The same thing is true in space. We are going to find no matter how good this program is or the total effort of this program or even if the opportunity crusade were enacted we are going to find I guarantee you that the rate will not be as easy in the future as it has in the past.

The work gets tougher every year because we are dealing with more difficult cases.

Mr. GOODELL. You know I agree with that. The dispute is just what is the best way to go about it.

Mr. SHRIVER. I don't think the record made it clear that you did agree with me.

Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Scheuer.

Mr. SCHEUER. I think the question is exactly the last sentence that my colleague from New York was describing the best way the Government should go about it. That is why I have always sat back in rapt amazement when our Republican colleagues tell us that we should let local communities handle the problem of poverty.

It is obvious to me for half a century the local communities, State communities, have been ignoring the problem of poverty.

I would like to welcome you today, Mr. Shriver and congratulate you, too, but for something other than what you have been congratulated on before.

I wouldn't congratulate you on the smoothness with which this program has been administered or the fact that some mistakes have been made. As you have said this is not a smooth, neat program, it is not susceptible of a smooth, neat answer. Mistakes have been made. The problems are ugly problems, complicated problems.

I think our colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to see nice, neat, simple answers to the problems of our society. Unfortunately the problems are not very susceptible to nice, neat, simple answers. We don't know all the answers. We don't know many of the answers to get the people out of poverty.

What I want to congratulate you on, and this is the indispensable and unique role that your agency plays, is the courage and professionalism and resourcefulnes and creativity with which you go after the unique, sensitive and sometimes explicit problems of poverty.

This is the overlying reason why these programs cannot simply be atomized and given back to the regular executive branch agency.

I want to congratulate you. I am not going to ask you whether you want to be congratulated because maybe you don't want to be congratulated. The thing I think you deserve the most congratulation on is your willingness to be a change agent, to change the institutions of our society that have failed the poor, to change the education establishment which under the competition they become more and more enthusiastic every month. They are accepting the parent outreach which for decades the education establishment refused to accept.

Your changing the institution of health services, your community health services in the Bronx and in Denver and Boston are starting a ripple of change in the education establishment.

The AMA finally now has gotten into the business of providing health services in the community with the involvement of the poor. The same thing goes for the whole business of job training and employment.

You have been a change agent. That has radically affected the establishment. The State employment agencies, perhaps the most hide bound, rock-ribbed conservative entrenched bureaucracies that the mind of man has ever devised, are beginning to think of how to do the job differently, how they can design jobs that will attract the poor, make it possible for the poor to break out of their structure of unemployment.

The same thing in welfare services. You have proven that we can get people off of welfare into jobs if they are given the motivation. The welfare institution, the welfare establishment now is thinking about changing its way of doing business.

I want to congratulate you for your courage above and beyond the call of duty, with all the mistakes that have been made, with all the things we have bragged about, what you have been willing to do is to experiment, to take chances, to take risks, to push our established institutions to go through the agonizing reappraisal of how they can do their job better.

The very fact that they want to grab these programs now, the very fact that OE wants to grab Headstart is a measure of the spectacular success which your innovative efforts have produced.

Mr. SHRIVER. Thank you very much, Mr. Congressman.
Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Steiger.

Mr. STEIGER. Mr. Shriver, the question that was asked previously as to the removal of persons from the poor category, according to a release printed in the Los Angeles Times on December 31, 1966, "The White House announced Friday, 2-year-old war on poverty takes 3.4 million persons out of poverty."

My concern here is why the announcement that this many people had been taken out of poverty was made not by the Office of Economic Opportunity which according to your testimony works as a unified command post in the war on poverty but rather the Office of Education and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Mr. SHRIVER. The statistics we have are available to all the departments of Government. You will find out, Congressman, the longer you are down here, you will find out that various people make announcements at various times to suit the needs of the situation.

We don't hoard these statistics. We make them available to everybody. It is not surprising that the Secretary or somebody else made the statement. I didn't happen to see it but that does not mean it is improper for them to make it.

Mr. STEIGER. If your agency is supposed to act as a unified command post it seems to me somewhat unusual that somebody other than than unified agency would make that kind of announcement or that kind of analysis.

Mr. SHRIVER. Not only is it not unusual; it is usual.

Mr. STEIGER. Do you have any information on whether or not the report by Secretary Gardner which indicated that the administration hoped to remove 500,000 more persons from poverty from January 1 to July 1 has been successful?

Mr. SHRIVER. That statement, Bob Levine informs me sotto voce, was based on his analysis of what would happen if the Social Security Administration amendments were enacted by the Congress.

Since they have not been enacted I guess it won't happen by the 1st of July.

Mr. STEIGER. The urban community action programs received the bulk of title IV funds during the full fiscal year 1965 and 1966. In fiscal year 1967 the programs were funded as I understand it on the basis of having programs continue.

As a result of that the rural communities in my State at least have complained that there has been an inequitable distribution of antipoverty money. I have two questions.

