very keen interest. If he proposes some, I am sure there will be very deep opposition so far as the chairman of this subcommittee is concerned.

Let me ask another question with respect to your proposed changes in the law, Mr. Secretary.

Dr. Flemming, if you want to respond, please feel free to do so.

I note, Mr. Thomas, that you call for an application, in effect, of a needs test, in your statement on page 2. This sounds to me very like the proposal of the administration with respect to Federal student assistance programs.

I wonder if you can comment on what that paragraph means? Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, we are not at all recommending a needs test for this particular program.

We are trying to bring the language in title III in conformity with the language in title VII of the nutrition project. This means we give special attention and emphasis to low-income minority people within the resources we have available.

At the present time, in the nutrition program, we have a number of nonpoor people participating in the program. But we have been very assertive with the projects in the States, saying that, to the extent possible, they should give preference to meeting the needs of those most in need. But this does not involve a needs test, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I am glad to hear that because I would not want to see us move in the direction where we would not only be getting more red tape which is unnecessary but, also, if I may put it bluntly, diminishing the base of political support for the program.

Dr. FLEMMING. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that, personally, I am in complete agreement with the philosophy reflected in title

VII.

As Secretary Thomas has indicated, we would simply like to see that same language in title III.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Secretary, you also urge that title V which authorizes activities in respect to multiple-purpose senior centers, and section 309 that touches on transportation, be allowed to expire. Are the Department of Housing and Urban Development and Department of Transportation so splendid, have they compiled so superb a record with respect to these activities, that you can approve of that kind of rescission?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, the Department does not have expertise in that particular area.

What we look forward to doing, is to work assertively with the Departments of Transportation and of Housing and Urban Development to improve their record of provision of services, development of multipurpose senior centers and transportation for the elderly. We feel we have already laid a foundation for that activity in terms of a working agreement. We feel we can expand on that. We are at a point where we will be encouraging State and area agencies to participate in the formulation of requests from local communities for the construction of facilities or the provision of transportation

resources.

Indeed, we have already allocated $20 million to the Department of Transportation with which we have been working to provide transportation services to the elderly.

1

Dr. Fleming may want to expand on that.

Dr. FLEMMING. Mr. Chairman, I think this does identify a basic issue in terms of the Federal Government's operations in the field of aging.

As you know, I think, I hope that we can bring the various departments and agencies of the Government that have an impact on the lives of older persons to the point where the older persons will receive a fair share of the resources that are made available to them for all groups.

In the housing area, the passage of the Housing and Community Development Act clearly opens up some real possibilities as far as senior centers are concerned. As you know, senior centers are identified in the act as facilities for which funds can be made available.

We right now are working with Housing and Urban Development to develop an agreement which I am sure we will reach under which they send out to their people, we send out to our people, clear indications of what can be done and under which they will urge the people in the housing field to take full advantage of the senior center provisions of the Community Development Act.

I understand what is back of your question and observations. Certainly under other authorities that Housing and Urban Development has had, older persons have not fared very well. There is an earlier authority that could have been used for senior centers that I think was used to a slight degree in previous years but was not used in recent years.

I do think that the passage of the Housing and Community Development Act opens up new possibilities, and I think we really have a chance of getting results for older persons.

In the area of transportation, we can be even more specific. I referred to an agreement which we have reached with the Department of Transportation and Secretary Thomas has also referred to it. Here are the resources that are potentially available through the Department of Transportation for older persons:

First of all, you have section 16 (b) (2) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended. Here, up to now, $20 million has been set aside in this fiscal year for capital grants and loans to private nonprofit agencies and organizations for transportation services for older persons and the handicapped.

As a part of the working agreement which we signed with the Department of Transportation in June 1974, we alerted State and area agencies on aging to the availability of these funds.

Information about the section 16(b) (2) funds that the Administration on Aging transmitted to State and area agencies was provided by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration, including the amount of funds set aside for each State.

State agencies on aging currently are working with the State agencies that have been designated, usually State departments of transportation or highways, to administer the section 16(b) (2) program on criteria for project selection and general planning activities.

We asked for a report on this program. The report is better than I had anticipated in light of what I had been picking up in the field. However, the report clearly shows that additional work has to be done on the program. I have transmitted the results of that report

to the Assistant Secretary of Transportation, General Davis, who is the lead person in the Department of Transportation in the field of aging. He and I will get together to see what we can do to close

these gaps.

Then there is section 147 in the Federal Highway Act of 1973 which provides for a rural highway transportation demonstration program. We have been working very closely with the Department of Transportation to get older persons cut into the operation of that act.

Then the National Mass Transportation Act of 1974 mandates that any recipients of capital assistance from UMTA must provide half fares on public transit for the elderly and handicapped. In addition, it authorizes for the first time $500 million for capital assistance in the rural areas.

Then it also authorizes the States to use up to 250 percent of their capital assistance funds from UMTA for operating subsidies. This represents the first time that this has been authorized. This gives us another opportunity to work with the Department of Transportation. Also, by direction of the Congress, we have prepared a report on aging and the field of transportation. We submitted it on January 1. This was part 1. We indicated that part 2 would be transmitted between the middle of March and the first part of April.

Prior to that, I am going to hold public hearings in four parts of the country to obtain reactions to proposed recommendations.

As far as transportation is concerned, I am very encouraged over the responses we are getting from the Department of Transportation. If we can continue to move forward with this approach it will make available more in the way of resources for solving the transportation problems of older persons than normally would be appropriated for a specific categorical item in an act such as the Older Americans Act. Mr. BRADEMAS. I appreciate your responses.

