ན་ཟླས ས། ༤༦ ༡༦ དྲུག་གམ། ཡཛ་རྩེ། mming dere for public or nonprofit TRIER BRenters, to enable such agencies Lamazement iance or similar assistance in Firmas the this purpose have been provided W on program. This has Je responsibility, since the grant supce ac mang and servicing responsibilities The mendment is designed to facilitate enak ersity for oth the grant and loan VOCIJA with community action agencies will Γ འཛིན་ གནས་་་་་་་ At present, while VISTA is Se Te Zoverty, authority for it is con estraron and zoordination. This amend- DA TALLS 19 participate personally in the War on te suurstance of the VISTA authority. The new secYACET a scirend not to exceed $100 a month to wverismes with standards prescribed by the stipend for all volunteers is $50 a month. per enders is similar to that provided for perIs jesigned to recognize the ex ADA PUSPESTar of "unteers on whom extra burdens of endersi p 1 MINL Normally nose persons who have completed These leaders are not expected to be at 'east one year's revi ATUOR 'N Punder haine a wets-fre Dimmteers. l'he second changes are in the new section 105, which provides for special voluntver verums ʼn Pirneritee of the purposes of the title. This section would therær The new "ograms of velinteer service that build upon the experience of the pesent VISTA program. These could include special programs for low income persons programs de quallied persons who cannot commit themselves to the opereazem of service usually required for VISTA volunteers, and progens fir pa· fed versons for whom the experience, supervision and training available in spera, VISTA programs will serve as valuable preparation for further work in the feud of vounteer service. Not more than 15 percent of sums appropriated or alveared to carry out the purposes of title VIII would be available to carry out special programs under this section. Section 9. Technical amendments This section contains several technical amendments which do not affect the substance of the existing authority. Section 10. Higher Education Act of 1965—Moratorium on student loans to Vista volunteers This section extends to VISTA volunteers while they are in service the moratorium on repayment of loans under the Higher Education Act of 1965 (Public Law 89 329, 79 Stat. 1239) which that Act provides for full-time students, members of the Armed Forces of the United States and Peace Corps volunteers. A comparable moratorium on repayment of loans under the National Defense Education Act was extended to VISTA volunteers by the 1965 amendments to the Economic Opportunity Act. Hon. LISTER HILL, U.S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare 1.8. Senate. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in further reference to your request of March 99, 1966 for a report on Senate 3139, a bill "To improve the administration of community netion programs and for other purposes." Our comments with respect to this bill apply equally to the proposed amendments relating to the Hatch Act contained in Senate 2908 on which we were not asked to report. Senate 3139 transfers the administration of the general community action programs authorized by Title II, Part A of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 from the Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (section 1(a)(1)); prohibits payment of any salary to a person administering a community action program in excess of the salary paid for comparable work in the area served by the program (section 1(a)(2)); authorizes the Secretary to (1) appoint, without regard to civil service laws, an advisory committee to advise him concerning the administration of community action programs, (2) pay the committee members who are not federal employees at a rate not to exceed $100 per day, and (3) allow their travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by section 5 of the Administrative Expenses Act of 1946 for persons in the Government service employed intermittently (section 1(a)(3)); and provides for the transfer to the Department of Housing and Urban Development of so much of the personnel of the Office of Economic Opportunity as the Director of the Bureau of the Budget determines are used primarily with respect to the transferred function (section 2(a)), without change in classification or compensation except as is required to conform to the duties to which the transferred personnel may be assigned (section 2(b)). The Commission has no objection to the personnel provisions that have been summarized above. In regard to the proposed transfer of responsibilities to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, we defer to the views of the Office of Economic Opportunity. Section 1(a)(5) of the bill adds a new section to the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, numbered 211A. This section provides that for purposes of the Hatch Political Activities Act an agency administering or conducting a community action program receiving federal assistance shall be deemed a state or local agency and a person employed by such an agency whose salary is paid in any part from appropriated funds shall be deemed an officer or employee of a state or local agency. There are two types of agency that are involved in carrying out community action programs. One type assumes over-all responsibility for planning, developing, and coordinating community-wide programs. This type is referred to as the "umbrella" agency. The other type assumes responsibility for actually implementing a program in a particular segment of the community. This type is referred to as a "delegate" agency. At the present time both public and private agencies are involved in community action programs as "umbrella" agencies and as "delegate" agencies. We have held that section 12 of the Hatch Act applies to all public agencies whether "umbrella" or "delegate" but not to private agencies. Hence, the Hatch Act applies to employees of the public "umbrella" agency which receives funds directly from the Office of Economic Opportunity, and to a "delegate" public agency which receives funds indirectly from the Office of Economic Opportunity through either a public or private "umbrella" agency. One effect of the proposed amendment would be to extend the political activity prohibitions of section 12 to all private agencies. This extension would appear to be justified insofar as it applies to private "umbrella" agencies. In many respects these agencies operate very similarly to the public "umbrella" agencies which are already covered by section 12 of the Hatch Act. In addition, in many instances, the private agencies are established by local governments and it is merely a matter of circumstance that they are established as private rather than as public agencies. Most can properly be described as quasi-public. There does not, however, appear to be an equal justification for the extension of the political activity restrictions to the private "delegate" agencies. Many of these are old-line organizations such as the YMCA, the religious charities, etc., whose participation in federally financed community action programs represents a minor part of their on-going charitable and welfare activities.. To bring their employees under the Hatch Act would encompass a broad section of the private community which is performing essentially the same function it has in the past, namely, social-charity work. It would require strong evidence that employees of these organizations should have their political rights restricted in order to prevent pernicious political activity in connection with community action programs. We know of no such justification, and certainly none sufficient to remove the serious constitutional question raised by the extension to such a broad part of the private sector. The jurisdictional test in the proposed section 211A covering any person "whose salary is paid in any part from appropriated funds," would pose serious enforcement and administrative diffenities. Our experience in tracing federal funds demonstrates that it would be nearly impossible to effectively trace the federal money down into the pocket of the individual. Yet this is what we would have to do under the proposed provision. We find the jurisdictional test of section 12 of the Hatch Act to be more appropriate. It applies to officers and employees of state or local governments "whose principal employment is in connection with any activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States or by any federal agencies." Coverage is limited to those whose major employment is with the financed activity and the problems of tracing funds under this provision have largely been solved. We recommend that the proposed section 211A be amended to extend section 12 of the Hatch Act to all umbrella" agencies that are engaged in community action programs. This would not affect the present applicability of section 12 to the public "delegate" agencies and to the public "umbrella" agencies. It would leave in effect the present exemptions in section 21 of the Hatch Act relating to employees of educational or research institutions and those in section 18 concerning nonpartisan political activity. To accomplish this, section 211A should be amended to read as follows: "Sec. 211A. For the purposes of the Act entitled 'An Act to prevent pernicious political activities', approved August 2, 1939 (53 Stat. 1147), any over-all community action agency that assumes responsibility for planning, developing, and coordinating community-wide anti-poverty programs and receives assistance under this part shall be deemed to be a State or local agency." Section 1(b) of the bill also deals with political activity. It provides that Volunteers in Service to America shall be deemed to be persons employed in the executive branch of the Federal Government for the purposes of the Hatch Political Activities Act of 1939, as amended. The Commission has no objection to this provision. VISTA volunteers are usually designated to serve not more than one year. In this respect their service is similar to that of temporary employees in the excepted service, who are generally subject to the employing agency's rules and regulations rather than those of the Commission. If the proposed provision is enacted the Office of Economic Opportunity would be responsible for its enforcement. The Commission has jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of the Hatch Act with respect to federal employees only if they are in the competitive service. The 1965 amendments to the Economic Opportunity Act added a second paragraph to subsection (d), section 603. This requires a technical amendment of the amendment to this subsection proposed in section 1(b) (1) of this bill. On page 4, line 17, insert after "in" the words "paragraph (1) of". With the amendments suggested above, the Commission does not object to the enactment of those provisions of S. 3139 which are discussed above. The Bureau of the Budget advises that from the standpoint of the Administration's program there is no objection to the submission of this report. By direction of the Commission: Sincerely yours, JOHN W. MACY, Jr., Chairman. Senator CLARK. Our first witness this morning is Mr. Sargent Shriver, the Director of the program. I believe, however, that Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts has a preliminary statement he would like to make. Senator Kennedy. STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD M. KENNEDY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, share the welcome which has been extended to Mr. Shriver this morning and to those that are with him. Mr. Chairman, at this time Massachusetts ranks 26th in the Nation in the number of poor. Despite this low