thing. They realize it was subsidized, but they feel very good about the idea of making a contribution.

I think voluntary contributions is much better system, and if one would actually come out with figures as to what you can mandatorily collect from senior citizens versus the voluntary collection, perhaps it could be more convincing. No pilot project of any kind has ever been set up anyplace, I understand.

Ms. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I think your example is a very good one in terms of what is happening across the country. Seniors do contribute. We are finding that seniors in the minority communities tend to contribute even more. The voluntary contributions are working, but I would go back to the point that we can't just be concerned about the seniors who are inside the senior center. There are many seniors who are outside the center who are waiting to be served. There are many things that we can do to try to bring in additional resources through public/private partnerships. I would just add, in conclusion, that there were many seniors at our forums who said that they had no problem in cost-sharing. Many of the State directors that are currently operating cost-sharing programs do, in fact, have stepped-up participation of seniors.

Participation by older persons has not fallen off. They are more concerned about the quality of services they receive when they pay. When they pay for services they tend to be more inquisitive about the scope and quality of those services. This is particularly evident in the area of in-house services. Cost-sharing may help us achieve better oversight of the services provided by the network.

Chairman ROYBAL. The Chair recognizes Mr. Martinez.

Chairman MARTINEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Berry, there are a few questions that I have that I think are as important as the cost-sharing, not that the cost-sharing isn't an important thing, but as we have held these five hearings, we have pretty much determined that there are a lot of states that are doing it but strictly on a voluntary basis, and there is only the self-declaration. If we went to some kind of a cost-sharing plan, I can only envision it in those expensive services that are provided because the states can't wholly afford to provide it themselves and so that may be for those that can afford it but solely on a self-declaration.

I believe there would have to be language in any bill or legislation that would say self-declaration very clearly because as we know, when you give a bureaucrat the power, sometimes they don't always use it judiciously, and we might end up with an overenthused or active bureaucrat who wants to prove to the world he is worth his salt and go out and start requiring mandatory information that will drive people away from the service. Would you agree with that?

Ms. BERRY. I agree wholeheartedly, Mr. Chairman. We would certainly support self-declaration.

Chairman MARTINEZ. Let me ask you on another issue then: I am concerned with your reorganization, and you know that in my opening statement I commend the Secretary for that reorganization. Those are some of the things that we were thinking about putting into the legislation as we reauthorized, but in the move too, am interested to know what happens to the Federal Council on Aging.

Now, it would seem to me that would be appropriate with your now separate entity, but as I understand, it is going to stay in the Children and Families portion of it.

MS. BERRY. The Federal Council on Aging at present is placed as an adjunct to the Administration for Children and Families. The Secretary has set up a transition team to plan for implementing the reorganization. The placement of the Federal Council is one of the issues the transition team will address. I expect, Mr. Chairman, that the Federal Council will be placed within the jurisdiction of the Administration on Aging.

Chairman MARTINEZ. Very good. I hope so. Now, there is one other thing that I have. Under the old system, the Office of Human

Ms. BERRY. Development.

Chairman MARTINEZ. -Development Services

Ms. BERRY. Yes.

Chairman MARTINEZ. —had the authority for the contract although they were contracting services that you contracted for them. Now that you have moved, are you going to have that contract and authorization?

Ms. BERRY. The Secretary has assured me that the Administration on Aging staff will be enhanced so that we will have grants capability as well as contract authority. In the interim, we will use the logistical support of the Office of the Secretary.

Chairman MARTINEZ. All right. One question along that same line. We have always been concerned, or since we have taken jurisdiction, about your control of the budget and the staffing of AoA. We understand there is a limited number of staff people. In fact, the staffing has diminished, hasn't it, over the past several years? Ms. BERRY. That is correct.

Chairman MARTINEZ. Now, are you going to have authorization of staffing, and are you going to have some ability to input to the budget?

