A Pre-White House Conference on Aging Summary of Developments and Data
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
92D CONGRESS SENATE f REPORT 1st Session Il NO. 92-505 A PRE-WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE ON AGING SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENTS AND DATA A REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING UNITED STATES SENATE TOGETHER WITH MINORITY AND SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS NOVEMBER 1971 NovEMBER 19, 1971.-Ordered to be printed U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 61-6E7 0 WASHINGTON 1971 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 -Price 70 cents SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING FRANK CHURCH, Idaho, Chairman HARRISON A. WILLIAMS, JR., New Jersey HIRAM L. FONG, Hawaii ALAN BIBLE, Nevada JACK MILLER, Iowa JENNINGS RANDOLPH, West Virginia CLIFFORD P. HANSEN, Wyoming EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Maine PAUL J. FANNIN, Arizona FRANK E. MOSS, Utah EDWARD J. GURNEY, Florida EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts WILLIAM B. SAXBE, Ohio WALTER F. MONDALE, Minnesota EDWARD W. BROOKE, Massachusetts VANCE HARTKE, Indiana CHARLES H. PERCY, Illinois CLAIBORNE PELL, Rhode Island ROBERT T. STAFFORD, Vermont' THOMAS F. EAGLETON, Missouri WILLIAM E. ORIOL, Staff Director DAviD A. AFFELDT, Couned JoHN Guy MILLER, MinOritY Staff Director ' Senator Winston Prouty, Vermont, served as ranking minority member of the committee from September 1969, until his death September 10, 1971. Senator Robert T. Stafford, Vermont, was appointed to fill the vacancy on September 17, 1971. (II) PREFACE To judge by official declarations, this year's White House Con- ference on Aging-to be conducted during the week of November 28- has had a major change in fundamental purpose. At the start of the year, the Conference theme was "Toward a National Policy on Aging.." Within recent months, however, a new Conference Chairman has talked with some urgency about the need for action, before, during, and after the Conference. This need for action is indisputable, as earlier reports by this Committee have indicated. But the questions remain: will the action be appropriate and will it be on a scale large enough to matter? Apparently in response to the new goals declared for the White House Conference, the Administration has taken several -steps in- tended to allav fears about the Conference. In addition, several high-level actions have been taken in regard to long-term care, consideration of alternatives to the Administration on Aging, and establishment of a structural framework for implementation of the recommendations of the White House Conference.' These late developments-and many others-have resulted in a situation far different than when the Senate Special Committee on 2 Aging published its last annual report. --. To evaluate those developments and to report upon findings from recent reports and hearings by this Committee, this pre-White House Conference on Aging' survey is offered to participants at that Con- ference and to- all others who have an interest in those proceedings. This document also serves another purpose. It has helped this Committee to organize facts and findings that will be helpful in evaluating and seeking implementation of the recommendations made by the White House Conference on Aging. I believe that the White House Conference Chairman-former Health, Education, and Welfare Secretary Arthur Flemming-should be taken at his word when he says that he regards the Conference as an event in a process. It is certainly not-the finale to all the activity and preliminary conferences which have led up to it. Instead, it will provide a foundation on which a structure can be built. To make certain that this structure is solid and built to serve genuinely essential purposes, action should be taken in the near future to assure that implementation is based solidly upon realities and not outdated information or wishful thinking. Mr. Flemming has already anticipated the 'need for new mecha- nisms for implementation by reporting that a Cabinet-Level Com- mittee on Aging has been formed within the President's Domestic Council. Frankly, I see little difference between this new mechanism l For additional information on the White House Conference and recent related actions, see the Introdue- tion to this report. s "Developments in Aging-1970," March 23,1971. (mI) IV and the old President's Council on Aging 3 (a body which seems to have faded away without much alarm on anyone's part).' Among the complaints that can be made about the structure of the Domestic Council Committee on Aging, are many that were directed at the President's Council on Aging. Cabinet-level officers are not likely to spend hours in joint discussion of Conference recommen- dations; they may instead send lieutenants with varying degrees of interest or concern in aging. In addition it may be significant that the President himself did not announce, the committee but conveyed the news about the committee in a letter to H.E.W. Secretary Richardson. A Domestic Council Committee