in America, that policy is unacceptable, unrealistic, and cynical. When the poor are found to be buying pet food because they can't afford anything else, it is shameful to talk about asking them to cut back their spending.

The future administration of the Community Development Corporations, which have pioneered the concept of self-help community economic development, is of particular concern. Since their inception in 1966, they have recorded significant achievements in the fields of housing, health, manpower training and social services. They have also justified the faith of Robert Kennedy and Jacob Javits, the program originators, that the poverty community has within it human resources that can be tapped and organized to effectively plan its own future development. They have succeeded both in starting new businesses and in attracting major corporations to invest in economically depressed areas.

Recognizing the current value of the community economic development programs, the administration has proposed to spare them from the general extinction it intends for OEO programs. Instead, the CDC's are to be transferred to the Office of Minority Business Enterprise in the Department of Commerce. That decision is both inappropriate and, as a sponsor of the expansion of the CDC program in the 1972 OEO amendments, I believe it is a direct misreading of the character of the community economic development program.

It is not solely a business promoting operation-although CDC's have sponsored 250 successful ventures including a fleet of taxis in Racine, Wis., a lumber operation in midwestern Minnesota, a cooperative fishery in Alaska, and a blue jeans factory in Greenville, Miss.

It is a program that involves every facet of community life from manpower training to housing construction to social service delivery. Not only has OMBE had no experience in these programs but it represents a narrow approach to the problem of ecenomic development. In reality it would be far more appropriate to consolidate OMBE within a Community Economic Development Bureau than the reverse.

But the obvious and I believe the best answer is to retain the CAC's within an independent poverty agency fully responsive to the problems, proposals and potential of Community Economic Development. The CDC program would be expanded to a $360 million program over the next 3 years.

In addition, we have mandated the creation of an interagency "Community Economic Development Resource Committee" to insure the maximum use of other Federal resources with representatives from other Federal departments.

Finally, the bill would provide a joint congressional study during the current fiscal year on the possibility of establishing an independent Community Economic Development Agency.

The new bill also protects the local initiative or community action. programs which have been the core of the OEO program from the

outset.

39-836 07424

According to a sample survey conducted by the national CAA Executive Directors' Association, some 50 million persons are now affected by those programs.

They provide services, but equally important, they act as the voice of the poverty community within urban and rural America. There is no State in America today where a Community Action Agency has not had an impact on the quality of people's lives. They have produced controversy and consternation among traditional government agencies in the past, but they have convinced those same agencies today that the concerns they represent are legitimate concerns. They are the concerns of the poverty community for participation in decisions affecting their lives. They are the concerns of the poor for dignity. They are the concerns of the poor for the opportunity to achieve the same prosperity that is taken for granted by the more affluent majority.

I have seen the services provided by ABCD and the 24 other CAA's in Massachusetts, and I consider it to be one of the administration's most shortsighted decisions to recommend the abandonment of these programs. I can assure this audience that the Senate will not accede to that abandonment.

Based on the success of Community Action Agencies and recognizing the desire of many cities, counties and States' to work more closely with these agencies, we have proposed a new program in the bill. This community partnership program will offer incentives to these local government agencies to enter into agreements with a Community Action Agency to undertake joint antipoverty projects. Some $420 million is authorized over 3 years for this new program. Mr. Chairman, in addition, the bill extends and increases the authorizations for virtually all of the former OEO programs. It also attempts to distinguish those programs which have been delegated to other agencies and found happy homes and those which have had continued conflicts in their new agencies. For that reason. we are transferring the migrant program to the new Agency rather than permitting it to remain in the Department of Labor. For that reason too, we are placing the summer youth recreation program in that new Agency. At the same time, we are permitting headstart follow-through-although with increased authorizations to remain

at HEW.

We feel that most of these programs can operate most effectively in the Federal antipoverty agency and therefore we believe that that Agency should be continued and expanded. Its work is clearly not yet done.

The cost of poverty, of unemployment, of dependency of unused talents those costs cannot be measured in dollars alone. They also are counted in the bitterness and rancor that they produce.

I believe an independent antipoverty agency is an essential element in the effort to reduce poverty in America. I hope that the final product of these hearings reflects that belief.

Senator NELSON. First let me say that all the members of this committee have been very supportive of manpower and poverty legislation, and that is why we have been able on each occasion

the issue has been before us not only to successfully bring up legislation from the committee but also to prevail on the floor of the Senate.

There is no doubt in my mind that the most desirable posture so far as this legislation is concerned would be to create an independent agency, as was done in Senator Javits' and Senator Kennedy's bills, and I would prefer that, as I think would almost everybody on this committee.

We introduced a bill similar to the House bill in that respect simply because that appeared to be the only practicable way to preserve the program at all. It may very well be that the circumstances have changed sufficiently to make it possible to pass and preserve an independent agency. That is an issue we will explore. initially with the House side, to determine what the reaction of those on the House committee is with respect to this question.

So it will be explored. What was an impractical idea when it was proposed by Senators Kennedy and Javits may be a practical idea now. [Applause.]

Our next witness is James Greenidge, director of the New York City Council Against Poverty.

