been available to CDC's. I speak from the Northern Wisconsin perspective.

Certain areas of the country have been designated redevelopment areas. My own area is such a rural redevelopment area. But it has been our experience that resources that were supposed to be available to these areas have not been easily mobilized. So I see no reason this would change with the transfer to the Department of Commerce. Likewise the SBA "affiliation clause" limits rather than expands the CDC's access to capital through that program.

We operate in a 6,033 square mile area with a population of 165,000, so it is very sparsely settled. The SBA "affiliation clause" limits the combined total amount of money available to us to $700,000. You could put that into one business, in any one of our seven counties. These are the kinds of problems we are finding as to the application of other Federal resources to the programs that we are trying to establish. I have always felt that there has been a legislative failure in that area, and I think an independent agency that would insure and coordinate the availability of other resources to an antipoverty agency is of utmost importance.

Mr. KEARSE. I would like to follow up on that question. As you know, we have been faced with the prospect of the possibility of transfer to Commerce for at least a year in terms of the Administration's proposal.

With the advent of that prospect, a working relationship was established between OMBE and the CDC programs. I happen to have been the chairman of the joint working group of CDC directors and OMBE staff members that participated in trying to work through some of our concerns with OMBE at that particular point.

One of the things that my colleagues have indicated, which has not changed up to the present time, relates to the fact that there are resources at OMBE that possibly could be of benefit to our efforts. The only problem is that we have been talking about these resources for this period of time, and they have not yet come to fruition.

I think that the complementary aspects of the OMBE program to the CDC program that were mentioned in Mr. Armendaris' testimony, are things that are easily achieved through enforcement of existing legislative mandates from this Congress. Unfortunately, cooperative efforts have not worked or were not implemented. Old line agencies-Commerce, EDA, SBA, and others have resources which ought to automatically flow towards the community development program. This has not happened as we can attest to.

Senator KENNEDY. Is there any reason they could not do that now? Mr. KEARSE. There is no reason any of the agencies could not accomplish that except for the fact that they are not doing it.

It is this kind of experience with the old line agencies that has caused us to have real concern about the possibility of doing away with an independent agency within Government which is charged with the mandate of specifically addressing the needs of the poor. I would like to also indicate that you have hit a very salient point

when you quoted from Mr. Armendaris as related to the kind of commitment which has been made to funding of the program.

The funding will be what it was last year because that is what was recommended or suggested by the Administration, $39.4 million. What that means to our programs is that it does not even hold us at the same level; it will cause us to regress, in that as a CDC or Economic Development Program matures, it requires additional capital which is not forthcoming.

Certainly in view of the pending transfer, or imminent transfer, a request for additional funding would have been a clear demonstration of at least some hope of improvement of the program were it to be transferred to the Department of Commerce, and of course no one was able to say that this morning.

Senator KENNEDY. What about folding OMBE into your program? [applause]

Mr. KEARSE. We have already indicated that the activities of the CDC's at the local community level include the making of loans or grants to the small businessman who cannot perhaps qualify for the EDA or OMBE assistance.

We also provide the same kind of technical assistance at the local level to beginning or fledgling business ventures because we view them as being a part of the total comprehensive development of the economic plan of that community.

Of course this is not something we have discussed in council but it has a certain degree of logic which is irrefutable.

To get back to my statement relating to some specific concerns that are not addressed by the legislation before you:

First, we are very confused that all federal departments are moving toward decentralization of their programs. We feel very strongly that the special impact program should be administered nationally, and not regionally. It requires an understanding not easily reached, and oversight and monitoring requires more familiarity with the program than could be reached by a regional office which administers only one or two CDC's.

Second, we are concerned that requirements have been placed on CDC's to become self-sufficient before they have had adequate time to build a self-sustaining local institution and before they have had the level of capital input necessary to make a sustained impact.

It is not possible to predetermine when a CDC will have this capability. Circumstances of size, internal and external resources, and strategy vary so much from CDC to CDC that no single policy approach is applicable.

It should be the choice of each CDC to determine whether selfsufficiency is to be a goal and agree on it with the funding agency. Third, we urge that continuing evaluations of the program take place and that they be carried out in such a manner as to be adequate for making objective value judgments about the community economic development program, specific CDC's, and specific strategies.

To be an accurate reflection of the programs' effectiveness, it will be necessary for an objective data collection agency (like the Census

Bureau) to collect statistics on the neighborhood level, being sure that they are comparable from year-to-year and decade-to-decade.

It is necessary that persons who have had first hand experience in a CDC be included among those conducting the evaluation; that all aspects of the CDC are considered in the evaluation-even those difficult to measure, social and community development aspects; that the fact of the creation of a new local institution, the CDC, be given fuller consideration; and that each CDC be evaluated individually on the basis of whether it has succeeded or failed to meet a set of clearly defined goals for a given community.

Fourth, we urge that financial assistance be provided for comprehensive community development as well as purely economic development activities. It is important that the CDC be able to participate in social development activities and programs.

The CDC is engaged in the process of creating an institution. This process requires that the CDC deal with as broad a spectrum of the interacting movements and processes in the community as possible. We urge that in its report the committee give its attention to the social goals it believes are reasonable for CDC's to set forth.

This aspect of the program is addressed in S. 3798, as well as in the existing legislation, but has never been carried out to a significant degree, because of restraints imposed by the funding level.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and my colleagues and I will be happy to respond to any questions you may

have.

[Senator Hughes assumed the chair.]

Mr. KEARSE. I wanted to add also at this point, stepping outside my role as the vice chairman of the National Congress for Community Economic Development, some thoughts I felt were worthy of sharing with the committee.

