June 21, 1971
Page 21016
NEW DIRECTIONS IN AGING IN 1971?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago the National Council of Senior Citizens conducted their 10th annual convention.
More than 2,000 delegates attended the Washington conference, and actively participated in formulating national legislation goals for the elderly.
One of the keynote speakers at the convention was Senator FRANK CHURCH, the able and dedicated chairman of the Committee on Aging. Senator CHURCH presented an excellent, well-reasoned statement, worthy of the attention of the elderly, experts in the field of aging, and lawmakers.
Mr. President, I commend this speech to Senators and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
NEW DIRECTIONS IN AGING IN 1971?
(An address by Hon. FRANK CHURCH)
Thank you, Nelson Cruikshank.
One of the big satisfactions about being here today is that I am on the same platform with a man who has been so effective for so many good causes over so many years.
Nelson is one of those people who are supposed to be retired. But – even though his work with AFL-CIO, and with government agencies before that, kept him busy – perhaps he sometimes thinks that his real work began with his so-called retirement.
And is he good at that work.
I've been Chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging only for the past few months, but I've already worked with Nelson on several occasions.
And, as a member of the Senate Special Committee on Aging over the last decade, I've had a good view of Nelson and his predecessors at work. They are men that you can be proud of. They are men I have been proud to work with.
I mentioned just now that I've been with the Committee for ten years.
And I was a charter member of that Committee, which means that the Committee – like the National Council of Senior Citizens – is celebrating a significant anniversary in 1971.
We could send birthday cards to each other, I suppose.
But frankly, there's something better than birthday cards in the mailboxes of 27 million Americans this year.
It is a Social Security check which is 10 percent higher than it was last month. And, later this month, it will be another check that will equal the 10 percent increase for the months since January.
You of NCSC helped make that 10 percent possible. The Senate Committee on Aging played its part, too. I think we can say that our report on the "Economics of Aging" told the story – as no other Congressional unit has done – of the barebones existence endured not only by the one in four older Americans who live in poverty, but the millions more who are just above that arbitrary statistical level.
But, even though we can take some satisfaction from the latest Social Security increase.
And even though we can look upon the accomplishments of the past ten years: Medicare, the Older Americans Act, some progress in housing for the elderly, pilot community service programs, and others.
We know that some of the biggest jobs still lie before us.
We have to face hard facts:
We live in a nation where older Americans are more than twice as likely to be poor as younger people.
We live in a nation where – even with the new ten percent Social Security increase – Social Security benefits for the typical retired worker average only about $1,560 a year, or nearly $300 below the poverty threshold.
We live in a nation where the older person has an average medical bill of $791; and we know that Medicare pays only about 43 percent of all medical costs of the elderly.
We live in a nation where more than 2 million elderly persons live on welfare payments averaging about seventy-six dollars a month.
And we live in a nation where, at the start of 1971, there was good reason for foreboding about Federal policy toward older Americans.
A White House Conference on Aging, to be held in November 1971, appeared in January to be stalled or at least way behind schedule.
And, if you will remember, no Social Security bill had emerged in 1970, despite great exertions within Congress. And the Administration seemed willing to accept far less in the way of benefit increases and other reforms than did members of Congress.
The Administration on Aging – the Federal agency created almost six years ago to be communications center and prodder on programs for the elderly – seemed to be fading from view.
Its budget request was actually below the paltry amounts appropriated the year before. Its programs were being stripped from it, one by one. It seemed to be a stepchild agency, diminished in statute and in visibility by reorganizations which ignored Congressional intent.
And there were other causes for concern, including the Administration's refusal to use $10 million appropriated at the insistence of Congress for a direct loan program of housing for the elderly.
That's the way things looked in January. Since then, a few heartening things have happened. The first, of course, is the House Ways and Means Committee bill to improve Social Security and welfare. In spite of some shortcomings and possibly harmful provisions, H.R. 1 could become a landmark law in the social history of this nation. I will have more to say about that later.
A second welcome development was the 10 percent Social Security increase I mentioned earlier. I'm happy that there was no threat of a Presidential veto this time, but there was some grumbling about financing.
In fact, the President seemed to be participating in a shotgun wedding, and he was the groom.
There was a third significant development, which was especially heartening to me and to Senator Tom Eagleton of Missouri.
