Mr. SCHEUER. If you will give us a State-by-State breakdown both as to dollars that are being spent on vocational education for the handicapped and the number of handicapped persons served, I would appreciate it very much.

Secretary RICHARDSON. I would be glad to do that. May I comment briefly on the subject of categorical legislation, because I don't want to be misunderstood on this. I am not opposed nor is the administration opposed to categorical programs as such. Indeed, a categorical program can serve as a means of focusing resources in an area of neglect or urgency.

The problem is that as you multiply categorical programs without eliminating the old ones that have, in effect, outlived a stimulatory function and has become, in effect, a vehicle for the transfer of resources, you create then a situation in which each new categorical program is less effective than it might be in targeting resources. So what needs to be done in my view, and I argued this for many years, there should be a progressive process of reexamining old categorical programs that have ceased to be

Mr. SCHEUER. They don't even die. In fact, they don't even fade away, but become ossified?

Secretary RICHARDSON. That is right. So you clear them away, at the point they are serving no real function except transfer of resources, then they can be consolidated into a bloc grant program in order to leave room for new targeted categorical programs which should not, in any given time, become so unwieldy in number that they are not effective for the purposes.

This is my view and the problem is that what we have seen over the last decade and a half has been a constant addition of new categorical programs without the consolidation of any of the old ones.

Now, if we could create an understanding with the Congress that, in effect, we would have a kind of annual review of categorical programs, move some of the old ones into the bloc grant category, move some of the bloc grant money perhaps into a general revenue-sharing approach, then we would be in a position to identify new needs and opportunities which could include the education of the handicapped, for example, or areas we can agree are more important than they were recognized to be at an earlier date.

Mr. SCHEUER. I think we would all be happy to adopt that approach if we had a newfound confidence, particularly on the new programs to which we want to apply special resources and special concern, that the executive branch was listening to us. I think it is obvious that these categorical programs develop a being and momentum all of their own sometimes long after the need and justification is past, at a time when perhaps our goals are different than what they were. But the problem is, even in the current programs that we are concerned about today, we have found that the administration has not been responsive to clear and specific language that was unmistakably clear as to our concern and our directions to the executive branch to spend these funds. So I hope we achieve the kind of mutual confidence you are talking about and then I believe we will be willing to give far more flexibility to the executive branch, which, as a matter of theory, probably ought to have.

Secretary RICHARDSON. I can assure you, Mr. Scheuer, on education.

language is described in section 4(A) where the Secretary is provided with authority to make grants to vocational rehabilitation agencies to enable them to develop new programs to train handicapped individuals, to provide them with new career opportunities in the fields of health, welfare, and other employments, and to make grants for training and traineeships in physical medicine, rehabilitation, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech pathology, and audiology and other specialized roles contributing to vocational rehabilitation of the handicapped or to rehabilitation of mentally retarded.

Can you give us some feeling as to how you view this authority and whether you view the handicapped themselves as appropriate persons to play a role in the delivery of services to other handicapped and retarded people?

Secretary RICHARDSON. Very emphatically, yes, Mr. Scheuer.

I think that we need to reexamine, in many areas, including services to the handicapped, the functions that are to be performed in order to break these down into levels of skill that can be acquired by paraprofessionals drawn from the communities served. This is necessary whether we are talking about day care for children, or tutors for reading, or people who have been themselves handicapped who participate in the rehabilitation of others.

I think, for example, that in the field of drug abuse and alcoholism particularly it is important to draw on people who have had the experience of addiction or alcoholism and to give them the training. I think for the same reasons, therefore, that we can count upon a level of motivation and concern on the part of handicapped people that should make them an important reservoir for training new workers in this field.

Mr. SCHEUER. I appreciate that answer very much and your past leadership underscores the fact that you, as an individual, have great credibility with us in this area.

