less than a full year's funding. These programs will be funded on a full-year basis in 1966, dramatically increasing money needed there. (6) Many communities which received program development grants in 1965 will be moving into the conduct and administration of the programs they have now developed. The cost of action programs runs many times the cost of program development. The difference there is simply this: A community comes in and says it would like to participate in the community action part of the program but it does not have a local staff or a local program which it can submit to us which is ready for it to execute, so we give it what is known as a program development grant, the purpose of which is to permit the community to hire staff and to gear itself up to organizing a poverty program at the local level and presenting it to us for finance. APPROVAL OF PROGRAMS BY LOCAL GOVERNING BODIES Mr. LAIRD. Does this need approval of the local governing body, like the council, before you move in with a grant? Mr. SHRIVER. Program development grant? Mr. LAIRD. Yes. Mr. SHRIVER. It does not necessarily require an approval by a local governing body, but in practically every case, Congressman, local government officials do participate in the development work by the community which comes to us in the first instance requesting a program development grant. Mr. LAIRD. There is no effort to bypass local government? Mr. LAIRD. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I didn't mean to interrupt. Mr. SHRIVER. Those program development grants in magnitude of dollars are relatively small in comparison to the cost of operating the program which subsequently is presented to us, so we have put out a lot of program development grants in 1965 which in 1966 will be coming in for full funding of operations. TREND TOWARD MULTICOMPONENT ACTION PROGRAMS (c) Many conduct and administration programs funded in 1965 contained only one or two components. By experience, communities are now identifying the many-faceted sides of poverty at home and are ready to move into multicomponent action programs. In 1966, we know from experience, most of these communities will be coming back with additional components for the same city program, so that a program which may have been just education or just health will come back with both health and education, or a program which had those two will be coming in with some other aspect, so that the existing conduct and administration grants will grow in size. INCREASE IN GRANTS TO RURAL AREAS (d) A rural task force we established has developed a full-scale approach to the problems of community action in rural America. We look for significant increases in grants to rural areas in 1966. It is not so easy to get these grants going in rural communities. We will have many more applications from rural areas in 1966 than we have had in 1965. INCREASE IN COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM FOR INDIANS (e) Community action programs for Indians will be increased sig nificantly in 1966. Thirty grants were approved in 1965 for approximately $3.5 million. Eighty grants are programed for 1966 at a cost of $12 million. Expansion of existing programs and a broader range of programs are planned with emphasis on manpower and job development, home improvement and social services. Mr. DENTON. Does the Indian Bureau set up those programs? Mr. SHRIVER. No, sir. We work with them but we set them up. We work on them ourselves. We try to get the Indians to set them up. The objective is to get the Indians doing something themselves rather than either us or the Bureau of Indian Affairs telling them what to do. Our energy is directed toward getting them to create programs. When we finance one, however, we finance it after having talked to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to be sure we are not duplicating or conflicting with something they are attempting to do. CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT (f) Commitments for childhood development components of community action programs will increase with your permission to $150 million in 1966. This will include more programs for children in Head Start during the summer as well as full year programs for additional children. TRAINING GRANNTS (g) Training grants to help the poor achieve employment and community service goals will increase from $2.5 million in 1965 to $25 million in 1966. In 1965, 7,000 poor people were assisted. In 1966 we expect to help a minimum of 16,000. TRAINING GRANTS (h) In 1966, approximately 125 demonstration and research grants will be approved, continuing and expanding about 30 existing programs, and funding 95 new projects. MIGRANT AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES PROGRAM There is a modest increase of about $5 million for the migrant agricultural employees program. I personally have been extremely pleased by this program. It is the first time the Federal Government ever has financed a program for migrant workers. They are one of the most disadvantaged and poorest segments of our national population. This past year we have financed some programs in housing, sanitation, education, and related needs to migrant workers. There were 53 grants in 1965; 65 grants will be approved in 1966 with an emphasis on education programs, both for children and adults. The increase will provide for the continuation on a full-year basis and expansion of programs begun in 1965 as well as new proposals expected to be received from States, local governments and private groups. Obligations for the rural loan program will increase from $21.5 million to $35 million. The total number of loans will increase from 11,082 to 15,500, which again is not a doubling of the program. INCREASED CONTACT BETWEEN FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION AND PROSPECTIVE LOAN BENEFICIARIES I might say that I think the record will show that the Farmers Home Administration, by virtue of making these loans, even though there are only 15,000 of them, has come into contact with farmers and other rural people with whom heretofore they have had no contact. They didn't have any program which reached these people before. Consequently, there was no need for them to be in touch with these people. As a result of this program they are now reaching out and touching the farm families they never got to before. The Director of that program can talk about that more in detail. It is a fact that the Farmers Home Administration as a result of this program though it is not large, has been able to reach a segment of the rural population of our country they never touched before. WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM The work experience program shows an increase in