In its very formative years back there in 1969 and 1970, I went up to Montreal and I went to San Francisco where two major subway systems were then being built. Montreal's was already in place and San Francisco's BART was coming on line, the properties had been acquired, et cetera, but the system was not working.

The Montreal people knew about Metro in Washington, D.C., knew that the system was being considered, was being developed and some day would be in place. They said:

There is no way, no way in the world that the Washington, D.C. system can be built with the budget limits that were then in place, $2.8 billion. No way that it could ever operate anywhere close to a balanced budget, that is, enough revenues coming in to make the system work.

I said, "Why do you say that with such a degree of certainty?" These gentlemen in Montreal said:

Well, let's give you one example. In that system that you are building in Washington, every station stop is to have an elevator. That elevator is to be maintained by an operator at all hours of the day when the system is in place. That's in your plans, whether you know it or not, and that elevator is to have a guard on duty, at all hours when you are in place. Now, we are just as compassionate up here in Canada, in Montreal about handicapped citizens, but I am telling you based on our experience, the cost, the incredibly expanded costs of including that kind of elevator service and access that is going to be in your Washington system, it just won't work, Senator. We are telling you based on our experience here in Canada.

They were right in a sense because now the D.C. Metro system, originally, as I said, targeted at $2.8 billion is up to $5.8 billion and not holding. Only 20 some odd miles are now in place of a 98-mile system.

The surrounding suburban areas that made some contributions to it over in Maryland and Virginia are now thinking of drawing back and we are maybe going to have to truncate the system down from 98 miles maybe to 50 miles. When you do that, you cut the effectiveness of the system which was to have outreach and to bring people in so they could shop and go to work in the central city.

We have put in the elevators; we now have elevator operators in the few stops that we have; we have the guards and what have you and the operating costs are absolutely mind boggling. Now, that is a long recitation, but I think it reflects on the problem that every big city mayor in the country faces and you treat it in page 2 of

your statement.

"How do you go on this?" as Mayor Landrieu said. He is a compassionate man, you are a compassionate man. Do you buy busses that are double, triple or whatever more expensive than what you bought in previous years because of the elaborate devices to get wheelchairs on busses or is it more prudent to have a special system of transit, whether it be on call or by phone or whatever? I don't know what the slogan is, but is that the better way to go? These are problems, and we could multiply these for you, that you will be facing for the next 4 years. I don't want to try to pin you down on the total policy of your new administration. You probably haven't established the full parameters of it, but I would appreciate some comment on this kind of a dilemma that a mayor faces or the government as a whole faces.

Mr. MORIAL. Senator, I think that we have to do some cost benefit analyses in relation to modification of existing systems or the development of an alternative system to provide services for the handicapped, but while we do that I think we have to address ourselves to some fundamental policy considerations in this Nation.

And that is whether we are concerned more about the human quality of life and individuals as opposed to certain emphasis in other areas. The total notion of mass productivity of goods and services as it pertains to the overall quality of life, but to some extent not minimize the problems of humanizing life for our citizens. What is more important to us in this Nation? What is our greatest resource? That is the American people, and I think we have to analyze it and use that approach as we do cost-benefit analyses to make some determinations on the cost.

Of course, we are aware that there are certain limitations of finan cial resources. We don't have the money, not even in America to do all of the things that the American people want done and certainly the mayors in this country don't have the money to do 10 percent of the things that their citizens want because the cities are strapped basically because of constraints placed upon them by State constitutions and State statutes.

They can't be freed up to generate sufficient revenue to provide all of the multitude of services that are required and the level of serv ices in the cities across this Nation continue to diminish because of inflation and because of the limited resources in our cities in America.

So I think before we move to determine whether an alternate system is suitable or best or whether we should modify present systems to such an extent, that we buy expensive, more expensive equipment that would be rolling many hours during the day without any occu pancy, as many of the transit systems in this country are at the present time during the low peak periods of the day, we should do some alternative kinds of approaches.