Now, let me explain perhaps why there has been some reservations here on the business of eliminating the categorical approach. Under the vocational education legislation there is a requirement that 10 percent of each State's allotment be used to serve the handicapped. For years we fought for a special education or education programs for the handicapped and, finally, a number of years ago under the courageous leadership of Congressman Hugh Carey of Brooklyn, there finally was established in the Office of Education a bureau for the education of the handicapped. We found that, until we had a specific office charged with that function, that we just couldn't get to first. base and that the educationally handicapped always got the short end of the stick because they didn't have a massive constituency. They never really got the attention we wanted them to get.

So we had to set up that office over the violent protest, the active protest, let us say, of the administration.

Now, we find that under the vocational education legislation, where 10 percent of each State's allotment is required to be used for the handicapped, we have reason to believe that it is not spent that way and that the congressional intent is not being complied with. Do you have any information about this?

Secretary RICHARDSON. I do not have, but I will be glad to get it and furnish it to the committee.

Mr. SCHEUER. If you will give us a State-by-State breakdown both as to dollars that are being spent on vocational education for the handicapped and the number of handicapped persons served, I would appreciate it very much.

Secretary RICHARDSON. I would be glad to do that. May I comment briefly on the subject of categorical legislation, because I don't want to be misunderstood on this. I am not opposed nor is the administration opposed to categorical programs as such. Indeed, a categorical program can serve as a means of focusing resources in an area of neglect or urgency.

The problem is that as you multiply categorical programs without eliminating the old ones that have, in effect, outlived a stimulatory function and has become, in effect, a vehicle for the transfer of resources, you create then a situation in which each new categorical program is less effective than it might be in targeting resources. So what needs to be done in my view, and I argued this for many years, there should be a progressive process of reexamining old categorical programs that have ceased to be

Mr. SCHEUER. They don't even die. In fact, they don't even fade away, but become ossified?

Secretary RICHARDSON. That is right. So you clear them away, at the point they are serving no real function except transfer of resources, then they can be consolidated into a bloc grant program in order to leave room for new targeted categorical programs which should not, in any given time, become so unwieldy in number that they are not effective for the purposes.

This is my view and the problem is that what we have seen over the last decade and a half has been a constant addition of new categorical programs without the consolidation of any of the old ones.

Now, if we could create an understanding with the Congress that, in effect, we would have a kind of annual review of categorical programs, move some of the old ones into the bloc grant category, move some of the bloc grant money perhaps into a general revenue-sharing approach, then we would be in a position to identify new needs and opportunities which could include the education of the handicapped, for example, or areas we can agree are more important than they were recognized to be at an earlier date.

Mr. SCHEUER. I think we would all be happy to adopt that approach if we had a newfound confidence, particularly on the new programs to which we want to apply special resources and special concern, that the executive branch was listening to us. I think it is obvious that these categorical programs develop a being and momentum all of their own sometimes long after the need and justification is past, at a time when perhaps our goals are different than what they were. But the problem is, even in the current programs that we are concerned about today, we have found that the administration has not been responsive to clear and specific language that was unmistakably clear as to our concern and our directions to the executive branch to spend these funds. So I hope we achieve the kind of mutual confidence you are talking about and then I believe we will be willing to give far more flexibility to the executive branch, which, as a matter of theory, probably ought to have.

Secretary RICHARDSON. I can assure you, Mr. Scheuer, on education

of the handicapped we do believe it ought to be an area of high priority and it would be, even under our own special revenue-sharing legislation, one of the specifically identified areas for the earmarking of funds.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I want, if my colleague will yield, to commend him for what he has just said because I think the Secretary made a very important statement of the philosophy of public policy in this area and the gentleman from New York, Mr. Scheuer, I think, has well articulated the concerns of some of us which I think, as the Secretary knows, are very honestly held. We do not write categorical programs on this committee simply to be willful. We do so in large part because we do not trust the integrity of the executive branch of the Government in carrying out the expressly articulated intent of the elected Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. One could make a very lengthy record on that point, as I think members of this committee on both sides of the aisle can show. In my own view, the more the executive branch of Government refuses to implement the expressed legislative intent of Congress, the more pressure, not less, there will be for categorical programs and earmarking. So I think the gentleman from New York has put his finger on the point. It is not that we just like to have lots of categorical programs floating around, so when you use a phrase such as, "categorical programs have outlived their usefulness," I respond, "Who

says so?"