MS. BERRY. The current arrangement that Secretary Sullivan has laid out gives me direct access to the Secretary on matters of budget and legislation, I expect, Mr. Chairman, to make a healthy request to the Secretary in terms of staffing. I think the Administration on Aging can be enhanced with additional staff.

Chairman MARTINEZ. Very good. Now, the information that was asked for by the Chairman on data collection to determine whether or not cost-sharing could be effective, our committee has asked the GAO to do a study of this. The only problem is that any findings are a year away, and that is a little long, but there is some of that information that is readily available, and we have put the GAO in touch with the County of L.A. because the County of L.A. has a data collection system that is absolutely phenomenal, and they have the ability to profile the people that are being serviced, and the income levels of those that are being serviced, and a lot of pertinent information to really be able to deliver services, and I had asked you earlier if you would be in touch with them, and maybe some of that information could be compiled so that we can, as we go down the road to reauthorization, utilize that information.

The other thing is that also they have entered into a program which, in your written testimony, you allude to a similar program

in creating private and public partnerships because they do believe that they can do that, and they have already had corporations willing to come and put that money.

Along those same lines, Mr. Fawell, in several of the hearings, has asked [and I don't mean to be speaking for him] but he has asked the question of state matching funds. I have a problem with that because if the state doesn't have the funds to begin with because a lot are on very desperate, austere budgets; if they don't have the funds, they are not going to provide the service because they have got other priorities so there must be some base, and if there is a base funding for it and then they can through private partnerships gain more funding; that would create an incentive for the Federal Government to put more money, would the Department or your office support something like that?

Ms. BERRY. I think, Mr. Chairman, we have certainly seen increasing difficulty with States to come up with a match. I must confess that I have not reviewed Mr. Fawell's proposal, but I would like to do that.

Chairman MARTINEZ. Well, he doesn't have a proposal, Dr. Berry, but what he has asked is if something like, if people were in support of something like that, actually most people say no because of the fear of the state then not being able to match the fund and not having any monies at all for it, but I am the one that suggested that maybe if there were a base, a guaranteed base, and understand that what I am contemplating is a base that increases funding from what it presently is because of various things that have happened: the increase in number of clientele, the increase in costs of services, a whole raft of other things that have caused them to not have the ability to serve as many people as they have with a base in the past, I believe there has to be an increase of funding. Ms. BERRY. I agree. Public-private partnerships are very important in this regard.

Chairman MARTINEZ. But if, aside from that increased funding level, if there were a program that created the incentive for states to come up with more money through maybe private partnerships

Ms. BERRY. I think that seems reasonable.
Chairman MARTINEZ. Thank you.

Ms. BERRY. Certainly, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman. MARTINEZ. I think the Chairman was getting ready to smack his gavel so I will end with that, but there are some other questions that we need to ask, and I know that we will be continuing our dialogue. Thank you.

Chairman ROYBAL. You know, Dr. Berry, I never used a gavel when a Chairman has the floor, and I was just waiting for that opportunity. It just didn't come about, but there will be a time. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Barrett.

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Berry, most of the debate on the reauthorization seems to be centering around those most in need, particularly minorities, and cost-sharing. Are these the two areas where we should be directing most of our attention in your opinion, or should we be focusing elsewhere?

Ms. BERRY. I think they are clearly the areas that are indicators, of the growing numbers of seniors who need services and the limit

ed amount of resources. The issue of targeting has come up, obviously, because there is a concern that we focus the money on those most in need as was required in the 1987 amendments. However, very few States have a low-income minority factor in their intraState funding formulas. The whole area of targeting remains a very important one.

The issue of contributions and cost-sharing is obviously not a new issue. However, because of the growing demand for services, we are at a point where we should ask seniors who can pay to help provide protection for the poor, we envision a sliding fee scale for those seniors who can pay. We also need to focus on the types of services to which cost-sharing would apply. We must strongly consider whether to provide States this cost-sharing option. These are critical issues.

