000, so we have far exceeded our goal, and we attained the goal because of the techniques that the Secretary just mentioned in terms of the national contract and the shorter form. Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. All right. Secretary WIRTZ. We are trying to shift gears from the institutional training to the on the job very rapidly. Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I have one question that will take a couple of minutes. Senator CLARK. Senator Javits, Senator Kennedy asks indulgence for a couple more minutes. Senator JAVITS. That will be fine. Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. You testified on June 15 before the Special Subcommittee on Aging and at that time you made a statement which unfortunately received very little attention. I felt that it was really one of the most thoughtful presentations on the whole subject of opportunities for the elderly. Its content on the matters concerning the poverty program are extremely relevant, and I would like to have that statement included in the record at the appropriate time. Senator CLARK. Without objection that will be done. (The excerpt referred to follows:) [Excerpt from the hearings of amending the Older Americans Act of 1965, June 15, 1966] STATEMENT OF HON. W. WILLARD WIRTZ, SECRETARY OF LABOR, BEFORE THE SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGING Secretary WIRTZ. I welcome the opportunity to discuss with this subcommittee the need for legislation directed at meeting the special occupational needs of the older worker. We are at the start, as the President said recently, of "a great new era for older Americans,” at a time when we are beginning to recognize "the right to an adequate income,” “the right to a decent home,” and “the right to a meaningful retirement." Both in terms of the needs of the individual and the needs of the Nation, there is, here, a reservoir of talent we ignore at our peril. In a time of machines and extraordinary technical development, the dedication of skilled fingers and loving hands are both in short supply. All this, and much more, the older worker has in abundance. It does not subtract from the special needs of the older worker, however, to suggest that the issues before you contain important lessons for the economy at large and for the whole relationship between man, his work, and his income. While the focus of this subcommittee is on the problems of the older workerand appropriately so-it is important to keep in mind that this group only reflects most intensely the challenges that will affect almost all American workers in the decades ahead. It is the older American who more than any other is technology's pawn; who is so often thought incapable of learning new skills when a machine is installed where men once held sway. He is most blessed and most cursed with leisure; and seeks to fill his time with purpose, not mere activity. It is the older American who has, more than any other age group, the problem of obtaining an adequate annual income when work opportunities are not available. It is the older American who most conspicuously wants and needs to expand his educational horizon, even though he is far past the usual schoolgoing age in the United States. It is the older worker for whom seniority can be a guarantee of security or an incredible hurdle to entry. It is the older worker who most intensely feels the restricting bind of accumulated pension funds. And it is the older worker who shares with other the embarrassment and sadness of repeated subjection to arbitrary hiring standards. The older worker presents, in stark and demanding fashion, the search for usefulness, for security and for leisure that is the search of all Americans. I agree then, in short, with the purposes which inspire S. 2877 and S. 3326. But I question, respectfully, whether these particular proposals encompass enough of either the problem or the prospect of meaningful employment of older workers. If they don't, it would be unfortunate to take action that is too narrowly directed. Even at a preliminary and experimental stage of development of this program, there is the danger of special emphasis that shapes, or misshapes, its growth. I would urge the subcommittee's consideration of whether it would be better to continue, for the immediate time being, the fairly extensive exploration of this situation, and experimentation with it, which is presently proceeding under the Older Americans Act, the Manpower Development and Training Act, and the Economic Opportunity Act. In the alternative, I would urge inclusion in these bills of provisions for the development of much more than "volunteer" older workers employment programs. A program of "volunteer" public service makes sense only as one among other older worker "employment" programs. It could work to salve our conscience without conscientious solution to focus solely on volunteer or reimbursed service as a long-range answer to the barriers faced by the older worker. And it obscures the issues of economic security to call men volunteers because we are unwilling to pay them. We should capitalize on the desire for spiritual sustenance only after making certain more earthly needs are met. There are other issues, too. Volunteers, like workers for pay, need skills and training. It does them a disservice to rely on their zeal when up-to-date techniques are needed. And there will be, for many older workers, a movement from volunteer status to employment, from labor force participation to long periods of leisure. Any