These policies have been developed to make possible an orderly phaseout of the rehabilitation training program.

(b) The rehabilitation training program is being phased out because it is felt that the most equitable and rational role for the Federal government in the area of higher education lies in the support of student costs and not in the selective funding of specific academic disciplines through a maze of highly narrow categorical grants. The general student aid approach has the advantage of enabling a wider range of student career options than is possible under a traineeship program which is limited to selected rehabilitation fields.

4. Will HEW and specifically RSA provide any support of handicapped (specifically deaf clients) at graduate or doctorate levels of training?

A. Handicapped individuals who are clients of State vocational rehabilitation agencies will continue to be provided vocational rehabilitation services. Where appropriate and necessary, such services may include advanced training in an educational institution.

After the phaseout of the rehabilitation training program, RSA will no longer provide direct support to students interested in advanced training in the rehabilitation professions.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you, Mr. Hansen.

I wonder, gentlemen, if we could turn our attention to the situation in which we now find ourselves; namely, that when Congress returns after Labor Day we shall go back to conference on the rehabilitation bill. Now the administration's 1974 request for this program as I recall it was $609 million, approximately a $20 million increase over the revised 1973 estimate which is I think an increase of about 3 percent. Mr. Reedy, am I correct when I say that the original budget request for fiscal 1973 was $609 million?

Mr. REEDY. Yes.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Which is to say, if my arithmetic is correct—we have a CPA here so I have to be careful-that the new 1974 request is a zero percent increase request. Why was the budget request revised? Is there a chance of another revision this year?

Mr. REEDY. Mr. Chairman, we originally based our operations on 1973 on the $610 million expectation because it was in the President's budget and was in the congressional markup but many, many months went by without this money being made available. Therefore, when the budget was revised for 1973 the Department revised the figure down to $590 million from $610 million feeling that so much of the year had passed that this would probably achieve our goals during the

year.

Mr. BRADEMAS. How much of that money has been picked up by the States as of July?

Mr. REEDY. Well, in matter of fact the money is not yet available. Congress has, we understand, just completed action by including a special rider on another bill to make the additional $30 million available to the States, an action which the Department has strongly supported. We believe we are right at the point of having the money available and we are ready almost at a moment's notice to distribute it to the States. We know that they will pick up some obligations from 1973 that are very pressing and we are very anxious.

Mr. BRADEMAS. You anticipate they will pick up the entire $30 million, Mr. Reedy?

Mr. REEDY. At this time this is our request.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Morrill, we are talking about money here and one of the factors in your memorandum that I did not say very much about was the question of need. Do you have any judgment on the need for vocational rehabilitation expenditures by the Federal Government?

Mr. MORRILL. I am inclined to say, Mr. Chairman, I don't have a judgment on that in answer to that specific question. I will be glad to see if I could supply something for the record if you would like.

Mr. BRADEMAS. When you read the transcript back and you reflect upon it in the context of my earlier conversation with you, you will, I think, understand that that is an extraordinary response to my question. How in the world can you possibly be serious about evaluating the effectiveness of a program when you can say here that you are not in a position, having gone through this exercise represented by a rather thick memorandum, to say anything about the need for the services which are provided under the statute? Don't you have any idea of the need for vocational rehabilitation services in this country?

Mr. MORRILL. I understand your question, sir, to be an expression of a number that you were asking me for.

Mr. BRADEMAS. You can respond to it in any way that you like. You have been studying this program, obviously you put a memorandum together. Now how do you define the need! You define it in your terms, leave my terms out of it.

How do you respond to what I think is a straightforward question not designed to trap you? How do you define the need for vocationall rehabilitation services in the United States in 1974?

Mr. MORRILL. Well, obviously that got to be defined at some point in time as a numeric expression in terms of a budget request which the administration has submitted in its budget amounts.

Mr. BRADEMAS. You totally miss the point of my question.

