Изображения страниц

Senator EAGLETON. We have some witnesses this morning, a couple of whom apparently are delayed, but we fully expect they will be with us. So if we may, we will start off with Mr. Ralph McKenzie, who is director of the Louisiana State Agency on Aging. You have someone you wish to introduce?

Mr. MCKENZIE. Yes, Ms. Janet Slaybaugh. She is our assistant.
Senator EAGLETON. How do you spell your last name?
Ms. SLAYBAUGH. S-l-a-y-b-a-u-g-h.
Senator EAGLETON. What is your title?
Ms. SLAYBAUGH. Assistant director.



Mr. McKENZIE. I am Ralph McKenzie with the Bureau of Aging Services in Baton Rouge. I was recently appointed to this position.

The Bureau of Aging Services in Louisiana is under the Louisiana Department of Health and Human Resources. There are a couple of items that we would like to discuss with you today, primarily to focus on the goals and objectives of the Bureau as well as to point out some of our concerns in regard to coordination.

The Bureau of Aging Services has two main purposes which it fulfills. The Bureau serves as the focal point for advocacy in Louisiana on behalf of senior citizens and administers statewide the programs funded under the Older Americans Act

Senator EAGLETON. Mr. McKenzie, could I indulge your patience for a moment? I notice that Congresswoman Boggs


Senator EAGLETON. The record should note that Congresswoman Boggs got more applause when she came in than I did. Could we ask you

to hold for a minute.
Lindy, are you going to be with us this morning?
Mrs. Boggs. I will be with you. I don't want to interrupt.
Senator EAGLETON. Do you have an opening statement?
Mrs. Boggs. Yes.
Senator EAGLETON. Why don't we yield at this time
Mrs. Boggs. I hate to do that to you.

Senator EAGLETON. [continuing] Mrs. Boggs will make an opening statement. We are delighted to have her participate in this matter. I am especially delighted since her son took me out to dinner last night.


TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA Mrs. Boggs. Is that why I didn't have a key to my house when I came in?

Thank you very much. My apologies for not being here earlier. I am sure that some of these things have been said, but anything that Senator Eagleton or Senator Johnston said always bears repeating.

Of course, it is a pleasure for me to welcome this committee to New Orleans and especially to my own congressional district. I trust this hearing and others like it will provide an important perspective from which we, as Members of Congress, can judge how the Older Americans Act is or is not working for the good of older Americans.

It has been 12 years since Congress first enacted the Older Americans Act as the vehicle for the first social service program designed solely for this Nation's senior citizen population. The act set forth, as all of you remember, 10 objectives for Government in the areas of income maintenance, emotional and physical well-being, housing, employment, social services, and civil, cultural, and recreational opportunities.

Since its inception, the act has been amended six times to strengthen and expand its ability to address community service and social service programs. I am not going to review the history of the act at this time, but I think if we did review it, it would underscore the growing awareness that 22 million Americans over the age of 65 are a tremendous force in our daily lives. Nowhere is this growth more vividly reflected than in the increase in Federal appropriations under the Older Americans Act for research, community services, and nutrition programs for the elderly. In 1966, a total of $11.5 million and this was increased to $101 million in 1972; now the appropriation for the fiscal year 1978 is an unprecedented $699 million.

But is this amount enough to nieet the needs of our senior citizens? Just last week President Carter nominated Robert Benedict to replace Arthur Fleming as Commissioner on Aging. When he testified before the House Select Committee on Aging last summer, Mr. Benedict estimated that to operate a comprehensive service system in his State, Pennsylvania, in 1976 would have cost $150 million. Yet the area agencies on aging in his State had only $14 million to spend, and only $11 million of that came from the Older Americans Act.

One of the most significant innovations in the field of senior citizen activities is the “Network on Aging." Its purpose, in the words of the 1973 amendments, is to develop "a nationwide network of comprehensive, coordinated services” for older persons. This network is now almost totally in place with some 550 area agencies on aging in every part of the country, and State aging offices in every State of the Union working to meet the needs of the elderly.

