sons why the other children should be brought in were considered. If this program is for poverty children, let us have it for poverty children.

Mr. PUCINSKI. You helped to write the bill. You voted for the 15-percent figure.

Mr. QUIE. I did not write the bill, did not vote for it and my amendments were not adopted.

Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. QUIE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. GOODELL. The gentleman from Illinois has made a completely unfounded and inaccurate statement. Te said that every school that participated in the Headstart program in Chicago was under the 15-percent limitation.

Mr. PUCINSKI. That is correct.

Mr. GOODELL. I have presented and put in the Record the report of the Chicago poverty people—your Chicago Community Action Board—on the Headstart program and their figures show that 271⁄2 percent of the youngsters were not poor. They were outside the guidelines. In addition, Chicago's own figures show that one out of five participants in Headstart came from families whose income was not even known.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Do you want the truth or not?

Mr. QUIE. I will yield to the gentleman from Illinois, but let the gentleman from New York first make his point.

Mr. GOODELL. The gentleman said that as far as the poverty program is concerned and Headstart, we have regulations providing for 15 percent. I remind the gentleman that I raised this point last year in the debate. I pointed out that children who were not poor were participating in the Headstart program. Your chairman and mine said that that is wrong; that Headstart is for the poor kids. We had a legislative history written here clearly that Headstart only was for the poor youngsters. The reason for this is not that we think Headstart is not a good concept. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Quie] and I believe deeply in the concept. It is not that we do not believe Headstart could be helpful to all youngsters. We believe that if you set up a poverty program, it ought to be for the poor. Otherwise you will not concentrate public funds on the poor and those who need them. Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. QUIE. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. PUCINSKI. I regret to see my colleague from New York leave the Chamber. I hope he will not.

Mr. QUIE. He is still present.

Mr. PUCINSKI. I would like him to answer my question. He and I have gone this route for a year and half now. I want him to tell me how he is going to handle this situation where you have a school which is in a predominantly poor neighborhood.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota has expired.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Minnesota may proceed for 2 additional minutes to answer my question. The SPEAKER pro tempore. There is another special order.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

There was no objection.

The gentleman is recognized for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Will the gentleman be good enough to tell me now, if you have a school in a predominantly poor neighborhood, a poverty area, and you have a majority of the children in the school in poverty circumstances, and they are eligible for Headstart programs, are you saying here that we should arbitrarily eliminate from that program youngsters in that school who may not quite come within the poverty spectrum, but you know by their very presence in that neighborhood that they come from poor families?

Are you suggesting that we should say these children may go, these children may not go, and we are going to put a great big brand on the kids who are in poverty and say "You go in the Headstart poverty program, but you children do not go"?

How does the gentleman want to handle that?

Mr. QUIE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Speaker, let me give two answers to that, very specific and very definite.

65-922-66— -35

In a great many areas of this country they have conformed completely to the concept that this is for the poor youngsters, and they have had Headstart classes for the poor alone. In the results we have seen thus far they are equally good with or without a mix of poor and nonpoor.

Both the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Quie] and I are for the Headstart concept, and a more expansive concept. We want a preschool and early school program.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Then join me in my amendment.

Mr. QUIE. I will say to the gentleman that I did join him the other morning. Mr. GOODELL. If we can get the States and localities to join in this, then they may want to have some programs for the nonpoor. But, as Mr. Shriver testified in our committee, while we have 1,100,000 youngsters from families that are poor reaching 4 years of age every year, I see no justification for spending the taxpayers' money on youngsters who are not poor. The poor youngsters are the high priority ones.

[Reprinted from Reader's Digest, October 1965]

"WE HELP OURSELVES"

(By Paul Friggens)

Just ten minutes' ride from the prideful new glass-and-steel skyscrapers of downtown Philadelphia lies a nightmarish Negro world: six city wards of squalid streets and rotting red-brick tenants, packed with 270,000 people and faced with appalling want and social decay. This area, which Mayor James H. J. Tate declared had "the most crime, tuberculosis, venereal disease, unemployment and poverty in all of Philadelphia,” is in fact one of the worst slums in the United States. Yet here, in an abandoned police station rented from the city for one dollar a year, a militant Negro minister, Leon Howard Sullivan, has launched one of the most exciting and hopeful programs in America.

