March 14, 1973
Page 7744
By Mr. MONDALE (for himself, Mr. JAVITS, Mr. ABOUREZK, Mr. BAYH, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. BROCK, Mr. BROOKE, Mr. BURDICK, Mr. CASE, Mr. CLARK, Mr. COOK, Mr. CRANSTON, Mr. EAGLETON, Mr. FULBRIGHT, Mr. GRAVEL, Mr. HART, Mr. HARTKE, Mr. HATFIELD, Mr. HATHAWAY, Mr. HOLLINGS, Mr. HUDDLESTON, Mr. HUGHES, Mr. HUMPHREY, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. MATHIAS, Mr. MCGEE, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. MONTOYA, Mr. MOSS, Mr. MUSKIE, Mr. NELSON, Mr. PACKWOOD, Mr. PASTORE, Mr. PELL, Mr. PERCY, Mr. RANDOLPH, Mr. RIBICOFF, Mr. SCHWEIKER, Mr. STAFFORD, Mr. STEVENSON, Mr. TUNNEY, and Mr. WILLIAMS:
S. 1220. A bill to limit the authority of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to impose, by regulations, certain additional restrictions upon the availability and use of Federal funds authorized for social services under the public assistance programs established by the Social Security Act. Referred to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation to preserve key aspects of the Federal social services program from "impoundment by red tape." My bill reflects the concerns expressed in a letter 45 Senators joined me in sending to Secretary Weinberger on February 15, a copy of which I ask unanimous consent be printed at the close of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. MONDALE. This legislation is cosponsored by a bipartisan coalition of 42 Senators, and endorsed by 12 of our Governors. The Governors supporting our bill include Governors Carter of Georgia, Anderson of Minnesota, Bumpers of Arkansas, Tribbitt of Delaware, Andrus of Idaho, Ford of Kentucky, Mandel of Maryland, Curtis of Maine, Exon of Nebraska, Shapp of Pennsylvania, Rampton of Utah, and Lucey of Wisconsin.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my bill, with the list of cosponsors, be printed at the close of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 2.)
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, regulations proposed by the administration and scheduled to go into effect on April 1 would cripple the effectiveness of this program which is designed to assist States in helping families off the welfare rolls and in providing alternatives to institutional care for the aged, blind, and disabled.
Last year the Congress adopted a $2.5 billion ceiling and other reforms for the social services program to prevent abuses and to require States to more carefully order their priorities.
But the new regulations go far beyond the mandate of Congress, to crush existing State programs for day care so that mothers can work, meals and other services for elderly persons living at home, drug and alcoholism treatment and prevention, juvenile delinquency prevention and other services.
They would sharply reduce the Federal contribution for social services by $600 million to $1 billion below the level established by the Congress. In Minnesota alone the new regulations would cut over $34 million in services for programs affecting 73,000 children and adults.
Gov. Dale Bumpers of Arkansas recently described the impact of these proposals on his State:
To give you an example of the effect it would have on our mental retardation programs, when I was elected we had fewer than 20 community facilities caring for a little less than 400 children.
In the past year and a half we have expanded that to 82 facilities caring for over 2,000 children.
Quite frankly, with the guidelines prohibiting the use of private funds and the further restrictions ... we will probably wind up closing virtually every one of the new ones we have started in the past year and a half.
Under these proposed regulations, former welfare recipients would be denied eligibility for day care or other services just after those services have permitted them to find employment and leave the welfare rolls. So they would be forced back on welfare. As an HEW memo states:
The regulations will cause many former welfare recipients to quit their jobs ... [and] create a revolving door effect.
This is precisely the kind of mixed up incentive system which traps people in poverty, and destroys faith in the good intentions of government.
The bill which we are introducing today does not attempt to preserve the old regulations intact. Instead, our bill would preserve the five most essential components of the existing program:
First. The use of privately contributed funds and in-kind contributions to make up the State's matching share.
Second. Existing flexibility for States to offer services to past welfare recipients for up to 2 years and to potential welfare recipients for up to 5 years.
Third. The authority of States to provide drug and alcohol treatment programs, education and training services and comprehensive services for children, the elderly and the disabled under the social services program.
