Mr. FLOOD. Donald Baker.

Mr. BAKER. I have no intention to leave.

Mr. FLOOD. Good man.

Gillis Long.

Mr. LONG. When I took the job, I intended to stay a year, and my year will be up soon.

Mr. FLOOD. Jule Sugarman.

Mr. SUGARMAN. I will be around.

Mr. SHRIVER. These do not constitute commitments. They are not testifying that they definitely will be here.

Mr. FLOOD. Frederick Hayes.

Mr. HAYES. I will probably be here.

Mr. FLOOD. Christopher Weeks.

Mr. WEEKS. Yes, sir. I was here last year and I intend to be here next year.

Mr. FLOOD. Alice Irby.

Miss IRBY. No; I will be leaving in December.

Mr. FLOOD. You certainly improve the appearance of the place. William Wolfrey.

Mr. WOLFREY. I expect to be here if I can hold out.

Mr. FLOOD. Milton Fogelman.

Mr. FOGELMAN. I shall be here.

Mr. FLOOD. That is the OEO people.

Mr. FOGARTY. You are losing six of your key aids. That was the headline in the paper August 20, anyway.

Mr. FLOOD. As a matter of fact, you are not.

Mr. SHRIVER. Let me say the paper is not altogether wrong, nor is that list wrong. The point is that I have maintained since I have been down here that we ought to try in the Government to get the very best possible people we can get, even if they cannot make a commitment to stay forever in a Government position, like Joe Kershaw or Otis Singletary, who are two examples of what I am trying to get. Joe Kershaw could not leave permanently from Williams College to take on this job. Yet, after talking to a large number of people, it was considered by them, economists and others, that Joe Kershaw probably would be the best man in America we could get at least to inaugurate this complicated business of evaluating and analyzing the programs of this agency.

Mr. FLOOD. If it has not already been inserted, in view of this interrogation and the line of questioning, if there is no objection, I think this list of witnesses should be placed in the record.

Mr. FOGARTY. It is already in.

Mr. FLOOD. If it is already in, I would like at this point to refer back to it in view of this line of interrogation, with specific reference to their titles as well as names. (See p. 228.)

Mr. SHRIVER. I am extremely pleased that he can come for 15 months and that Otis Singletary can come up to inaugurate the Job Corps and stay for 18 months. When they came, it was understood that is how long they could stay. That applies to practically everybody on that list.

For example, Jack Conway, sitting down here. It is well known, I think, a lot of people did not think we would be able to get Jack to come at all because of his commitments and responsibilities to the

labor movement. I think it is much better to have had him for 18 months than to have had somebody else for a longer period of time. There were some people on that list of six which received the publicity who did leave or one of whom has left and one of whom is going to leave. Holmes Brown, Director of Public Affairs, who is not here, came with us not with any intention of leaving. It was never discussed that he would leave. However, he gave up a $50,000-a-year job to come and work with us. Then about a month ago he was offered a job which would pay him about $75,000 a year, and he came to me and said he felt he owed it to his family to consider this new offer, and would I object if he took the job. I said no, I thought he should. There is no reason why he felt he had to stay with us forever, despite the fact that he was getting outside offers that were extremely attractive to him.

I have no worry, in response to your question. I am certain we will get and are already getting extremely qualified people to take over. Mr. FOGARTY. You are not concerned about the rate of turnover? Mr. SHRIVER. No.

Mr. LAIRD, Who is the other one?

Mr. SHRIVER. Dick Boone, who was in charge of what we call program development in the community action program. He is an extremely able fellow that I have great respect for and, frankly, I wish he had been able to stay longer. He got an opportunity to be the executive director of the Citizens Crusade Against Poverty, which is a national organization comprised of maybe 100 private agencies that are interested in this program. He felt that from that vantage point outside the Government he could continue to work for the campaign against poverty but in a different way. He also would have complete control over his own operation. He wanted that kind of responsibility. I certainly did not feel it was right for me

Mr. LAIRD. Did they offer to pay him a little more?

Mr. SHRIVER. I think so.

Mr. CONWAY. I think it is about the same.

DUAL DIRECTORSHIPS

Mr. FOGARTY. Do you think any problems in this regard might be solved by giving each man two jobs?

Mr. SHRIVER. That has been suggested.

Mr. FOGARTY. It has?

