Dr. GREEN. I see you are leading me into the area of busing of children. I assume that-whether or not busing is an appropriate vehicle for assuring that the preschool programs would at least be implemented in the way that I have mentioned here is subject to the existing Federal law.

Frankly, I see no great merit at this point in denying a community funds, and particularly the community I came from, which was central Harlem, simply because there would not be enough white children to sit next to black children in that central Harlem community.

I think at this point in time it is vital that the community be given these funds; with the parent participation in the parent councils assuming their responsibility I think that appropriate recommendations can be made.

Do you want me to say am I in favor of busing children?

Mr. CORNELL. No. I want to know if you think, as I do, that it should be put in the legislation in such a way that required integration. Mr. SHARON. Let me take Dr. Green off the hook.

Dr. GREEN. No; I would like to stay on this subject, if you don't mind, sir.

I would like to see this legislation assure that there will be a racial, ethnic, and cultural integration of the programs where possible, in compliance with existing Federal law.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Would the gentleman from Wisconsin yield for an observation at this point?

I would simply call to the attention of the subcommittee and the witnesses that the language of S. 626-and there is similar language in the House bill-at page 25, beginning at line 23, the words in subsection 6, quote, "provides that to the extent feasible each program within the prime sponsorship area shall include children from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds."

If I understand what Dr. Green is saying, it is in effect identical to that language as is what my colleague from Wisconsin is saying, unless I misunderstand him.

Mr. SHARON. Mr. Cornell, we have 114,000 outpatients a year at Children's Hospital here in Washington; 98 percent of those are black, 2 percent are white. Our inpatients range between 12 and 14,000. They are about 50 percent black and 50 percent white. They come in buses from all over the city, from all over the community. Some come from all over the world. And there is no problem, for us, anyway.

Mr. CORNELL. I just want to make a final observation that I thoroughly agree with statement No. 8. I think it is absolutely essential especially in this particular age that we have socially, economically, and culturally integrated child care centers in order to lay the cornerstone of a far better society.

I just wished to get further elucidation of that question.

Thank you.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Miller of California.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There was some discussion earlier about the formula for allocation regarding the structure of the family.

Dr. GREEN. Regarding your testimony on the function of the familyI tend to agree with you and it is my concern that the formulas are

57-649 - 76 pt. 2 15

there because we are really admitting that we are not going to provide enough money to go on the basis of need.

Therefore we have got to make sure that some of the poor get taken care of, some of the disadvantaged, that some of the minority groups get taken care of so the funds don't get ripped off by the grantsmanship that you mentioned before or by the people who have special relationships with the agencies.

That has distrubed me. I guess only being here a month I am still idealistic.

The reason we have such an expensive health care system is that we have segregated the elderly from the poor, and so on, instead of providing a mainstream of medicine.

Witness after witness yesterday and today has testified to the need for figures regarding children whom we simply can't account for during given periods of the day, who are suffering from deficiencies that again we can't account for.

And yet we are going to segregate them into various classes and we are going to provide a formula to make sure that somehow or other it looks like we are doing something.

Here we are again with a demonstrated need and we are going to go through a lot of motion to look like we are addressing a problem.

I don't mean to be disparaging of the authors of this legislation since I am one of the coauthors. But we are really asking them to scramble for the money, to make their case.

We find the first statement in this legislation is for a family that asks for this help. But that family is not going to get it because we are going to say, "Well, I am sorry. You are not a single parent. We don't have money for your category." The child needs that help.

Feel free to address yourself to that question if you like. It is a statement on my part.

One of the problems you uncover in legislation such as this is the problem of rehabilitative services. We are talking about full comprehensive screening for the children.

On page 9 of the legislation we talk about trying to ameliorate, identify physical and mental and emotional handicaps.

I suggest that "ameliorate" is a very weak word. The alternative to providing rehabilitative services is a very expensive word.

I would like you to comment on how you think that might be accomplished in terms of providing the full gambit of services that we envision.

Dr. GREEN. I would just like to make one comment on this rhetorical question which you pose, and that is that the present state of our political system is such that we have to stick labels on people and groups of people in order to get resources to be able to meet their needs.

In order to get legislation passed on autistic children there has to be legislation passed for comprehensive health services to all children. I think there are certain kinds of emotional issues that must be used in order to get the clout that is necessary to bring about legislation. I dislike children being labeled, all children from single-parent families being labeled as "disadvantaged." There are many children who are from nuclear families who are just as needy, and in some way our legislation must be able to address the needs of children instead of the categories of their parents.

Mr. SHARON. Mr. Miller, as a native Californian I share your statement. It is an excellent one. I am glad it is in the record.

I was driving down a highway in your State and saw on a great big black Lincoln Continental two bumper stickers.

One said, "If you have found Jesus, honk once. If you are Jesus, honk twice."

Mr. MILLER. Doctor, I hope you might provide some help to this committee on the question of grantsmanship and what the criteria are, and how does an applicant demonstrate that need?

We know that the handicaps suffered during pregnancy due to nutritional deficiencies and so forth really aren't recorded in many instances. I think it is important. The grantsmanship thing worries the hell out of me in this regard.

Also there is the question of rehabilitative services and to what extent the funds are in this program.

Thank you very much.

Mr. SHARON. Thank you.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Dr. Green, Mr. Sharon, thank you both very much. for having come.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Green follows:]

STATEMENT OF

FREDERICK C. GREEN, M.D., F.A.A.P.

ON

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT

BEFORE THE

JOINT HOUSE-SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE

ON

SELECT EDUCATION AND CHILDREN AND YOUTH

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1975

Mr. Chairman and Members of the House Subcommittee on Select

Education and the Senate Subcommittee on Children and Youth, I am pleased to have this opportunity to testify in support of S. 626 and

H.R. 2968 Child and Family Services Act.

As an active participant and workshop leader in Forum 10 of the White House Conference on Children, I enthusiastically supported the number one Overriding Concern; namely, the need for "Comprehensive family oriented child development programs including health services, day care and early childhood education."

As the Associate Chief of the Children's Bureau, OCD, HEW, fram 1971 - 1973, my elation over your passage of S. 2007 - the Economic Opportunity Amendments of 1971 was converted to bitter dismay over the unjustified vehemence of veto message by former President Nixon.

Today, as a pediatric practitioner and educator, I feel an obligation to speak to the needs of our 25 million citizens under the age of 6 years and specifically to the needs of our 6 million preschool children who require full or part-time care outside of their homes because their mothers must work.

The dismal state of our country's economy notwithstanding, those of us working in the fields of Maternal and Child Health, Child Development and Child Welfare are legitimately dismayed by the apparent low priority placed on programs that may be critical determinants in enhancing the developmental potential of our children.

We have seen few if any of the 16 Overriding Concerns and 25 specific recommendations of the 1970 W.H.C.C. implemented. We have seen Title V, Maternal and Child Health Projects (C&Y and M&I) that have proven their effectiveness in reducing fetal wastage and infant mortality; in the