estimates. Consequently, none of the surveys provide the full number of persons who do not work because of disability.

1970 census-persons with a work disability

Data on the total noninstitutional population between the age of 18 to 64 based on question 25 of the 5-percent Census sample were compiled. Persons hindered in their labor force activities by health or physical condition were identified. The question refers to a serious illness that has lasted for a relatively long time, or a serious physical or mental impairment or handicap. Also determined was whether or not such persons were able to work at all and for how long each person had been limited in his working ability. Twelve million persons were hindered in their labor force activities by a health or physical condition. Vive million of those individuals were prevented from doing any work at all. The Social Security survey

In 1966 the Social Security Administration conducted a national sample of 18,000 households comprising 2,000 households containing OASDI disability beneficiaries, 1,700 receiving public assistance, and 8,000 had members who were denied OASDI benefits. Intensive interviews were conducted with a sample of working age adults 18 to 64 years of age who were identified as disabled.

More than 17 million individuals were limited in the kind or amount of work they could perform as a result of a chronic condition or health impairment lasting three months or longer. Six million non-institutionalized persons were either unable to work at all, to work regularly, or to engage in substantial gainful activity.

This survey provides the best estimate of the number of adults for whom disability is a major reason for not working. If only the severely and occupationally disabled of the survey are counted, the estimate is 11.8 million persons which is very close to the census estimate.

The National Health survey

This survey consists of a continuous sample of 800 families weekly. During the course of a year, 42,000 households and 134,000 individuals are randomly selected. Between 1965 and 1969 an average of 12.5 million persons were limited in the amount or kind of major activity in which they could participate.

The survey does not count people, such as a homemaker who formerly may have been in the labor force, who changed their major activity. Consequently, many homemakers and individuals who may have retired early because of the disability are not classified as disabled. This survey provides the best estimate of the number who are economically idle-neither working nor homemaking.

As estimated by each method, the total population with a work related disability is estimated to be approximately 12 million individuals between the ages of 18 and 64. This estimate provides an upper limit of the true universe of need; many are served by other programs, some would not be considered eligible for the vocational rehabilitation program, and some purchase rehabilitation services from private or third-party sources. The precise number of persons in those categories cannot be established.

Mr. BRADEMAS. The next question I want to raise relates to the ones which I have just been raising and has to do with the next steps following decisionmaking within the executive branch with respect to the plans that we have just been discussing.

I would like to know whether you will be acting in terms of making budget recommendations, program changes and so on, to implement your conclusions with respect to your plans-assuming that your plans involve some significant departure from the present program. Or, on the other hand, will you come to Congress, before this subcommittee and the relevant subcommittee in the other body and submit your recommendations, and, then, engage in open, frank, and free discussion, with the members of the authorizing committees so that whatever conclusions are reached with respect to vocational rehabilitation, reflect the best judgment of both the legislative and executive branches of the Government?

Mr. DWIGHT. Very definitely, Mr. Chairman. I thought that that was one of the points that Mr. Morrill did address during that hearing. Just to repeat so that it is clear, the major thrust of this type of an effort, which is an overall HEW effort-is to subject all programs to this type of critical analysis. The extension of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973 presumably would be a matter for discussion with the Congress about 112 years down the road.

That would be the basis, along with many of the provisions of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act itself, which call for several studies which will be pursued and will become a basic part of this type of an effort. One study has to do with the method in which we allocate funds to the various States and some of those kinds of questions which were posed by the Congress in the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I appreciate that response. I do think that it is exceedingly important that there be as much reasonable exchange as possible between the executive branch and the legislative branch on this particular matter so as to avoid, insofar as it is humanly possible to do so, any lack of appreciation on your part about the intent of Congress in having written the legislation.

If you disagree with us on what we have written, that is one thing. That is part of your line of work and ours, to squabble about these matters and come to some resolution. But where I think there has been a good deal of criticism on our part, has been an apprehension that Congress may have passed a law and you understand it but you don't agree with it so you don't carry it out; and that is what exercises us.