Mr. SHRIVER. That has been suggested, yes.

Mr. FOGARTY. I clipped out this editorial from my local paper, which happens to be a Republican paper, the Providence Journal, June 14, 1965. The headline was: "Two Jobs That Are Too Important for One Director." I will read the article.

Sargent Shriver is a remarkable fellow and no doubt about it.

He took a crackpot idea-the Peace Corps-and turned it into a pearl of foreign policy. What's more he sold himself and his program to a Congress that normally has little time for such visionary stuff as overseas do-gooding.

So well did Mr. Shriver perform as Director of the Peace Corps that the Senate readily confirmed him for a second top job, as head of the Office of Economic Opportunity, which administers the poverty program. Some Senators have been having some second thoughts lately, though, about a man's holding down two important Federal jobs. The Senate passed an amendment to the Peace Corps bill the other day requiring Mr. Shriver to give up one of his jobs.

President Johnson has vowed to fight this congressional intrusion on Executive authority.

Technically, the President seems to be on solid ground. Mr. Shriver was duly appointed by the President and confirmed by the Congress for both jobs.

It's

a little late for Congress to change its mind, especially since there seems to be no substantial evidence that Mr. Shriver is mismanaging or undermanaging either agency.

But what is the President's right and what is wise Presidential policy may be two different things. Mr. Johnson has a perfect right to give Mr. Shriver two portfolios. Mr. Shriver is a good man. But he's not that good. He's not so good that he can do two jobs of the magnitude of these jobs as well as he could do just one of them. He's not so good that one or the other of the directorships Mr. Shriver holds couldn't be done better by another good man devoting full time. In putting Sargent Shriver at the head of two agencies, President Johnson does not so much honor Mr. Shriver as he dishonors the agencies. An agency with a part-time director, no matter who that director is, can't rank too high on the President's list of priorities. If the President thought as much of the Peace Corps or of the poverty program as he sometimes says, he would see that each agency is promptly put under a full-time director, without any congressional prodding.

As for Mr. Shriver, he modestly asserts that he didn't seek either job, that he has recommended others for both positions, and that he serves merely to please the President. It takes a pretty big head, nevertheless, to wear two hats.

That is a fair editorial, is it not? I would go along with it myself. I do not know how you can do justice to two such important jobs and be fair to yourself. If you are going to work all the hours that you have to, to do a good job on both, you are just not being realistic regarding human limitations. I thought the editorial was complimentary of you, Mr. Shriver, and I think you have done two good jobs but I think it is too much to expect one man to do for very long. Mr. SHRIVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FOGARTY. Do you think it was complimentary!

Mr. SHRIVER. Do I think it was? It did not say anything very bad. I have read editorials that were less complimentary.

DATA SUPPLIED BY OEO

Mr. FOGARTY. There has been a lot of criticism of the OEO by Members of Congress, claiming that they and congressional committees cannot get basic data from you, but I found that this was not true as far as this committee is concerned, because I think we have received no better justifications in many years on this committee. They contain a maximum of objective information and a minimum of sales talk.

In addition, we asked for several special statements that involved a vast amount of additional detailed information which you have furnished promptly. I think your staff has done an excellent job in providing us with all this information. It is the best job I have seen from any Government agency. Each member of the committee has a complete set of all these data, and we will place the justifications at the end of this hearing as appendix 1, and the supplementary material as appendix 2. It was an excellent job.

Mr. SHRIVER. I just want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Bill Kelly and his cohorts in the Office of Management Administration, Bob Cassidy, Dr. Kershaw, who is behind me, who worked on the statistical aspects of this thing, Jack Howard, and also the operating divisions. These are the people who really have put it together. Fred Hayes and Jule Sugarman also have worked hard.

Mr. FOGARTY. It is the best job I have seen since I have been on the committee.

Mr. LAIRD. I would like to add that each time I have asked for information through our clerk, Bob Moyer, I have never had any problem of getting any information. I join with the chairman in that regard. We have had no difficulty in getting any information which we have asked for. I do not believe a single request I have made through you has been turned down, Mr. Moyer.

Mr. MOYER. That is correct.

Mr. FLOOD. I would associate myself with that. I have not had the slightest difficulty, whether it came by telephone, mail, or carrier pigeon.

