARDWELL. Yes.

Mr. MEEDS. Is that not a 10-percent cut?

Mr. CARDWELL. If you look at it that way.

Mr. MEEDS. How else can you look at it?

Mr. CARDWELL. I think the implication is that research and training

has gone beyond the control and interests and influence of the Commissioner on Aging, and I think that is wrong.

Mr. MEEDS. If you will permit me, I did not get into that. I am

just talking about comparable moneys and it represents $2,500,000

difference, or exactly 10 percent, almost to the decimal point, 10 percent cut in your present request of $25,850,000. Does it not?

Mr. CARDWELL. Yes.

Mr. MEEDS. If you have a cost-of-living increase of another—let's

be charitable-5 percent, that really represents a 15-percent cut. In

other words, we are doing 15 percent less than we were last year, in

that area at least, in terms of expenditures.

Mr. TWINAME. I think you are correct in that statement, Congressman Meeds, but I think it must be placed in the context of—were you

here at the opening statement of the Commissioner?

Mr. MEEDS. Yes, sir.

Mr. TWINAME. At the outset of his statement, he tried to put this

in a context—and I think the Chair had recognized this, too—that

the real needs of older people, the most pressing needs, are in income,

recognizing the number that are near the poverty level. It is with this

in mind that the best thing this Government can do for older people,

given limited dollars, is to place in their hands the disposable income

with which they can make their own free choices about the services.

We do not place first priority on selecting those services here when

their most basic needs are income.

It is for this reason that the administration budget is up 10 percent

for older people. And we are talking about moving the Department

from $35 billion to $38 billion? Some people, when they look and wonder what the administration is doing for older people, they look at this

thing on a budget called Administration on Aging—which I say is

veryimportant and has a significant role—but that appropriation

line does not tell the story on what the Administration on Aging is

doing, much less what this Government is doing for older people.

Mr. MEEDS. Fortunately.

I have one comment and I did not want to get into that because I

sound like I am carping, but how much of that percent increase was

requested by the administration and how much was requested by the

Congress, indeed passed over the objection of the administration? The
18

increase in social security, which first came up to the Hill was, as I

recall it, 7 percent. We passed 10-percent increase.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Over the objection of the administration.

Mr. COHEN. Having been very deeply involved in the welfare

reform bill that the President did send to Congress, I cannot let it

go by without saying that the notion for a Federal income floor on

national eligibility standards was put forward by this President and

that last year, the House passed it. We got hung up in the Senate,

and I do not think it is fair, in your own term, for you to soliiid as if

you are "carping". This floor was 'proposed by this President.

Mr. MEEDS. I think it is probably the most far-reaching social

proposal that has been made by this President, one of the few bright

lights in the whole area of social legislation which he has proposed.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I would equally also praise the President for his

leadership and observe that in my own State every Democrat voted

for it and every Republican voted against it.

Mr. Peyser.

Mr. PEYSER. As one of the newest members of this committee, I

am trying to get a better understanding of what is happening so I

would like to ask the Commissioner a question. My concern is a very

great one for the problems of the aging and I have been involved in

this prior to coming to Congress. I want to know from a very practical

point of view, are the aging in this country losing out in benefits and

programs by what is being proposed in this budget? Because if they are,

then I am certainly very much opposed to what is happening. If what

we are seeing is a shifting of moneys and programs from one agency to

another, but the programs are growing and increasing, this is what I

am interested in knowing. Just what really is happening?

Mr. MARTIN. Naturally, my whole purpose in handling this job is

to maximize whatever services and income I can get for the aging so

that you can be assured that the changes that are being proposed

here by the administration are being proposed with the idea, with the

thought, that they will increase the benefits or the assistance which

the aging can get from the total program.

Any change, once you have established a particular pattern of

procedure, can be painful and we are very conscious of this. We are

very conscious for example that if any change is made with respect to

the Retired Senior Volunteers Program or to the Foster Grandparents Program, and it was handled loosely, that Foster Grandparents might be actually- discharged.

We think that if it is handled correctly, no foster grandparent will

lose his job, we feel too, that the change can be effected without such a

loss and, that in the long run the number of opportunities for service

on the part of older people throughout the country, and therefore,

the amount of services to children and to other older people, will be

materially increased. That is the reason for example for the very substantial increase from $500,000 to $5 million in the retired senior volunteers program.

Mr. PEYSER. If I can put it down to one word then, Commissioner,

is it your opinion, based on the budget and the comparison figures of

what has gone on in the past year in the program, that senior citizens

in total under this program, will be benefiting more under the proposed administration planning or will they be benefiting less?
19

Mr. MARTIN. I think they will be benefiting more under the total

program, vastly greater under the total program, because, if we are

successful in working out an arrangement whereby every older person

has a minimum guaranteed income which I referred to in my presentation, there will be a real quantum jump in the direction of bringing

the older population of this country out of poverty. That will be not

on the scale of a few million dollars which would be involved in our

AOA program, but on the scale of many, many hundreds of millions

of dollars involving the entire aging population.