"We help ourselves!" is the program's motto and philosophy. Its "Opportunities Industrialization Center" (OIC), the first enterprise of its kind in the nation, is designed not only to give Negroes new job skills, but also to inspire them with hope, confidence, and a new way of looking at themselves and at life. It is this emphasis on attitude which distinguishes OIC from almost all other current job-training efforts, and which in just 19 months has made this bold venture, in the words of Mayor Tate, "a model for the rest of the country." Consider some of its significant accomplishments:

Of OIC's first 500 "graduates," who took eight-week to one-year courses in everything from power sewing and restaurant practices to electronics and sheet-metal work, a phenomenal 80 percent were almost immediately placed in good jobs.

Probably one third of the OIC trainees now taking jobs are shifting from the relief rolls-good news indeed for Philadelphia, where Negro welfare costs have soared to over 100 million dollars a year.

In a notable innovation, OIC is giving special "pre-job" training to some 1000 Negroes at a time, helping them to brush up on their reading, writing, arithmetic, and to improve their speech and even personal grooming. Originally aiming to train some 2500 individuals a year, but swamped with over 6000 applicants on its opening day, OIC is already expanding with two branches. To house the first, a Philadelphia philanthropist turned over a sixstory office building. This new branch offers training in department-store selling, merchandising, and small-business operation. A second, recently opened, gives training in laundry, dry-cleaning and building-trade skills, among other courses. Already, OIC has won the enthusiastic support of the Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce and the "white power structure." "Businessmen have come to understand that the postiion of the Negro involves more than a moral principle; the future of our community is at stake," W. Thacher Longstreth, executive vice president of the Philadelphia Chamber, told me. "Either we give the Negro tools to compete, or we resign ourselves to perpetual handouts and unconscionable welfare problems." And, typifying the new spirit, Sullivan declares: "The Negro has learned to demonstrate and to protest, but in Philadelphia now we recognize that he must also prepare himself and produce.”

Table d'hôte and a la carte

One morning recently, I drove out to the North Philadelphia slums to see this inspiring project in action. At OIC, I was greeted by its creator, the Rev. Leon Howard Sullivan.

Six-foot-five and an athletic 235 pounds, the ebullient Baptist preacher showed me around the transformed police station. Using $50,000 from an anonymous donor, and dime-to-dollar contributions from Negro parishioners and other wellwishers, Sullivan, with the help of carpenters, plumbers and painters, had completely renovated a rat-infested former jail.

Where once police had booked drunks, dope addicts and muggers, I entered a spick-and-span restaurant, cheerful with canary-yellow walls, colorful curtains and modern furnishings. "We painted everything bright: the Negro needs a lift," Sullivan explained. A class in restaurant practices was in progress, with a group of young Negro girls seated around their teacher. "We're learning table settings, and the difference between table d'hôte and a la carte," their instructor told me.

But she was teaching infinitely more, I discovered: poise, positive attitudes of courtesy, and the importance of food service as an ever-growing industry. Later, I learned that a graduate of OIC had become night manager for a downtown branch of a food chain-motivation, indeed, for the trainees.

In another room, young Negroes sat before a battery of chattering machines learning how to become teletypewriter operators. The talk was all about two OIC graduates: a girl who had just got her first job after only six weeks' instruction; and a young man who was back for advanced training. "As soon as I finish another eight weeks, I'm promised a transfer to a branch office where I'll be the main operator," he said proudly.

I followed Sullivan upstairs. "We didn't have even a screwdriver to start," he told me. "New look at this a quarter-million dollars of the finest equipment, all donated by Philadelphia industry; Philco, General Electric, Budd and Bell Telephone, among others. We're in business!"

Down the hall, in a huge sunny room, Negro housewives, many of them on relief, were learning power sewing in a nine weeks' course. "We make actual garments for charity," a young mother said, holding up a dress. "Man, you should see me put in a zipper!" Sullivan led the way to the basement; what had once been a dank, dark hole with ankle-deep water was now a sheetmetal and machine-tool shop complete with whirring lathes and eager trainees.

You are somebody!

I talked to several OIC graduates: the young woman now holding her first good job in a garment factory; the paper cutter who realized his 15-year ambition to get into electronics; and Bob Fisher, a 30-year-old man with a wife and seven children. He had been "reorganized" out of his steelmill job and forced onto welfare. Fisher took nine months' training in machine-tool operation at OIC, and today earns three dollars an hour as a turret-lathe operator. "We're paying the bills now," he told me, with emotion. "It's like a year of storms, and then all of a sudden the sun starts shining."

How has OIC succeeded where other schools have failed?

"I think the difference," Sullivan explained, "is that people come in here without fear of being ridiculed or turned away, and they see a job at the end." The typical school program is apt to be too academic; OIC tries to reach people where they are. It isn't the diploma or report card that counts, but a job!

"Here, they show you what other Negroes have done," a shy but ambitious student told me. Said another, "For the first time, they make you realize that you're somebody.

Reaching the unreached

With this fresh, uplifting approach, Sullivan's self-help program immediately paid dividends. But it also uncovered serious problems; thousands of these disadvantaged-people from broken homes or on welfare, unwed mothers, some illiterates-needed preliminary training even to enter OIC.

To overcome this deficiency, and also to give some training and incentive to the 6000 hopefuls on the waiting lists, Sullivan pioneered his unique "pre-job" program. He obtained another abandoned building, this time a synagogue, where 1000 Negro men and women hurried to enroll in three months' special course. The dingy, abandoned temple was partitioned into tiny, noisy cubicles scarcely conducive to teaching of any kind.

Yet here, under such inspiring banners as "Get Ready for Opportunity!" I listened to some memorable classes. Frequently, Philadelphia businessmen were scheduled to talk about jobs and how to get them. Such Negro idols as Jackie Robinson have spoken to the trainees. "You have to face the same obstacles I

had to face," Jackie told the pre-job school. "But with faith and confidence, you will win!"

As often as he finds the time, the tireless Sullivan visits the classes to preach attitude. "Sit up straight, young man." he frequently admonishes slouching students. "Stick it out." he urges the frustrated and floundering. "You don't have to spend the rest of your lives on handouts and welfare. You are part of a historic demonstration, and upon your performance will depend the future of 20 million persons in our big cities who have been brainwashed into thinking they are inferior. But I tell you the Negro is not inferior, and genius is colorblind!" Thus with Negro telling Negro, Philadelphia is embarked on one of the most far reaching and significant programs not only for the Negro race, but for our entire complex industrial society. "Reaching the unreached!" Sullivan calls it. Reverdy, the old synagogue was swept by a disastrous fire, but with the temporary use of a National Guard Armory offered by Gov. William Scranton, the resolute Sullivan and his devoted staff carried on with the vital pre-job program. But for the future

Icon Sullivan, himself a product of Charleston, W. Va., slums, grew up in a broken home "on a dirty alley"-his mother was a $13-a-week elevator operator, his father a janitor. After being ordained, he promptly took his ministry to the streets. He organized an outstanding youth-employment program in Philadelphia, for which he won the Freedom Foundation Award. But not long ago, Sulivan's name was a fighting word in Philadelphia business circles.

In an attempt to win more jobs for Negroes, he had spearheaded an aggressive consumer boycott against 29 top Philadelphia companies. But the important thing was that jobs began to open, and Negro leaders realized that unless something was done fast, there wouldn't be enough qualified Negroes around to fill them. So Sullivan conceived the idea of training through OIC.

Fortunately for Philadelphia, the business community and the Negro leaders shared the same fundamental concerns; even before Sullivan's boycott, the Chamber of Commerce was hard at work on the general problem. "We had thousands of jobs going begging while we had more than 100,000 unemployed," Keeton Arnett, then chairman of the Economic Leader Group and now consultant to both the Philadelphia Chamber and to OIC, told me. "Our only resource," says Arnett, "was the unemployed labor force, largely unskilled and largely Negro."

When Sullivan's idea of Negroes training Negroes to help themselves came up, the Chamber of Commerce promptly threw in its resources and support. Recognizing a venture that might well be a model for the nation, the U.S. Department of Labor stepped in with a $458,000 grant for the pre-job school-probably the test program of its kind in the world. The Negroes raised $100,000 in a city-wide drive; business and industry contributed, and during this past summer, OIC's program was granted $1,756,163 by the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity.

Yet for all of its success, the Philadelphia venture is still a pilot project, with problems. "For one thing, the level of educational achievement of most students is so low that it has taken much longer than we had anticipated to teach basic skills," says Sullivan.

Naturally, with its initial success, OIC is attracting a flock of visitors to study The program. "Will the blueprint succeed elsewhere?" they want to know. Philadelphia leaders with whom I talked are convinced it will, but with some important qualifications:

Negro and white leaders must sit down together; accept their mutual economic dependence; and recognize that this is a problem not only for the Negro, but for everybody. The chances for success will be vastly greater if both sides are able to develop the tolerance, understanding and constructive leadership represented in Philadelphia. Whenever communities are able to achieve this spirit, we can mark another milestone in race relations and opportunity in the United States.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. ARTHUR KAPLAN, CHAIRMAN, UTICA COMMUNITY ACTION COMMISSION, UTICA, N.Y.

The Utica Community Action Commission has been in existence for a year and a half and has made significant strides forward in implementing the goals of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. However, we recently have been disturbed by efforts to divert funds from local planning efforts into "Packaged in Washington" programs.

In three months of full operation, 1040 individuals have sought help with specific problems (i.e., employment, housing, welfare, legal, health, consumer education) through three neighborhood Opportunity Centers. The staff of resident wokrers has worked tirelessly and effectively to secure jobs, to place individuals in training programs, to provide meaningful information and assistance, and to raise the level of educational goals in their neighborhoods. Community agencies who were not sure what to make of the neighborhood centers at first are now enthusiastically cooperating with and assisting the Centers and staff.

Three very active neighborhood councils have done a great deal in the community. Meetings with welfare department officials, the public housing authority, city police, and the city recreation director have produced results and been beneficial to all parties concerned. The change in the spirit and leadership ability of council members has been dramatic.

We are disturbed by the trend toward national packaged programs for two

reasons:

1. The Neighborhood Service Centers and the Neighborhood Councils are the heart of the Economic Opportunity Act insofar as modifications of attitudes by the underprivileged toward their place in the overall total community are concerned. Only through the neighborhood councils and service centers do the underprivileged actually participate in these activities necessary to their fulfillment. We believe it is only through this kind of activity that they begin to grow toward a sense of their own worth—a sense of status which can make them feel at home in the main stream of our community life and overcome the sense of inferiority that leads either to withdrawal from the community or aggressive attitudes toward the community. Any change of funding away from this phase of the Economic Opportunity Act can only do damage to the goals of the Act. 2. Our experience with packaged programs indicates that minor deviations from the "packaged deal" leads to a denial of these programs as conceived locally-to the injury of the overall program. For example:

a. We had planned school-aged educational programs before Upward Bound became the order of the day. One summer program for 9th and 10th graders to be conducted at Mohawk Valley Community College was turned down because of the lack of residential facilities at the college. We consider this an excellent program and feel that the lack of residential facilities was a totally inadequate reason for the rejection of the program. b. We had planned a program for 6th through 8th grades to be conducted at Hamilton College. This was an excellent program and we fully believe that programs for these grade levels are even more vital than similar programs for the high school grades. This program also was rejected, a rejection that would not have occurred had Guidelines for Upward Bound not been the order of the day.

c. The Utica Community Action Commission operates the Head Start program in Utica. We feel it should be up to us to decide whether funds for Head Start should be allocated before, during, or after other programs. We are in a much better position to decide an ideal balance of programs for Utica than is a national office in Washington, D.C.

We regret our inability to appear personally before your committee. Were the hearings at a more convenient time we would be happy to discuss in greater detail and depth our attitudes toward the packaged trend. We only hope that the committee in its good judgment allows enough leeway of both planning and funding for our community to develop the best programs for Utica as we see them. At present all committees including the Commission itself and its Steering Committee are composed of one-third neighborhood representatives. Our goal is to constantly increase this percentage in the belief that within a maximum of two years a majority of committees and the Commission will be composed of neighborhood residents. We fully believe that our inability to reach this goal would be a sign of our failure. Failure is always possible. Significant diversion of funds from community planning toward package programs only guarantees this failure.

[From the Utica Observer-Dispatch, April 21, 1966]

IN ALL DIRECTIONS

The cartoon at right is ironically captioned by the artist: "Forward March." Allowing for the cartoonist's usual exageration to make his point clear, the