Before I turn to one other line of questioning and yield to Mr. Quie, I believe you said, Mr. Dwight, there will be a meeting of some of your staff, and I guess Mr. Reedy's staff, and congressional committee staff this afternoon on these interim regulations that we mentioned earlier. Mr. DWIGHT. That is my understanding.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Is that right, Mr. Reedy?

Mr. REEDY. The basic purpose of the meeting is to discuss a list of issues that must be addressed in the framing of regulations. Since the interim regulations have not been provided to the staff, we were of the opinion that they should have those in advance and schedule the actual discussion of those regulations at a later time.

Mr. BRADEMAS. When will those interim regulations be provided to the staff?

Mr. DWIGHT. It was our intent to make those available this afternoon. They have not as yet been cleared by our general counsel. In view of the discussions we had 10 days ago, we thought it would be inappropriate to share them until they had that approval.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Will you schedule a subsequent meeting with the staff prior to these regulations being put into effect in order to enable the staff to consider them and then to respond to them?

Mr. DWIGHT. We would be happy to.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I think that would be very important, to be blunt about it, as an indication of your good faith. I think it would be awkward if you were to come up and give us the regulations and feel that in having done so, you had complied with your commitment and, then, go off and put them into effect without giving members of the staff

and members of the committee an opportunity to examine them, reflect upon them and react to them.

So, I am pleased to hear that and we would hope-what is the date when they are supposed to go into effect, Mr. Reedy?

Mr. REEDY. December 24.

Mr. BRADEMAS. That is not enough time, you know. I want to tell you I am not impressed by what you are telling me because here, we are on the 10th, and the 24th, as I recall, is Christmas Eve. This place may conclude its labors here shortly before that, and we are going to be extremely busy. So I would urge you to schedule a subsequent hearing in such fashion as to afford members of the staff a reasonable opportunity to express the views of their Representatives on their committees, and I would strongly urge that you call another meeting later this week. Can you do that?

Mr. REEDY. Yes; I think during the meeting this afternoon, a convenient time for the second meeting can be negotiated with the staff who are present.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I appreciate that very much.

Let me turn to a second line of questions before I yield to Mr. Quie. This question follows one of our earlier conversations, Mr. Dwight, in respect of the basis State grants program authorized by title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The administration's 1974 request for this program was $609 million, approximately a $20 million increase over the 1973 estimate and, then, an additional amount was added to cover the grandfather clause with the result that the revised budget request was a total of $615 million to carry out title I of the basic State program.

Why was such a small increase requested?

Mr. DWIGHT. I think there are perhaps two other provisions which at least bear in my consideration. I am not sure I can recall the exact figures, but your recollection is correct on the basic grants. The other two are the new program which stemmed from the commencement of the SSI program for adults and, then, the continuing program dealing with SSI backing their trust fund activities which added about another $50 million increase into rehabilitation activities at the State level.

As you look at that, even with the significant reduction in training activities coming along, that we also discussed a week Friday, we find, I think, somewhere in the order of magnitude of a little over a 12-percent increase in actual rehabilitation dollars available. This seems to me to be a fairly healthy increase if your objective to orderly growth is sustained in the program which, as I indicated earlier, I think is a sound objective.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Dwight, let me make this comment on your response, because I think it is important that as we discuss the basic program this morning, we understand how it works. As you know, the rehabilitation legislature has been unique in that the State allotments are based not on appropriations but rather on the funds authorized to be appropriated and, in effect, this feature amounts to an entitlement for rehabilitation purposes, provided that the individual States appropriate the necessary matching funds.

What this means, in effect, is that we have given the States an enormous incentive to appropriate the matching funds, and this is one

of the reasons I think most of us are agreed, as I believe you are and I am, that the rehabilitation program has proved to be one of the most successful State-Federal programs.

But, Mr. Dwight, because this administration has not been requesting enough Federal money necessary to meet the States' matching funds, we now find ourselves in the astonishing position whereby the Federal Government has not appropriated enough money to match the funds that have been raised by the States.

I understand that last year fully 43 States had funds for which the necessary matching Federal moneys were not available, and that the year before that, fiscal 1972, 25 States appropriated more money than the Federal Government could match. So we are in the curious situation here where the States seem to be doing their job in respect of providing moneys for vocational rehabilitation but the Federal Government is not doing its job.