Mr. CARDWELL. I think John Martin has given you his opinion as

to the net effect, and I think it was an accurate statement. But just

so that we do not confuse the record. Mr. Meeds established that there

has been a 10-percent reduction, and what I was trying to establish 

Mr. SCHEUER. He discussed 15-percent reduction in real dollars.

Mr. CARDWELL. If you take the answer to your question, those

programs of direct services that are administered by the Administration on Aging, it is my opinion that there has been a lot of tradeoff

within the total, but the total net reduction of $400,000 has remained

the same.

I was trying to establish that in our exchange earlier and was not

successful. But just if you are appraising in terms of hard dollars and

cents, directed to your specific question, my view is there has been a

net reduction of about $400,000 and the program is remaining in

toto in dollars and cents about the same with some trade-off inside.

Trade off's go from community service projects which has a reduction;

Foster Grandparents which has a reduction; to area-wide projects

which have an increase and retired senior volunteers which have an

increase. Planning and operations remain the same.

I just thought that might be helpful.

Mr. PEYSER. The question on the total budget figures of 1971

$33,600,000 as against $26,500,000, that is on this Administration on

Aging budget allocations.

Mr. CARDWELL. All I can say is that those figures are not comparable.

Mr. COHEN. I heard Mr. Peyser speak a number of times of his

concern about internal reform and improving the lot of the people

without regard to the dollar question.

I think that what does not come out in the kind of discussion we

have had focused on these dollar figures are some of the other kinds

of things that improve the lives of our senior citizens. Things that do

not quite come out in the budget.

One of those, for instance, is the attempt to establish a national

Federal income floor. We are now working with the Committee on

Ways and Means to have that system administered through the

Social Security Administration. You have all talked to enough

senior citizens to know that there is a very great hesitancy on their

part to go to the traditional "Welfare Office". When you start administering this kind of program through a firm

'

established insuranceoriented system, you will have, I think, a far greater number of

people participating.

I do not think it is fair to the committee and to the program to not

appreciate the difference that can make for an awful lot of older

people.

Mr. SCHEUER. Addressing myself to that.
20

You substantially cut the very community programs that the older

Americans have enjoyed and that have given them things other than

money, that have given them a sense of participation, of involvement,

of socialization. Let me give you an example of the cuts in your

community grants program.

They were cut with a real big meat ax, not a razor. The national

budget fiscal 1969 to 1972-1969 was $14,270,000. In fiscal 1970,

$9 million. Fiscal 1971, $8,884,000. Fiscal 1972, the proposed budget

is $5,256,000.

Now, in New York State those budget figures go from $907,761 in

1969 to $554,900 in 1970 to $491,949 in 1971 and $292,261 proposed

in 1972.

Now these are for programs that are meaningful far beyond the

dollars involved for these elderly people: for homemaker service to the

elderly who are infirm and crippled and disabled. Where the services

mean more than the dollars they cost; for employment referral,

professional advice in where they can get part-time employment; for

transportation, to visit their grandchildren, to visit a hospital; for

community and recreational activities; or for meal programs.

In my district in the Bronx, the 22d Congressional District, Bronx

River House, which has had a demonstration meal program—as if

we had to call a meal program a demonstration program—that ought

to be a national shame in and of itself—now is turning away up to

20 older people a day and may well have to further curtail its meal

programs, if they don't get more funds.

Programs for older persons' recreation and adult education are programs that add more to the lives of these people and their sense of

involvement than the dollars that they cost. Old people have other

needs than just an increase in their dollar income. They need the very

specific programs that have been created to go to the heart of their

social problems and their needs for help in times of disability, in organizing their lives and perhaps getting part-time employment.

The very programs that chewed at them with a high-powered rifle

for specific help where they need it rather than a shotgun that sprays

it all over the landscape are the programs that you have taken the

meat ax to. Is there a rational explanation for that?

Mr. TWINAME. Maybe we can each take a turn on that. There is

much in what you say, Congressman, in terms of the needs of older

people as you describe—one of the real problems we have is that there

are 20 million older Americans, many of whom need these kinds of

services, and from the administration of the small projects that we have

had it really is an unfair approach. Trying to be practical men looking

at 

Mr. SCHEUER. When I hear the word "practical men"—when

somebody tells me realistic or practical I always take to the hills. I

wonder who is doing in whom for what reason. Those are red-flag

words in my lexicon.