number we still see today some rather extraordinary efforts made by OEO in helping to bring the benefits of the poverty program to the disadvantaged in the State. Currently there are 14,000 youngsters in Massachusetts who are involved in the Headstart program; there are 14,000 young people who have been enrolled in the Neighborhood Youth Corps; approximately $12 million has been directed to our community action programs in Massachusetts and almost 7,000 people have benefited in the work experience program, and there are 1,500 adults who have participated in the adult basic education program. We have, as I know is probably common experience in many other States, received complaints about the expediting of the applications for Headstart. Yet other past programs that have been very successful have also had similar delays in getting started. I understand in the recent times that a number of the procedures have been streamlined and the delays in funding which have been evidenced in the past hopefully would not take place again in the future. The one area which today is of concern to those of us in the State is a matter which the Chairman, Mr. Shriver, is familiar with, and that is the Fort Rodman Job Corps Camp. I know he has taken a very deep personal interest in the difficulties which have been raised in New Bedford, Mass. I understand now that there are better communications between the highest levels of the OEO and the ad hoc committee, which has been appointed by Mayor Harrington. This ad hoc committee has done an excellent job in attempting to establish smoother communications between OEO and the local citizens in that State, I am extremely interested in the efforts which are being made currently in Fort Rodman by the poverty program, efforts which I think can help the program itself as well as New Bedford, and the young people being served. So I want to join the other voices of this committee in extending a warm welcome. I will take the opportunity as these hearings continue to suggest an amendment to the legislation which we are considering today. I do not want to use up the time of our witness. However, I have a statement that I would like to have included in the record. It concerns the establishment of a greater degree of responsibility at the administrative level of the Office of Economic Opportunity for programs dealing with the aged. Senator CLARK. Without objection, the statement will appear at this point in the record. Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I wish to take a few moments while we have the Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity with us to discuss an amendment that I plan to introduce to this year's Economic Opportunity Act amendments. I realize, as does every member of this subcommittee that the war on poverty has many detractors. I am not one of them, nor are the people I speak for today. The Office of Economic Opportunity has performed well in the face of problems and complexities that would have stymied lesser men and organizations. But there has been a great deal of concern among our elderly population that the war on poverty is not being waged for them. The underpinnings of the entire concept of our poverty program was, and is today, the breaking of poverty's cycle at its most vulnerable pointour Nation's poor youth. This is OEO's major direction, and it should continue to be its major emphasis. Yet we cannot forget that there are 5.4 million aged poor-that represents one-sixth of the total poor in this country. More important, however, is the fact that one-third of all poor families are headed by persons 55 years of age or older. We must do more in this older category if we are to be successful with our young. I am told by those who are vitally interested in the plight of this age group that they have not received due consideration in the OEO program. Indeed, the Director's testimony today when programs for various age groups were detailed to us, we heard nothing of the plans for the elderly-his recitation stopped at age 54. The representatives of older Americans have long sought an inclusion in this war's strategy at a meaningful level. The Senate Special Committee on Aging has made as its first recommendation in its just published report, that there be an Assistant Director of OEO for the elderly. Chairman Smathers of that committee successfully amended the poverty bill last year with a section declaring the intent of Congress that the elderly poor have a greater place in the poverty program. Still, not enough is being done, and I believe this problem will not be handled until there is a high-level official and an all-encompassing program for the aged in OEO. My amendment would create such an official. It would also briefly describe his mandate to develop elderly programs in the area of employment opportunities, public service opportunities, and educational This mandate is in keeping with President Johnson's recently stated bill of rights for the elderly where he said if the elderly want to work, they should have that right, if they want schooling they should have that right, if they want to volunteer their services to the community, they should have that right. Director Shriver and I have discussed this matter in hearings before. I take it to be his view that a proliferation of Assistant Directors in OEO, such as for Indians, the rural poor and so on would not be a healthy development. I agree with that, but the elderly can be differentiated. OEO is a youth oriented agency. The establishment of an Asssistant Director for the elderly would provide a badly needed balance, so that there would be greater emphasis on programs for the older Indian, the older rural poor, the older urban poor and so forth. The point is, I am talking about the entire elderly population regardless of category, as he spoke today on the younger American. |