Mr. FOGARTY. This is the best as far as important details are concerned, without a lot of surplus propaganda and gobbledygook that so many agencies insist on padding their justifications with.

Mr. FLOOD. I have been looking at these things from the Department of Defense since the War Between the States, and even McNamara and the Whiz Kids never did anything better than this.

Mr. KELLY. I would like to say-and I think Mr. Moyer knows this a good deal of credit goes to our budget officer, Bill Wolfrey, sitting behind us, who has done a tremendous job in putting this stuff together.

REQUIREMENTS TO SUSTAIN OBLIGATION RATE AT END OF FISCAL YEAR 1965

Mr. FOGARTY. The first of these supplemental tables shows obligations and expenditures by month. June obligations were over $286 milllion. Just to maintain this rate without any expansion would take almost $3.5 billion.

Mr. SHRIVER. Yes.

Mr. FOGARTY. Is it not right that you are budgeting for a considerable cutback from the rate at which you were operating at the end of 1965?

Mr. SHRIVER. I think it is fair to say that the rate that we achieved in April, May, and June is a higher rate of expenditure than we will maintain on a 12-month basis in this fiscal year. Bill Kelly explained a minute ago why the obligations from the delegated agencies were so large in June. I call attention again to the fact that in the direct operations the obligations in June were less actually than they were in May.

Mr. KELLY. The Youth Corps with its summer programs had a real impact at the end of the year, the work experience and the work study programs.

DELAYS IN NEW PROJECTS DUE TO LACK OF FUNDS

Mr. FOGARTY. Are you currently having a delay starting new approvable projects under any part of your program because of lack of funds?

We want a good answer on this because we have had some complaints along this line.

Mr. KELLY. We built to a climax because of the summer programs, particularly Head Start and the Neighborhood Youth Corps program

in May and June. We have instituted within the community action program some new quality controls in terms of reviewing some of our applications, which is the normal evolution in terms of our program. Mr. SHRIVER. I think you are referring to an alleged cutback, for example, in the Neighborhood Youth Corps as an example.

Mr. FOGARTY. We have had other complaints, mainly because your 1966 appropriation has not been funded yet.

Mr. SHRIVER. We are going, after all, under a continuing resolution at the 1965 budgetary level.

Mr. KELLY. Right.

Mr. SHRIVER. Therefore, some of the agencies, like the Neighborhood Youth Corps, felt at least it was wise to inform recipients that at that level we would only be able to do a certain amount. We have always considered it unwise to presume or assume what Congress would give us, and we have made projections based on what we thought we might get.

EMPHASIS ON URBAN AND NONURBAN AREAS COMPARED

Mr. FLOOD. It has been suggested by those of us who come from the provinces, not from the large metropolitan areas, and in the smaller towns, that they have been cut back because of the sudden drive to attack the large metropolitan urban problem, and you have sacrificed applications and made cutbacks in the smaller cities. Is this true? Mr. SHRIVER. I do not think that is true, Congressman. Specifically with respect to the Neighborhood Youth Corps

Mr. FLOOD. I mean specifically that, yes.

Mr. SHRIVER. Specifically the Neighborhood Youth Corps. As I said in my opening statement, there will be, I think, 2,000 more participants in the Neighborhood Youth Corps in fiscal 1966 than in fiscal 1965.

Mr. FLOOD. I am not speaking of the number. I am speaking of the specific indictment. Is it true that any cutbacks that have been made in the smaller areas, smaller towns and communities, on this Neighborhood Youth Corps are the result of a policy decision to put a rifle on the problem in the great metropolitan areas?

Mr. SHRIVER. Jack Howard, the Director of the Neighborhood Youth Corps.

Mr. HOWARD. I think the reverse is probably true, that the big cities came in early in the program and in the coming year we are more and more attempting to aid smaller areas and rural areas. My experience so far has been that the protests we are getting from the large cities in terms of cutbacks in what they want are equal to or even greater than those we are getting from small cities. The cutbacks from the requested levels affect big cities and small cities. There is no program or policy to enhance the big cities at the expense of rural areas.

BACKLOG OF APPROVABLE PROJECTS

Mr. FOGARTY. The question I asked and I don't think I got a very good answer was, Do you have approvable applications today that you cannot fund or that have been delayed because of a shortage of funds? We have been told that you have.