Many people denied the existence of any substantial poverty within the borders of the United States. Many others said that even if poverty existed it really never could be eliminated, that the poor would always be with us.

Experts in the field of economics and sociology and other fields differed as to the causes of poverty and they differed as to the remedies that ought to be applied.

But this committee in my judgment steered a firm and intelligent course through the shoals of disagreement and debate. Landmark legislation was developed and passed. Money was authorized and appropriated.

The war on poverty was begun.

No one at that time believed it was going to be a quick and easy victory. Members of Congress especially know how long and how arduous are this Nation's struggles against the problems which beset it, the problems of farmers and small businesmen, the problems of labor and management, the problems of urban sprawl and rural abandonment, the problems of water and air pollution, the problems of railroads and utilities.

If we stop for a moment to reflect I think we would all agree that the problems of America's poor are even more difficult than many of these other problems. Most of us knew the job would not be easy but in two legislative sessions you have expressed your determination that the job must be done.

No other committee of any other legislature in the history of the world so far as I have been able to determine has ever urged the mobilization of the total resources of the Nation toward the elimination of poverty.

Ancient Rome gave bread and circuses to the poor.

The Ancient Greeks threw their surplus grain to the poor.

William the Conquerer divided up and gave some lands to the serfs in the 11th century.

The Knights of Templar invented the first flophouse.

The followers of St. Francis invented the breadline.

Nineteenth century England developed the dole.

But the Congress of the 20th century America had the courage and the vision to demand that poverty itself be eliminated and the great President of 20th century America asked that it be done. And that same Congress put the challenge and the responsibility to a new agency which it called the Office of Economic Opportunity.

Now 3 years later you are beginning discussion of new legislation. Where originally you only had theories and speculation to go on, today you do have the results of 21⁄2 years of effort.

You have the proven effectiveness of Headstart and the Neighborhood Youth Corps. You have proof in the existence of 53,000 young men and women who have gone on from the Job Corps to become constructive and contributing members of society. You have proof in

You have 27,000 youngsters in the Upward Bound program

now on their way to higher education.

You have the commitment of 6,500 Americans who have served as volunteers in VISTA.

You have the commitment of 90,000 Americans who are serving today free of charge on community action agencies across the length and breadth of the land.

You have the evidence of 1 million Americans who have freely pitched in to help on a thousand different fronts as volunteers.

You have the evidence of 1,200 lawyers now serving more than 600 neighborhood legal service centers bringing justice, new opportunities for justice to the poor.

You have the evidence of 21 neighborhood health centers inbeing or in the process of being established.

You have the evidence of 1,050 community action agencies giving needed services to the poor people, bringing services of various departments of government to bear in a combined coordinated way.

You have the evidence of 3,300 foster grandparents who are themselves finding a new meaning to their lives and bringing compassion and a new life to young children.

This evidence has been compiled statistically and analytically. You have that record before you. I believe it is a document in which you can take pride because you made it possible.

And I believe that there is no responsible member of this committee or the Congress as a whole who is going to vote to eliminate Headstart or Foster Grandparents or any of the other prudent programs inaugurated by OEO.

Nobody is going to tell the million volunteers to go home. Nobody is going to shut up 700 neighborhood multiservice centers which are across this whole country, in rural as well as urban America.

Nobody is going to tell a thousand young men who want to be in the Job Corps that there is not going to be any Job Corps for them or tell 300,000 plus youngsters that the Neighborhood Youth Corps is going out of existence, that there won't be any work for them of that type, or to close up the law offices or the neighborhood health centers or the family planning clinics or the Upward Bound classes.

These programs which you brought into being have become a part of the fabric of American life. I believe you will see to it that they endure.

There are new Headstarts, new community action programs still to be invented. I believe you will see to it that the source of innovation is not destroyed.

It seems to me that a single basic issue faces the Congress this year in connection with the war against poverty. It is this: Will the agency you brought into being to serve the poor, to speak for the poor, to marshall America's resources on behalf of the poor, continue to do the job which you set for it?

As you begin your deliberations, you have before you two pieces of proposed legislation. Each supports a major Federal effort and expenditure on behalf of the poor. Each calls for the cooperation and involvement of all segments of our national life. Each proposes to continue with minor changes all or nearly all the innovative programs initiated by this agency which you created 212 years ago.

The most significant differences in these two bills, one sponsored by the administration, one sponsored by some Republican members,

is this: The administration bill proposes a strengthened OEO with its coordinating power improved, with its administration made more effective, and the range of national involvement in its programs broadened.

The other proposes to eliminate OEO and destroy the central command post of the war against poverty. This difference to me, at any rate, strikes at the heart of the entire effort. The reasons for OEŎ are very simple.

First of all, the poor are the least articulate, the least influential, the least powerful of all our national minorities. They need an independent advocate, a strong, authoritative voice to speak on their behalf.

The well-to-do whose support is absolutely essential, need a constant, coherent reminder of the reality of the problem of poverty and their responsibility in helping to solve it.

Local communities need a single, national source of information, innovation, evaluation, and encouragement as well as financing to help them sustain the momentum of their fight against hometown poverty.

The established agencies of Government, the organizations in relevant fields of education, health, social work, and justice, now welcome a unified command post which supports them in directing the thrust of their efforts toward the difficult task of helping the poor.

The Nation as a whole needs to keep its attention focused on curing poverty at a time when the distractions of affluence are almost irresistible.

Before OEO, America had the same skills, the same resources, the same strength of purpose as we do today but our Nation did not bring into being a Headstart, or an Upward Bound, or a Job Corps, or VISTA, or the neighborhood legal services, or the neighborhood health center, or local community action programs. It took the Congress and OEO to get these going and to make them work.

