So 4 percent of roughly $200 million, that would be about $8 million being spent nationwide on home repair for the elderly.

I am absolutely positive of this, that we can spend $8 million in my home city of St. Louis for home repair, and we could intelligently spend it.

Are we really doing something? Let us talk about that one. Are we really doing something in home repair for the elderly with $8 million nationwide?

Mr. CRUIKSHANK. Well, we are certainly falling far short of any nationwide accomplishments. For the few people who are helped, of course we are doing a great deal. Certainly we are not meeting the whole problem. At that point it becomes a token endeavor.

I think one of the criteria which you will be taking into account is whether there is a ripple effect on even a small amount that can sometimes be I refer to legal services. I picked it because I think it is one of the less visible services, and I do not know whether your figure includes the amount that is being done by contract with some of the service or whether the figure is the legal services corporate figure.

Senator EAGLETON. Well, it is 13 percent of the title III budget, of the $187 million, call it $200 million-13 percent of that title III money goes for legal services for the elderly. At least that is what our figures show.

Mr. CRUIKSHANK. Some of the work that has been done in the stimulating work of paralegal services and work that has been done through the bar associations and the law schools will have an effect that I think goes beyond the immediate amount. I think this criterion, you will keep into account, is there a byproduct of this that represents more than immediate expenditure?

Senator EAGLETON. Let us assume there is. Let us assume $20 million, there is a byproduct and ripple effect, let us make it $50 million. I still wonder. On home repair for the elderly, $8 million, and let us assume that has some kind of regenerative effect and generates another $8 or $10 million. I do not know what you would call home repair for the elderly, whether that is visible or invisible by your definition.

As far as St. Louis is concerned, when I drive through some of the older neighborhoods of St. Louis, whatever home repairs I see there, I do not find them too visible.

Mr. CRUIKSHANK. This amount is so small that it is nearly invisible, you are right. I think there is less possibility of a ripple and expanding effect on this kind of service than there is, say, in legal services, where the work through the bar associations and the law schools does have an expanding effect.

Senator EAGLETON. I am troubled by that, and I have been for some time, by the scattering of moneys around, and the longer I serve on the Appropriations Committee, the more troubled I get. Just yesterday from some of the hearings we held, we have additional hearings today, I will give you another classic example. It is analogous, but obviously not necessarily a program for the elderly. I authored a program some years ago called "The Right to Read," and that is a marvelous catchy phrase. Every youngster in the United States has the right to read, and on that we should do a

great deal more than what we are currently doing in terms of enhancing reading skills, no doubt about that.

I always forget my figures. We are now up to $27 million for "The Right to Read." Again, I am convinced in New York City we could spend, intelligently spend, $27 million in the New York City public schools today to try to enhance the reading skills of the school population in New York. You know some of the shocking statistics high school graduates with fourth grade reading scores, lawsuits now being filed by parents, kids who have gotten out of high school, one of them, the California case, called Doe versus something, but anyway, the youngster went into a clothing store to try to get a job as a salesman in a clothing store. He could not fill out the credit slip. He had a high school diploma from a San Francisco public high school. The parents sued under the theory of breach of contract, in essence.

The school has a contract with students, if they have got a diploma, they ought to be able to read and write. One would think so. This youngster could not. And so in order to treat that problem, generate more money for training for reading specialists-if we could not get enough of them to deal with students, at least a reading specialist could consult with the homeroom teacher, so that may be he or she could impart reading skills or instruction to the students who need it.