I wish I could pursue them still further because I have lingering in my mind, Dr. Flemming, an awareness that you gave a very similar sort of response in respect of revenue sharing.

Whenever we talk about a wide variety of categorical programs, we are always told that local people can always turn to the cornucopia of revenue sharing where funds will be available. You know the facts are that they have not been made available.

I am open to persuasion by evidence.

Mr. FLEMMING. Well, I have $20 million that I can present as evidence that we know has been made available in the field of transportation.

Could I say this on general revenue sharing first?

I share your disappointment over the fact that at the local levels the older persons have not receive their fair share. I think, however, that I sense a beginning of a breakthrough as I move over the country and as I hear about projects that are being augmented with revenue sharing.

My feeling is that if revenue sharing is extended again, then local government officials will lose some of their skepticism about whether or not it is going to continue.

Up to now, what I run into, as I am sure you have, are statements by local officials that they are going to put it in brick and mortar because they don't know how long money will be available for services.

I was talking to a new Governor of a State not far from here just the other day who, up to now, has been skeptical, but who now says if it is extended he is going to use a portion, a reasonable portion of it for services for older persons.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much.

I have many more questions but there are many colleagues who want to be heard from.

I am very pleased we are joined today by the distinguished chairman of the full Committee on Education and Labor, Mr. Perkins. Mr. Perkins.

Chairman PERKINS. First, let me compliment the distinguished chairman of this subcommittee, Mr. Brademas, for being the first subcommittee chairman to open hearings on a bill which, to my way of thinking, may be the most important piece of legislation to be considered by the Congress this year.

Dr. Flemming, I know that progress has been made in recent years but, to my way of thinking, we have to have a tremendous expansion of the Older Americans Act. There are still many unmet needs particularly in the rural sections of the country.

I think we must have broad authority.

It would be a grave mistake to relax any effort or let any existing provisions expire or has been suggested.

What do you feel are the most urgent need for our senior citizens? Mr. FLEMMING. Mr. Chairman, this question is one which has been addressed to me a good many times as I move throughout the country. There is no question in my mind at all but that in order of priority the income area belongs at the top of any list of priorities because as long as we have 18 to 20 percent of persons 65 and over who have incomes below the poverty threshold we have what, in my judgment, is an indefensible situation.

Also, to the extent that the level of income of older persons is raised more and more older persons will have the opportunity of making their own decisions regarding their own lives rather than having other persons make those decisions for them.

Mr. Chairman, I, personally, welcome the decision that the Congress has taken to expand the public service employment program and I can assure you, working with our State agencies and our area agencies, we are going to do everything we possibly can to make sure that older persons get cut in on that, get their fair share.

At that point, as you appreciate, I am sure, just as I do, we have to contend with the belief that has been built into the attitudes of many people that when a person reaches 65 or somewhere along there he or she should go on the shelf.

Chairman PERKINS. We will try to get around that in this legislation.

Mr. FLEMMING. I welcome anything that the Congress can do to help make sure that older persons get their fair share of public employment. Really, in the minds of many older persons the second thing that I would put on the list of priorities is the opportunity for continued involvement in life. Older persons don't want to be put on the shelf. Chairman PERKINS. There is so much they can do in the way of social service.

Mr. FLEMMING. You are absolutely right.

Chairman PERKINS. I want to read a portion of a letter I received from my home district:

Our allocation of title III money has remained the same for the last 3 years. Three years ago, we were spending all of the money for our programs providing direct services to senior citizens. Since that time without increasing the money available to us, AOA has forced us to increase the number of "high impact" districts from 6 to 8 and effective July 1, 1975, to 10.

This report prompts me to ask to what degree are we underfunding efforts which you feel are necessary for the elderly in these inflationary times?

Mr. FLEMMING. If I might address myself to the question this way. First of all, I would appreciate it if you would provide us with the opportunity to take a look at that particular area and see just what has been allocated over a period of 3 years.

The person raising the question with you, of course, has raised a fundamental question.

The Older Americans Act, as amended on May 3, 1973, did provide for the putting into effect of this network in the field of aging. A very important part of the network are the area agencies on aging. These area agencies are designed to be focal points for aged within their jurisdictions, designed to be advocates for older persons in connection with all issues confronting the lives of older persons.

The Congress, in my judgment, very wisely said in the law that the States could not allocate more than 15 percent of their total allocation for the administration of area agencies on aging, so the great bulk of the money which has been appropriated under title III has gone to services. In fact, I think the last figures that I have seen show 75 percent.

Now, going to your specific question, there is not a service for older persons in the country financed either by Federal or State or by local or by the private sector that could not utilize additional resources in the interest of meeting the needs of older persons. That is a fact of life.

Mr. Chairman, you recognize and I recognize that now I am in the middle of a discussion between the President of the United States and the Congress that deals with certain basic, fiscal issues. I don't know how the debate is going to be resolved. Whatever way it is resolved, we will take the resources that are made available to us and we will do our very best to see to it that those resources are translated into services for today's older persons.

Chairman PERKINS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to say before recognizing the gentlelady from New York that I share the very deep concern of Chairman Perkins that we move expeditiously on this bill and that we not be overly modest in our hopes for it, particularly in light of the employment aspect of it at a time of serious recession.

Mrs. Chisholm of New York.

Mrs. CHISHOLM. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

One of the reasons, I understand, for creating the Department of Aging is to be able to focus on the problem.

You also indicated that the transportation needs under this act also should be removed and taken over by the Department of Transportation because they have the expertise and know-how.