in at this time and in the budget for fiscal year 1976, and requests $104 billion. In addition to that, there is $3 billion for the Atomic Energy Commission, which makes an overall total of $107 billion. All of that, Mr. Secretary, with the exception of a few dollars is new money. That is in the same category as your net $36.7 billion-that $107 billion. Now, that is an increase of $15 billion over the budget for fiscal year 1975. I am just like you, Mr. Secretary; I think from the standpoint of the security of this country we can't take any chances. My Chairman, Mr. Flood, has served for years on the Defense Subcommittee, and without speaking for him, he will tell you that when the military people of this country come in and say "We can't take chances on this," we don't take chances on it from the standpoint of the security of this country. But, Mr. Secretary, when they come up and finally say, "You know, we have cost overruns now of $34 billion"-they finally released that 2 or 3 weeks ago, $34 billion in cost overruns. It doesn't read very good in the paper when you say cost overruns. They changed it a little bit and said it is cost increases, in weapons systems, and other matters. A little of that money is in GSA, a little of it, but cost overruns is what we call it here in Congress. So, Mr. Secretary, when you point out about the deficits, the seriousness of this problem, and certainly I know it is serious when you have a national debt that is anticipated to go to $535 billion on July 1 of this year and to $604.5 billion on July 1, 1976. I know this is all serious, but, Mr. Secretary, you are the Secretary of the most important Department in peacetime in our Government. The people are much more concerned about your program, Mr. Secretary, and your Department than they are about a number of other departments. I think you are doing a good job. I say that to you frankly. But the only thing I disagree with you about is when you come in and you try to justify all these reductions and you use examples as far as HEW is concerned. I wish you would talk a little bit about foreign aid, and a little about this Defense budget of $107 billion. Mr. Secretary, we are going to carefully analyze your budget. Secretary WEINBERGER. Thank you. Mr. NATCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. IMPACT ON AGED Mr. SHRIVER. Could you furnish, Mr. Secretary, for the record how much is in this budget request for HEW for senior citizens? Secretary WEINBERGER. Yes. Mr. SHRIVER. If you don't have it now you can put it in the record. Secretary WEINBERGER. We have a number of different programs, I believe somewhere in the neighborhood of about $335 million, including health, the new National Institute, and our aging programs, but, of course, in a larger sense, not in this bill, as we just discussed with Mr. Natcher, but in a larger sense all of social security is in that category and medicare is in that category, but specifically within the bill that is before the committee roughly $335 million. [The information follows:] Disability insurance benefits (Dependents).......... Retirement and survivors' $104,768.05 $334,358.68 $215,718.36 $215,716.4 $17,000 $21,000 $24,000 $28,000 $35,000 insurance benefits.................. ..27,165,000 33,247,000 37,898,000 Hospital insurance benefits 6,108,000 6,648,000 7,310,000 Supplementary medical insurance benefits 43,480,000 50,039,000 9,031,000 10,305,000 2,255,000 2,391,000 2,587,000 2,960,000 3,380,000 Sub-total, benefit payments to persons age 65 and over from 1/ No figures are available. 35,545,000 42,307,000 47,819,000 55,499,000 63,759,000 2/ Figures are unreliable estimates only. 3 During FY 1972 and FY 1973, ONAP was in the Office of Economic Opportunity. Grand Total, Social Security . Public Health Service 271,000 612,000 1,514,000 2,533,000 2,825,000 $35,816,000 $42,919,000 $49,333,000 $58,032,000 $66,584,000 4/ Figures for 1972 through 1975 represent the portion of the appropriations for NICHHD which was and is being allocated to its aging program or to the National Institute on Aging. 5/ Includes 1973 released funds. 6/ Includes one half-year payments and costs for programs affected by P. L. 92-603. 7 Adult programs in Guam, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands only. Estimate 9 Not available at time of printing. Mr. SHRIVER. Could we also have in the record a list of programs elsewhere in the Federal Government? Secretary WEINBERGER. Yes, sir. [The information follows:] NON DHEW FEDERAL PROGRAMS WHOSE PRINCIPAL MISSION IS TO BENEFIT THE ELDERLY 1 [Obligations in thousands] Department/agency Action.. Community Services Administration. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Department of Labor.. Total..... 1 Not separately identified in the budget. 2 Included in the comprehensive manpower assistance program authorized by the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act of 1973. Mr. SHRIVER. For the same thing. Secretary WEINBERGER. Yes. There are various things scattered throughout OEO still. Some in HUD. VOCATIONAL EDUCATION Mr. SHRIVER. That would be helpful. You are proposing to shift $125 million from the general vocational education assistance program over to a specific project approach? Secretary WEINBERGER. That is correct; yes, sir. Mr. SHRIVER. Would that mean a shift in the decisionmaking as to how these funds would be spent? Secretary WEINBERGER. Yes. Mr. SHRIVER. From local level to Federal level? Secretary WEINBERGER. Yes; it would be substantially that way. It would continue the basic vocational grant, but we would suggest that the program for students with special needs, consumer and homemaker education, work study, cooperative education, State advisory councils, all be consolidated into a single vocational research and innovation program with the same amount of money so that the $125 million would be into that fund, which would be a major increase in that fund, out it would consolidate all of these other programs that I have nentioned. Mr. SHRIVER. Who makes the decisions? Secretary WEINBERGER. On that? Mr. SHRIVER. Yes. Secretary WEINBERGER. The State vocational people. Mr. MILLER. I think the bulk of it is determined at the State level. There is a percentage of the funds that would be set aside where the lecision would be made by the Commissioner of Education, but the bulk of it is determined at the State level. |