One day recently I had breakfast with Secretary Califano, and he cited the fact that this program had received such little attention and went through all these statistics in much greater length than I have gone through with you, and in order to make my case, I said, I am about convinced, Mr. Secretary, we ought to cancel the program. I said, with $27 million, we are just kidding ourselves. We are engaging in some kind of deception when we say $27 million is going to improve the reading skills of this country. He nodded and listened. I left, and he called me right back on the phone. He said I think we will take you up on your offer to cancel. I said wait a minute, that is my program. Do not rush into anything. We are sort of in a holding pattern on that. It is a real problem. Again, one day Senator Pell and I and some other members on the Education Subcommittee of the Human Resources Committee, the authorizing committee, were meeting with Califano, on educational programs. I am very poor at figures. Obviously my staff it too. But it went something like this. Califano said, do you know how many cate gorical programs there are for education in the country? I said I have not the foggiest idea. I think he said 82. He said, now I am the Secretary of HEW, theoretically in charge of administering all 82 programs. He said if I had 48-hour days instead of 24-hour days. I probably could not intelligently, on a knowledgeable and informal basis, administer 82 separate categorized programs. I hope I have got the figure right. It was an enormous figure. I may have it in correct, but it was an enormous figure. That caused me to think further. I remember the first day I ever laid eyes on John Gardner on television, John Gardner, recently of Common Cause. President Johnson had appointed him Secretary of HEW in the midsixties. He was on Meet the Press or Face the Nation, the very week he was appointed. They had four good reporters asking him tough ques

tions. Somewhere along the line, a social security bill was pending. There was a very important provision of it that was somewhat controversial. One reporter said, Mr. Gardner, what do you think about the provision such-and-such in the social security bill? He paused. I do not think I have ever seen this in my entire life, the refreshing, marvelous candor. He said, sir, I am new on this job. I know the question you have raised is an important one. I just do not know enough about it to give you any kind of answer. I am not going to try to conjure up some answer. I am going to admit I do not know.

Something clicked in my mind and said John Gardner is unquestionably one of the brightest men in the United States. There are so many programs kicking around over there in HEW, even this one that is a very important public issue on social security, even this bright man with talents galore is not prepared enough to field an answer on that. I thought it was the great candor.

Even a bright man such as John Gardner, was not very well versed in this one area. Yet as Secretary of HEW, he has all of this, including the Older Americans Act, including medicare, everything on that board he has, I guess, except ACTION.

He does not have housing.

Are there enough hours in the day for John Gardner to really, or his successors to really, know what is going on in all these educational programs, veterans programs, some of which are in HEW, some in the Veterans Administration, aging programs, and some over there even want him to take over food stamps out of the Department of Agriculture. They want to transfer $4 billion to HEW to give more work over there.

I have sort of unburdened myself of some of the questions that I raise with myself, and I am really troubled by that. I do not mean to filibuster you, Mr. Cruikshank, I am sort of hoping for some guidance from you on that. I realize nobody wants to be known as the guy who canceled home repair for the elderly. Nobody wants to say the best part of my legislative career is when I voted to do away with home repair for the elderly-nobody wants that label.

Mr. CRUIKSHANK. It is encouraging to us to note that you are concerned with these things, and I am sure some of your colleagues share your concerns. These are tough dilemmas. In one sense, there is no right answer.

We are confronting a situation in our Nation when we are facing up to limitations on our resources, going back to the energy problem and so forth. We are going to have to make some approaches to problems that are different from the traditional ones which we have accepted. I think we are going to have to watch all our expenditures better, not so much to cut them down, but to see that every dollar that is delivered is delivered efficiently and hits the target. Of course, this is just the point you are making. Can you do that with small expenditures which involve a high percentage

overhead?

Senator EAGLETON. Very true. All right. I have some nitty gritty questions based on your testimony and other observations you have made. Do you favor an independent budget for the Federal Council, that is outside of the Federal agencies? How would such a budgetary independence, if you favor it, enhance the role of the Council in

evaluating and making recommendations on the full range of services for the elderly?

Mr. CRUIKSHANK. I think it would enable the United States to operate more effectively because as it is now, the Council is given this broad oversight responsibility, and yet has to rely on the decisions of the head of an agency which we are in a sense responsible for overseeing or reviewing. I do not mean overseeing in the sense that we tell them what to do and all, but reviewing, and bringing to the Congress-we are relying on that agency to supply us with the sinews of our operation, which is something of a contradiction. Either a separate budget-of course, the Council is too small to be set up as a separate agency, housekeeping services, and so forth, that would not be practical. But in terms of a kind of independence of operation, I think a specific mention of an appropriations amount or an earmark amount for the Council would enhance our opportunity. Senator EAGLETON. How do your roles of Chairman of the Federal Council and also special counselor to the President relate to each other? Are they really two distinctly different functions?

