older people want that. The young people want that. The Indians want that.

Everybody seems to want to have a person who reports directly to the Director of OEO.

We have tried to make those persons operational rather than staff and we have placed them in the operational line of command rather than in the staff, so you have in Community Action a Director of Headstart who reports to the head of Community Action and through the head of Community Action to the Director of OEO.

You have a director of Upward Bound. You have a director of legal services. The analogy has been drawn to the Defense Department where you have the Polaris missile project, for example. It has its own budget, its own director, its own policies, but it is, I think, within the Navy Department and reports up through that Department. We have a comparable structure in OEO.

Senator KENNEDY. How many people are working generally within OEO on the problems of the elderly poor?

Mr. SHRIVER. There never would be too many, I would hope. We have had no more than two or three at any one point in our history, but let me indicate that we have had only three people working on the problems of the American Indians. Yet the program that OEO has mounted with respect to the American Indians has been extremely effective we believe, certainly has been extremely popular and well received by the American Indians, so it is not primarily the number of people who work on the staff.

It is what they do, and in the case of the Indian program, which is in a sense comparable, there are about 700,000 Indians I think, reservation Indians, and two people today are handling the entire OEO program with respect to the Indians.

Senator KENNEDY. I think there is no question that it would be much easier to departmentalize the Indian program than the program directed toward the elderly poor. I think there is a notable distinction there.

Mr. SHRIVER. There are a variety of ways of doing these from an administrative point of view. We have a program now which will be very popular called Upward Bound. It is a program which this year will reach an expenditure of about $26 million and it will bring 25.000 high school students to campuses of various universities this summer and then we stay in touch with them all the next academic

year.

That program within OEO has been handled by, I am almost sure, not more than five people. What was done there was this.

We have five people on our staff, but we contracted with a new organization called Educational Services Organization and they did a great deal of the leg work that was needed to be done.

They had a great many people who were experienced in academic operations. Similarly, here with the elderly poor we have contracted with the Administration on Aging over in HEW to do a substantial amount of the work for OEO.

My theory has been to try and keep OEO in terms of personnel as small as possible and when there is an agency of the Government like the Administration on Aging established by Congress to utilize it to the maximum.

Senator KENNEDY. I think certainly the goal is a worthy one. What is of concern to many of us is the nature of and the sense of priorities which have been given to the problems of the elderly poor versus the degrees of priorities which have been given to the other programs. We raise the question of the sense of priorities which are given to staff personnel because we wonder whether there is a sufficient priority being given to needs of the elderly poor.

In your testimony you talked about the various programs which have taken place, Medicare Alert, Foster Grandparents Program, Green Thumb, and VISTA.

In Medicare Alert program, which, I understand, was extremely successful, there were some 14,000 elderly people involved.

Another program which you mentioned is the Foster Grandparent Program. In this case we are talking about figures from a thousand to perhaps as high as 2,000 if the new funding is realized in the not too distant future.

It is difficult to get a figure of the involvement of those that have been active in the Green Thumb, and in VISTA. I believe you mentioned some 350 people.

Now, from the testimony that we have heard it seems that there are 1 million elderly poor that are prepared and are competent to assist in some way.

What is of concern to all of us is the fact that we are not just talking about a few hundred people undertaking a variety of programs. And when we raise the question of staff and priority systems we do it to a considerable extent because of the apparent inadequate utilization of these senior citizens.

Mr. SHRIVER. Well, I share the frustration. As I said when I was over here the last time, I plead guilty to the fact that we have not been able to think up simple ways or effective ways to utilize these 1 million aged people that you just referred to.

Let me explain that at $3,000 a year if you were to give them employment at the poverty, so-called, cutoff, statistical cutoff, that would cost the Congress $3 billion.

If you gave them part-time employment which was only, let us say a thousand dollars a year in income for services rendered, those million people, that would cost Congress a billion dollars.