Some of these categorical programs have not been on the statute books for more than a year and already we are told they have outlived their usefulness. Let us not therefore overlook some important philosophical concerns here.

Secretary RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to and we always furnish things at request of the committee and are always glad to do so. I just agreed to furnish to the committee, at request of Mr. Scheuer, some information in the field of the educationally handicapped and from my point of view I would welcome the documentation of the proposition that we don't carry out the directives of Congress.

I am not aware of such situations. There have been cases where there has been some lag in the development of an advisory committee or the publication of regulations and so on, but I think we should have in view here that we are dealing with programs in every case where the responsibility for the delivery of service is not a Federal responsibility at all, but it is a responsibility of local school systems, voluntary organizations, hospitals, and so on.

If you look at it, my concern is with the perspective on the system of a hospital administrator or a school superintendent who simply cannot cope with the jungle of Federal rules, regulations, guidelines, reporting requirements, and State plan requirements that are generated by every categorical program. You have 33 Federal programs, all converging on elementary and secondary education. What I am saying is not that you should get rid of last year's program, but you should consolidate and simplify among those that have been in place longest. You do not effectively elicit a new additional response to a problem that would not have been made anyway when a school superintendent can choose, among 33 programs, which of them he will match with State or local funds. You don't really elicit a specific

response to the national interest until you have made his choice fewer in number and refused the burden of red tape attached.

I was associated probably more than any single individual with the whole development of the National Education Act, which was a kind of grandfather to the whole educational system, but what worked for mathematics teaching, or language education, or guidance counseling, when there were comparatively few such programs does not necessarily work when you pile on the 34th or 35th or 40th on top of what you already have.

What I am saying, in effect, is we ought to institute a kind of "first-in, first-out" process so that there could be at any given time a manageable number of programs that required a specific response with the newest, of course, remaining in effect longest, and with a kind of continual review of the need for maintaining the old ones in place. If we could achieve this, then you would find much less resistance on the part of the executive branch to the enactment of new ones.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I appreciate that and I would invite your attention to the report published last week by the National Advisory Council on the Education Professions Development Act.

Mr. Peyser.

Mr. PEYSER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, we have had a great deal of discussion today on this fee question. The interesting thing, as I look at these figures, is that we may be fighting the wrong people when doing battle with the administration here in Washington. The figures indicate that some of the States are setting standards where they feel they have a capability of charging fees to handicapped people.

I see figures down at $3,600, $3,800, $3,700 for a family of four. To think that families with this kind of earnings have any capability of paying a fee is absolutely ridiculous. So, frankly, I am pleased to see that the Federal Government is going to come into this and, obviously, raise these standards for the protection of people in these categories. I find this to be a very positive step rather than a negative step.

I would certainly urge that we, in the Congress, exert some influence on some of the States, through their own delegations, who have established fees at these ridiculously low levels where they charge people who can least afford to pay the fees for help in their handicapped problems.

That was not a question, but I do have a question and wanted to make that as a statement.

Commissioner Newman, in your testimony you asked a question of "Who is helped by vocational rehabilitation programs?" and you answered, that all people are not helped under the vocational educational program because there is a practical situation of dealing with the working age.

Now, I would like to know what does that mean in this context? Is this 16 years old?

Mr. NEWMAN. What page?

Mr. PEYSER. On page 3, you refer to "Who is helped by vocational rehabilitation programs?" It says toward the bottom, "People described at or near a working age." Is there some figure?

Mr. NEWMAN. There is no federally imposed minimum figure. Some of the States do have, as administrative action standpoints,