If we are given this support, I can pledge to you, on behalf of OEO and the nearly 1,000 local communities with whom we are engaged in a cooperative effort that we will use your support to build an anti-poverty effort that will unite America's resources to attack the roots from which poverty springs. STATEMENT OF HON. SARGENT SHRIVER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY; ACCOMPANIED BY BERT HARDING, DEPUTY DIRECTOR; DON BAKER, GENERAL COUNSEL; J. A. KERSHAW, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR RESEARCH, PROGRAMING, PLANNING, AND EVALUATION; AND ROBERT CASSIDY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MANAGEMENT Mr. SHRIVER. I am grateful to you and other members of the subcommittee for the encouraging things that have already been expressed about this program and the atmosphere that seems to prevail to make it even more successful than it has been, and we welcome the suggestions and recommendations of all members of the subcommittee. Appearing with me this morning: On my right is Dr. Joseph Kershaw, who is the head of our Department of Research, Plans, Programs, and Evaluation; on his right is Donald Baker, the General Counsel of our agency; on my left is Robert Cassidy, who is the Deputy Director of our Management Administration Office; and on my far left is Bert Harding, the new Deputy Director of OEO, who came to us after having been Deputy Director of the Internal Revenue Service. Also with me are the directors of the specific operating programs and others. For example, there is the Director of Community Action, Theodore Berry; the head of the Neighborhood Youth Corps, Jack Howard, et cetera. Senator CLARK. Gentlemen, we are happy to welcome all of you to help us with our deliberations. Now, Mr. Shriver, will you proceed? Mr. SHRIVER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to summarize the statement which you have so kindly agreed to insert in the record. Allow me to just make these points about it: First of all, I feel that three events which were not of great magnitude that occurred within the last 10 days are symbolic of something that is rather profound in our national life. The first event was when Mayor Lindsay of New York came to Washington to discuss the amount of money for his city under the war against poverty. He brought with him four people who had been selected by their colleagues to represent them as residents of the area, in accordance with the basic statute. There was a Mexican American, a Puerto Rican, a Negro, a minister, and a priest, all of whom had been elected at the local level. They came with the major of New York. They participated in discussions with our office and contributed significantly to the outcome of those discussions. Twenty months ago that could not have occurred in the United States. The second incident happened just a few nights ago, seven or eight nights ago, in Union Station. I went down there. On one track was a troop train taking draftees off to be trained, I suppose, for the war in Vietnam. On the track next to it was different kind of troop train; it was filled with 250 VISTA volunteers going off to Appalachia Kentucky, principally, and West Virginia, also Georgia—to work this summer with the poor in West Virginia. Twenty months ago— perhaps never before in American history could that event have taken place, namely, volunteers going off to a shooting war abroad, right alongside of volunteers participating in the war against poverty here at home. The third incident occurred after the terrible tornado that struck Topeka, Kans., when just as a matter of course in the newspapers mention was made of the fact that 200 Job Corps men were volunteering in the rehabilitation and reconstruction of the devasted parts of Topeka. Now, these things are not of great historical significance, but none of them could have occurred 20 months ago. Twenty months ago there was no such program as Headstart, a name which, as you pointed out yourself, has quickly become accepted nationally and known nationally for the fine work that it symbolizes. There was no such thing as the Neighborhood Youth Corps, Community Action, Green Thumb, or Legal Services to the Poor People. Those programs are actually at work and accomplishing what we hoped that they would. În addition to those programs, there are evidences that the war against poverty has reached out to the most disadvantaged people in our national life, who are already at work in almost all of the 182 poorest counties of the United States. I could well remember when we first appeared here, that many people said we would never be able to reach the poor in those remote counties. That has proven to be false. A research center, the first in the history of this Nation, established at the University of Wisconsin is in operation. Other major universities, like the University of West Virginia and University of Missouri are involved in training people in the war against poverty. High school youngsters who never had a chance before in their life to get a college education are now, through Upward Bound, having the opportunity for college education opened up for them. All of these programs which just 2 years ago many people said were not necessary at all are proving to be successful. I am sure you can remember, Mr. Chairman, that when this legislation was first proposed there was a great hue and cry that nothing like this was necessary. Not only was it not necessary, but whatever was proposed