I am not opposed to that. Don't misunderstand me. It just is that we don't have anything like that kind of a budget nor anything like that kind of an authorization. I don't mean for money, but I mean even for programs.

Senator KENNEDY. On page 11 you say in your testimony:

Now, let me share with you a perspective from which we view problems of the older poor American. While there is much that remains to be done for the poor senior citizen, our Nation is making a major effort in meeting the economic and social needs of the aged. For example, in the Fiscal 1967 budget, it is estimated that the Federal government poverty expenditures will total $21 billion. Of this amount, it is estimated that more than 40% will benefit persons over 65 years of age.

The problem that concerns me is that, on the one hand, your testimony reveals that there is an extraordinary expenditure of Federal funds, and, on the other hand, you testified that the principal reason for the inadequacy of these programs is a lack of money. If there is

a dramatic need because of the lack of funds that information ought to be presented to Congress and explained.

If we were to read just this testimony and the following pages about the great amount of money that is being expended and used I think there are those who would interpret this to mean that we are doing a sufficient amount at the present time.

Mr. SHRIVER. I agree with that statement.

Let me, however, just submit for the record, if I might, what that $21 billion is composed of, and $21 billion still in my judgment is a major effort by the Federal Government.

Now, of the $21 billion, $12.7 billion goes to employment of direct cash benefits to the elderly.

Senator KENNEDY. Is that $12.7 direct cash? Are you talking about Social Security?

Mr. SHRIVER. That is right.

Senator KENNEDY. I would certainly say that a reasonable case could be made with regard to Social Security, that it represents a return of funds to individuals who have made payments over a considerable period of time. In one sense, the Social Security Administration is under or is within the Federal Government, but I think it certainly would mislead one to think that this is an effort which is really being made by the Federal Government as such.

I think the expenditure of that $12.7 billion is money which quite rightfully belongs to these individuals.

Mr. SHRIVER. I don't disagree with that either. All I was trying to do was to itemize what there is in the budget that the Congress already passed on which constitutes, at least in some people's minds, a major effort.

It is $21.4 billion. I am not saying that it isn't justified. I think it is justified personally. There are $2.8 billion in health benefits. There are $2.8 billion in educational benefits. There are $3.1 billion in other benefits which I could get all itemized for you.

I am not trying to say that that is enough. All I am trying to say is that there is that amount of money and that is what I was referring to when I said that the Federal Government, you as the Congress, are already using a lot of money in this field.

Now, the second part of the question is, well, what about the million people who are elderly who would like to do something part time or full time. They are not reached except indirectly by all these programs and they could do more. There is no question about that.

But, when we are talking about a million people I think we just have to stand still for a second and say, "Now, what can you do for a million people that will be of any significance to the individuals involved."

If you are talking about $500 a year or if you are talking about a thousand dollars a year added income for a million people in return for work performed, part time or full time, you are talking about one, two, or three billion dollars.

Senator KENNEDY. If that is what is needed-and I think there are few people in the Federal Government who really understand what is needed-then I think that those recommendations certainly should be forthcoming so the Congress can understand and fulfill its responsibilities in solving the problem.

If the question really is funds or money then we should have a recommendation in that area. Congress could then make the determination.

Mr. SHRIVER. I, on page 12 of my statement, did express the opinion that in order to bring all older people out of poverty by our minimum standards, you have to spend in calendar 1967, let us say, $2.7 billion additional.

Now, we are not proposing that that is a proper thing to do, in the first place because it is not within the President's budget and we don't have the authority to make any such proposal; second, because how that money would be expended has not been studied in the Executive Branch, so far as I know, in any great detail although we try to work in OEO with other agencies.

It hasn't so far as I know been studied, but by arithmetic, if you are going to take so many elderly people of a certain income over into a different income bracket, you are going to have to spend $2.7 billion

to do that.

Senator KENNEDY. I have some other questions, but I would like to yield to Senator Young.