Senator Eagleton, as you may know, is the new Chairman of the Subcommittee on Aging of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. That subcommittee is a legislative unit. Unlike the Committee on Aging – which is a fact-finding arm of the Senate – the Eagleton subcommittee can consider bills and report them to the floor. I might add that Senator Eagleton is also a member of my Committee.
When we heard, at the start of the year, that the Administration on Aging was in such trouble, we decided that we would conduct joint hearings.
We wanted to know why, during a White House Conference year, AoA funds were to be reduced, not increased.
We wanted to know why the NCSC and other organizations in the field of aging had lost confidence in the AoA and its ability to fulfill its mission.
And we wanted to know more about complaints that the White House Conference on Aging was bogged down and apparently unduly influenced by political considerations.
For three days in March we heard the complaints. Nelson Cruikshank and Bill Hutton, I might add, were at the peak of their form. There was no doubt where they stood: they want the AoA to be effective, not pathetic. They want the White House Conference on Aging to look honestly at the problems because they want action, not empty statements of policy.
Our hearing record was like a boiling kettle with a lid rattling around on top. And so on April 27 we invited the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to visit us and to take a peek at what was cooking. Instead of lifting the lid, however, he decided to turn down the gas.
He announced that the proposed cutbacks in the AoA budget would be rescinded. Instead of asking for only $29.5 million, he would ask instead for $39.5 million. I might add, however, that this is less than 38 percent of the amount authorized by the Congress.
But at least it was better than a cutback. In addition, the Secretary has named a former Health, Education, and Welfare Secretary, Arthur Flemming, to work full-time on directing the White House Conference. I understand that the former Secretary has in turn begun to assemble his own staff on a crash basis.
And Secretary Richardson also announced at the hearing that he would reconsider the HEW policy which would withdraw all funding for several promising nutrition programs.
These actions suggest that the Administration has finally realized that it had thoroughly aroused members of both parties in Congress about its apparent lack of concern in important matters affecting our 20 million persons of 65 years of age and over, and millions more near retirement age.
Belated as the Administration's new policies are, they are welcome.
But they are not yet adequate.
I am convinced, for example, that the Administration on Aging has been downgraded to the point of ineffectiveness.
For that reason, the Committee on Aging will soon receive recommendations from an Advisory Council I have named to consider means of strengthening the AoA or replacing it. And I am happy to say that Nelson Cruikshank has agreed to serve on that Council, as have about 20 others, including several prominent Republicans.
Frankly, I hope that the Council will challenge the Executive Branch into producing its own recommendations for a beefed-up AoA, and I hope that this recommendation will be made before the White House Conference. An Administration position on this issue – even if it is a tentative position – should help the conferees grapple more effectively with a very important question, and that is: if not the AoA, what?
Thus far, I've talked about limited progress on a few scattered fronts. It is a victory when a threat is averted, such as the AoA cutbacks. It is a victory when Congress insists that Social Security benefits stay at least neck-and-neck with the cost-of-living. But these victories are limited; they simply keep us in the race. What is needed in 1971 are historic advances for the elderly.
After all, we are devoting precious little of our national wealth to older Americans, when all is said and done.
Just consider: one and a half month's cost of the war in Indochina would fully fund the Older Americans Act through the end of the century.
Last year we spent $27 million more in foreign military assistance for Greece than we did for programs under the Older Americans Act.
The Pentagon probably spends close to $40 million for publicity. Yet, only $32 million was appropriated for all the programs under the Older Americans Act last year: about $1.60 per senior citizen.
In the face of all this, the Administration likes to claim that it is spending billions upon the elderly. To reach that startling conclusion, the Administration relies heavily upon Social Security and Medicare payments, including the premiums that people pay for Part B of Medicare. Yes, the premiums come out of your pocket. And in other years, you and your employers contributed to the Social Security trust fund.
How on earth can the Administration justify such distortions? You are not fooled by them. But others might be. I think that we should be on the watch for any misleading statements that might tend to pit one generation against the other.
We are all in the same boat: the United States of America. You – many of you – are grandparents. You want what is wholesome and right for your children and your grandchildren. Your legislative program makes this quite clear. You want a nation in which all Americans of all ages can live with dignity and security, and with hope of fulfillment throughout life.
For all these reasons – despite the problems and limited victories I've already described – I'd like to close today by expressing the hope, almost a conviction, that 1971 could be the most significant year in the field of aging since passage of the Social Security bill more than 35 years ago.
