« AnteriorContinuar »
aches are perhaps the most frustrating kind of pain to have, I think you can understand a bit why people go off the deep end, why they are involved in some kind of activity which are not explainable, for which there are no reasons except frustration, anger, hostility, dispair.
I think from what I see in this legislation, what I see in other legislation being developed in Congress, they are attempts to deal with the total person, attempts to see the total person and not just pick off one piece of the problem but to get various pieces
of it which tied together perhaps will begin to address itself to the total person.
I do not think that I would be completely candid with you if I did not say that it is impossible for us to expect this kind of job to be done by the private agencies, as benevolent as some of us think we are, and hopefully some of us go beyond benevolence and get people involved beyond our neighborhoods in our program.
We know some kinds of programs for the basic needs of people have to be provided by governmental agencies, that private agencies just are not equipped to do it.
Now we have a role in the process of doing this. I think we can provide certain kinds of knowledge and experience. We can perhaps even be the funnel for certain pieces of program by dispensing services. But I think the time must come for us to realistically face the fact that the voluntary dollar just cannot do this job. When the voluntary dollar is used it is used selectively so, therefore, the benefits do not strike at the heart or core of the problem.
That is the reason why we have the chronic poverty and these chronic social problems in our communities. The Government is beginning to move very vigorously in an area which perhaps the private agencies felt was their own domain.
I welcome the intrusion. I welcome the rapid development of Government services primarily because I think this is the only way we can guarantee a fair shake and an equal opportunity for all of our people to participate in the fruits and benefits of our economy.
So, in this regard I wish to again congratulate the committee for this piece of legislation which makes available to our poor, meals for the summer and hopefully for every summer from now on, and for the opportunity to let the community come in and respond to the legislation and make available to you our opinions and our feelings about the program.
Mr. PUCINSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Silcott. Mr. Scheuer?
Mr. SCHEUER. Mr. Silcott, I very much appreciate your thoughtful testimony. I know it is going to be of great assistance to this subcommittee of the Education and Labor Committee in our deliberations. I have had considerable experience on the neighborhood level working with settlement houses like yours and now I have had some experience on the Federal level working with agencies like the poverty agency. I, too, welcome the extended hand from Washington, particularly as it gives you the wherewithal to perform your proper role even better.
I want to emphasize that far from diminishing your role the Federal Government just puts a litle more muscle in your arm to do the job you want to do.
I would fight to the death against the Federal Government substituting itself for a local voluntary agency such as yours.
Mr. Silcott. I think I would, too.
Mr. SCHEUER. Of course you would. There is a certain price tag that you pay for bigness. I don't think that there would be political acceptance in this country for a Federal Government that was omnipresent, that was functioning as a Federal Government agency in every block and neighborhood in the land.
I think that the voluntary settlement houses contribute a vital and indispensable quality of humanity, of locality, of neighborliness. They are able to avoid some of the straitjackets of bureaucracy. They can bring to these kids an individual sense of compassion and identification and local knowledge and local caring. They play an absolutely indispensable role.
I see this program as not competing with you, diminishing your function, but enlarging your area of effectiveness, giving you the muscle and wherewithal to perform the job that you have so well performed up until now.
I don't want there to be any mistaken feeling on anybody's part that this could be considered an intrusion of the Federal Government that would threaten the integrity of the local voluntary agency movement. Far from it. We feel that the one thing you don't have is sufficient funds to do the jobs that you are equipped to do and that you would like to do.
The one thing that the Federal Government has is finances. You have something that they never will have; that is your intimate knowledge of the neighborhood, your person-to-person identification with the kids in that neighborhood. The fact is that they look upon you as a friend, neighbor, colleague, and comrade in arms. We must preserve that neighborly relationship and exploit it because it makes your efforts and it makes the Federal aid so very much more effective than any pure and unalloyed Federal program of assistance could possibly be if the Federal Government weren't working through the local settlement houses in seeing to it that this social service role were performed.
So, with that comment I want to thank you and tell you how deeply grateful we are that you took the time from your heavy burdens and your tremendously busy schedule to come down here and give us your highly professional and deeply thoughtful views. I know they are going to be extremely helpful to the full committee.
Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Silcott, I am going to ask you the same question that I asked the previous witness. Mr. Scheuer's bill envisions going into programs involving day camps, day care centers, wherever activities for children are assembled, during the summer months.
Do you envisage any difficulties for these agencies, who would now become eligible for assistance, in setting up facilities for preparing and disseminating hot lunches?
Mr. Silcott. I don't see that it is a problem. I think most of these agencies have existing kitchens and equipment for preparing meals. What has been missing is the necessary funds to make the meals available.
Mr. PUCINSKI. Thank you for that answer. I know that question will be asked when we start marking up this bill. Of course, someone like yourself, who has had vast experience in this field, certainly is in a position to assure this committee that we need not anticipate any difficulty in developing the physical plant for distributing this assistance.
We are very
Mr. Silcott. As a matter of fact, this might stimulate other efforts on the part of the local agencies and community groups for getting into this and investigating their own resources. We just took on the sponsorship of an additional two community centers. With regard to one of them we will be developing some new facilities there. It seems to me that if there are going to be funds available for lunch programs one of the things we would want to build into that center is facilities so thau we can accommodate other youngsters.
So, I think the program will stimulate some positive reactions on the part of community groups and some investment on their own to facilitate the program.
Mr. PUCINSKI. That is very, very helpful to us. Mr. Silcott, we are very grateful to you for taking time from your schedule. You had mentioned earlier that you could have assembled a huge crowd of supporting witnesses, but there is an old saying that one man with courage is a majority. Your testimony, I think, was sufficiently convincing to speak for the tremendously large group of people whom I know you could have assembled. It is not the number of witnesses that we hear, but rather the quality of the testimony, that is important.
I would like to congratualte you for your very frank and forthright statement on how this legislation can help thousands upon thousands of young children in the New York area. grateful to you and thank you very much.
Mr. Silcott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PUCINSKI. Our next witness is Mr. Frank Stanley, Jr., the associate director of the National Urban League.
Mr. Stanley, we would like to welcome you to the committee. I would like to call on my colleague, Mr. Scheuer, to introduce you to the committee.
Mr. SCHEUER. Mr. Stanley, we are delighted to have you here today. I can say that my education in the field of civil rights and equal opportunity started with my work with the Urban League going back to the early 1950's. I think I cut my eye teeth on exposure to public affairs of great moment in the great fight to expand the opportunities available to all Americans to participate equally in American life through the wonderful group of professionals with whom I worked in the Urban League for the last 15 years and long before I first came to the Congress.
So, you and your organization played a major role in my education for the job that I hold now. So, you have a very heavy burden to bear. I do, on behalf of the committee, want to thank you very much for taking time out of your busy schedule to come and represent the Urban League and give us your views.
We will be very happy to hear you.
STATEMENT OF FRANK STANLEY, JR., ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE
Mr. STANLEY. Fine. Thank you very much, Congressman Scheuer.
Honorable chairman, members of the committee, the National Urban League is a professional community service agency founded in 1910 to secure equal opportunity for Negro citizens. It is nonprofit and nonpartisan, and interracial in its leadership and staff. The National Urban League has affiliates in 72 cities and 30 States and the District of Columbia. It maintains national headquarters in New York City.
A trained professional staff conducts the day-to-day activities of the Urban League. This staff throughout the country numbers more than 800 paid employees whose operations are reinforced by 8,000 volunteers who bring expert knowledge and experience to racial matters.
We appreciate this invitation to appear before your committee to add to your body of knowledge, the information and evidence that we have accumulated over the years as experts in the area and subject which are now before this committee.
After careful study of Congressman Scheuer's bill and our analysis of issues related to the matter, we wish to make the following statement.
