Rep. Doggett Introduces Motion to Preserve Social Services Block Grant Program and Services it Provides to Seniors, Some of Our Most Vulnerable Neighbors

Rep. Doggett's full remarks as prepared for delivery follow below:

Mr.Chairman, from you and our Republican colleagues we have heard much alreadytoday about the desirability of leaving more of these decisions to the statesand seeking Main Street solutions rather than Washington solutions. Thismotion deals with an attempt to give the states more responsibility in the areaof social services—an attempt, in fact, that was signed into law by one RonaldReagan.

It is aprogram that has enjoyed through the years bipartisan support. It hasbeen renewed without heavy ideological debate as a way to assist the states inmeeting their responsibilities to many of our most vulnerable citizens.

Now at atime when Republicans are telling us we need to block grant Medicaid—some areeven saying we need to block grant Social Security—we are told that thisparticular block grant program, signed into law by President Reagan, should beabolished. It is part of the same thinking that when Republicans tell ussomething should be reformed they usually mean repealed—as with repeal and replacewhere there is no replacement that has been advanced over the lastyear-and-a-half.

Specificallywith the Social Services block grant program, I can't say that all of thecriticisms of the concept of block grants is misplaced. I've found attimes that these block grant programs go to block headed governors that don'tmake effective use of the resources they get from the federal government ormainly use these block grants to claim credit for funding programs that theydid not provide the tax dollars for, but that were raised in a totallydifferent place.

But I thinkin looking at block grant programs—this particular one was criticized in theWays and Means hearing based solely on the fact the state program didn't haveenough standards to it. In other words, it didn't have enough Washingtonrestrictions on Main Street solutions. There be some merit to having someadditional standards apply to this block grant. It may even be that thisblock grant is not the highest priority in our government funding. But myconcern is that at a time when the states are making significant cut backs inall of their social services, the question is not whether this is the very bestway to do it, but whether or not there are some Americans who will sufferdramatically if this block grant program that follows the same concept that isbeing advocated today for Medicaid, is terminated, which is what this motionwould prevent and what the reconciliation bill would do.

Let me talka little about how this Social Services Block Grant, without many standards,giving the states flexibility to allocate these dollars as they choose to do soin the Social Service area is utilized in Texas. In Austin, in SanAntonio, and in other areas of the state relies heavily on this program to fundthe Meals on Wheels program.

SharonBaughman of Christian Senior Services in San Antonio says that in that county,a large number of the people that they serve are veterans or the spouse of aveteran, that these are people who have served their country, paid their taxes,and lived productive lives. As she said to me, it really isn't asking somuch to make sure that they receive at least one healthy meal every day. It is that funding that would be eliminated if this motion is not adopted.

MichaelGoldstein at Meals on Wheels and More in Austin says that these cuts would beabs
olutely devastating to the people that they serve, they would be devastatingto budgets because of the tremendous cost of placing seniors in nursing homesbecause they cannot live independently when they lose their meal.

One personwho benefits directly is my neighbor Mary Simpson. She says: "People likeme who live on Social Security don't have a lot of money. Meals on Wheelshelps out so much especially with everything so costly. Even buying aloaf of bread and lunch meat is difficult for me, but with Meals on Wheels atleast I know I get one good meal a day."

It is thattype of program that will be seriously compromised, indeed in the words of thedirector who relies on these funds, "absolutely devastated" if this block grantis terminated.

Of coursesome other states have chosen to use their monies through this block grant indifferent ways. In New York, funds are used by adult protective services.In California, the focus is on special services to individuals withdisabilities. We have heard from a wide range of groups across thecountry, groups like Catholic Charities, Easter Seals, The Arc, Children'sDefense Fund about what will happen when so many states are making cutbacksthat are impairing social services if on top of that, this Social ServicesBlock Grant is axed as well.

These areindividuals like "Jenny" -- a 52 year-old woman who grew up in a stateinstitution. Jenny was discharged into the community in the 1980s with notraining, no family support and no income. The Arc found her a place tolive, a volunteer to take her to the doctor and teach her how to ride the bus,and got her signed up for doctor's appointments and therapies. Jenny nowlives in her own apartment, with support from The Arc's case management staff,and is working part-time at a local restaurant. The small amount offunding The Arc received through the Social Services Block Grant program helpedchange Jenny's life.

And "Donald"-- a 30 year-old man with significant physical and mental disabilities.Donald's mother died when she was in her fifties, and his siblings could notcare for him. He was in danger of being institutionalized. The Arc foundDonald a small group home, a volunteer, and provided him with monthly socialoutings and friendships. Again, a life changing experience and theavoidance of dangerous and costly care in a state-supported livingcenter. I think it is a life worth protecting, as is this Social ServicesBlock Grant program.

We will alsosee many abused children, in some states, adversely affected with cuts thathave already been made in Child and Protective Services. A number ofpeople wrote to me in my role as Ranking Member of the Human ResourcesSubcommittee to tell me about what the effect would be in their state on abusedchildren if these dollars are lost. These are real, live human beings whowill suffer directly if these resources are not there.