Yes, it could be even more significant that 1965, the year in which we passed Medicare.
It could become the year in which our nation decides to eliminate poverty among older Americans.
As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Aging, I gave my plan earlier this year for reaching that goal.
I say it is a national scandal when one out of every four persons 65 and older lives in poverty.
And it was inexcusable that from 1968 to 1969 200,000 older persons were actually added to the poverty rolls.
We have the capacity to end this condition. We also have a proposal – my comprehensive Social Security-Welfare reform measure – to make this goal a reality.
Briefly, this bill would utilize the Social Security system as the umbrella for lifting large numbers of elderly out of poverty. This would be achieved principally in these three ways:
(1) Benefit increases for all Social Security recipients, weighted to provide larger raises for those who need them the most – persons who now receive low benefits because of low lifetime earnings.
(2) A $120 minimum monthly benefit for persons with at least 20 years of covered employment.
(3) Automatic adjustments to protect the aged from inflation.
Additionally, S. 1645 would establish a new income supplement program to bridge the poverty gap when an aged individual's income falls below this threshold.
Several of these provisions, I am pleased to say, have been incorporated in H.R. 1, the landmark bill recently reported by the House Ways and Means Committee. You have already heard at this convention from the chairman of that committee, Wilbur Mills; you know what a monumental achievement H.R. 1 could be.
Impressive as it is, however, the bill can be improved, in ways which, I am sure, you have already discussed. For that reason I join the National Council of Senior Citizens, former Health, Education, and Welfare Secretary Wilbur Cohen, and others in urging passage of this bill in the House, and some major changes for the better in the Senate.
If amended and passed, H.R. 1 could end the welfare stigma once and for all among older Americans.
It could, at last, end poverty among people in retirement.
It could, if changed considerably, lead to stronger and better Medicare.
In any one year, these accomplishments alone would be significant.
But I think that 1971 can also be the year in which a genuine national senior service corps could be established. The goal of matching up idle talents among the elderly to pressing service needs could be reached.
Your Senior Aides project has clearly demonstrated the value and importance of community service employment – not only for the elderly participants but also for the communities being served. The fact that you have seven applicants for each position available is more than ample evidence for me that the Senior Aides program is a striking success.
Now, I believe that we should promptly enact legislation – such as the Older American Community Service Employment Act – to convert these pilot projects into permanent, on-going national programs. As a sponsor of this legislation, I consider it one of my top legislative priorities.
There are other encouraging developments: there is strong support in the House of Representatives, for example, for a House Committee on Aging. Believe me, it would help the Senate Committee on Aging if it had a counterpart in the House. When it comes to support for measures sponsored or supported by members of our Committee, we need two Houses, not one, to get the job done.
Yes, there are many good reasons for hoping that 1971 can be a memorable year in the field of aging.
But I think that the single most important basis for that hope is simply that 1971 is the year of the White House Conference on Aging.
Now, please understand me.
The mere fact that we are holding a conference won't mean much, if it is a halfhearted effort.
In fact, the National Council OF Senior Citizens has found it necessary to become a watchdog over all preparations for that conference. The Senate Committee on Aging has already conducted hearings on preparations for that conference, and thus far we have received more assurances than real reassurance. We will continue to ask questions, right up to the opening day of that conference. And if necessary, those questions will be blunt and even embarrassing to the Administration.
In addition, the Senate Committee on Aging will make reports and recommendations well in advance of the White House Conference on Aging on several vital issues, such as: deterioration of Medicare and Medicaid services to the elderly; unique problems of elderly members of minority groups; the slow pace of Federal housing programs for the aged, when compared with need; the role that the model cities program can play in assisting the elderly; and the problems facing the aged in rural areas.
If we can continue to exert pressure, we can help shape a conference which will be worthy the goals set by Congress when we passed the legislation which resulted in the call for that conference.
The dynamics of aging in this Nation are far too vigorous to be channeled into a timid or inconsequential conference.
Elderly delegates will not stand for such a conference. The Committee on Aging will not be satisfied with such a conference. Now it appears that the Administration realizes that it, too, runs a grave risk if it attempts. to settle for less.
1971 can and should be a productive year for older Americans, and the White House Conference must be more than a recitation of problems that we already know exist. It must provide a forum for coming to grips with the real issues and challenges affecting an aging society.
And I pledge to you, today, my commitment to that goal.