More acts of tragic murder to good programs are done under the

banner of practicality than anything else. You have heard the old

cliche, "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." I feel practicality is the last refuge of an administration budget cutter wielding a

machete or a meat ax rather than a sensitive scalpel.

Mr. TWINAME. I will retract the word "practical" and I won't

succumb to the use of "ideal" either, but the fact is that at the receiv-
21

ing end in your district you would find—well take the needs for

transportation for example.

There are major resources available that are not used I think as well

as we could make them be used for transportation of older people to

the hospital.

Mr. SCHEUER. I wish you would name them to me because I would

be a hero in my district if I could come up with them.

Mr. TWINAME. In the case of their health needs we sometimes set up

separate transportation programs where they are trying to use the

little money we have available. But if we could mobilize the community

agencies in that district, or any given city, to use the resources already

available within the medicaid program for transportation. Or transportation is also available from the social service budget of $800

million. These are major resources to be brought to bear on these

problems.

We confuse the citizen and also the people at local government level

who are trying to use Federal Government support. They look and

say, "I can get transportation resources and money from this authority, from this authority, from about two or three other authorities."

And they say "Why do you make it so confusing for us to get what

older people really need?"

One of the problems we have is when a separate agency mounts

small projects trying to meet those needs, it is looked at as a bureaucratic competitor and cannot be as successful in mobilizing and energizing these other resources that I have just given examples of.

The result is a continued kind of fragmentation of these services that

is difficult for the people, who are trying to deliver what we legislate at

this end, to actually deliver them to people and bring them together

in a coherent way.

This is what we are after, to try to overcome that real barrier to the

use of the programs.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Will the gentleman yield?

Do you know when we legislated this program?

Mr. TWINAME. Yes, sir.

Mr. BRADEMAS. When?

Mr. TWINAME. 1965.

Mr. BRADEMAS. What is this year?

Mr. TWINAME. 1971.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Are you seriously suggesting we have had such

lengthy and profound experience with the administration of this program, having expended such vast sums of money on it, that you in your

infinite wisdom, you are so intelligent, you are so sensitive, you have

such compassion for older people that you have now determined to

tell the Congress of the United States that we did not have a clue as

to what we were doing and therefore you are going to eviscerate the

program. Are you so confident that you know so much more about it

than we do?

Mr. TWINAME. NO, sir.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Then how can you come in here without doing us

the courtesy of proposing to us your amendments and in effect, giving

us a fait accompli, ignoring clear legislative mandates of the Congress.

I don't believe that you understand the Constitution of the United

States.
22

Mr. CARDWELL. Could we stipulate a couple of things here? There

seems to be a mood that you want to paint us into the corner as the

heavies. Let us stipulate a couple of things.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I am willing to listen to what you have to say,

but I don't like you to suggest you are going to stipulate anything.

These are coequal branches. Maybe that is what you do not understand.

Mr. CARDWELL. Let us agree on a couple of things.

Mr. BRADEMAS. That would be a more courteous way to put it.

Mr. CARDWELL. First of all, there are some reductions in the budget

now pending before the Congress for those appropriations that are

under the direct control of the Administration on Aging.

Mr. SCHEUER. Why. Tell us why. We like these programs. They are

popular in my district.

Mr. CARDWELL. Let us agree on what we want to talk about.

Mr. SCHEUER. We know the meat ax has been brought to these

programs. This hearing is to give us an explanation. We set up the

Administration on Aging because we felt there should be a central

point in HEW that had control. We found out wherever there is not

a "daddy" in charge of programs for the aging they do not have political clout and they get riffed.

Mr. STEIGER. If the gentleman from New York would give him a

chance.

Mr. SCHEUER. Why has there been a cut for example on these very

effective community grant programs from $14 million in fiscal 1969

to $5 million in fiscal 1972, your proposed budget for 1972. What is

the underlying rationale? Why do you cut it by more than two-thirds?

Mr. CARDWELL. The reduction in the programs you are talking

about—the thing that is now under our control and about which the

Congress can still take action is the thing I think we ought to be

talking about. You are going back to 1969.

Mr. SCHEUER. Why did you cut it from $9 million in 1970 to $8.8

million in 1971 and now $4,056,000 in 1972?

Mr. CARDWELL. I want to get out in the open and clear the air as

to what really happened.

This committee said to us, "We want to focus on a couple of things.

We want to understand why you made the changes that you made in

the budget." That was one question you asked us.

Another is, "Are the organizational changes that appear to have

been made or seem to be in the offing, do they suggest or do they

mean that the administration and HEW is lessening its concern for

programs for the aging." That was the second question you asked us.

And the third one was, "What does all this mean for the future."

We spent most of our time so far calling each other names and using

such terms as meat ax and overstated claims for reductions.