dollars of about $38 million which, after annualization, will provide a modest expansion of participants from 88,700 to 109,000. ADULT BASIC EDUCATION PROGRAM The comparison between 1965 and 1966 is quite marked in the adult basic education program. In fiscal year 1965 we approved a $19 million program which is proposed to be increased by $30 million in 1966. This program is also based on a State allocation formula prescribed in the act. The delay in the preparation and clearance of State plans resulted in the availability of only $4 million to the States during the year. The act allows the unallocated funds to be used in 1966. Participation in the programs as of June 30, 1965, had reached 43,000. During fiscal year 1966 this number will increase to 105,000. This, then, is one area where the increase in the number of the poor served by the program will be financed with carryover funds and there is not a proportional increase in dollars requesteď. VOLUNTEER PROGRAM The VISTA program is one where there is a real increase both in money and in volunteers. The growth from a volunteer corps of 1,000 to one of 4,000 will require an increase from $3 million to $17.5 million. That is an exception to the general statement I made at the beginning. I hope we can convince you that it is a justified exception. In fact it is one of the least costly ways of getting at the problem of poverty in the United States. Thus, it is apparent from the foregoing that the $1.5 billion program does not represent a precipitous expansion of unproven programs. In reality it represents a studied effort to continue existing programs at little more than the commitment levels already estab lished. NELSON AMENDMENT We are told there are some changes on the authorization bill which is not final, which has not been signed, and not passed. We have been told, however, that there are these changes germane to your consideration. One is known as the Nelson amendment. This is an amendment proposed by Senator Nelson, of Wisconsin, which the Senate specified $150 million for the purpose of aiding the chronically unemployed poor, especially older people. The conference committee adopted the provision but did not specify any specific sum of money. We have made no specific provision in our estimates for this program. We have not worked out any administrative procedures by which this program should be carried out if it remains law. Mr. LAIRD. You are not asking for any money to carry on my Senator's program. Mr. SHRIVER. We will be happy if you give us the money to do it. Mr. LAIRD. We want to know what the President recommends. Mr. SHRIVER. The President recommends what is indicated in the budget. INDEMNITY PAYMENTS TO DAIRY FARMERS The conference report also includes a provision which was in the bill last year providing indemnity payments to farmers for the removal of milk from commercial markets because of the chemical residues. Last year this was put on and $8.8 million was assigned for this purpose. In fact, the Department of Agriculture needed only about $1 million. The Department has not requested any money for this purpose this year and we believe there is no necessity to appropriate funds for that. Mr. LAIRD. You are discriminating against Wisconsin in this program right down the line. Mr. SHRIVER. It shows it is a nonpolitical program. The Department of Agriculture will be better qualified to say why they do not need the money for milk residues than I would be. If you would like testimony on that I would be happy to pass that on. AUTHORIZATION GREATER THAN BUDGET REQUEST There are two other areas where the authorizing act would provide more than we have requested. The act will authorize the appropriation of $700 million for title I and $850 million for title II, which would bring the total budget to $1.785 billion. Our estimates total $1.5 billion, which is the figure proposed in the President's budget and which I believe is adequate for the economic opportunity program for fiscal year 1966. LANGUAGE CHANGES I would also like to invite your attention to several appropriation language changes. We have asked for the elimination of the title-bytitle funding limitations and the personnel limitation. Elimination of these items will provide the flexibility we need to shift our resources to meet the changing demands of our various programs. That is a general statement, Mr. Chairman. With your permission I would like to introduce Bill Kelly, the director of our administration and management end of the war against poverty. He can get into more detail replete with charts which are on that board and which we hope will be helpful to members of the committee. This is Bill Kelly. Mr. FOGARTY. We remember Mr. Kelly from last year. STATEMENT OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT Mr. KELLY. Thank you, sir. What we have attempted to do here is to highlight some of the things that are in the justification by way of presenting them to the committee. OBLIGATIONS BY PROGRAM This is a picture of our obligations, actual, for fiscal 1965, and we have the 1966 estimates by each of our own programs, the programs we operate directly. The first one is the Job Corps. Our obligations in 1965 were $182 million-plus. Our program for 1966 is estimated at $235 million. In the community action area, you can see our obligations are $237 million in 1965, and we are talking about $685 million in 1966. In the migrant area, $14.9 million, a modest increase to $20 million. Under the VISTA program, $3.03 million in 1965, $17.5 million in 1966. In the area of general direction and administration, which includes my office, and which is the central administrative and housekeeping office as well as Mr. Shriver's staff office, we are moving from $6.4 million to $12.5 million. Obligations for the delegated programs in 1965, the work training and neighborhood Youth Corps, $132,100,000; $255 million is the program estimate for 1966. Work study is $55 million in 1965, moving to $60 million in 1966. The rural area program is $21.5 million in 1965, moving to $35.6 million in 1966. Work experience is $111 million to $150 million, and adult basic education moving from $4.4 to $30 million, with a carryover of approximately $14 million from last year. OBLIGATIONS AND EXPENDITURES, FISCAL YEAR 1965 This is a picture on the obligations and expenditures through fiscal year 1965 through the 30th of June. In the case of the Job Corps again you see the figure of $182 million obligated. We expended $34 million during fiscal year 1965. In CAP we have $237 million obligated, with expenditures of $56 million during 1965. The migrant program is $14 million obligated, and $633,000 expended. VISTA program shows $3 million obligated, and $619,000 expended. |