our watchword. We have today 185 apartments of different sizes for the elderly. We have 5,600 square feet for a day center.

Senator CLARK. Are any of these high rise?

Mrs. MCGUIRE. Yes, this is a high rise, the first of its kind in the city of San Antonio.

Senator CLARK. How high?

Mrs. MCGUIRE. Nine stories. There was a specific reason for that. We wanted to be close to the middle of the city, within the 1-mile circle, and land was costly, and we had to go up rather than spread out.

We also found in a survey among some 2,000 elderly that they wanted the high rise because they felt a greater sense of security if they could be close to the city. This is not true of all.

Senator CLARK. A good deal of this was due to the cost of land, was it not?

Mrs. MCGUIRE. Completely.

Senator CLARK. If you had your way you would not go high rise? Mrs. MCGUIRE. We would have cottages rather than high rise. If we could have them close to the center of the city.

More than a dozen United Fund agencies and public agencies will operate this center. They were the ones who planned it. The Hogg Foundation of the University of Texas gave a grant in order that a professional person would be available for 3 years to operate this

center.

Someone before inquired whether or not from the Mental Health Institute in Bethesda we might get psychiatric counseling. We know that this would make it possible for many of the elderly with mild senility factors to live independently for many years if we could have some kind of counseling service. We think this would be an excellent research opportunity.

Senator CLARK. Just so the record is clear you are referring to the National Institutes of Health at Bethesda, Md.?

Mrs. MCGUIRE. That is right.

We also believe that we should encourage different types of design, that we should not settle for a high rise or for houses or cottages or any one type as being necessarily the answer.

Senator CLARK. This calls for some consultation and coordination with the architects, does it not?

Mrs. MCGUIRE. Indeed it does, yes.

Senator CLARK. Are you getting any help from the AIA?

Mrs. MCGUIRE. Yes, we are receiving very much help. They are doing a great deal of work right now.

I would like to leave this document with the committee. This is what the architects wrote about the housing for the elderly.

Senator MCNAMARA. I understand you are going to leave that with the committee, not to be made part of the record but as an exhibit? Mrs. MCGUIRE. Yes.

As another exhibit I would like to leave this brochure, a publication of the Community Welfare Council of San Antonio, showing how we obtained 3 years ago the interest of all the agencies in the city having to do with the problem. I would also like to offer the committee an annual report of the housing authority, dealing also with the subject.

Senator MCNAMARA. The pamphlets will be made a part of the record as exhibits.

Thank you.

Mrs. MCGUIRE. I will end by saying, Mr. Chairman, that the National Association of Housing and Development Officials will be delighted and happy at having an opportunity of consulting with your committee at any time on this phase of the problem.

Senator MCNAMARA. Thank you, Mrs. McGuire. We are very happy to have had you here.

Senator CLARK. I would like to comment that I think Mrs. McGuire has lived up to all the previous remarks by Senator Yarborough. Senator YARBOROUGH. We are very proud of your work in Texas and the contribution you are making.

We know that the pioneer work that has been done in San Antonio under your leadership will be watched over the country.

We confidently believe that the things you have learned about housing and the elderly, whether in motel units or the high-rise type of the nine stories that you indicated down there, some time ago, the other types of experimental housing will be of benefit to all of the people of the United States as they move forward in their study and work to solve this problem.

Thank you for coming here and giving this very enlightened subcommittee I am not bragging on myself, as I am not on the subcommittee but giving the gentlemen who are making the fine study being made of this in the United States the benefit of your experience. Mrs. MCGUIRE. Thank you very much.

Senator CLARK. I may say that we will anticipate similar and prompt progress in the State of Maryland.

Mrs. MCGUIRE. With 5 minutes more experience in life it should be better.

Senator MCNAMARA. Thank you again, Mrs. McGuire.

I would like the representatives of these groups to come up here to the table and take a seat.

First, Mr. Richard Leonard. Will you come up here, Mr. Leonard? Dr. Donald Stubbs?

Robert Townsend?

Will you be seated, gentlemen.

Is Mrs. Florence Baltz here?

Dr. Friedrich?

Mr. Frank Waters?

Now, the reason for asking you to come up here is to point out to you that we have somewhat of a problem, and we are concerned with your time as much as we are our own, or perhaps more.

We have invited you here to make statements and give testimony before the committee.

I wanted to do whatever suits your convenience. The hour is now 10 minutes after 12. If you want to proceed and take about 10 minutes each to summarize your statements we will continue this session until about 1 o'clock.

Or would you rather come back at 2 o'clock? This is what I want you to decide.

Mr. Leonard, you indicated that you had to leave.

Mr. LEONARD. Yes.

Senator MCNAMARA. Do you want to take about 10 minutes at this time to summarize the statement that you have?

Mr. LEONARD. Senator, I might say in deference to the committee and realizing the problem that it has, and recognizing that the testimony that I have before me is quite lengthy. I might suggest that I be permitted 6 or 7 minutes to summarize and that my testimony in its entirety to be printed in the record.