Mr. MORRILL. In terms of a total assessment of how many people could use rehabilitation services, and how many people are being serviced by the current VR program or have needs being met in another way, it is probably clear that we can find people who are not getting service now; but I am not sure as to what that translates to, at this point in time, as a specific number.

Mr. BRADEMAS. You will find that response will also be quite an extraordinary one when played back.

Here you are in your position coming up with a document that hass to do with a variety of options for the future of the program that you have agreed has been one of the most successful os Yet when I put a question to you with respect to the need of substantive services that this program makes availa

even in a position to give me a ball-park ropose to

Now, on this committee when we wr

from some simple whim, regardless of

We write laws as elected legislators in response to what we perceive to be needs in our country. We don't just write them off the top of our heads.

I should have thought that a minimum concern on your part, if you are going to be serious in meeting your responsibility for planning and evaluation with respect to human resources programs, would be what is the universe of need, what are the problems we are talking about? Can't you give me any response to that kind of a question?

Mr. MORRILL. I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that in terms of the various options, we are addressing there the nature of the delivery system as between the present structure and other ways of achieving the same objective. I think that kind of a dialog can go on as to what ways most effectively reach the target population, and, to the extent we are able to analyze it as to which one of the methodologies gets the most dollars out to the service level.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Morrill, you know, let's walk back through this once again. I am not trying to badger you, but what we are talking about is a very important matter. Now, I have asked you several times, as the person in HEW responsible for planning and evaluation of the programs administered by your Department, about the need for vocational rehabilitation. This is a program that is over 50 years old, that affects handicapped people in the United States, a word that none of you has yet used in any response you made to the chairman of this subcommittee, which I think is also revealing.

I have asked you about how you define the need for these programs; otherwise, it will be impossible, I should have thought any rational person would agree, for you intelligently to make judgments about the two responses, and the only two responses you have so far given me in response to my question.

Your first response was to remark upon the administration's budget requests for this program. Your second response was couched in terms of the nature of the delivery system. I have not yet heard you say what are the dimensions of the needs with respect to which we must consider what are the most effective delivery systems. Once we have made some judgment about that, we can then talk about how much money we ought to recommend for these programs consonant with the other burdens upon the Federal Government.

You have not yet addressed yourself to problem No. 1. You have leaped over that to talk about problems, logically speaking, Nos. 2 and 3.

Mr. Reedy, can you tell us what is the need for training handicapped people in the United States? Is that an unfair question?

Mr. REEDY. Mr. Chairman, I have to confess that there are no precise figures on the exact amount of need.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I am aware of that.

Mr. REEDY. But last fall, again as a part of our long-range planning process, we had a careful study made from what we feel are the two best indicators of what this population may be. I refer to dis

abiller Egure of the 1970 sensus, and the forms from a survey made 2 Security Administration of Catlement in the working age popilation 141 through 1944 It was revealed there that there 105ea7d to be persons with significant d'abilities in that age range of 1060 1400000 people.

Jow. f resume that half of them were working because their Tanlines were not so significant as to preclude work, it left a group of 3 million unemployed who were not in institutions. Now, we reason than two out of three of those are potential candidates for rehabilitaton, giving a general universe of 4 million people. Now, we hope in 1914, with the budget in prospect, to have 1500.000 people actively in the rehabilitation system. That happens to be roughly one-third of our est mate of the universe of people who actually need and could profit by vocational stabilitation.

MR. BRADEMAS What was that figure again?

Mr. Razdy. 1.200.000 persons to be in the system actively involved in rehabilitation in 1974. About one-third of the total of 4 million which we feel is the universe.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you. Mr. Reedy.

Would it not be a rational way to make a judgment about both the appropriate delivery systems and the amount of money required. Mr. Dwight and Mr. Morrill, for you to say, "What is the problem, define the problem!" But the way in which you approach this matter is, I think, very significant for all those persons who are concerned about human and social services in the United States because, you see, you don't talk about human need; what you talk about is, well, what is OMB going to do on delivery systems. I suggest that you are getting the cart before the horse.

