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:

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}

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

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

Now at a time when Republicans are telling us we need to block grant Medicaid—some are even saying we need to block grant Social Security—we are told that this particular block grant program, signed into law by President Reagan, should be abolished.  It is part of the same thinking that when Republicans tell us something should be reformed they usually mean repealed—as with repeal and replace where there is no replacement that has been advanced over the last year-and-a-half.

Specifically with the Social Services block grant program, I can’t say that all of the criticisms of the concept of block grants is misplaced.  I’ve found at times that these block grant programs go to block headed governors that don’t make effective use of the resources they get from the federal government or mainly use these block grants to claim credit for funding programs that they did not provide the tax dollars for, but that were raised in a totally different place.

But I think in looking at block grant programs—this particular one was criticized in the Ways and Means hearing based solely on the fact the state program didn’t have enough standards to it.  In other words, it didn’t have enough Washington restrictions on Main Street solutions.  There be some merit to having some additional standards apply to this block grant.  It may even be that this block grant is not the highest priority in our government funding.  But my concern is that at a time when the states are making significant cut backs in all of their social services, the question is not whether this is the very best way to do it, but whether or not there are some Americans who will suffer dramatically if this block grant program that follows the same concept that is being advocated today for Medicaid, is terminated, which is what this motion would prevent and what the reconciliation bill would do.

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

Sharon Baughman 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 a veteran, 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 so much 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.

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

One person who benefits directly is my neighbor Mary Simpson.  She says: “People like me who live on Social Security don’t have a lot of money.  Meals on Wheels helps out so much especially with everything so costly.  Even buying a loaf of bread and lunch meat is difficult for me, but with Meals on Wheels at least I know I get one good meal a day.”

It is that type of program that will be seriously compromised, indeed in the words of the director who relies on these funds, “absolutely devastated” if this block grant is terminated.

Of course some other states have chosen to use their monies through this block grant in different ways.  In New York, funds are used by adult protective services. In California, the focus is on special services to individuals with disabilities.  We have heard from a wide range of groups across the country, groups like Catholic Charities, Easter Seals, The Arc, Children’s Defense Fund about what will happen when so many states are making cutbacks that are impairing social services if on top of that, this Social Services Block Grant is axed as well.

These are individuals like “Jenny” -- a 52 year-old woman who grew up in a state institution.  Jenny was discharged into the community in the 1980s with no training, no family support and no income.  The Arc found her a place to live, 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 now lives 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 of funding The Arc received through the Social Services Block Grant program helped change 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 not care for him.  He was in danger of being institutionalized. The Arc found Donald a small group home, a volunteer, and provided him with monthly social outings and friendships.  Again, a life changing experience and the avoidance of dangerous and costly care in a state-supported living center.  I think it is a life worth protecting, as is this Social Services Block Grant program.

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