Mr. SCHEUER. I consider a cut from $8.8 million to $5.2 million a

meat cut. And I think that would fit anybody's definition.

Mr. CARDWELL. The community programs had a reduction of

$3,650,000.

Mr. CARDWELL. But on the other hand, the Retired Senior Volunteers went from 

Mr. BRADEMAS. It went right out of the Administration on Aging.

Mr. CARDWELL. It is in the same plan. That is a second question. If

we want to talk about it, let us talk about that separately.
23

Mr. BRADEMAS. We praised you for the increase.

Mr. CARDWELL. But then you say, "You are moving it away." I

don't know that we are going to achieve anything with this kind of

discussion. We are trying to focus in on what I think to be the critical

issues that you identified.

Mr. SCHEUER. What justifies a cut of almost 40 percent from $8.8

million to $5.2 million in these extremely popular well-run, excellently

conceived programs that are vastly oversubscribed for homemaker

service, employment referral, transportation, meals programs, recreation, adult education. Just as a start. What is the underlying rationale

for having an over-40-percent reduction in those programs?

Mr. MARTIN. Let me explain what I believe the rationale to be. The

determination that was made, as I understand it, has to do with the

belief that the title III programs could be vastly improved upon if they

could be given a broader base, a broader character. That is the concept

behind the whole areawide concept.

Mr. SCHEUER. I don't understand what that means.

Mr. MARTIN. That is what I want to explain to you. An areawide

program has not yet been established. The difference between what we

now have in the title III community grant programs and what we

hope to have in the areawide program is that the title III programs

are small programs averaging about $14,000 apiece.

The title III programs are essentially one product programs. There

may be a meals on wheels program which is good. There may be a

senior center which is good. There may be an information referral program. Something of that sort.

In the areawide program what we would like to see happen is for a

community, an area, whether it is a community, or a county, or two or

three counties, or whatever it may be, to pull together a careful

analysis of what the needs are in that entire area and then come up

with further analysis of what the resources are to meet those needs.

Then they should come up with some money to help put the whole

thing together to make use of all the existing programs. We are

interested in seeing to it that the total needs of the older people in that

area are met instead of a little here and a little there and a little some

place else.

Mr. SCHEUER. I would be quite in favor of doing that but right now

you don't have to make a very detailed inquiry as to what the needs

are and what the resources are. The needs are far in excess of even the

current level of resources before your meat ax cut of 40 percent.

I only have three university degrees so I am not well educated but

in my book, a 40-percent cut or something very close to it in 1 year

constitutes a meat-ax cut, so forgive me for my untutored ignorance.

Ahy child could tell you that the needs in the Bronx or in Lloyd

Meeds' district on the west coast are far in excess of current resources.

We do not have to do a great deal of research on that. If you tell me

me there may be a better way of spending these funds, fine. I have

heard a lot of rhetoric about defederalizing these programs. I cannot

think of a better way of doing it, better than the kind of small grants

that you discussed; a $14,000 program to an existing neighborhood

institution, be it a Catholic church or synagogue or community center

or model cities program, but an institution that is controlled by the

neighborhood, that is staffed by neighborhood people that already has

on-going activities, that already has credibility and acceptance in that
24

neighborhood. What better way is there to remove the long arm of the

Federal Government and get away from entrenched bureaucracy that

we have heard Mr. Nixon discuss and rightly so, than to give small

rifle shots of help to existing institutions that are doing a good job but

that could use extra resources to run the meals programs?

We don't have to do much research to know that older people ought

to get two or three square meals a day. There has been no evidence

these programs are badly run. There has been no evidence that the

demonstration meal program operated by Bronx River House in my

district was not being economically run or that some other program

could provide more nutritious meals at less cost.

While we are studying the problem—and maybe an overall regional

plan would be better—I am pretty clearly on record in favor of intelligent comprehensive regional planning in all kinds of areas but in

the meantime, why don't we continue the programs at their existing

level and if we come up with some kind of regionalization of these

programs we would all be happy to take a clear look at it. But why

do we have to cut these successful, these demonstrated successful

programs that have been oversubscribed. Why do we have to cut

them by 40 percent while we are studying the need for regionalization.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Scheuer, the question is not whether that food

program should continue. I think you have correctly isolated the problem: who should fund that outfit which wants to run that little $14,000

program. Namely, to whom do they have to go for money and where is

that money to come from.

And the President's budget proposals which are going to be before

the Congress in a number of different committees include a large

amount of money to bring the Government down closer to the people

in the revenue-sharing proposal. Perhaps those people in your district

would be better going to the council or the major or some other local

government unit rather than having to come knock on Mr. Martin's

door here in Washington.

In terms of decentralizing, one of the things we are trying to do in

the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare is to have those

smaller grants administered at the regional level.