It is a simple matter of practical commonsense. When our Nation has determined to tackle a specific problem Congress has given the job to a single responsible authority, responsibility I might add to the Congress. A Social Security Administration. A Securites and Exchange Commission. A TVA. A Department of Transportation. A NASA.

And an OEO.

Because of this commonsense act of Congress in establishing OEO, and because of the results which it has achieved it is not surprising that an overwhelming majority of Americans have rallied behind the effort. As a nation we may be divided on the strategies for civil rights. We may be fragmented on the issues of war and peace, between hawks and doves. We may be isolated by the genertaion gap. But as a nation we are united on the need for the eradication of poverty. This is largely, I believe, because you gave to the war against poverty a single voice, a central responsibility.

So, in statement after statement, resolution after resolution, involvement upon involvement, the various sects and sectors, interests and organizations, of this diverse and varied Nation have declared their support for the total war against poverty operated under OEO.

The American Medical Association through its president, Dr. Charles Hudson, the American Bar Association, through the last four

80-084 0-67-pt. 1-6

or five presidents of the bar, the League of Women Voters, the National Councils of Negro Women, Catholic Women, Jewish Women, United Church Women, YWCA and dozens of other organizations are not only currently running poverty programs but have indorsed the central effort.

The U.S. conference of mayors, the Urban League, NAACP, National Jaycees, Association of United Funds and Community Chests, PTA have all indorsed their program and NEA is working very closely with us in many of our programs.

Industry and labor both have provided indispensable resources both material and intellectual. All of these groups are united in the support of the war on poverty because they have been given a chance to do something themselves, to use their own skills, to operate programs, to have their ideas listened to and acted upon.

They have had a place to go. An ear to hear them, and a source for funds, if their programs warrant funding.

OEO has not fought this battle alone but it has stood at the center of the action. OEO has not had a monopoly on the good ideas but the programs, most of the programs it has initiated have worked and are helping millions of Americans right now to make the long journey out of poverty.

OEO has not been immune to mistakes but it has worked hard to eliminate error. It has leaned heavily on the administrative expertise of both the private and the public sector.

The bill you have before you incorporates into the practical experience which has been gained by OEO in 22 years of operations.

As you begin consideration of the Economic Opportunity Amendments for 1967, I ask you to contemplate the significance of this unparalleled national consensus which has unified us as a people at a time when so many conflicts are dividing us as a world.

We no longer have to be shown that there is poverty in America. That debate is over. We no longer have to argue whether or not the programs we have launched are effective. That record speaks for itself.

The central question now is whether having revealed the poverty, launched the programs and achieved the consensus, we are going to tear apart the engine which has powered our progress.

In the current issue of Look magazine there is a vigorous and unequivocal editorial entitled, "We Can't Quit Now." Editors of Look magazine spoke to their 8 million readers last week. They said this.

It is up to the Office of Economic Opportunity, not only to cope with the problems of poverty, but to argue the just demands of the poor from within the Government . . . We must make up our minds to do the whole job. It will be costly. It can't be done overnight. Business as much as government must help. But we can end welfare waste, earn back our investment from the taxes and increased production of millions of new consumers. We have promised to let the poor in-and we can't quit now.

This is what the OEO stands for. This is what you have begun and what we are pledged to continue. Much remains to be done.

We can't quit now.

That is the end of my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman. I would welcome the opportunity, if it is agreeable to you, Mr. Chairman, to start our presentation of the detailed program today with the Director of the Job Corps, William Kelly, who would be prepared to go into as

much detail as any members of the committee may wish on that par

ticular program.

We chose that program as a starter because we thought it was one of those that had evoked as much controversy or difference of opinion as any other and that by starting with it we could cover at least one of the important areas in which there has been discussion and controversy.

Chairman PERKINS. The committee has heard Sargent Shriver make the statement and his suggestion that his planned presentation includes his assistants, the Director of Job Corps next. Is there objection to this procedure or do the members want to interrogate Sargent Shriver at this time.

Mr. DENT. I think it is proper now to let the committee members get off their chest anything they might have. It would be better to do it now. We could discuss it with him. There is testimony to be made as to the necessity of the program. Let us start that first before we get into the details.

The details will be a question of whether or not we are satisfied with the program as such but let us establish now, while Mr. Sargent is presenting his remarks, the necessity of the program before we get into the details. The details won't matter if the program is not

necessary.

Chairman PERKINS. I personally feel we should let Sargent Shriver go ahead and present the case but since there has been objectionMr. DENT. No objection.

Chairman PERKINS. We will adhere to the 5-minute rule.

Mrs. Green.

Mrs. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I would hold my questions, with the exception of one, until the statements are made on the individual programs.

Mr. Shriver, on page 6 you speak of the various groups that support the war on poverty. In the material you have supplied this committee do you have a list of grants and/or contracts which have been given to these various organizations and the amount of money and the purpose for which the contracts were given?

For instance, do you give contracts or grants to NEA, PTA, the National Council of Jewish Women, the United Jewish Women, et cetera? Mr. SHRIVER. I am not absolutely sure that that is in front of you but it can easily be made available to you.

Mrs. GREEN. Fine.

Then I would ask for that, Mr. Chairman and I will yield back my time.

Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Quie.

Mr. QUIE. First, I would like to set the record straight.

The difference between the opportunity crusade and the administration bill is not merely which agency of the Federal Government will be administering the programs. There are other substantial differences that people ought to know.

There is greater involvement by private industry in the opportunity crusade and greater involvement by the State in the bonus plan in our bill. Also, we talk about the OEO being the command post. Our proposal is that the President have a Council of Economic Opportunity