Now, you may well say, well, the need is so big we cannot meet that entire need. Well, nobody is going to berate you if you can't do that, but I don't sense-and I don't mean to say this in any rude fashionany concern about the impact on human lives of these programs. I don't find that in the memorandum frankly, Mr. Morrill. That is a tough statement I just made, and again I make it in the context of the history of this administration's attitude toward the vocational rehabilitation program.

Now, let me turn to the area of training personnel to work with the handicapped. a subject to which Mr. Hansen also made reference. The documents that you have supplied to the Labor-HEW Appropriations Subcommittee indicated that although $27.7 million were appropriated for rehabilitation training programs in 1973, that the administration wants only $17 million for this purpose for fiscal year 1974 and nothing for fiscal 1975. How do you explain that. Mr. Dwight?

Mr. DWIGHT. Mr. Chairman, that reflects the comments I made earlier to Congressman Hansen, where in the current year, the administration's budget proposal reflects the hypothesis that those persons who had previously entered training would be sustained in that training. No new persons would be started with institutional support on the assumption that the educational programs, such as the basic opportunity grants. loans, and so forth, would provide the financial support for individuals to seek the necessary training that they had, without being constrained by what institutions were able to garner in the way of financial support from the Federal Government.

Mr. BRADEMAS. What evidence is there for the validity of that assumption, Mr. Dwight?

Mr. DWIGHT. I have no evidence to state as I did not participate in that decision.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Is there evidence, Mr. Morrill, for that proposition? Mr. MORRILL. I do not have it here at this point.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Does it exist? I want first to establish whether or not there is any evidence for the assumption posited a moment ago by Mr. Dwight in response to my question.

Mr. DWIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I could offer some observations, because I believe that the assumptions are valid. For the last 2 or 3 years that I was involved in State government, my responsibilities lay in the educational areas. I found that the institutional ability to acquire financial support at either the Federal or State level was skewing the priorities. Those factors were influencing the choices of individuals rather than to allowing the individuals to make choices of their own. The State of California has pioneered in the area of providing financial resources in the hands of individuals to acquire and sustain their own educational needs. We found, based upon that experience, that you get a better mix and you don't find your surpluses and shortages in terms of the skills that are being generated out of educational institutions and the needs in the labor market.

Mr. BRADEMAS. You know, when I hear you use phrases like "a better mix" and "skewing of priorities," I have to ask myself what in the world you are talking about in the English language. What are the standards on the basis of which you make a judgment that the mix has been skewed or that priorities have been mixed? I mean, how do you decide that?

Mr. DWIGHT. I will cite a few for you, and this again is strictly in the State of California. We found that the educational system was producing way too many teachers and engineers.

Mr. BRADEMAS. On the basis of what judgment? What does it mean to say too many teachers, too many engineers?

Mr. DWIGHT. Persons were trained to be teachers who could not find jobs as teachers.

Mr. BRADEMAS. That is a judgment.

Mr. DWIGHT. No; it is a fact.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Well, I would be very grateful if you could make available to this subcommittee the evidence for the assumption that no more support from the Federal Government for the training of personnel to work with the handicapped is now required in view of the passage by Congress of the basic educational opportunity grant program. I happen to be one of the fellows that wrote the basic educational opportunity grant program, so I think I know something about that, and I can tell you that we certainly did not assume in writing that program that the need for a variety of other existing training grant programs had suddenly disappeared.

That is again another metaphysical leap of faith on your part without any evidence whatsoever to show to this subcommittee. Do you have any evidence for this proposition, Mr. Reedy, that we don't need any more Federal money to provide people to work with the handicapped?

Mr. REEDY. No; I do not.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Where does that information come from? Does it come from right out of the clouds?

Mr. DWIGHT. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Yes. You are responsible.