Senator MCNAMARA. If such a procedure would suit the rest of you rather than to come back at 2 o'clock-is there a general indication that is so?

Is there any objection to that procedure?

Senator CLARK. Do not let us railroad you now. This is a free country. Say what you want to.

Dr. STUBBS. Mr. Chairman, for myself I must leave as soon as I can. It would be difficult to come back. I have to be back in the erating room sometime before 1.

Senator MCNAMARA. Apparently that is

Mr. TOWNSEND. It will be all right with me. I can come back.
Senator MCNAMARA. You may do it either way.

Mr. TOWNSEND. I think I can give mine in 10 minutes.

op

STATEMENT OF RICHARD T. LEONARD, ASSISTANT TO WALTER P. REUTHER, PRESIDENT OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNION DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO

Senator MCNAMARA. Let us start with Mr. Leonard with the understanding that the statement as presented will be printed in its entirety in the record at this point. We will ask you to summarize. (The prepared statement of Mr. Leonard follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD T. LEONARD, ASSISTANT TO WALTER P. REUTHER, PRESIDENT OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNION DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO

My name is Richard T. Leonard, I am the assistant to Walter P. Reuther, president of the industrial union department, AFL-CIO. I am appearing here today on behalf of James B. Carey, secretary-treasurer of the industrial union department and president of the International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO.

Mr. Carey, like all of us in the American labor movement, has a deep interest in the problems of the Nation's aged. As the chairman of this committee knows, he had hoped to be able to testify in person on this all-important subject. In preparation for his testimony, Mr. Carey reread many of the letters he has received from retired IUE members and their families. He had planned to incorporate some of these letters, as well as pertinent information about the electrical industry into his statement.

Because I believe Mr. Carey's testimony rightfully belongs before this committee, I would like the committee's permission to incorporate his remarks with my own. Therefore, I will be representing both the IUE and the IUD.

I want to congratulate this committee for its decision to hold public hearings on all aspects of the problems of the aged. For a civilization that prides itself on its humanitarian impulses and its tremendous material productivity, we have unfortunately-compiled a sad record in the treatment of our older people.

This committee is, indeed, performing a valuable service in holding these hearings and in publicizing the problems faced by our senior citizens citizens who have all too often been forgotten by the Nation they helped to make so great.

Like many other Americans who grew up in the more idealistic days of the 1930's, I am proud of my generation's deep concern with such problems as old age, unemployment, housing, and health. What we achieved some 20 to 25 years ago, had a tremendous impact upon the social welfare of our people.

Engulfed by a depression from which we were just beginning to emerge, we dared to provide social security for our older citizens. The benefit rate of that

first social security was small, but I would point out that it does not suffer in comparison with today's rate when considered in terms of the growth in our gross national product and national income.

Unfortunately, the first humanitarian impulses of those New Deal days were swallowed by World War II and by the conservative wave that marked the postwar era and has been accentuated by the indifferent policies of the present administration. In the more than two decades since the advent of social security, very little has been done to aid our older folks.

Fortunately for the aged, medical science now endows them with a longer lifespan. As a result, some 15 million retired Americans have become a sizable potential political group. Remembering Dr. Townsend's special niche in our history, the Nation's elected leaders are once again reconsidering the problems of the elderly.

We of industrial labor can never be accused of waiting for the aged to become a political pressure group. It is often forgotten, but it was the demand of organized labor for industrial pensions that led to the first revision of social security. It was the fight of steelworkers, auto workers, rubber workers, and electrical workers-led by leaders such as Philip Murray and Walter Reuther that first helped to make life just a little more liveable for older people back in 1949.

That expansion of social security was not an accident. Unable to induce the giants of industry to take care of their older workers-those who were "too old to work and too young to die"-we decided to tie our first negotiated pension plans into social security. We "integrated" them, as the phrase went.

Perhaps you will recall that during World War II, industry started at last its acceptance of pensions. The first plans were established as a result of the excess profits tax. They applied-for the most part-to executives and to whitecollar workers. In almost all cases, the men and women who made the wheels of production turn were left out in the cold. It remained for our unions to prove on the picket lines-that our members, too, deserved to live out their lives with a degree of security and well-being.

Per

Today our Nation is in the midst of a steel strike. Labor Secretary Mitchell has announced that he is studying the causes of strikes in that industry. haps we can save the Secretary some time by reminding him that the 1949 strike was caused by the steel companies acting as adamant as they are now. Just a decade ago, the same companies told the same union that while executives and white-collar workers could look forward to pensions in their later years, industrial workers were "different" and had no right to such benefits.

It took a Presidential fact-finding board, in 1949, to persuade the steel industry to finally agree that the Nation could survive if its production workers earned and later enjoyed-pensions.