I do not think it is fair to just look at the AOA budget without also

looking at the two questions that you are really concerned with.

Where are they going to get the money, and to whom is the grantee

going to when he wants it?

Mr. CARDWELL. And that leaves unanswered your question which is,

while you are doing that, why not hold this program constant? I

think the only answer we have for it is that we think we held the

group of programs constant and we did make some tradeoffs inside.

That was the only reason. HEW has the largest department of unmet

needs in the Government. The budget won't stretch to cover all the

things we would like to do.

SCHEUER. That is why we set up the Administration of the

Aging.

Mr. CARDWELL. We are now spending $27 million more than we

were spending 5 years ago because of that. You are saying we are not

spending enough. We are saying, I guess, that we are trying to evolve

into an arrangement where the States may spend more if they wish to.

It is unlikely, given the budget picture, that any administration

you would have to deal with today and tomorrow and in the foresee-
25

able future—that is, you make all the tradeoffs and you try to stretch

the budget to meet the unmet needs—would enlarge this program

very much in its present form.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I think if you had said that at the outset, what

you just said, it would have been very refreshing to us. Namely, you

say, "Look, we don't have enough money to go around so we have

to decide where we are going to chop, and we decided in the Administration on Aging, OMB is on our backs so we are going to give them

the business.' But for you then to make the point you made earlier,

which I guess the Commissioner did, that you are going to do all of

these cuts but things are going to be even better—that is metaphysics

of a kind that I must say I find difficult to understand.

You ought to apply that principle to the whole Federal Government, and then you are really going to solve the question of the $20

billion deficit in the budget that has been projected.

You are going to do everything better with less money and with

more service, and it is going to come out of the clouds; and on the

seventh day, you rest.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the metaphysics,

it seems to me that the question is, "Are the needs of the people AOA

was established to serve being better served? Is there other money

or is there another place for them to go for their service, such as the

Riverside situation?"

I am saying analytically, that is what we should be doing. If you

want to focus only on AOA, you have a good case, and we will sit

here defenseless before this congressional hearing.

But the important thing all of us in Government are trying to do

is decide how can we better serve these people.

The President's proposal in the budget, including revenue sharing,

is one way to do it. It should be talked about and argued about. We

are not saying it should replace AOA. We are just saying maybe it is

another reasonable way to do business.

Mr. BRADEMAS. That is also a very refreshing statement.

Mr. SCHEUER. Let me say before I ask the question, one of the

reasons that we set up the AOA was to concentrate attention and

resources on the elderly. The reason we had to do that was because

the needs of the elderly were being ignored, not only by the Federal

Establishments but by the States and localities, too.

In discussing revenue sharing, people seem to forget what went before. The reason we have a Head Start program is because the local

public school systems were not doing it. They were insensitive to the

needs of the poor and particularly the developmental needs of kids

from poverty families.

The reason we have a poverty program, a title I program, is because

the needs for all kinds of remediation of the underprivileged and the

poor, underculturated—call them what you will—were being ignored

by the State and localities.

So, just to dump the money back to the States and localities as it

was before Congress passed ESEA, before Congress passed the poverty program, to my mind is no sort of Alice-in-Wonderland perfect

solution.

Mr. CARDWELL. May I ask you a question from this side of the

table?

Mr. SCHEUER. No; I would like to ask my question.
26

The research and training function apparently has been moved out

of the Office of Aging and into the Research and Training Division of

Social and Rehabilitation Service. Now, starting this fiscal year, research grants from the Social and Rehabilitation Service will be

allocated on the basis of what has been characterized as a research

strategy. Can you tell us what this research strategy is?

Mr. TWINAME. I will handle that if I may. Part of the way of

changing the way we do business is to take the money we have, which

is always limited, and to say in advance, where the real needs of the

aging are, where are the areas to be researched, and to let the people

who can do this research know these needs in advance and publicize it,

and then be able to commit money and develop projects to the areas of

greatest need. This approach is a change from simply waiting until

those who are the good grantsmanship people come knocking at our

door with their ideas which, in the competition, tends to get the research scattered about and oftentimes in ways that are not really

productive in the end. Let us really build a program and address most

of the needs you so well articulated earlier. So, what our plan is is to

set out direction in advance, to have a plan for research in advance,

and then to commit this money in these directions, open to new ideas

all along the way, of course.

We are trying to take a situation in which the Commissioner on

Aging has $800,000 new start dollars in research and by not transferring

the authority, not transferring the research and training program

although the appropriation line is different as we discussed, but with

his management control on that money, and directing and shaping

that research program, he cannot only influence and determine the

commitment of those $800,000 in new starts but $1 million additional

dollars that will impact on the aging to come through the vocational

rehabilitation program and the development of health research and

other efforts from the Social Security Act titles.

