June 29, 1972
Page 23263
NO DEESCALATION OF THE WAR ON POVERTY
Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, the legislation we have before us represents on the part of the Labor and Public Welfare Committee and in particular its Poverty Subcommittee, of which I am privileged to be a member, the efforts of more than a year's time of shaping, modifying, compromising, reshaping, and compromising again, all the while creating a measure which would retain the integrity of the war on poverty programs and expand and renew our initial commitment to work for the ultimate elimination of poverty in our Nation.
I was pleased to join with Senators NELSON, JAVITS, and MONDALE in introducing S. 3010 on December 13, 4 days after the original EOA extension legislation – S. 2007 – was vetoed by the President. As introduced, S. 3010 contained the same provisions of the vetoed bill except that an extension of the Headstart program was substituted for the controversial child development title of S. 2007. During Labor and Public Welfare Committee deliberations, however, we agreed that further modifications were necessary in order not to jeopardize the entire future of the antipoverty effort.
In this regard, Mr. President, I want to say that without the judicious leadership exercised by the chairman of the Subcommittee on Employment, Manpower and Poverty, Mr. NELSON, and the great cooperation of our colleagues on the Subcommittee, Mr. MONDALE, Mr. TAFT, and Mr. JAVITS in particular, this legislation would not have moved through committee deliberations as expeditiously as it did. A word of thanks must be extended, too, to the fine staff who worked long and hard to facilitate our consideration of S. 3010. They are William Spring and Richard Johnson of the Employment, Manpower and Poverty Subcommittee staff, Sidney Johnson for Senator MONDALE, John Scales for Senator JAVITS, and Patricia Gwaltney for Senator TAFT.
For all their efforts, however, were it not for the cooperation of the chairman of the full Labor and Public Welfare Committee, the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. WILLIAMS), consideration of this bill in committee might well have been delayed. Senator WILLIAMS scheduled consideration of S. 3010 ahead of legislation in which he was deeply involved as chairman of the Labor Subcommittee.
MEETING THE PRESIDENT'S VETO MESSAGE OBJECTIONS
In his veto message of December 9, President Nixon cited his objections to several specific provisions of S. 2007.
They included provisions prohibiting further delegation of programs out of the Office of Economic Opportunity, earmarking funds for specific programs, the makeup of the Legal Services Corporation board and the procedures for administering the program while the incorporation process went forward, and a number of the child development provisions of title V of that measure. In our modifications of S. 3010 in committee, we sought to reach a compromise with the administration on each of these points.
SPIN-OFFS
With respect to the President's objection to the prohibition on delegation of authority, we recommend that it apply to only two programs – local initiative and the new Community Economic Development programs which would be created by section 17 of this legislation – rather than apply to all OEO programs as was a feature of S. 2007. We feel that operation of these two programs are central to OEO's effectiveness in conducting the war on poverty, and that that agency would be rendered ineffectual were they transferred from it.
EARMARKING
With respect to earmarking of funds for specific programs, the committee bill limits earmarking to only four programs rather than to the 15 programs which received earmarking under S. 2007. Those four are: Local initiative, $328.9 million; legal services, $71.5 million – these amounts are those requested by the administration – and Emergency Food and Medical Services, $30 million, and Alcoholic Counseling and Recovery, $18 million.
CHILD CARE
With respect to the President's objection to the comprehensive child care provisions of S. 2007, the committee reported to the Senate separate legislation (S. 3617) providing for these programs, which I am delighted cleared the Senate on June 20 by an overwhelming majority.
LEGAL SERVICES
And, finally, with respect to the legal services provisions, the committee has made what I believe to be major concessions to the administration's wishes – concessions which I personally would not have been prepared to make during consideration of S. 2007 but which I feel are necessary now to save the legal services program. OEO has been neglecting the program to the extent that it has not even appointed a director of legal services since its former head, Fred Speaker, left the agency after Vice President AGNEW's unconscionable interference in the Camden, N.J., program. My own State of California, specifically the California Rural Legal Services program, has been plagued by this kind of political interference, and its experiences have convinced me that the concept of providing legal services for the poor can be realized only through the creation of an independent National Legal Services Corporation outside OEO or any Federal agency. This is provided for in section 18 of the committee bill which adds a new title IX – National Legal Services Corporation – to the Economic Opportunity Act.
It was because of this neglect and downgrading of legal services within OEO that I reluctantly went along with the committee's decision to permit the President – any President – to nominate an absolute majority of the corporation's board of directors without constraints except for the confirmation process. Instead of the President's nominating outright – as opposed to from lists – only six members of a 17-member board and nominating the remainder from lists of recommendations as was proposed in S. 2007, under the legislation before us today the President would have full discretion to name 10 members of a 19-member board, subject only to the constraint that six of the 10 must be attorneys, and the remaining nine members would be nominated by the President from recommendations made to him. Of the remaining nine members nominated by the President from recommendations submitted to him, five would be from recommendations submitted separately from each of the five major national bar associations and legal organizations in the country and four from the recommendations of the advisory councils – legal services and clients – which would be established by section 905 of the new title. All members of the board would be subject to Senate confirmation.
I was pleased that the committee agreed to an amendment I offered with Senators KENNEDY and MONDALE to insure that at least one director represent and be chosen from the population which speaks a language other than English as its predominant language. Our amendment was written with the Spanish-speaking community in mind, since 20 percent of present OEO legal services grantees now provide substantial amounts of service to these clients.