Senator HUGHES (presiding pro tempore). Mr. Kearse, we are running into an acute time problem because we have other witnesses and there is action on the floor. Is this something that you could submit for the record?

Mr. KEARSE. I think this will take just probably 2 minutes, Sen

ator.

Senator HUGHES. All right.

Mr. KEARSE. It is a recognition of the fact that we understand the role that the committee has played, or at least I understand the role this committee has played, in being champions of legislation for the poor for the past several years, particularly during the time. when it happened that antipoverty programs were destined to die.

I want to speak about the need for the committee to remind itself, by looking back at those previous testimonies and records, that it was the OEO programs that first brought before the Houses of Congress the indication that there was an effort directed at the poor which was in fact an abuse of executive power and other evidences of the articles of impeachment that are before the Congress today. Unfortunately we were, as we have always been, a feeble voice because of our status and the people that we represent.

It would seem that Senator Nelson, whom we recognize as the chairman of this subcommittee, was seeking the path of least resistance when he introduced his companion bill S. 3870 which is tailored to the House legislation.

My feeling is that it might be the time for the poor to make the grab for the gold ring as well as the country.

The Congress is faced with the action of writing some laws which focus on aggregating some of our basic democratic tenets, and we as a program for the poor have been faced with being decapitated each year by virtue of trying to achieve or accept compromise which has continuously weakened this program effort-which spun off the Job Corps-and it is not better off-which spun off VISTA—which is not better off-which spun off Head Start-which is not better off. Now we are in effect faced with the possibility of having the Congress complete this task of dismantlement of this program through legislative mandate.

It does not seem fitting at this time in our history. It would seem that it might be more judicious for the committee not to take hasty legislative actions which might complete the Administration's plan.

Perhaps it would be wiser for these hearings to be postponed so that an appropriate amount of consideration could be given to finally achieving a strong independent agency within Government, which you agree is needed to serve the poor. Maybe this is the time. Senator HUGHES. Do the other members of the panel have anything further to say?

If not, thank you very much for your testimony.

The Chair calls the Headstart panel: Mrs. Cleo Lowrey, Breckinridge-Grayson Programs, Inc., Leitchfield, Ky.; Mrs. Martha Yallup, Yakima Indian National Headstart Program, Toppenish, Wash.; Mrs. Ellen Lipton, Westchester CAP Headstart Program, Westchester, N.Y.; and Ms. Betti S. Whaley, commissioner, Agency for Child Development, New York City, accompanied by Ms. Liz Robbins, director of Public Affairs.

STATEMENTS OF CLEO LOWREY, BRECKINRIDGE-GRAYSON PROGRAMS, INC., LEITCHFIELD, KY.; MARTHA B. YALLUP, DIRECTOR OF THE YAKIMA INDIAN TRIBAL HEADSTART PROGRAM, TOPPENISH, WASH.; ELLEN LIPTON, COORDINATOR OF EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS, WESTCHESTER CAP HEADSTART PROGRAM, WESTCHESTER, N.Y.; BETTI S. WHALEY, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK CITY AGENCY FOR CHILD DEVELOPMENT, NEW YORK, N.Y.; ACCOMPANIED BY LIZ ROBBINS, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, A HEADSTART PANEL

Mrs. LOWREY. Mr. Chairman, we would like to submit extensive reports for the record later on this afternoon.

Senator HUGHES. That is agreeable. The Chair wants to apologize to the remaining witnesses, but because of action on the Senate floor

Senator Nelson was called away, and Senator Kennedy had to leave, and I was not scheduled to be here at all. I have been called to be here just to continue these hearings to the best of our ability, and I have to be out of here by 12:30 because of a previous commitment. I am very sorry and I do apologize to the remaining witnesses, but if you could condense your testimony to the best of your ability in cooperation with the Chair it would be deeply appreciated.

Mrs. LowREY. My name is Cleo Lowrey from Leitchfield, Ky. and I am the executive director of Breckenridge-Grayson Programs Inc.; a limited purpose agency with headstart and parent child center programs, which is a comprehensive educational program from pregnant mothers through the first 5 years of the child's life.

I am deeply honored to have the opportunity to express my opinions about problems that should be dealt with in legislation that affects our young children of this Nation-especially BreckenridgeGrayson Counties and other rural communities.

We know that you are the individuals that can do something about this legislation that affects our headstart families and children.

Breckenridge and Grayson Counties is a very rural area located about 89 miles west of Louisville, Ky. The majority of the families that we serve are the "working poor." They are too proud to ask for assistance and thus, do without many of the essentials of life. Also, there are few community resources to meet the needs of our families in the two-county area; which makes in-kind contribution extremely difficult to obtain. We are now serving 87 families which consist of 102 children, zero to three, and 69 children in headstart. This of course is a very minimum number as 450 families are eligible for headstart services. Due to the lack of increased funding, we are unable to serve a larger enrollment.

We have a very dedicated staff whose salaries range from classroom teachers who receive $4,200 to $4,600 per year. Other staff members receive $2,400 to $2,600 per year; so it is obvious, that our personnel are making sacrifices to remain with the program as compared with salaries which could be obtained elsewhere. That to me is dedication.

When the minimum wage law became effective May 1, over threefourths of our staff were affected by this law and no funds are available for these increments. What would you do as director of this program?

Another problem of great concern is the increased cost of living in our rural community. This not only affects staff, but families and children enrolled in our program. Attendance of parents at meal time has increased, as a well balanced breakfast and lunch are served at the center. Therefore, not only has our cost of purchasing food risen, we are also serving meals to more parents and siblings. Another drain on our budget is the cost of transportation in a rural area. Staff members are required to drive their own vehicles, and even though they are reimbursed, the increasing cost of gasoline puts an additional burden on both the budget and staff members.