program must take account of this fluctuation in needs. These matters have been a subject of continuing concern to the various departments during the last several years. It is the general feeling that the comprehensive program I have suggested is extraordinarily important, and that it can best be conducted through joint effort by the affected departments and agencies. There is the further recognition that existing legislation authorizes virtually all parts of such a program and is, indeed, a mandate for the executive branch to proceed. The Older Americans Act, the Economic Opportunity Act, particularly title V and the proposed amendments to title II, and the Manpower Development and Training Act allow for the full development of an employment program for older Americans. The administration is determined to proceed with this program under existing power. If there is the desire of Congress to supplement or buttress existing authority, through the passage of special legislation highlighting the needs of this age group, that action will be welcomed. But such action should encourage concentration on all employment problems of the older worker, not just some. This is a strategy that does not sink into euphemism about "autumn years" and "senior citizens." It must be a strategy that breaks away from the tripartite and now sterile view of man that fixes a time to learn, a time to earn, and a time to die. It must be a program that explores the boundaries of work-in the traditional sense-and of service in its newest sense; a program that meets the needs of those who work because of financial requirements and those who work because of a will to help, to continue to participate. It must be a program that expands our meaning of the relationship between work and leisure and between occupation and service. A full and successful strategy to meet the occupational needs-where occupation is meant in its broadest sense-must function, in large part, through local agencies and local groups. Only through the complete recognition and exploitation of the virtues of a pluralistic society can Government programs have their greatest impact. We talk here of hope for individuals, and we must meet them as individuals if we are to sustain and fulfill that hope. A successful program for older workers must rest on the wisdom of groups like the National Council for the Aging, working through central information and training centers such as the local employment service. Most of all the strategy for the older workers, no less than for all workers, must build on the zest for service. For this is only another way of saying that work, as part of life, must have meaning. And that life through work must have purpose. I propose a strategy for the older worker that will furnish guidance and meaning for all American workers. There has already been a beginning in this undertaking at the Department of Labor. Almost 20 percent of the men and women who found jobs last year through the Federal-State Employment Service were older workers-over 45. In part, this improvement in performance was accomplished through a strengthening of the USES older worker services program, providing extra staff and extra training. More than 100 staff positions were added for this program. In fiscal year 1967, we will treble this effort. Such action is a consequence of the Department's implementation of the recommendations in the "Older American Worker" report. The Office of Manpower, Evaluation, and Research through contract with the National Council on the Aging has developed a variety of pilot domonstration programs in more than half a dozen cities, that will be of great usefulness in concentrating further effort on these workers. Such important lessons were learned, for example, as the fact that an older worker spends more years at a new job than a younger worker. The older worker report submitted to Congress last June enumerated in depth some of the basic problems we face. Our studies showed that only 8.6 percent of all new employees hired among a large sample of employers were 45 and older; that about half of all job openings which develop in the private economy each year are closed to persons 55 and over and a quarter of all these openings are closed to those over 45; that the average level of unemployment among workers 45 and over exceeded 1 million throughout the year; that about four times that number experienced some unemployment during the year; that twofifths of the unemployed between 45 and 65 and three-fourths of those 65 and over were out of work for 15 weeks or longer; and that the loss to the economy from older worker unemployment in unemployment compensation payments and lost production would amount to at least $4 billion a year. Since that time conditions have improved, though improvement has been far from satisfactory. The level of unemployment for those 45 and over in March 1966 for example, was down to 830,000, as compared to 1,054,000 a year ago, but the percentage of unemployed older workers who suffered long-term unemployment remained almost constant. Our commitment to make real the right to earn a living will be sorely tested by the older worker. The drop of almost 200,000 in total unemployment for workers 45 and over demonstrate that this is a problem amenable to action. One of this Nation's pressing pieces of unfinished business is the task of meeting the problems of American workers which are associated with advancing years. These years can in many ways be the best, if we only use the means at hand to make them so. Employment-usefulness—is the difference for most people between life's having meaning or no meaning. Yet today, all too often, as a worker grows older he finds the doors of employment opportunity closed to him. I urge the Congress, if it wishes to take an affirmative step in bringing more meaning into the lives of our older citizens, to give consideration to a flexible experimental employment program such as I have outlined. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I have offered an amendment to this bill. I believe it will encourage the OEO to give a greater sense of priority to the needs of the elderly citizens. I know that you have not had a chance to review that amendment, but I certainly would welcome a comment of yours at this time, just a brief one, relating to the topic on which you gave testimony before the Aging Committee. I feel that a greater sense of urgency and priority should be given to the needs of the aging. Secretary WIRTZ. Very briefly, Senator, it would be that with respect to the problem as a whole, with all of our various suggestions, I do not think we have even approached the heart of it. I think we are still treating the problem of old age about like we treat dandruff on our coat; we just try to brush it off so we will not see it and I do not think we will get to grips with this problem until we knock the word "retirement" out of the English language, until we stop settling for security as a standard for older people, and I cannot do more than echo or reflect your own sentiments on this. It is the most unattended problem in this country today in terms of the potential. With respect to the particular proposals that are presently before us all, my concern about them has been that they will identify the problem, not intentionally, but that we will make the mistake of identifying the problem and the prospects of old age as being welfare in the traditional sense, which seems to me wrong; of being work in the traditional sense, which seems to me to be wrong; of being poverty in the traditional sense, which would seem to me wrong, too. And it seems to me imperative that whatever we do (a) have about 10 times the dynamite in it that any one of us has put in it so far, and (b) will be recognizing the goal of the whole new concept of function as distinguished from poorness or welfare or employment in the old sense. And so, my reaction to your question would be that anything that moves toward the recognition of the real dimensions of this is all to the good, that we ought to be awfully careful not to make the mistake along the line of slotting our thinking, of leaving our thinking in the terms of indigency or in the terms of welfare or handouts or any of those things and get it on to a basis by means—and I think it can beon a basis which means that function is just as important as anything that comes before. Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Would you not agree that the problem involves not only a question of priorities, but also of experimentation and innovation in various areas of the program? I think that there really is an opportunity under the general mandate which has been provided under the war on poverty to create imaginative programs directed toward satisfying the needs of our senior citizens. I feel that by establishing within the OEO an administrative responsibility for the aging, we can move a good deal more rapidly and give to the program the sense of priority which is needed. I appreciate your comments and I know how interested you are in this matter. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator CLARK. Senator Javits, 10-minute rule. Senator JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, if necessary, I will borrow from the Chair. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a request of the subcommittee. My staff notes that the other body provided $5 million more for the VISTA than we requested. It is our understanding that there is an excellent reason for this, but we think that it should be made part of the record, and so I request, Mr. Chairman, that a statement be asked for from the Office of Economic Opportunity with respect to the additional $5 million authorized for VISTA and the justification for it. Senator CLARK. Without objection that will be done. (The memorandum subsequently supplied by the Office of Economic Opportunity follows:) MEMORANDUM FROM OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ON VISTA FISCAL YEAR 1967 BUDGET A program for 2500 VISTA Associate Volunteers during the summer of 1967 was not programed within the $26 million initial budget for FY 1967. II. Volunteer information service---- --- SO, 000 This would be a new activity within the Office of Recruitment and Community Relations. The main purpose of the Volunteer Information Service would be to assist Volunteers who have successfully completed VISTA service by identifying jobs in the helping professions at the local level that are designed to serve the poor. Approximately $80,000 will be required. III. Volunteer training Previous estimate Proposed revision Increase 5,862, 000 4, 665,000 5,862, 000 The budget increase would cover the cost of training the Volunteers. IV. Volunteer allowances Previous estimate Proposed increase Increase 1, 197, 000 13, 948, 500 13, 158, 011 13, 948, 500 790, 489 Based on the $3,282 Volunteer allowances cost an additional $790,489 would be required. This proposed increase would add $320,011 to personnel salaries, travel, and other program expenses. Summary in increases |