capped, who have been outside of the ordinary stream of society and we have been running an average of about 90 percent, or a little better, of the openings filled at any given time, which we feel is a reasonably good record.

Of course, we would like to have all 100 percent filled. But if you can average this out-we do find, and this is, I think, a very favorable fact, that there are variations as the job market changes; that when we have a good deal of seasonal work, particularly for unskilled people who ordinarily could not get jobs, the numbers who are available will go down.

Our particular concern has been around better ways of reaching men with families who are really just lost to society. We have lately taken steps whereby we are going to make an intensive effort, using people out of this very group itself to help recruit. We are very conscious of the fact that we are not dealing with single individuals

here.

Again, as the Secretary pointed out, we are dealing with families. so for every person that we bring into this program we are supporting an average of three dependents, which builds up tremendously the numbers of persons who are helped through the program.

Secretary GARDNER. To be quite specific, Senator, I think that on June 1 we had about 88.5 percent of the slots filled.

Senator RANDOLPH. That would compare with about 85 percent in the Neighborhood Youth Corps; is that correct?

Secretary GARDNER. I do not know the figures in the Youth Corps. Senator RANDOLPH. I believe that is the comparative percentage. so I think you are doing a good job.

Secretary GARDNER. Thank you, sir.

Senator RANDOLPH. I want to express that in the subcommittee hearing today.

Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Senator CLARK. Senator Murphy?

Senator MURPHY. I have some questions that I have been asked to ask for Senator Javits.

One, Senator Javits has sent you an advance copy of the amendment of the act that he introduced on June 22, cosponsored by Senators Kuchel, Prouty, Griffin, and myself, to create an Economic Opportunity Corporation which would add a private enterprise dimension to the war on poverty.

He would like to have your comment on the proposal, if you have had a chance to study it.

Secretary GARDNER. Senator, I am sorry I will not have a very detailed comment on this.

Senator CLARK. Mr. Secretary, could I interrupt long enough to suggest that the other witnesses have undertaken to furnish statements in writing for the record. You can do this if you want.

Senator MURPHY. Yes.

Senator CLARK. So, you will furnish a statement in writing which will be incorporated in the record at this point.

Secretary GARDNER. That we would be very glad to do.

(The Department is submitting a report on Senator Javits' bill which should serve as our comment at this point.)

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,

Hon. JOSEPH S. CLARK,

Chairman, Subcommittee on

Employment, Manpower and Poverty,

Committee on Labor and Public Welfare

U.S. Senate.

August 2, 1966.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in response to your request made at the recent hearings on S. 3164, the "Economic Opportunity Amendments of 1966," for a report on Amendment No. 610.

The amendment would provide for:

1. Establishment of an Economic Opportunity Corporation.

2. Issuance of stock, 40 percent of which could only be purchased by the United States Government, and the remainder of which could be purchased by any person. The United States could invest up to $1,000,000,000 in stock of the corporation.

3. Establishment of a nine-man board of directors of the corporation-four to be appointed by the President (one of whom would be representative of the poor) and five to be elected by the stockholders (other than the United States).

4. Engaging in any program which the board of directors of the corporation believes would reduce poverty in the United States and which would be appropriate activity for the corporation to conduct.

Since this amendment, if enacted, would bear more directly on the Office of Economic Opportunity than on the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, we therefore defer in this matter to the views of the Office of Economic Opportunity.

We are advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program.

Sincerely,

WILBUR J. COHEN, Under Secretary.

Secretary GARDNER. I have just seen the proposal. I have read— it is a proposal for a public-private economic opportunity corporation, initially capitalized at $1 million, which would allow individuals, private organizatons, and corporations to participate in the war on poverty.

We have had such interesting success in this country with varied ways of going at these problems through the private sector that I hesitate to be discouraging about this one.

On the face of it, I find some difficulty in seeing how one could conduct a profit enterprise in some of these fields that he identifies. I am willing to be openminded; I will be glad to study it further and submit a statement for the record.

Senator MURPHY. Senator Javits has one other question, and he asks: Why did New York State experience such a critical shortage of adult basic educational funds earlier this year?

He states that it was cut in half suddenly and he wonders about the reason for it and what can be done, so that this will not occur again. Secretary GARDNER. I have an associate of mine, the Director of the Division of Adult Education, Jules Pagano, who will be glad to answer that question.

Mr. PAGANO. Senator, all the States were cut. We use that termall the States were cut from what they thought would be their original allocation of funds. When we reassessed the situation and saw the need, then funds were restored. But the question of cut comes in when the States thought that published estimates on the request were the official allocation they would be getting; when the apportionment

came through it was different, which sometimes happens in our process. This caused a misunderstanding.

One thing you notice in the Secretary's testimony is a request for a cortain kind of minimum for keeping this in the future. We believe this testimony will clarify the issue and the understanding of the funding problem.

Sonator MURPHY. Thank you very much.

Thank you, str. I have no other questions.

Senator Clas. Serator Kennedy, any further questions?

Senator KeyNery of Massachusetts. Just a very quick one, Mr. Secretary.

As I understand in the House bill, some changes have been suggested m the work experience program. One of the changes prohibits those Wie la's Jeen tas pating in the work-study exercise from receiving the benel s sang grants if they have been participating for 24

which has taken great advantage of this program, e women who are benefiting or participating in this ceng aid for dependent children. They are spending eir time in the day with their children, and taking e evening to complete a high school program.

hat this 24-month limit would preclude the opportue of them to continue on in what has been an extremely esgram. Is it the position of the Department to suggest e sould be at least a degree of flexibility in these kinds of that at the end of the 24 months these people may conCe pate! NACRTY GARDNER. We have discussed that and I would like for hear Commissioner Winston's comment on that.