This is what we have in mind to give the Commissioner, who is

really the spokesman, to give him more clout over these other authorities. That is our intention.

Mr. SCHEUER. One way would be not to cut this program by 40

percent.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Could I ask Mr. Martin, you said in your testimony

that you conceived your role as being that of an advocate in your

responsibility. I think you will understand that my observation is not

a personal one when I question the efficacy of your advocacy over the

last several months when I see these programs leaving your operation.

I wonder if you indeed—if you care to answer—have advocated

these changes.

Mr. MARTIN. They have not all originated with me, Mr. Chairman.

But I think that the arrangements that have been made for research and

training will work out to the benefit of AOA. The very point which

Mr. Twiname made can actually be reduced to specifics by furnishing

you with a list of the research projects that we will be participating

in directly under this new arrangement, and they do demonstrate

that we were getting—going to get more for our limited money than

we would have otherwise gotten.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I appreciate that response. My question really

was, and I really do not choose to embarrass you, but I find it difficult

to understand that the man who administers an agency whose principal
27

mission is to attend to the needs of the aged, and who would represent

his responsibilities as that of an advocate for the needs of those

constituent interests would in fact be advocating a reduction in the

budget and would be advocating a transfer of programs over which

he has responsibility away from his responsibility.

Mr. MARTIN. It is a fair question. Let me say that I have to decide

questions of that kind by asking myself where will the older people

get the maximum backing, get the maximum share, get the maximum

fair share?

For example, in connection with the Foster Grandparents Program,

I foresee the possibility that under the transfer that is proposed,

if older people get an equal share with the youth-oriented programs,

they will be far, far ahead of where they are with us.

If the President's interest centers on that new agency, as it well

may, because he has thus far shown great interest in it, and the

elderly get a fair balanced program there, I think they will benefit

more. So that it is not just a question of how can we produce the

maximum benefit for older people. And I have to judge things by that.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I understand. I appreciate that. I might just

observe that it is not irrelevant, I think, to notice that your colleague

in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Commissioner

Martin, U.S. Commissioner of Education, has come up with a diametrically opposite analysis with respect to the current dispute over

whether or not his shop should be stripped of the Teacher Corps and

have that put over into the same proposed volunteer organization.

He does not share your enthusiasm.

Mr. TWINAME. I would like to say on Mr. Martin's behalf things

he perhaps cannot say for himself. I think you used the word "refreshing," and I think it is very refreshing in the bureaucratic entanglements that we have in this Government to have people that

are willing not to be measured in the amount of power as it comes in

terms of direct administrative control but can prefer to see their

influence shaping programs in a better way for people, as he just

stated.

I think the line of direct administrative control is only one measure

of influence; but if we can develop the effectiveness of Government

in the ways that Mr. Martin has just spoken to, I think the committee

will be pleased and we will be together with you.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I might observe that is a very touching analysis,

since you are the guy that gets the power that he is losing.

Mr. TWINAME. I have no less or no more power than before with

respect to the research and training.

Mr. CARDWELL. Someone who works at the departmental level,

like Mr. Martin, is probably the strongest and most effective advocate

we have for the cause of older people in HEW.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I have made clear in several hearings my enormous

admiration for Mr. Martin, and I am glad to voice it again. I hope

that those who have attended these hearings will appreciate that at

least so far as the chairman of this subcommittee is concerned, I am

on his side. I am for strengthening Commissioner Martin's hand. I

am for strengthening the Administration on Aging. I want it to have

as much visibility in the Federal Government as possible. I don't

want to see it torn apart. I don't want to see it further dismantled.
28

I don't want to see its budget slashed any more. If I did not have

great confidence in the Commissioner and his capacity to operate the

kind of program that the Congress of the United States legislated,

and if I were not distressed by the effort of this administration by

Executive order to repeal what the Congress has done, I would not

have called these hearings today.

Mr. Steiger?

Mr. STEIGER. I thank the chairman for giving me a chance to

participate.

I must say at the outset that I have some very serious misgivings

about the title III decision. I am afraid I will have to join in the

whipping. I cannot rationalize it or justify it. I am profoundly disturbed at the decision to reduce from $9 to $5 million. On occasion,

I will join with those on the other side in attempting to increase the

funds. That is one area in which I would share the chairman's concern.

I take an opposite view, however, if the decision is made in whatever

form to place the Foster Grandparents and RSVP in the volunteer

program.

I think that is an excellent decision and that Commissioner Martin

is correct in his analysis of that decision. It is very difficult for me to

understand this idea of attempting to hold programs without concern

for how we get the best program, and the best delivery system and

the best emphasis on whatever segment of the population you are

talking about.