Senator YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Director Shriver, I really have no questions to ask of you. I want to tell you, you made a most impressive statement and I am simply wondering if you are going to continue to do all you can to encourage this VISTA volunteer program.

It seems to me that is a very fine more people if possible into it.

program, that should enroll

you

Mr. SHRIVER. Once again I agree. We are trying to increase that program as rapidly as we can, again within the money that we have. There will be on the 30th of June 3,500 people in VISTA actively in the field or in training. About 2,200 are in the field right now.

Again, it depends on what we are able to obtain from Congress in terms of appropriations. The House bill has increased the suggested authorization for VISTA substantially-up to $31 million from only $17.5 million this year. That is a pretty substantial jump, but it still won't do all that I am sure you would like to have it do or that I would.

Senator YOUNG. Also your Community Action Programs in my State and elsewhere, I think, are going great. I want to compliment you on that.

Mr. SHRIVER. Thank you.

Senator YOUNG. I have no other questions.

Senator KENNEDY. Senator Allott?

Senator Prouty?

Senator Randolph?

Senator RANDOLPH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Shriver, on May 24 in Jefferson County, W. Va., the annual meeting banquet of the Jefferson County Chamber of Commerce was held at Harpers Ferry.

Addressing that meeting was Holmes Alexander. He is a columnist. Do you know Mr. Alexander personally or do you know that he is a newspaper columnist?

Mr. SHRIVER. Yes, sir; I do. I do know him as a columnist and I happen to know him personally.

Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Alexander said in speaking of the War on Poverty: "The cure is worse than the disease."

He also said, and I quote from the Spirit of Jefferson-Farmers' Advocate, issue of May 26, 1966:

The War on Poverty is for the warriors and not the poor.

Mr. SHRIVER. Lawyers?

Senator RANDOLPH. Warriors.

Mr. SHRIVER. Oh, warriors. I thought you said lawyers. Some people have said that.

Senator RANDOLPH. I have given you these two quotes from his speech. Of course, in the State of West Virginia we feel that generally the War on Poverty has been a successful program. We believe that the results have been in the affirmative.

Would you care to comment on these two statements that I have read to you which were given in the State of West Virginia last week at an important business banquet?

Mr. SHRIVER. Well, I would say that they are typical of a certain group of journalists who have been saying things comparable to that for quite a while.

I would inquire frankly whether Mr. Holmes Alexander had the time when he was in Harpers Ferry to go to the Job Corps camp next to Harpers Ferry and talk to some of the youngsters who are poor and who are being helped by the War against Poverty in Harpers Ferry or in the area surrounding Harpers Ferry.

I think if he had done that he might have had a different attitude about the effect of the War on Poverty because in the Job Corps Center just outside of Harpers Ferry there is a substantial number of poor kids who are getting a new chance and they are profiting by it.

I don't know frankly what War against Poverty projects Holmes Alexander has personally inspected. I wouldn't be surprised if he hadn't seen any. He could, on the other hand, have seen some and some of them are not as successful as they ought to be.

But I think if he would take out a week and come with me which I would be happy to invite him to do, I can show him a lot of results with the victims as well as the warriors.

Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Shriver, this news article which I have quoted is on the front page of the Spirit of Jefferson issue of May 26. Also on the front page is a photograph in connection with a story which deals with the Job Corps Center at Harpers Ferry to which you made mention.

The headline is "Driver Training Course Inaugurated at Job Corps Center; Corpsmen Are Promoted; Relations Council Formed."

There was some opposition to the location of a Job Corps Center in Jefferson County. But we today feel that the Job Corps Center now established in that county is a successful project and we believe that the very large majority of the citizens in the county are not only appreciative of the work being done, but are cooperative with the project.

The work being done there, of course, is very important to the development of the Harpers Ferry National Historical Park, and I am grateful for your comment today. I have usually had an invitation to that annual banquet, but this year with Holmes Alexander as a speaker I didn't receive the invitation. There might have been