It is important for those who use this system, and for those of us in Congress, to look at how this network and the other parts of the Older Americans Act are really affecting the lives of older Americans and whether the results are for the better.

In addition, there are other vital issues that must be pursued at this hearing and others like it. For example: Is the mechanism of the area agency successful as a major focus of programs for the elderly!

How much direction should area agencies have in nutrition and senior center programs, and other activities that are not directly within the act's purpose ?

Should the area agencies plan, or should they perform? Should the agency's role be enhanced so they can reach out to tap other resources such as those of title 20, ACTION, medicaid, et cetera?

How can they better marshal the available resources? How closely should the area agencies be tied to local government?

How can the Federal Government, which pays 90 percent of the costs, assure quality in area agency operations without stifling local initiative? What can be done at the national level to enhance the visibility of programs for older people?

In light of the scheduled expiration of the Older Americans Act at the end of September 1978, it is imperative that we step up the pace of examination and evaluation.

In closing, I would like to take this opportunity to salute not only the committee for coming here and holding these hearings, but also the Sacred Heart Nutrition Center and the Metropolitan New Orleans Council on Aging.

Over the years, the accomplishments and services provided by these organizations have been tremendous. I know that our community dearly values their existence and accomplishments. They, along with similar organizations, deserve our gratitude and respect for the work they have done with one of our Nation's most valuable resources; our senior citizens.

Thank you so much. [Applause.]

Senator EAGLETON. Mr. McKenzie had already started this morning and I ask his indulgence one more time because we have the Mayor of New Orleans that I would like to call to the table. Would you mind stepping aside just briefly, Mr. McKenzie.


Senator EAGLETON. Mr. Mayor, we are delighted to have you here and I don't say this just as idle praise, and it couldn't be more sincere on my part. Let me put it this way, being President of the United States must be a very difficult job, but I think the most difficult job of all is to be the mayor of a big city. The problems that this big city has, the whole mass of social needs, whether it is delivery of health care, parks, recreation, all the gamut of governmental endeavors, are imposed upon the shoulders of a mayor.

Seldom do you get much praise, you always hear the complaints. It is to the mayor that most people turn to get relief or redemption of some problem, or what have you. Mayor Moon Landrieu is preeminent in his field. I know he is soon to step aside in order to have a new mayor early next year, but, Mr. Landrieu, you can be enormously proud of the reputation that you have gathered for yourself around the country.

You are known not just in New Orleans or the State of Louisiana, you are known and respected and admired by many big city mayors who share your burdens, and frankly, I guess they wish they had the talents you have, Mr. Mayor. So we are delighted to have you.


Mayor LANDRIEU. Thank you very much, Senator.

I have just recently received some praise that perhaps I am not entitled to and I was joking with Gillis Long yesterday who said in jest that perhaps those things might be said about him if he were going out of politics, also. I went on to say and asked the indulgence of my mother and mother-in-law that politicians are very much like beautiful ladies, we all look better from the rear.


Mayor LANDRIEU. So as I leave office, I suspect there will be some acknowledgments, I certainly hope so.

I came this morning really to just thank you and Senator Johnston for bringing this subcommittee here to the city of New Orleans. You are right, I think, in your analysis, though perhaps a bit exaggerated, that the job of mayor is a tough one. As a matter of fact, it was an impossible job 7 or 8 years ago, and but for the help that the Federal Government has given to cities, I am satisfied that many of them would have deteriorated to the point that they would be unsalvageable. The new partnership that has been struck between the Federal Government and the cities has had an extraordinarily healthy change in the fundamental ways in which these levels of Government had been operating in the past.

They have not bypassed the constitutional rights of the States and yet it found ways to assist not only the structure of city government, but likewise the people that are living in greater urban centers. So I am very indebted to you and Senator Johnston for your assistance throughout the years, and I am sure that every mayor shares that view.