Mr. Greenidge, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF JAMES E. GREENIDGE, CHAIRMAN, NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL AGAINST POVERTY

Mr. GREENIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wish first to ask that you accept my thanks and the gratitude of our city, the city of New York, and its people, for this opportunity to speak to you briefly but candidly today about community action and the legislation you are considering in that connection.

The cornerstone of community action continues to be the participation and involvement of the poor throughout the country in ways that have been beneficial and healthy to the growth and vitality of America.

I come here today to speak specifically to the issue of what the best way is to assemble the program for the greatest national benefit.

The central issue is: Whether or not the community action elements that are currently with OEO, should be transferred to HEW in a somewhat autonomous fashion, or whether OEO should continue or should an independent agency be created.

A decade is quite enough-the Office of Economic Opportunity and its staff and sometimes its leadership, have served the Nation's poor with distinction and in honor. We have a plethora of experience upon which to draw, to establish a new governmental agency which would institutionalize the community action program.

I speak therefore in favor of a responsible, tough, prudent, professional, and independent agency outside the Executive grasp and within the oversight of the Congress. A department that is not at the whim of the President nor at the mercy of an insensitive dictatorial secretary.

No matter how secure the language of the legislation, the secretary is the secretary. The Secretary of HEW shares the view of the

administration, that there is little or no place for the community action effort.

A recent Director was fired by the President because he became convinced that the poor were human and the programs largely worthwhile. We have ample proof concerning the abuse of power issue in recent times. We have seen how myopic directors and secretaries can be tools of a runaway Executive operating outside the perspective of the Congress and the American people.

This is a unique opportunity to reestablish the coequal branches doctrine and to make real the vision of the framers of the Constitution. Recently, the gentlewoman from Texas, Representative Barbara Jordon, extolled that her faith in the Constitution was whole and complete.

So is ours. The Congress together is the life force of the Nation. And so vital a human service program, its need articulated by traditional friend and foe alike ought be the creation of a revitalized Congress.

We are not unmindful of the action of the House in passing 14449 which in effect transfers the programs to the massive HEW bureaucracy-insensitive and unbending. But we must certainly recall the general political ambiance that then abounded.

We are faced with a comparatively strong presidency clamoring for the program's death, supported by a former OEO Director who has since changed his mind about the efficacy of this presidency. The gentleman from Minnesota-we will recall, speaking for the White House drove an impossible bargain at the 11th hour: demanding an HEW transfer or a veto-in effect stone-walling the distinguished House committee.

Today we have a far different perspective. We no longer can be forced by the White House into an HEW or bust position. All of us know that to transfer the heart of the Nation's only people's program to the brutal vagaries of HEW makes no sense at all.

An independent agency, with a clear and precise mission, Senate confirmed officials, and legislated congressional accountability makes better sense. It is more realistic, more humane, more in keeping with lessening the awesome bureaucratic maze of government. It puts government with the reach of the citizenry.

Mr. Chairman, more detailed and specific administrative examples of the impossible administration of our program under the House bill are included in my text submitted to the committee by mail today but in the interest of time are omitted here.

The cause of the American people would best be served with the adoption of legislation creating an independent human services

agency.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Senator Kennedy assumed the chair.]

Senator KENNEDY [presiding pro tempore]. Very fine. There is not a word with which I could disagree. Thank you very much. Our next speaker is Alex Armendaris, Director, Office of Minority Business Enterprise, Department of Commerce.

We want to welcome you. I am sure you are aware of the rules of the committee that require that we get the testimony 24 hours before appearances, and I want to commend those spokesmen for the administration who do get theirs here in time. We are now getting this in our House subcommittee, and it has made it very helpful in terms of our own preparation.

So I want to let you know that we are just receiving your statement at the present time.

Is that correct?

STATEMENT OF ALEX ARMENDARIS, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Mr. ARMENDARIS. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the copy was submitted yesterday.

Senator KENNEDY. I am informed by staff that they did not get it until just now.

Mr. ARMENDARIS. The final copy was submitted this morning, sir. Senator KENNEDY. We did not get anything yesterday, as I understand from staff.

Mr. ARMENDARIS. That is correct. I apologize for the late submission.

Senator KENNEDY. I think one of the concerns that many of the groups have is just how much visibility they will have if this transfer is to take place. My own view is it ought not to take place. But if this does occur, how much visibility are they going to get over there in the Department?

The expression of concern from many of the groups is that this is just going to be folded on into your program, Minority Business Enterprise, and it is not going to have the identity or the independence it presently has, and they do not want it to be lost.

The point seems to be well taken that when asked to speak on this particular issue, the Department has sent you here to be the spokesman for it, the Office of Minority Business Enterprise, rather than some other official within the Department of Commerce.

I think this probably does as much to make that point that many of the people had who were talking about folding this right in and it becoming lost in the bureaucracy and being just one part of the Office of Minority Business Enterprise.

I just make that as an observation at the start, and I would have thought, if the administration of the Commerce Department were interested in conveying a different impression, I am sure-while we all have great confidence in you and your associates, and I do not want this in any way to reflect on your own sense of value of the job that you are performing down there-but I am making it as an observation to point out what has been the concern of many of those who feel if we fold this into your Department or over to the Commerce Department, it will get lost in your Department.

The fact that the Commerce Department sent you up rather than someone in direct line of authority, who would be able to talk about