My reluctance to go along with the provisions for the determination of the Board of Directors stemmed from my conviction that the composition of the Board is the most important of all the legal services issues under the new title IX. The entire principle behind the new Corporation – that of insulating legal services from politics – is tied up with how the Board is composed and whether it can be politically manipulated. It is my feeling that the Board should not be controlled by any political interest, and I have stated publicly in the past that if appointment of a majority of the Board were ever placed in the clear control of the President, I would no longer be able to support the establishment of the Corporation – that I would prefer that the legal services program be continued under OEO. Subsequently, however, circumstances surrounding the administration of the program within that agency have deteriorated to the extent that its very survival depends, I believe, on its release from OEO, and for this reason, I have agreed to this very crucial compromise.
As I have mentioned, another of the President's objections to the legal services provisions in S. 2007 had to do with the procedures for administering the program while the incorporation process went forward. The vetoed bill provided that the incorporating trusteeship would be made up of representatives of the five national bar associations and legal organizations. S. 3010 provides that the Director of OEO shall be the incorporating trustee and shall carry out his responsibilities in consultation with the National Advisory Committee for Legal Services. I am delighted that the committee agreed to the amendment.
I offered to make the modification and also to clarify certain other features regarding the transition period of incorporation. Under the committee bill, as amended, during the first approximately 90 days after enactment of this legislation the legal services attorneys and the clients advisory councils will be established and they and the five bar groups will submit their recommendations to the President for nominees for the Corporation Board, and the President will submit all nominees to the Senate for confirmation. During a second 90-day period – which would begin after the appointment of all directors and the first meeting of the Board – the Corporation will take appropriate steps to become organized.
Once established, the corporation is authorized to provide financial assistance to qualified programs furnishing legal services as well as to carry out research, training, technical assistance, experimental and clinical legal education programs.
In addition, as a result of an amendment I offered in committee with Senators KENNEDY and MONDALE, the corporation will be empowered to carry out special emphasis programs for target groups such as migrant and seasonal farmworkers, Indians, and the elderly. I was most pleased that the committee agreed to make this provision a part of the bill to be reported to the full Senate. The need to provide special emphasis programs is essential if we are to insure equal justice for Americans who are part of groups that traditionally have received less than their share of antipoverty programs including lack of access to legal representation. Most recently, this need was brought to my attention when I learned that the Office of Economic Opportunity had planned to reduce its support of legal services to the elderly – specifically that six ongoing legal services programs serving the elderly were to be phased out and replaced with a "backup" center for senior citizens. While I feel that the backup center concept is a good one – and I am pleased that the Western Center on Law and Poverty in Los Angeles has been selected as grantee for the center – I do not believe that it can begin to replace adequately operational programs such as those carried on now under the direction of the National Council of Senior Citizens.
I joined on April 7 with 15 of my colleagues in writing to Director Sanchez to express these views, and I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that the full text of our letter be inserted in the RECORD at this point, to be followed by the inclusion of Mr. Sanchez' May 17 reply.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
U.S. SENATE,
Washington, D.C.
April 7,1972.
Mr. PHILLIP SANCHEZ,
Director, Office of Economic Opportunity,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. DIRECTOR: The 1971 White House Conference on Aging reported on the failure of the nation to provide adequate legal services to the nation's elderly citizens, particularly to the elderly poor. Therefore, the Conference adopted a recommendation that OEO allocate $10 million of its resources to the legal services needs of the elderly. Their recommendation is based on the growing proportion of the nation's poor who are comprised of men and women over 65 as well as the growing percentage of the nation's elderly whose incomes fall beneath the poverty line.
Clearly, as you have stated yourself in the past, OEO's prior commitment of resources to the legal needs of the elderly poor has been minimal. This year's budget unfortunately does not reflect even the start of a response to the White House Conference recommendation. The new legal services backup center for the elderly, while necessary in itself, cannot be substituted for on-going operational programs providing actual legal services to the elderly poor. The end result of the current plans to phase out the six projects which are now operating and replace them with a back-up center is that less money will be directly allocated to the needs of the elderly poor this year.
In view of the vital role of legal services in protecting the rights of the poor, we strongly urge a full re-evaluation of OEO spending priorities and a recognition of the special needs of the elderly without diminishing assistance to present legal services programs.
We are confident that such a re-evaluation will lead to the conclusion that current demonstration projects to promote legal services for the elderly should be at least doubled and made a permanent part of the legal services program. The expansion of the operating programs and the establishment of a new backup legal service center will combine to produce a fitting first step toward the goal established by the White House Conference on Aging.
As members of the Labor and Public Welfare Committee and the Special Committee on Aging, we view the above commitment as minimal. We believe that OEO can do no less in light of the White House Conference, OEO's own stated goals and the long expressed interest of both the Congress and the Executive Branch in improving programs and benefits for our older citizens.
We would appreciate receiving a response from you at your earliest convenience. Sincerely,
Edward M. Kennedy, Alan Bible, Frank Church, Vance Hartke, Alan Cranston, Edward W. Brooke, Thomas F. Eagleton, Harold Hughes, Walter F. Mondale, Gaylord Nelson, Jennings Randolph, Harrison A. Williams, Jr., Charles H. Percy, Edmund S. Muskie, Claiborne Pell,
Adlai E. Stevenson III.