You are here today on another matter that is of the utmost importance. Cities all over the country are becoming the places of residence for the elderly, and we welcome them. They are extraordinarily valuable assets. They are here because the other areas lack the kind of special services that the elderly require. They can make a great contribution if, in fact, they can get transportation and in fact they can get the kind of cooperation they need so they can become valuable assets in and of themselves.

Without the kind of assistance that we are now becoming sensitized to, we suffer what I think is a great loss of human dignity and life and at the same time I think the Government and the citizens lose a great productive element.

So I thank you very much for focusing attention on this. We are becoming more sensitized to it here as we have for all groups

in society. I don't think we have ignored the elderly, we have been a little bit too busy in other areas to recognize that there is much to be gained by focusing attention on the problems of the elderly and then trying to develop a program to assist those who have been the most productive citizens and surely have paid their dues to society, and maintain them as productive elements of our society.

So you have my congratulations and best wishes for a fruitful committee hearing. Mr. Gates will be given testimony on our behalf. I simply wanted to stop by to thank you and welcome you to the city of New Orleans.


Senator EAGLETON. Let me ask you one question, Mayor, if I could, and then I will yield to my colleagues. In conversations I have with mayors, especially the two big cities in my State, St. Louis and Kansas City, they always place great emphasis on revenue sharing. This has been of enormous value to them, and most of them would have no other way of meeting their budgets but for revenue sharing. It gives discretion to the mayor and the city council as to the priority needs in their own judgment. A mayor and a council can make the determination on which of the multiplicity of problems a city faces the money should be spent.

01-80 - 79 - 15

Now, with that sort of a backdrop, taking into account that the thrust of this committee is programs pertaining to the elderly, do you believe, as mayor, that we have a proper mix of focus in terms of general revenue sharing? Does it give the discretion that you

'emen, of course, like to have, yet still specifically target programs so that an area of need is not somehow overlooked or ignored. How do you balance those two: the desire to have great local discrecion, "we will decide how to spend it, just give us the money and we will spend it,” vis-a-vis “we want a significant amount of that spent on problems relating to America's elderly"?

Mayor LANDRIEU. Senator, I always lean to the broader category. I don't think it would or should ever reach the point where we abandon the categorical grant system. I think they play an extraordinarily important role in the terms of development of programs and new approaches. I honestly feel that when those new approaches have been developed, then we have a more efficient machinery for delivering the services on a broad scale.

Obviously, if you simply gave money in a form of general revenue sharing to cities that are terribly strapped, we are inclined to continue what we are doing at our point in the programs because there isn't any time or money to experiment. Categorical--in my judgment, its most important usage is in the development of new programs, new systems that haven't been tried before.

I know that many who are advocates of particular groups have the great fear that this money would not be spent unless it is absolutely earmarked for that purpose. The problem with that, as you well know, is that the dollar has so many earmarks that it is more holes than dollars. I think that is to be avoided.

What is important, I think, to all of us is the raising of the level of consciousness about problems such as the problem of aging, but you can take that and multiply it any number of times. We are dealing, for instance, now with a problem in terms of transit in ordering new buses in the Mass Transit Act. We obviously want to accommodate the handicapped. There isn't any question that here is another element of our society that can be very productive, not simply ignored in society and put away to a nonfruitful life.

But how do you accomplish that goal and at the same time service the other citizens of the community who also have to be serviced? I only mention it because in dealing with the problem, ire are looking at some equipment, new buses that may very well cost five or six times what present equipment costs, in order to accommodate the handicapped. Is it preferable to do that or is it preferable to establish an alternative system of transportation? It is that kind of thing that we are wrestling with right now. It isn't the lack of sensitivity, a question of not being concerned and wanting to be concerned, it is, how do you get the most production for the least amount of dollars?

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »