SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS OF MESSRS. JAVITS, PROUTY, DOMINICK, MURPHY, SCHWEIKER, SAXBE, AND SMITH

The bill reported by the committee would extend the authority for appropriations under the Economic Opportunity Act for 2 years beyond June 30, 1969, as recommended by the President. A bill to implement the President's recommendation was introduced by Senator Javits on June 12, 1969.

In his statement of June 2, 1969, the President reaffirmed the administration's commitment to the continuation of the Office of Economic Opportunity and stated his determination to make the Nation's antipoverty efforts function more efficiently and serve the poor more effectively. He stressed that a 2-year extension would provide a "better framework within which the necessary improvements in the antipoverty program can be made."

The initiatives taken by Director of OEO Donald Rumsfeld and others responsible for the programs authorized under the Economic Opportunity Act signal an expansion and improvement, rather than a dilution, of the efforts of the Federal Government to combat poverty. The administration has properly viewed the Office of Economic Opportunity as an innovative agency, willing to experiment with and serve as a proving ground for new programs to benefit the poor. While OEO is the only Federal agency whose special concern is the poor, other Federal departments and agencies have given increased attention to the problems of poverty.

The recent breakthroughs by the administration in proposing major welfare reforms and in efforts to combat hunger and malnutrition are testimony to that fact. Moreover, programs delegated from OEO by this and previous administrations have found a secure and sympathetic home in other departments of the Federal Government.

The administration has taken care to insure that OEO will have a continuing role in the emerging governmentwide strategy against poverty: the Director will retain an overview of delegated programs; community action agencies will continue to be involved in programs at the local level; the placement of OEO regional offices has been undertaken with a view toward coordination with similar offices of other agencies involved in programs for the poor; and OEO will have the authority and capacity to conduct governmentwide evaluation of programs affecting the poor.

The establishment of the Urban Affairs Council and the designation of Director Rumsfeld as special assistant to the President with Cabinet rank are further indications that the poor will have an increasing voice in national councils. In light of these developments, it is appropriate that the agency focus its resources on innovation so that new programs can be developed and, upon maturity, be given an established place in the total Federal antipoverty effort.

While the Office of Economic Opportunity should be free to innovate, we share the commitment of the administration to a continuing

operational role for community action agencies and endorse efforts now underway to make those agencies more efficient and responsive to the needs of the poor. The administration has made it clear that community action agencies will continue to be involved in the operation of existing programs such as Headstart and in providing outreach and education as a part of a new, coordinated attack on hunger and malnutrition. The monitoring and evaluation of community action agencies now being conducted is long overdue. In order to assume an expanded role in the total antipoverty effort, community action agencies must be strengthened; as the President has emphasized, it is the poor who are hurt most when poverty funds are stolen or programs are inefficiently administered.

We support the administration's current efforts and proposed plans to give the States a greater role in antipoverty programs. For too long they have been denied the meaningful participation authorized under the Economic Opportunity Act, with the result that the Federal Government has lost important allies in the fight against poverty. As Director Rumsfeld has noted, existing legislation provides in numerous instances for an active State role. We are encouraged by the Director's plans to give life to those provisions by appropriate regulations. We note favorably his creation of a new division of State and local governmental relations in the Office of Economic Opportunity and the budget increase requested by the administration for the funding of State economic opportunity offices. We believe that the Economic Opportunity Act includes adequate provision against arbitrary actions in the course of State administration.

We commend the Director for conducting a reorganization of the agency in order to improve efficiency, clarify missions, improve management controls and permit the flow of work from the research stage through the development and program stages. We are pleased that programs for rural areas and for older persons will be brought into the mainstream of program development. We note also that the Director of Legal Services will be directly responsible to the Director of OEO and that the agency is making efforts to give further definition to the mission of the legal services program. In that connection, we question the necessity of section 9 of the committee bill preventing the delegation of that program to any existing agency, in light of Director Rumsfeld's testimony before the Subcommittee on Employment, Manpower, and Poverty to the effect that no such delegation is contemplated.

While the actions taken thus far by the administration suggest that much can be done to improve the poverty program without special amendment to the Economic Opportunity Act, we have taken the initiative in proposing and supporting amendments where we felt that they were required to authorize new programs or to improve further the administration of existing programs. An amendment introduced by Senator Dominick to establish a special emphasis program for the discovery and treatment of drug abuse and addiction is included as a part of section 8 of the committee bill. Senator Prouty's amendment to authorize the Comptroller General to audit and examine books, documents, papers, and records pertinent to financial assistance received by any agency under title II of the act is included as section 11 of the bill. We have given our support in committee to amendments

introduced by other members authorizing advance funding, establishing a new special emphasis program on alcoholic counseling and recovery, providing civil service credit for VISTA volunteers, providing that children who are not members of low-income families may be permitted to receive services in Headstart projects, clarifying existing Law, and insuring that closed Job Corps centers are used for special youth programs.

We are deeply concerned with several aspects of section 3 of the committee bill. The section provides for authorization of appropriations as follows: Under subsection (a) there would be authorized $2,048 million for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and $2,148 million for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971. Under subsection (b), $2,048 million of the sums authorized under subsection (a) would be earmarked for certain programs and activities for each fiscal year. Under subsection (c) (as an addition to the amounts authorized for all programs under subsection (a)) amounts would be authorized for each of eight specific EOA programs of special interest to committee members.* These add-ons would total $292.1 million for fiscal year 1970, and $584.2 million for fiscal year 1971.

We support the ceiling of $2,048 million for fiscal year 1970, the amount requested by the administration for that fiscal year. It represents an increase of approximately $100 million over the estimated expenditures for fiscal year 1969. We also support the authorization of $2,148 million for fiscal year 1971, representing a further increase of $100 million over the previous year.

We submit that the earmarking provisions of section 3(b) are inconsistent with the concept of the Office of Economic Opportunity as the principal innovative agency in an emerging governmentwide antipoverty effort. OEO must be free to develop new programs and to determine for each fiscal year which existing programs should be emphasized to accomplish the purposes of the act.

The necessity for flexibility has been recognized, to a limited extent, by a majority of the members of the committee in section 4 of the bill. That section would amend the law to permit the Director to transfer 15 percent of funds allocated or appropriated for a particular program or activity to another program or activity. It would also eliminate any restriction on the total amount that can be transferred into another program or activity. Under present law, transfers from a program are limited to 10 percent of the amount allocated or appropriated and no program may be increased by more than 10 percent.

However, when combined with earmarking, the transfer provisions will still not operate to permit meaningful changes in programing, especially in the case of fiscal year 1971: In each case where the bill earmarks a program at a certain level for fiscal year 1970, the bill provides for earmarking at the same level for fiscal year 1971. Under the 15-percent transfer provision, the Director could operate a program earmarked at $100 million at a level of $85 million during fiscal year 1970 and add $15 million to one or a number of other activities. Subsequently, the Director might consider it advisable to operate the earmarked program at a level below $85 million for fiscal year 1971, in order (a) to provide funds for a new program, (b) substantially

*Special Impact, Project Headstart, Legal Services, Comprehensive Health Services, Emergency Food and Medical, Senior Opportunities, programs for migrant and seasonal farmworkers and Day Care.

increase funds for a particularly successful existing program, (c) to avoid duplication of effort between the earmarked program and activities undertaken by other public or private agencies from additional funding sources, or (d) because of a combination of such considerations. However, he would be powerless to do so since the 15percent transfer authority would once again be applied to the earmarked amount of $100 million.

We submit that the administration must be permitted to make programing decisions in the light of previous experience and the total Federal anti-poverty strategy, not on the basis of the previous year's budget request.

As noted above, section 3(a), which we support, would authorize a total of $2.048 billion for fiscal year 1970. We do not consider advisable the authorization of additional amounts for specific programs for fiscal year 1970 under section 3(c) since as a practical matter we doubt that the administration would be able to make effective use of such amounts by the time they would actually become available later in this fiscal year. In this connection, we point out that the administration's budget submission (covered by the authorization contained in section 3(a) of the committee bill) already requests $89 million more for those specific programs for fiscal year 1970 than provided in fiscal year 1969.

We recognize that the administration may require additional authorizations for fiscal year 1971 (beyond the $2.148 billion authorized under section 3(a)) in order to take further initiatives during that year in the specific program areas covered by section 3(c). Accordingly, while we have differed with other committee members as to the amounts of some of those increases, we have generally given our support to that section as it applies to fiscal year 1971.

We share the commitment of the administration to a renewed, revised, and expanded attack on poverty in the framework of a 2-year extension of the authority under the act. Subject to the exceptions we have noted, we consider the committee bill as a general expression of bipartisan support for the President's recommendation for such an extension and of confidence in the administration's ability to make the new tenure a meaningful one.

JACOB K. JAVITS.
WINSTON L. PROUTY.
PETER H. DOMINICK.
GEORGE MURPHY.

RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER.

WILLIAM B. SAXBE.

RALPH T. SMITH.

INDIVIDUAL VIEWS OF MR. MURPHY

I am deeply concerned over the direction in which the legal services program has been allowed to move. In many States, including California, legal services organizations have diverted their major thrust from legal aid and assistance to the needy and turned that thrust toward political activism through the filing of law suits against governmental agencies and departments. I believe the issues presented in these law suits can and should be raised through legally constituted political channels.

I am considering introducing an amendment to the bill that directs the program toward legal assistance and away from law reform.