in this legislation could be done better someplace else. Well, it turns out now that we are getting, I think, a rather significant compliment in that nobody is suggesting that these programs are not necessary. In fact, in most of them people are saying there should be more money for them. But despite these accomplishments, and this is the part I would like to focus on, it is true that, as of today, we have only reached 30 percent of the poor children in this country, only 15 percent of the poor youth who live in the slums or in rural America, only 2 percent of the poor people who are illiterate, and only about 5 percent of the aged poor who should get some service from us. So we have just begun to touch the various groups that really need assistance if we are to overcome poverty in this country. Senator CLARK. Do you have an estimate as to how many years it will take to win the war on poverty? Mr. SHRIVER. I have that in my statement at the end and let me turn to it. Two questions that I am frequently asked are: Can the war on poverty really be won and how long will it take? Our answer to the first question is: Yes, it can be done; and the answer to the second is that we can win it in about 10 years. We make that statement pretty much the way the scientists and engineers who talked to President Kennedy and pointed out to him that it was possible to put a man on the moon by the end of this decade. What we will accomplish, of course, and how soon we will accomplish it depends on this Congress, and its conviction that this war can be won and its willingness as a matter of national purpose to commit funds to it. But I look forward personally to the elimination of poverty in this Nation by 1976, the 200th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, as a great national enterprise and a great national goal. Senator CLARK. That would be a happy coincidence. Mr. SHRIVER. I think a lot of people would be trying to think of ways to celebrate that most memorable of days in history. People will be planning plaques and statues and building buildings. My own view is that nothing would please Thomas Jefferson any more than to look down on a country in which poverty will be eliminated. Albert Einstein remarked to Franklin Roosevelt that in his judgment it was technically feasible at that point to foresee the possibility of splitting the atom and controlling the fission process. That was a flight of, you might say, intuition, but what he saw was that physics as a science had been developed to the point where that was technically capable of being accomplished. I think the same thing today is true; namely, that the wealth of our country and the study and the science of economics has progressed to a point where it is technically possible to make this achievement. This would be the first time in the history of mankind a nation of this size has accomplished it. So on that point I would just like to conclude and say that although we have made a lot of progress, we have got a lot more to make, but it is well within the power of this Nation to be the first to eliminate poverty within its realms. Thank you very much. Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, Mr. Shriver. With the approval of the other members of the subcommittee 1 would like to suggest, in view of the very complex nature of these bills and the desire to give every member of the subcommittee the opportunity they need, we establish the 10-minute rule. This will allow each member of the subcommittee 10 minutes in turn to question the witness and then move on to the next member of the subcommittee, with the understanding that we will come back and give time for additional rounds to all members. If there is no objection, we will adopt that procedure and I would like, if I may, to take the first 10 minutes as the chairman. the Suboommine on Later of the Laive and Pubbe Welfare Committee considering amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act. We are attempting to serate & vicem terete the beginning of those exemTITE SESECES. I would apprestate. Mr. Chatman I am bor present to ask Mr. Shriver and his assortines moestions that I be permitted to have them mbmitted in writing so that they may be answered and become a part of the record Senator CLAR. The emily v be done. Secator. More than that, when your man to presto roes, we will be glad to alert you and perhaps you come baÍ Senator RANDOLPH. Thank you. Mr. Chaita (The following marera wis subsecently submitted by Mr. Shriver in response to Senator Randolph's request to RESPONSES OF SAMENT SHAVE. Dosema ODO, TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BAVICIZE 1. Q. A number of remedial resting prerams for school children has been authorized through the Ore of Eescombe Opperity. It is my understanding that OEO is adnating that the renewal of these remedial reading projects be affected through the Elementary and Sercotary Edonative Act. If this is correet, would you comment on what ocolization between OEO and the Office of Ednation is being ammmplished and what guidance is being furnished local sponsors to insure that these vital remedial reading programs are renewed withgot lapeliz for a period of time? 1. A. Walle it is acerate that a number of remedial reading programs presently being fratred through the Community Action Program will be financed in the future through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, no across-theboard decision has been made on a national scale or in all cases. Since available Federal resources for financing local Education Projects will vary widely from community to community, we have instituted a check point procedure (described in the attached Memorandum) at local, state, regional and Federal levels to insure coordination and facilitate the renewal of projects. IN FURTHER RESPONSE TO SENATOS RANDOLPH'S FIRST QUESTION Washington, D.C. Memorandum No. 27. Date: March 25. 