Maybe that even means modification of the present system to uti lize smaller, less costly vehicles during the nonpeak periods. So I think we have to look at the whole range of transportation in this country and not only simply the local urban transit problems. Senator EAGLETON. Senator Johnston.

Senator JOHNSTON. Mayor-elect, I want to congratulate you on an excellent statement and I think your comment about cost benefit really puts the finger on the most critical decision we have got to make and that is how do we look at the older Americans? Do we look at the problems of older Americans from the standpoint of cost benefits, efficiency, productivity, you know, that these traditional American business kinds of words? I would suggest if we do, if those are the words that we use and those are the guidelines we use. then not very much is going to be done for older Americans. I don't believe that is the way we should consider these problems.

I think Senator Eagleton was very right in putting in a guard and elevator in the Metro in Washington. That might not contribute to the income stream of Metro, but it makes that transportation facility usable. It seems to me that what we need to do in setting these priorities is to think not of cost benefits, efficiency, produc

tivity in those words in terms of older Americans, but think in terms of humanity and kindness and quality of life, and those kinds of words.

The Chinese, at least before the Communist takeover, had a reverence for older people that was engendered and built into their society. Now, in the United States, unfortunately, in this modern decade of the technology explosion, we have not only got away from that, but we have got to a point where we thought only, certainly principally, but almost only of efficiency and productivity.

It seems to me that one of the things we have got to do is raise the level of awareness because if we are going to make some of these decisions in the Congress that involves setting priorities and involves spending money, then we have got to first sensitize people to it and say that we have got to make these decisions and spend this money even though it is not a cost benefit, productive thing. Even though it doesn't raise the amount of goods produced, we are going to do it because it is right and proper.

I think that is what your statement and your answer meant to me and I think that is precisely the thing that we need to do and I congratulate you for saying it and join with you in that spirit. Thank you very much.

Senator EAGLETON. Mrs. Boggs.

Mrs. BOGGS. Thank you so much, Mr. Mayor. I was really so pleased at your sensitivity and your knowledge of the problems and I think it bodes well for your coming as mayor as well, as well as Moon going out.

I was especially touched that you recognized the need for the balance between institutional and inhome services. I think this is one of the great areas that we really need to explore more and more as far as the human quality of life of older Americans is concerned, and your recognition of the importance of the network and also of having a Special Secretary for the Aging with some clout within the Department.

I really do feel very strongly about programs' impact, the study of programs' impact and coordination of programs and looking down the line at what the impact, economic as well as social, is going to be on the areas that have to deliver these systems when we, in the Congress, are indeed pointing out the priorities for these systems that we hope to deliver.

Surely you can't separate transportation from the handicapped or from health or from the environment or from police protection or from education. These are the kinds of coordination packages that I know that you are going to deliver to the people of New Orleans and can give us great guidance in trying to do it at the national

level.

Now, I feel that mass production in the United States has been one of the really great elements of our society and as each innovation has come along, we have been able to produce products that were more agreeable to the ordinary public. In addition, we have been able to accommodate as part of our transportation policy pollution devices, seat belts, air bags, and various other safety devices. I think the mass production that we all know as part of the great thrust forward of our economy can indeed re-gear itself to meet some

of these transportation needs as ordinary, ongoing produced vehicles. Until that time. I like your idea of trying to be able to take the system we already have in place and adjust it to the needs we have set on a national level of priorities.

I don't know, Senator Eagleton, if you know that when the mayor talked about the protection and legal services, that the State of Louisiana has enacted a new law that provides for more severe sentences for criminals who assault the elderly. Incidentally, the lack of knowl edge of the age of the victim is not a defense. I am so glad the mayor is so sensitive to this problem. There are so many elderly people who are literally afraid to go out, that they can't take advantage of many of the programs that are in place for them.

Thank you so very much. Applause.]

Senator EAGLETON. Let me raise with you-I will call you Mr. Mayor. You had better get used to hearing that title.

Mr. MORIAL. Mr. Moon wouldn't appreciate that.

Senator EAGLETON. It just doesn't ring mayor-elect. When do you take office, Mayor?

Mr. MORIAL. May 1.