Fourth. The continued application of day care standards established for the program in 1969.
In addition, our bill would free States from unreasonable requirements for reporting as often as every 3 months on the use of funds.
The social services program is an essential effort to aid families in getting off welfare, and to help older or disabled citizens live useful lives outside of institutions. It is a flexible program, with broad authority resting in the States.
The cuts the administration has proposed will not create savings. The American people will pay more in higher State and local taxes, in increased costs for welfare and crime and in the waste of thousands of human lives.
We are hopeful that Secretary Weinberger will revise his proposal to reflect widespread congressional concern. If he does not, we will move through the legislative process to preserve this program, as Congress intended, within the $2.5 billion ceiling established by the Congress last fall.
EXHIBIT 1
FEBRUARY 14, 1973.
Hon. CASPAR WEINBERGER,
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR Mr. SECRETARY: We are extremely concerned about reports that forthcoming social service regulations may make fundamental changes in the operation of federally-assisted programs in the fields of day care, aid to the elderly, mental retardation and juvenile delinquency.
In particular, we would like to register our strong opposition to the reported administrative repeal of existing provisions which permit the use of privately contributed funds – from charitable organizations such as the United Way of America – to make up the required local or state match. This proposed change would seriously undermine the excellent existing private-public partnership approach to human problems. These kinds of cooperative efforts should be encouraged rather than discouraged.
Such an extreme change in the existing social services program is unwarranted. Fears of an uncontrollable budget in this area were resolved by the $2.5 billion ceiling on Title IV-A which the Congress adopted last year. And less extreme proposals for dealing with isolated examples of abuse have been offered by individuals such as former Secretary Richardson. We are attaching for your information a copy of a letter Secretary Richardson sent to Representative Wilbur Mills last October concerning this issue.
In addition, we would like to express our concern about other parts of the reported new regulations such as those which would repeal the current use of in-kind contributions for the non- federal match, deny day care eligibility to former welfare recipients just after this day care program has permitted them to find employment and leave the welfare rolls; and raise serious questions about whether the Federal Inter-agency Day Care Standards – which establish minimum protection for children in federally assisted day care and which have been in effect for the past 5 years – will continue to apply.
We respectfully request that we be informed in advance about any proposed changes in areas such as these, and that if and when any changes are proposed they be available for public comment and later revision.
With warmest personal regards, Sincerely,
Mondale, Javits, Ribicoff, Packwood, Stevenson, Abourezk, Bayh, Beall, Brooke, Burdick, Case, Church Cranston, Dominick, Eagleton, Fulbright, Gravel, Hart, Hartke, Hatfield, Hathaway, Huddleston, Hughes, Humphrey, Kennedy, Mathias, McGee, McGovern, McIntyre, Metcalf, Moss, Muskie, Nelson, Nunn, Pell, Percy, Randolph, Schweicker, Stafford, Stevens, Taft, Tunney, Williams, Clark, Montoya, and Symington.
EXHIBIT 2
S. 1220
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SEC. 2. (a) The regulations of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (relating to the administration of titles I, X, XIV, and XVI, and part A of title IV, of the Social Security Act) as in effect on January 1, 1973, shall remain in full force and effect insofar as such regulations relate to–
(1) the use of privately contributed funds and in-kind contributions as part of State expenditures, in determining (for purposes of any such title or part A) the amount of the Federal contribution to which any State is entitled on account of expenditures incurred by the State for social services under a State plan approved under any such title or part A, provided that the Secretary may clarify requirements that such privately contributed funds be expended in accordance with a State plan.
(2) the authority of any State, under any such plan, to define the categories or classes of individuals who are eligible to receive such social services;
(3) the authority of any State, under any such plan, to include, as social services, and alcohol treatment programs, education and training services, and comprehensive service programs for children, the elderly, or the disabled (including such programs for mentally retarded children and adults);
(4) reporting requirements of States, under any such plan, with respect to the provision of social services; or
(5) the standards imposed, under any such plan, with respect to the provision, as social services, of day care services.
(b) No regulation, promulgated by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare after January 1, 1973, shall have any force or effect, and any such regulation shall be invalid, if, and insofar as, such regulation is inconsistent with the provisions of subsection (a).