Mr. CRUIKSHANK. They are different in one way. The role as counselor to the President means that I am a member of the White House staff, I sit in on meetings where policy decisions are being made. It gives me a chance to say to people at the highest level of Government-please take a look, this is the way your policies are going to affect the elderly. Sometimes they would not think of it if I were not there, or someone in that office were not there.

Now in terms of the relationship between the two, while that is a separate function, there is a place where they gear into each other. I would not say they overlap. They enhance each other. I think as Counselor to the President, when he compiled these two jobs, it is more significant when I can go to the President or to Cabinet officers or to domestic council people and say this is not just my idea about a program for the elderly, this is something which 15 appointed members, appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and Representative people have kicked around and considered and come out with a considered recommendation.

So I think this enhances the role of the Counselor. At the same time I think it elevates a bit the function of the Council. If their Chairman, whoever he or she might be at any time, is the person who has the access to this upper level of Government, then I think they take their work a little bit more seriously. They can direct their Chairman to do something with respect to advice to the President on matters directing the elderly. I do believe they are complementary although they are kind of separate in their operation.

Senator EAGLETON. How many times in a given month would you be in touch with people on the White House staff?

Mr. CRUIKSHANK. Constantly on the White House staff. I meet with senior staff twice a week.

Senator EAGLETON. Who presides at that senior staff meeting! Mr. CRUIKSHANK. Usually Bob Lipshutz or Hamilton Jordan sometimes, or sometimes it is well, those two mostly, yes, sir. The President's counsel or chief of the policy staff.

Senator EAGLETON. When you are there, is the Commissioner on Aging there? Of course we are having a change in that assignment.

Dr. Flemming is retiring, and Mr. Benedict is coming on board. But when you have been there, are you sort of the leading spokesman, as such, for America's elderly?

Mr. CRUIKSHANK. Yes, at those meetings, I am. Those are small and kept to the White House staff, except when there is a special consideration. If there is a bill, for example, on social security, and you know we have just been through that, I cite that as an example, because it is a major legislative effort of the last session, Secretary Califano would be there sometimes and the Commissioner of Social Security. And I think if there were a policy decision with respect to an administration position with respect to something, the Commissioner on Aging-it would be appropriate to have him in. Senator EAGLETON. Where is your office?

Mr. CRUIKSHANK. Executive Office building.

Senator EAGLETON. Old State Department building?
Mr. CRUIKSHANK. Yes, sir.

Senator EAGLETON. If you are meeting twice a week with senior White House advisors, is Mr. Eizenstat sometimes at those meetings? Mr. CRUIKSHANK. Most always. In addition, Senator, when there are particularly policy decisions-I do not go to Cabinet meetings— but there are often policy decisions developed that reflect aging, where two or three Cabinet members and the Chairman of the Economic Council will be in and they will invite me in, as they sit right with the President.

This has happened twice since I have been on. It is not a great number. But it is the point at which an administration position is being developed.

Senator EAGLETON. I am not trying to pander to your ego, Mr. Cruikshank, you are not an egotistical man in that sense of the term, but I am interested and I am delighted that you have this availability of access, this availability of input on the White House senior staff level. I am pointing no finger of blame or fault of any prior administration, but I have always wondered whether the viewpoint of America's senior citizens, the comments of America's senior citizens, whether that viewpoint or those commentaries were getting into Government at appropriately high and policymaking levels. I do not think any administration has been callously indifferent to America's senior citizens.

Mr. CRUIKSHANK. It has been on an ad hoc basis frequently. It is more formalized now.

Senator EAGLETON. A regularized participant at White House level meetings, on behalf of America's senior citizens, it is not only good, I think it is vital. A lot of decisions that are made, transportation, et cetera, there is a particular facet of that that applies to America's senior citizens, and your level of access should continue. I am delighted that it has been what it has been.

That sort of led me to the next question on my list here. How would you delineate your role vis-a-vis the role of the Commissioner on Aging?

Mr. CRUIKSHANK. The Federal Council on Aging and the whole function of the Council is in the area of policy recommendation, not in operations. I think that it is important, and I try, and other