I think this decision to place these programs in the volunteer agency

will enhance and enlarge the opportunities for older Americans to

serve in this Nation.

I applaud that decision.

Having now argued in this hearing on the question of the oversight

of the Administration on Aging, can you supply for the record the

overall Federal budget for programs relating to the aging, not only

in HEW, but across the board?

MT. CARDWELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. STEIGER. What does that come to?

Mr. TWINAME. We have 1971 figures here. From 1970 until 1971 is

from $36.9 billion in 1970 to $43,125,500,000 in 1971. And we will be

getting the 1972 figures together on this analysis for the record.

We will add that also, that increase.

Mr. STEIGER. I would appreciate your making that part of the

record, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Without objection, it will be included.

(The information follows:)

The estimated Federal outlay in 1972 for activities serving older Americans

is $46,323,800.

Mr. STEIGER. Would it be unfair if one were to characterize the

Administration on Aging as being important, but a very small part of

this Government's effort toward the elderly?

Mr. MARTIN. That is correct. We are a small part, but I hope we

are a more influential part than the size of our dollar appropriation,

and I think we are. I think that we have exercised influence with other

agencies and with the States, and the localities far beyond the money

that they have spent. I don't take any personal credit for that. I

think the committee did an important job in creating the Administra-
29

tion on Aging and we have tried to make the most of it. I suppose one

could say one could always do more with more money. I guess that is

probably true of any program. But I think we have made a contribution, and a worthwhile one, considering the fact that the amount we

are spending is 1 percent of the total amount that is being spent on

the aging in this country.

Mr. STEIGER. One of your titles, Commissioner, as I recall is Special

Assistant to the President for the Aging.

Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir.

I\ fr. STEIGER. That is the first time that the President has ever

undertaken to appoint such an individual; is it not?

:\ Ir. MARTIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. STEIGER. What kind of access have you had to the President in

order to try to advocate AOA as well as the role of the elderly and the

programs of the elderly?

Mr. MARTIN. I saw him yesterday on this general subject. No more

than anyone else do I have access every day to the President, but the

President has shown himself to be concerned about these matters. I

think he has a genuine concern for older people in this country. He

has evidenced that on occasion by the recommendations which he has

made to Congress, particularly with regard to the minimum income

floor for older people, the automatic cost-of-living increase recommendations for social security, and various recommendations for increases

in social security benefits.

I would say I am not the only person who has access to the President

on the questions of the aging, but I think that from such contact as I

do have that he is sensitive and that he is concerned. As he said

yesterday, "A nation which forgets its parents is not long for greatness." And I think that is an indication of the kind of approach the

President is taking to the problems of older people.

Mr. STEIGER. One request that was asked by the chairman at the

outset was for an update to the White House Conference on Aging.

I have followed our deliberations throughout the afternoon, I have not

found anyone coming back to it. The chairman may have some special

questions he intends to ask regarding this.

Mr. MARTIN. I did not get the question.

Mr. STEIGER. Can you give us a report on the White House Conference.

Mr. MARTIN. We are moving along very well on that. We started

out, as you may know, with White House forums which were meetings

of older people to let them do the talking, and the listeners were the

experts and providers of service and professionals. We thought we

would have a few hundred of those around the country. We ended up

with 6,000 meetings of older people in various States and regions to

talk about what their needs were. Those needs have been recorded

and will be worked into the recommendations of the Conference.

We have appointed some 14 technical committees which have been

hard at work. They are made up of experts, people who really know

the field in which they were appointed. The 14 areas include all of the

principal need areas such as health, income, transportation, and so on.

These technical committees have reviewed the initial drafts of background papers, issued papers, and those issued papers have been reworked based on the critique of the technical committee. They are in

process now of being printed.
30

We have in process right at the moment in the States, ongoing

community conferences. Several hundred of them will be held in the

next several months where it is not just older people talking but

professionals and providers of service and experts working with older

people.

We have some 300 national organizations which have an interest

in aging, each of which have named two persons to one of 20 task

forces which are developing independent recommendations that will

be collated with the recommendations of the State conferences. Fifty

State conferences will be held in May.

We will then put together the recommendations of the State conferences, and the recommendations of the national organizations, and

flow those into the national conference to be held in late November

and early December.

From time to time we have had some of the usual mechanical problems, but as of now, I think we are on target. I think we will be ready

when the time comes to hold that major conference. We are still some

distance away, several months, but we are moving along very satisfactorily, and I am satisfied with the progress we are making.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you, Mr. Steiger.