In accordance with our historic conviction that free nutritional programs should be an essential service of public education, and our advocacy that summer education become increasingly more accessible and inviting as a major remedial period for slow learners, the National Urban League endorses the principle contained herein that would establish a special summer lunch program for 6- to 16-year-old children to complement the regular school lunch program carried out under the National School Lunch Act.
It will be a significant safeguard to the health and well-being of the Nation's children and should serve to encourage the domestic consumption of nutritious agricultural commodities and other foods.
We find that effective administration of this program is strengthened by providing this service through public recreation centers, public and private nonprofit day camps, child centers, summer camps, or any similar public or private nonprofit activity organized to promote the health or recreation of children. I would think that this definition would allow such funds to be used in conjunction with summer Government-sponsored programs such as day camps or resident camps not necessarily administered by traditional educational institutions.
As the Urban League prepares to assist communities with the decisions and judgments required to make America's schools more broadly and more deliberately inclusive, we stand poised to confront the dilemmas of policy formation, and the sometimes ever-more perplexing details of classroom management and personal guidance.
Education has always, philosophically speaking, had a dual role and responsibility in our society. At one and the same time, we have expected education to serve as a preserver of stability and a principal agent for change.
History records education, since the 19th century and even before, as having been an effective stabilizer, transmitting the knowledge of the past in support of the existing social structure.
What we need in a changing society and a changing world of work is for education to play both of its roles effectively-as an agent for change and as a preserver of stability. The failure to allow and foster education to serve as a creative agent for change may in fact insure the failure of its second function--preserver of stability. The fact is that unless education moves on as a creative agent for change there will be no stability to preserve.
In view of the current concern over proposals of Federal aid to education, it is interesting to note that the earliest instances of Federal participation in education were grants of aid to the States, While the U.S. Constitution contains no specific mention of education, the acts and statements of early Republican leaders clearly indicate that education was from the beginning conceived by many as a national responsibility.
The foremost example of this concern, of course, is found in the two famous land ordinances of 1785 and 1787.
The familiar credo contained in the ordinance of 1787, "Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged,” epitomizes this conviction.
By reserving to education the 16th section in every township carved out of the public domain, these ordinances gave lasting effect to this commitment.
Thus, even before the adoption of the Constitution, the Federal Government had declared a policy of supporting and promoting education.
Therefore, one must conclude that programs of direct Federal assistance, first with land grants and more recently with money, have long since become accepted elements of national policy. Doubtless the American educational system's progress today can be traced to Federal participation and support. Side-by-side with the customs of local and State control of education there has developed a tradition of Federal or national responsibility for education. And it would be in the finest educational and governmental tradition to provide special summer lunch programs as proposed under the provisions of Congressman Scheuer's bill.
That, gentlemen of the committee, concludes our formal statement. Mr. PUCINSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Stanley. Mr. Scheuer?
Mr. SCHEUER. Thank you very much, Mr. Stanley, for your thoughtful and provocative comment on the legislation. Also, your very interesting and incisive historical analysis of basic origins of Federal aid. We have not had this type of testimony before us.
I know it will be very interesting, informative, and useful to the full committee when they engage in their deliberations on this bill, suming we report out the bill to the full committee.
The rightness of this bill, namely, the recognition of the fact that hunger does not end when the school doors close in the spring, is so embarrassingly self-evident to me that I don't have any basic questions on your testimony.
I think it was a very solid and professional workmanlike presentation. When I drafted this bill I modeled it after the existing school lunch program which went from 6 to 16.
As you know, in the last year or two we have developed a whole congeries of poverty programs and Headstart programs and the like. We now have in the private voluntary field agencies like yours, settlement houses and others, that run day care centers aimed at the preschool kinds.
I am asking each professional witness who comes before us what his view would be to an amendment to this proposed piece of legislation that would reach down and include kids in the Headstart preschool category and include 3's, 4's and 5's as well as the 6 to 16 group.
What would your reaction be to such a proposal so that a church or a YMCA or a day care center could take the kids 3, 4 and 5 years age