I did mention in my opening remarks that there are many objectives laid out by the Older Americans Act related to housing, transportation, and employment. I hope that we don't lose sight of those issues. However, I am glad you raised the question about cost-sharing. We have always had bipartisan support for Older Americans Act programs, and I would hope that the issue of cost-sharing does not become a divisive one. I think that we must do whatever can be done to work through this together, as we have done in healing the network and in bringing back a partnership over the past two years.

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you. One of the states involved in the Inspector General's cost-sharing study was my own state of Nebraska, which again piques my interest in that area. In all of the people that were talked to, did any of them mention that the money that they were being asked to contribute was too much money? Did this ever come up?

MS. BERRY. No, sir. That has never come up, at least not in the information I have received. I have not been advised verbally or through written information that seniors have complained about the amount of money that they have had to pay. It is interesting because we are the advocates for all older people not just those who receive services under Older Americans Act programs. I am the Commissioner on Aging on behalf of all older people. No seniors who are participating in cost-sharing programs in the 36 States have contacted me; I have not heard from them in terms of being mistreated, so I think it is something that we ought to consider.

Mr. BARRETT. You mentioned a moment ago a sliding fee schedule. Do many of the states have any kind of a sliding fee schedule in the studies?

MS. BERRY. I believe the GAO survey looked at the type of fee schedules, and they looked at the types of services being provided. Many of the States do, in fact, have sliding fee scales. These arrangements protect the poor. Most of the poor are not, in fact, participating in cost-sharing. I think there seems to be some fear that cost-sharing will adversely affect the poor. However, the poor are not involved in cost-sharing.

Mr. BARRETT. Uh-huh. One of the areas that I think this committee will be looking into or should look into is perhaps an expansion of cost-sharing into some of the Title III programs, particularly nutrition. Would cost-sharing encourage or discourage people from en

rolling in nutrition programs? What would your thoughts be on that area?

Ms. BERRY. I guess I would have to go back to permitting flexibility to the States. We are at a situation where our State directors tell us that in some places there are thousands of seniors waiting for services. Clearly, the State directors are closer, and the Area Agency on Aging directors are closer to the needs in individual communities. I spoke to their credibility in my opening statement. I think it is now time to rely on those officials to give us their recommendations. The National Association of State Units on Aging has done that as well as the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging. Those are the folks who are daily confronted with having to serve these seniors.

With regard to the nutrition program, that has been the program where we have received most of the contributions, and so, of course, there could be a debate as to whether or not that program should be included in cost-sharing.

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman ROYBAL. Ms. DeLauro.

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your testimony, Dr. Berry.

Ms. BERRY. Thank you.

Ms. DELAURO. You mention the decrease in minority participation in these efforts, and I just wanted to get some sense of what is your view as to why this is occurring, what kinds of remedies are you looking at in order to increase minority participation under the Act.

And I am a little bit concerned as the cost-sharing effort impacts all seniors and maybe minorities, in particular, that what we are going to do is to lose some of the folks that we would be most wanting to serve, who the Act was designated to try to serve, and so that is, essentially, what my concerns are.

Ms. BERRY. Those are important concerns.

MS. DELAURO. If you could address that?

Ms. BERRY. Yes. I certainly spoke to the issue of targeting which is particularly important now as we try to reach out to the many seniors who need assistance. We have not found that there is a substantial decrease in minority participation in Older Americans Act programs.

MS. DELAURO. Yes.

Ms. BERRY. There are those who would argue and question the data. Certainly we need to do much more in terms of making sure that we have a sound data base.

MS. DELAURO. Yes.

Ms. BERRY. But the 1989 and 1990 figures for minority participation in B, C-1, C-2, and D are fairly stable.

MS. DELAURO. Yes.

Ms. BERRY. So there is not a decline, as the current data shows. MS. DELAURO. Then let me just ask you a question on targeting. When you talk about targeting, what are you talking about? What methodology? How are you going about targeting the population? I mean, I know that in my own community in New Haven we are concerned with the area of infant mortality. We now have a van