No. 1, what percentage of community action money went to rural programs in fiscal year 1967? No. 2, do you plan to increase the funds for rural community action programs in fiscal year 1968? Mr. SHRIVER. In fiscal 1967 it. was 35 percent. In 1968 we hope to get it up to at least 36 percent.

Mr. STEIGER. Thirty-five percent?

Mr. SHRIVER. I am giving you the OEO totals. Were you asking for something different than that?

Mr. STEIGER. No.

What percentage of CAP money?

Mr. SHRIVER. Excuse me, I am sorry. I was giving you the total. The community action money was 32 percent in fiscal 1967. We hope to have it at 36 percent in fiscal 1968. The overall figure for all OEO programs rural versus urban, 35 percent went to rural of all OEO programs, this past fiscal year. We hope to to get that up to another percentage point in 1968.

Mr. STEIGER. You are increasing the percentage allocated for rural community action programs by 1 percent, is that correct?

Mr. SHRIVER. No, sir. I am confusing you. I am sorry. Community action this past year was 32 percent. We hope to get it up, we plan to get it up to 36 percent. So that is 4 percentage points.

Mr. STEIGER. For all community action?

Mr. SHRIVER. Yes, for community action.

Mr. STEIGER. What I am asking is what percentage of the 32 percent in fiscal year 1967 went to rural community action programs?

Mr. SHRIVER. That is what did go. Let us say you take community action which is run by Mr. Berry, one of our programs, 32 percent of all the money for community action went to the rural areas in 1967. We planned to get 36 percent of all that money to rural America in 1968.

Mr. STEIGER. So you are increasing the percentage 4 percent between fiscal year 1967 and fiscal year 1968?

Mr. SHRIVER. That is right.

Mr. QUIE. Will you yield?

Mr. STEIGER. Yes.

Mr. QUIE. I would like to have an identification of what you mean by rural.

Mr. SHRIVER. It is 5,000, towns of 5,000 in counties outside of the standard metropolitan statistical areas. In other words, any town with 5,000 persons or less is counted as a part of rural America in order to determine how many people live in rural America.

Here is another chart which happens to involve at the end these rural areas. That does not answer your question precisely but it is relevant.

Chairman PERKINS. Sargent Shriver, let me thank you for your appearance. I hate to request that you stand by. We hope to be back with you Thursday a.m.

At this time the committee will recess until 10 a.m. tomorrow, full committee meeting.

for a

Mr. SHRIVER. I would like to extend an invitation if I may. There is a luncheon going on here at 12:15 involving the members of the new Sports Advisory Council to OEO, right here in the building someplace and anybody in the Congress who would like to come is welcome.

We have some people like Rocky Marciano who would make you feel safe at lunch and other leading sport celebrities. It is in room B-369

at 12:15.

(Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m. the committee recessed to reconvene at 10 a.m., Friday, June 16, 1967.)

ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1967

FRIDAY, JUNE 16, 1967

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met at 10:35 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Carl D. Perkins (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Perkins, Green, Brademas, Gibbons, Ford, Hathaway, Mink, Meeds, Ayres, Quie, Goodell, Bell, Scherle, Dellenback, and Steiger.

Also present: H. D. Reed, Jr., general counsel; Robert E. McCord, senior specialist; Louise Maxienne Dargans, research assistant; Benjamin F. Reeves, editor of committee publications; Austin Sullivan, investigator; Marian Wyman, special assistant to the chairman Charles W. Radcliffe, minority counsel for education; John R. Buckley, chief minority investigator; Dixie Barger, minority research assistant; and W. Phillips Rockefeller, minority research specialist.

Chairman PERKINS. The committee will come to order. A quorum is present.

Again, Mr. Sargent Shriver, I am delighted to have the opportunity to welcome you back before the committee to continue your presentation which you started the other day on a very important bill. We may have to interrupt you again Monday in the event that you are unable to complete all aspects of your testimony today and tomorrow, because Monday morning we intend to mark up the bill reported from Mrs. Green's subcommittee involving the Teaching Professions Act in title V of the Higher Education Act and including the Teacher Corps. That order of business commands top priority at this time.

I think it was understood that you have the Director of the Job Corps and of the Neighborhood Youth Corps with you. Will you proceed and handle your testimony in any way you prefer. STATEMENTS OF SARGENT SHRIVER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY; BERTRAND M. HARDING, DEPUTY DIRECTOR; WILLIAM P. KELLY, DIRECTOR, JOB CORPS; DONALD M. BAKER, GENERAL COUNSEL; ROBERT A. LEVINE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, RESEARCH, PLANS, PROGRAMS, AND EVALUATION; AND DAVID GOTTLIEB, ASSISTANT TO THE JOB CORPS DIRECTOR Mr. SHRIVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I might just observe for your information that we are scheduled to testify on the Senate side about the Office of Economic Opportunity and our programs on Monday at 9:30 I suspect.

80-084 0-67-pt. 1-8

109