on Aging would have far more likelihood of success if it were buttressed by several innovative measures of the kind I will soon offer in the form of legislation. Among my proposals will be the following: 1. Steps should be taken soon in 1972 to require mini-White House Conferences on Aging at approximately 2-year intervals during the decade before the next full White House Conference. These periodical Conferences should not review all the subjects reviewed at this year's full Conference. Instead, each should focus upon one major subject at a time. By far and away the most vital subject is retirement income. My legislation would call for a follow-up conference on that subject no later than November 1973, preceded by a comprehensive mobilization of essential data. 2. The Domestic Council Committee on Aging would cause considerable harm to the cause of aging if it in any way hindered efforts to establish a more potent successor to the Administration on Aging. That agency, established under the Older Americans Act of 1965, will lapse unless renewed before June 30, 1972. An Advisory Council to the Senate Special Committee on Aging has proposed major changes to supersede the AoA with much more visible and prestigious governmental arrangement.' As soon as the White House Conference recommendations on this subject are made, members of this Committee and others in the Congress will undoubtedly offer bills to deal with the question of continua- tion or replacement of the AoA. That legislation should receive careful administrationattention; it should not be balked by adminis- tration assertions that its Domestic Council Committee on Aging is developing a master plan for implementation at some distantfuture 3 The President's Council on Aging was established on May 14, 1962. Its last report covered the years of 1965. 1966. 1967. 4 Membership in the President's Council on Aging included Secretaries of H.E.W., Treasury, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, HUD, as well as the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, the Administrator of Veterans Affairs, and the Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity. The new Cabinet-level Com- mittee on Aging, as announced on October 13, has as members: Elliot L. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Chairman; Clifford M. Hardin, Secretary of Agriculture; Maurice H. Stans, Sec- retary of Commerce; James D. Hodgson, Secretary of Labor; George W. Romney. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; John A. Volpe, Secretary of Transportation; George P. Shultz, Director, Office of Management and Budget; Arthur S. Flemming, Chairman, White House Conference on Aging. In addition, Joe Blatchford, Director of ACTION; Phillip Sanchez, Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, and Leonard Garment, Special Consultant to the President, have been asked to serve as consultants to the Committee. 6See chapter 4 for details. V date. Neither should the Council Committee be accepted as the final means of implementing the White House Conference recommendations. The Cabinet-level approach has been tried before, and it does not work. 3. Soon after the White House Conference, a major administra- tion effort should be made-by legislative direction if necessary- to compile and correlate findings from government research, demonstration projects, and experience with ongoing programs related in any way to aging in all Federal departments. It is a pity that such an effort was not made in advance of the Conference. It would be even, more unfortunate if findings from such an information-gathering effort were not made to aid in the im- plementation of those recommendations. 4. A hectic-4-day White House Conference is not likely to afford sufficient time for setting priorities and for "costing-out" major recommendations. Administration representatives should be called upon by appropriate units of Congress for cost information soon after the Conference, and Congress should also ask for a description of social benefits to be derived from the major recommendations. Added to mv individual suggestions are several recommendations made by the full Committee in the body of the following report. More comprehensive recommendations will be made in the next Committee report, due for publication in early 1972. This report does not offer definitive criticisms of the White House Conference "issues" as defined by the Background and Issues papers prepared by specialists under the direction of Technical Committees of the Conference. Despite the criticism leveled at many of the issues, largely on the grounds that they take an overly restrictive and limited view of problem areas and are too often phrased as "either/or" alternatives, the issues have served as the basis for earlier, preparatory conferences. It would be fruitless to seek redefinition at this late date, particularly in view of the fact that several Technical Committees have taken steps to permit more leeway in discussion of issues at the Conference. It is to be hoped that, in the instructions given at the first meeting of the Conference, more light can be thrown on this matter.