Senator EAGLETON. Well, maybe you could give some thought to this problem between now and May 1 because, as I say, we will be working on this act in the spring and we will certainly talk to Mayor Landrieu and others.

Let me give you a real-life example. I like those real-life examples because some of the nicest phraseology can appear on a piece of paper "Reform Act, Progressive Act," but sometimes a cleavage be tween the nice words and stark reality. Let me give you sort of a stark reality problem.

Let's take the delivery of home health care to the elderly. How can we better do that? Now, just let me tick off the various Federal programs, and this gets back to this word "coordination" you have in your testimony and Mrs. Boggs just used it a few moments ago. Here are some of the Federal programs that impact upon better home health care for the elderly.

There are some programs available under medicare; there are some available under medicaid. There are some programs available under social services, title 20, of the Social Security Act. There are home health care demonstrations under the Public Health Service statutes. There are ACTION volunteer programs where home health care can be a part and then there is Senior Opportunities and Services under the Communities Service Administration, to name just a few-and I imagine if we sat here and talked about it, we probably could find you two or three more.

Now, here are various programs, some of them huge, medicare. medicaid, enormous programs in numbers of people and billions of dollars and here are these various Federal programs, each one doing a little bit more and in some places more than a little bit, but have a piece of that action, home health care services. I have to wonderI am not an efficiency expert; I am not from the Rand Corporation: maybe I should have been-but is that the way to do the Nation's business? Is there a better way? We will ask you as you are planning your administration, as you get into it on May 1, is there a better way that we could deliver services without having-which in

evitably there has to be, in part-some duplication, some overlap, and lack of coordination. Do you get what I am driving at?

Mr. MORIAL. I think that our first recommendation indicates that one way to address that problem is to have the Commissioner report directly to the Secretary. That, of itself, would impact an element of coordination and those myriads of programs which address themselves to the problems of the elderly.

I think what you mentioned, Senator, certainly addresses itself to the problems facing American cities. They are in a crisis and the interrelations of the ills facing the underclass in our society—and while we refer to the underclass as the blacks, the poor, and the SpanishAmericans, and those who have lived generation after generation in poverty, I think we might as well include in that, to some extent, the elderly in our society.

What we need is an interrelated comprehensive plan and program to deal with these ills so that they are not so fragmented. So that one portion of the puzzle doesn't cause it to fall all apart, while it might impact one favorably and in doing so, it has a negative impact upon another area. I think we need a massive review of these major programs and a restructuring throughout our National Government, and most assuredly in the cities and the States of this Nation because I think the American people have become greatly disenchanted with the quality of Government they are getting. Primarily, it is not because of too much Government; it is in the inability of the Government to deliver what it has there to be delivered in a coordinated and systematic manner.

Senator EAGLETON. Thank you very much, Mr. Morial. We wish you well and we are delighted to have you with us. [Applause.] Well, Mr. McKenzie, we haven't forgotten about you. Would you come back with us and Ms. Slaybaugh. You have been very kind and understanding.

Mr. MCKENZIE. I would like to say first of all that we, in the Bureau, do appreciate having this opportunity to discuss this with you and I think in the presentation we have today we will be talking about one of the items which has already been touched upon and that is coordination, which we see as one of the major issues.

The Bureau of Aging Services has two main purposes which it fulfills. The Bureau serves as the focal point for advocacy in Louisiana on behalf of senior citizens and, administers statewide the programs funded under the Older Americans Act and the senior center services program which is totally State funded.

Under the Older Americans Act the Bureau is charged as "the single organizational unit" with statewide planning, coordination, administration, and evaluation of programs for senior citizens. When Congress passed the Comprehensive Service Amendments to the Older American Act in 1973, it mandated the provision of comprehensive programs which would assure the coordinated delivery of a full range of essential services to older citizens. In order to accomplish this goal, State units on aging were to become the "focal point" on aging and area agencies on aging were to be established which were to become the "focal point" for aging in their respective planning and service areas. The clear intent of the amendments was not to establish a whole new network of systems and agencies to mee