Finally, I would observe that although we have been, as you suggest, expanding these programs in the past years, and although more handicapped persons are being rehabilitated every year, you know as well as I, that the number of handicapped persons in the United States is increasing rather than decreasing, so the result has been that the percentage of handicapped persons who are being served is going down.

Realizing the budgetary measures to which you made reference, I recall that Mr. Reedy, in his testimony before the Labor-HEW Appropriations Subcommittee in the House, said that at least 4 million handicapped persons in the United States are not receiving service.

I don't want to misrepresent these several issues, but if I am mistaken in what I have said, Mr. Dwight, I hope you will straighten me out here.

Mr. DWIGHT. I believe that your information is largely accurate. That is what I was alluding to earlier in this hearing. As far as I know myself, and Corbett would like to amplify this, I don't think you can reach the conclusion that 4 million persons are not being served for several reasons.

Some disabled persons cannot benefit from rehabilitation. I don't know what that figure might be.

Second, this program is not the only way in which people can be rehabilitated. By that, I mean there are other private sources and some people go through a process of rehabilitation without any assistance from anybody. The outward bounds of disabled persons, that is, the estimated 5 million, is at best an imprecise measure. But perhaps you are trying to make the point that if more funds were available, then, more people could be served.

My view is that governmental programs do not work well when they take large quantum jumps, and it would seem to me a 12-percent increase is about as much as a program can rationally handle if it is on a sustained-growth pattern.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Sometime-not this morning-sometime I would like to get into a colloquy with you on generalizations such as "Government programs don't work very well when they make quantum jumps and 12 percent is about a rational increase." I am just hardheaded enough to want to know what the rationale is for generalizations of that kind. Mr. Reedy?

Mr. REEDY. Mr. Chairman, the estimates to which you referred that we presented at the appropriations hearings of the House subcommittee were derived from our long-range planning last fall. We used 1970 census figures showing that there were 11,900,000 disabled persons in the age group between 16 and 64 that had significant disabilities.

We reasoned, through pure estimating process, that half of those are engaged in suitable work or have made their vocational adjustment, leaving roughly 6 million disabled persons not in institutions who would be potential candidates for rehabilitation service.

Two-thirds of that number, which would be 4 million, we think could be solid candidates for whom a successful rehabilitation outcome could be expected. So, in view of the fact that our program in 1973 fiscal year was able to enroll for the first time, 1 million people for the entire year and actually provide hard service for around 650,000 of that million, rehabilitating 380,000, then we have established a broad gap between the most conservative estimate derived from the sources I cited and the level of the program at the present time.

We do point out that the census figures did not include disabled persons in institutions and we have developed a substantial rehabilitation effort in institutions serving the chronically ill and disabled and, therefore, I would add those to the 4 million previously cited bring it roughly to the 5 million gross estimate.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Of these 5 million, how many would you estimate could be served by nongovernmental or privately supported vocational rehabilitation service?

Mr. REEDY. Concerning that it is extremely hard to give you a good impression, but I would doubt that the private sector, in terms of comprehensive rehabilitation service as we attempt them under the public program, would be reaching more than 200 to 250,000 a year. Mr. BRADEMAS. That is a rather small fraction, then, of the overall universe of need.

Mr. REEDY. There is today a close relationship between the private sector and the public program which has been deliberately developed in recent years in which they actually team up very frequently to serve a common client. Thus, part of the service is given by the private facility or under private financing and services are supplemented through the public program and through the other program financing.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Dwight, to continue my line of questioning with respect to the title 1 basic program, you will recall that our colleague, Congressman Gonzalez of Texas, moved a few days ago to amend the supplemental appropriations bill to increase the appropriation for carrying out the State program from $615.870,000 to $650 millionwhich is the amount authorized in law-and I am sure you are aware that that move was defeated by only four votes.

It is very difficult to get the House to accept amendments to an appropriations bill so when you come within four votes, I regard that as very significant. One of the reasons, however, Mr. Dwight, that that amendment did not carry was the fact that the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Flood, indicated that he was under the impression that the committee was recommending all the appropriations that were necessary to meet and match available State moneys and here