Once management had agreed to industrial pensions that were integrated with social security, opposition to boosting payments that were then averaging $25 a month quickly disappeared. With industry's support, the social security law was amended during that same year of 1949, effective January 1, 1950, and the law has since been amended a number of times.

Today, 71 million Americans enjoy social security coverage. Today, women may retire at age 62. Today, persons who are 50 years of age or older who are disabled may have disability protection with additional payments for their wives and children. Today, many of our factory workers, retiring at 65, receive $116 a month with an added $58 a month if their wives are 65. If their wives are 62 or over, the payments are actuarially reduced on their behalf.

Contrast the $51 a month paid by social security in 1949 for a man and wife 65 years of age-just 10 years ago-with the $174 a month paid to a similar couple retiring today. This is the reason that we of industrial labor feel that we have made a substantial contribution to our older citizens through our fight for pensions and for improved social security protection.

And I want to emphasize that our efforts to expand social security have not been merely on behalf of our members. We now have some 18 million American union members. Some 56 million Americans, the vast majority of whom never have been and may never be union members, have benefited because of our work in this field. Sometimes I think that we should hire a Madison Avenue advertising firm to brag about the impact of our efforts to help the aged.

Millions of farmers, millions of small businessmen, even big businessmen, millions of salesmen, and countless individual enterprises have benefited and will continue to benefit as a direct result of our efforts and those of progressive American legislators and other community leaders.

I want to contrast our attitude with that of another organization—an organization that is a model of a complete closed shop and which thinks only of the economic well-being of its members, many of whom are compelled to join if they want to continue in their profession.

I refer to the American Medical Association, an organization that should have the physical, emotional, and financial well-being of all Americans at heart but which has an unblemished record of opposing every attempt to solve the health and financial problems of our older and underprivileged citizens.

Let me point out, too, that our interest in the well-being of older Americans has been no transient concern. Just as the AMA has consistently opposed all forms of social security, pensions, and public health protections, we of industrial labor have consistently battled to gain improvements for the aged-in social security, in pensions, and in both private and governmental health insurance. Jim Carey's union-the IUE-serves as an excellent example of how trade unionism fights for its older as well as its retired members. The IUE negotiates with some 475 companies. Some of its contracts are open annually; some every other year; some every 3 years; and two of them cover 5-year periods.

The IUE, like many other unions, has an economic program that it presents to management during these collective bargaining negotiations. Part of this program deals with the IUE's older members. Since the institution of pension plans, the union has sought-and seeks to improve these programs.

Why does Jim Carey's union continue to fight for its older members? It does so because it knows that, unless a good pension plan can be negotiated, its retired members will frequently find themselves head over heels in debt-a debt often caused by mounting medical bills.

Let me give this committee an example of what such debt can mean. The IUE has a lifetime member in Pittsfield, Mass., who is now 82 years old. This man worked his entire life, scrimping and saving. But in the last 8 years he has been compelled to spend more than $8,000 in medical bills for himself and his wife. A year ago, when he talked to the union's representative, he stated that he didn't think that he could stand going on relief.

"Up here," he said, "once you go on relief, you've lost all your self-respect. Everybody looks down on you."

This man still had that old Yankee pride and independence. Is he really wrong? Should he sacrifice his dignity for a few relief dollars? Do you think that a man, after a lifetime of labor and diligence, should be confronted in his last years with poverty, shame, and loss of self-respect?

Nor does this man represent an isolated instance. The IUE's files, as well as the files of many other unions, are filled with similar cases. Because organized labor is so conscious of this problem, we are proud that when we negotiated in the areas of pensions and health and welfare benefits, we are always seeking

more.

We not only admit, but we proclaim that we are constantly attempting to secure higher pensions along with improved hospital and medical coverage. And we know that these gains-frequently won across the bargaining table against strong management opposition-have a far greater moral and social value than the 25-year gold watch that once symbolized the end of an employer's obligation to a long-service employee.

I have to admit that after 9 years of negotiating since the first industrial pension plans were won, we have made far too little progress. Sometimes we are ashamed when we receive pathetic letters from our old friends who are now no longer working in the plants.

I confess to you that at some point in our negotiations, our bargainers have to decide whether to settle for what has been negotiated-and thereby let our older members down with little or no health coverage or to go on strike. I realize that many people think that unions are "strike happy." I wish these people could have the experience of sitting down with the average management negotiator and attempting to persuade him to give serious consideration to the hardships and heartbreaks of retired workers.

Of course, employers wil argue that improving the so-called fringe benefits for older workers is extremely costly. They will claim that these fringes are not fringes at all and that improving pensions and health plans for retired employees cannot be afforded.

We do not believe that such claims are based upon fact. Studies made in 1957 by the New York State Insurance Department established that older folks utilize medical care about 40 percent above the average of active employees. But, the number of older people is a small proportion of the total. In Jim Carey's electrical industry, those eligible for pension vary from 3 to 6 percent