MEN WINSTON. We have always approached these programs as Coconseration projects. We do not expect them to go on forever. However, one of the strengths of the programs is that there is an indiadual ed program for each individual in relation to that individual's toral family situation.

Certainly, it would be tragic to move a person well on the road to solt support and then by some arbitrary measure have to cut off the opportunity.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I share your opinion and I hope that there can be realized in the legislation the opinion you have expressed here. I know in my own State that it would certainly be helpful.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CLARK. Senator Murphy?

Sonator MURPHY. In an attempt to evaluate the program as far as my State is concerned, I have written to the 50 State superintendents of schools and one theme which seems to recur through all of the answers in their evaluation is that the educational system has been bypassed and that some of the funds might be channeled through the regular educational system and bring about a more effective result. In other words, from figures I have been given, the requested appropriation by OEO could provide 54,000 new elementary school class

rooms or 36,000 new classrooms for secondary pupils. We, in our position, must arrive at the practical approach.

This has nothing to do with personal test or choice; it must be based on a practical judgment of the proper expenditure of the public tax funds in order to accomplish the most good. I would like the record to show a telegram I received from the superintendent of public instruction of the State of California, Dr. Max Rafferty. He says:

In response to your letter of June 10, I agree completely with the figures. American education can do more to prevent poverty than all the so-called poverty programs ever dreamed up if it can just be given the money to do the job, which every educator knows can be done.

Would you comment on that, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary GARDNER. Yes, sir.

As a matter of fact, I think I share a bias toward the school system that is perhaps stronger than anyone's in this room. My whole background and interest and concern is with the schools and with education.

At the same time I would have to say that education in the past has not really touched these groups and has not done the job

Senator MURPHY. Is anything being done to rectify that?
Secretary GARDNER. I believe that-

Senator MURPHY. I speak from experience, Mr. Secretary. I lived in Beverly Hills. We have a very good school system, I think excellent, and I have a son that was having great trouble. He was on the verge of being a dropout. One day I found he could not read. He had not been taught to read properly, but with a few weeks of extra instruction in reading he became a very good student.

I suspect that this is true in many, many cases. Is anything being done to ascertain the degree of this and to do anything to rectify it? Secretary GARDNER. A very great deal is being done on remedial work and, like your son who is a product of the Beverly Hills school system, I am sure that it is being done as well there as anywhere, but that is much more in the line of the things that the schools can do, remedial work with students who have difficulty.

When it comes to dealing with the kinds of people we deal with in the adult basic education program, the schools hardly begin to know how to do it, because you start with people who are almost outside the social system. They have drifted off; you find them in their families; you find them on the public assistance rolls and you begin from there to draw them out and bring them into these classes, which is something the schools have not traditionally done. It is quite possible they could, but they have not done it.

Senator MURPHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. You have been a most helpful witness.

Our next witness will be Senator George Smathers, of Florida, who is the chairman of the Special and Select Senate Committee on Problems of the Aged.

Senator Smathers, we are happy indeed to have you here. We look forward to having your testimony.

Senator SMATHERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I shall be very brief.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE A. SMATHERS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Senator SMATHERS. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I very much appreciate this opportunity to testify on making the Economic Opportunity Act more meaningful and helpful to our Nation's elderly.

The Senate Special Committee on Aging, of which I am chairman, recently concluded a year-long study of the topic, "The War on Poyerty as It Affects Older Americans," and issued a report on this subject. I am submitting for your consideration eight copies of the report, one for each member of this subcommittee, but we do not ask that it be made a part of the record.

In this statement I should like to emphasize the findings and recommendations in our report, with the hope that they will be helpful to this subcommittee in framing the measure which you report to your full committee and to the Senate.

Our committee is not a legislative committee and we have to look to this subcommittee and the full committee to help us implement recommendations which we make.

One of the findings in our report is that there are compelling reasons why the elderly poor should be served by the war on poverty, for the elderly are a major portion of the poor. More than 7 million of the 18 million Americans over 65 are poverty-stricken, as defined by the Social Security Poverty Index of 1965.

More than half of all poor families are headed by persons aged 45 and over. The elderly poor are the most invisible of the invisible poor. Many of them are forced by age, or disability, or both, to languish in their own quarters, out of sight of a too complacent public. They do not participate in riots and demonstrations which bring their poverty to the attention of others.

The elderly are the most hopeless of the poor. Time holds forth no promise for them as it does for youth. As they grow older, regrettably they grow poorer. The chance to make their way out of poverty is small.

The Director of the program, Sargent Shriver, has said, "*** we will not win the war on poverty until we advance on all fronts, including the broad front that includes the older poor."

One reason this is true is that many older individuals are the heads of families, and the quickest way of preventing and curing poverty among the younger members of their families is to prevent and cure it as it affects the older family head.

Another reason is that many impoverished seniors are dependent upon younger members of their families, and it is difficult to launch a successful antipoverty effort for these younger family members without attacking the poverty of their elders.

While a good beginning has been made under the war on poverty toward solving the problem of poverty in old age, nevertheless OEO has far to go in carrying out the direction of Congress in last year's poverty amendments, which provided that whenever feasible the special problems of the elderly poor be considered in the development, conduct, and administration of OEO programs.