1966. Subject: Coordination of Community Action Programs with Programs for Educationally Deprived Children under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. PURPOSE OF THIS MEMORANDUM This memorandum explains procedures that have been developed jointly by the US. Office of Education and OEO to coordinate educational activities financed under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 with community action programs. The basic element of such coordination is cooperation between Local Educational Agencies (LEA's)-which are usually local public school boards or school districts—and Community Action Agencies (CAA's). There is a clear Congressional mandate for such coordination in the language of Title I where Section 205(a)(7) requires that the State Education Agency. which is the administering agency for Title I assistance, determine that— "Wherever there is in the area served by the local educational agency a community action program approved pursuant to Title II of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-452), the programs and projects have been developed in cooperation with the public or private nonprofit agency responsible for the community action program." FRAMEWORK FOR COORDINATION The "Guidelines: Special Programs for Educationally Deprived Children"1 recently issued by the Office of Education explain the meaning of cooperation between LEA's and CAA's with regard to Title I projects. An excerpt from these "Guidelines" is reproduced as Exhibit I to this memorandum and should be carefully read by all CAA personnel concerned with educational activities. OEO fully subscribes to this statement on cooperation. On January 15, 1966, the Office of Education issued a second publication, "Revised Instructions Application for Federal Assistance for the Education of Children from Low-Income Families," to inform LEA's how to apply for Title I assistance. These instructions advise LEA's to include in their applications a description of their proposal's relationships to local community action programs and a statement of support, signed by the principal officer of any CAA within the LEA's area of jurisdiction. The "Revised Instructions" state these requirements as follows: "COORDINATION WITH COMMUNITY ACTION PROJECTS "(a) Relationships with CAP Projects.-Describe the relationships, if any, of any activities of this project to any community action project which is operating within the applicant LEA's district and which is related to elementary and secondary education. * * * "If there is in the district serviced by the applicant LEA a Community Action Program approved under Title II of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, attach a statement * * * signed by the principal officer of the Community Action Agency named in Part I, Section C, Item 4A. Such a form should be a reasonable facsimile of the form shown under Item 4B on the Suggested Form. * * *” The "Suggested Form" referred to in the OE "Revised Instructions" is included as Exhibit II to this memorandum. PROCEDURE FOR COORDINATION Community Action Agencies are expected to respond promptly and cooperatively to requests by LEA's for assistance in developing Title I project designs. The information on the "Suggested Form" should represent a summary description of cooperative efforts, rather than merely being evidence that the CAA does not object to the application for aid by the LEA. OEO has agreed with the Office of Education that it is reasonable to expect that each CAA will respond to the formal request of an LEA for completion of the Suggested Form within a period of 15 days from the date of such request. This is predicated on the assumption that the two local agencies-LEA and CAAwill have already cooperated in the development of Title I project and agreed on its relationship to the community action program. Upon receipt of a formal request from an LEA to complete the Suggested Form, the CAA shall (1) Promptly consider the request from the LEA and, after observing its own internal procedures for making such determinations, complete the form and return a signed copy of it to the LEA within 15 days of the receipt of such request. (2) At the same time it returns the completed form to the LEA, the CAA shall send one copy each of the form to the appropriate OEO Regional Office and to the State Technical Assistance Agency designated by the Governor of its State to coordinate anti-poverty actions. ACTION IN THE CASE OF CAA OBJECTIONS OEO has agreed with the Office of Education that, in the event that a CAA's response on the Suggested Form indicates that it objects to the proposed Title I project, or that in its view there has not been valid cooperation in the planning process, the following steps will be taken: 1. In the event of receipt of a statement by a CAA on a Suggested Form indicating objections to a proposed Title I project, the Office of Education has re 1 Copies of this document may be obtained from the Office of Education, HEW, Washington, D.C., or from any State Education Agency. |