I hope that we shall have at your earliest convenience, Mr. Commissioner, an opportunity to consider what I understand to be your

proposed amendments to this legislation. I think that you judged that

an apprehension that some of us have goes not only to your budget

proposals which are always a legitimate subject of controversy, nor, do

our questions go only to your proposals and actions in transferring

programs from one authority to another, which is also part of our line

of work to fight about with each other, but that so far as I am concerned there is a very much more profound issue at stake here which

we got into last year when we were discussing Mr. Pepper's proposed

amendment to this legislation to provide nutrition programs for the

elderly. That in part without our going into it at great length we

could spend all week on it—goes to the nature of the relationship

between the legislative branch of government and the executive branch

of government.

It is a source of distress to some of us that rather than face up to

coming before Congress and justifying your desires to change a program or amend it or kill it, you go ahead and do it by executive action.

I should have thought that you ought at least to consider, just

straightforward telling us you do not agree with the law, which is an

honorable position for an administration to have, and say, "Please

change the law. We don't like it. We think it is a bad law", rather than

the technique that seems increasingly to be used in the administration.

I think it makes for very bad blood. It makes for suspicion and

mistrust. It means we are always having to question your integrity of

purpose and that upsets most of us.

It does not mean we have lack of confidence in your integrity as

public servants. I hope you understand that. So if I have been sharp

in some of my questions, it is in that light. I don't mean to be talking

about you as persons. But I am concerned about what seems to me to

be a continuing trend here of increasing the power of the executive

government over the administration of programs.

It is in the context of the appropriations process, what you might

call backdoor legislation.
31

Mr. CARDWELL. Does that observation go primarily at this point

to the consideration of moving the Foster Grandparents Program?

Mr. BRADEMAS. I did not really mean, Mr. Cardwell, to target it to

any particular effort at all. I am just talking about the overall trends

that I see in this administration to, under the guise of decentralizing,

you really are centralizing that power in the executive branch of the

Government, and you have marvelous rhetoric about sharing the

power with the people, but it always seems to be people who are

higher up the echelon in the departments of Government.

Now, some of us in Congress on the majority side of the aisle, were

equally critical of the last administration in some of its efforts to do

that kind of thing, so it is not in a particularly partisan vein that I

offer the criticism, and I realize that is part of what we are squabbling

about with each other in this Congress with respect to the President's

proposal to reorganize the departments and with respect to the revenue-sharing proposal, both of which are areas where honorable men

and women can have honorable differences of opinion. So I wanted to

make that statement realizing, hoping that my criticisms will be

understood in that vein.

Mr. STEIGER. I hope you don't mean to imply that there is some

illegal action in, for example, the proposal to transfer Foster Grandparents and RSVP on the basis of a reorganization plan which has

to be 

Mr. BRADEMAS. I don't think I said that at any point. I don't believe the record will show that I used that phrase. I did use the phrase

"violation of the intent of Congress." And I think that that is a posture that I would be glad to defend.

To come back to the original point with which I began my remarks

if you look at the legislative history of the Older Americans Act,

I do not see how any honest person, how any rational person, how

any literate person can fail to come to any conclusion other than that

the Congress made a judgment that we wanted an agency in the

executive branch of the Federal Government with high visibility

and not to be subsumed within lower echelons. We indeed, if you

look at the reports which I cited, wanted it to be on a level with the

Social Security and Welfare Administrations, and that the distinguished lead witness here today is a Presidential appointee, was, I

think, an indication of Congress deep concern about this.

Now, the administration can come and tell us "We think that is a

bad idea," but I don't think you can quarrel with the proposition—in

any event, that is what we intended.

My point is that the transfers of authority that are being proposed,

the budget cuts that are being proposed, whether laudable, defensible,

or justifiable, seem to me to militate against the clear intent of

Congress.

Mr. STEIGER. I would like to comment.

Frankly, I don't, view all of this in that same light. Clearly, the

law is such that the executive branch does have the authority to

make a judgment concerning the budget. There are a lot of agencies

in this Government that suffer budget cuts other than the Administration on Aging. The Congress and Executive are continally going

to disagree on these matters.
32

Second, the Reorganization Agency said there is the power of

the Executive to propose a reorganization regardless of the law.

We then would have to pass on the action within the 60-day time

period.

Third, the violation of the intent of the Congress of which you

speak, that violation began in 1967. That was a Johnson administration violation. I will be honest with you in that I don't remember

a hearing in 1967, at the time that the SRS decision was made in

which, we beat the witnesses to the extent that they were beaten

today. I get a tinge of partisanship out of the purposes of this hearing

which was lacking at the time that earlier decision was made.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I hope that without our continuing this dialog

further, that the kinds of questions the gentleman from Wisconsin

raised will be among those we raise when you come up with your legislative proposals to amend this act.

We are very grateful to you for your having come and having

given us your time and for your patience.

We are in recess.

(Whereupon, at 4:55 p.m. the hearing was adjourned, subject to

the call of the Chair.)

0
,
'%