Mr. SIMON. I tried reaching Mr. Ashbrook by phone but was unable to. I was able to get hold of Mr. Kramer and indicated that if they, for any reason wanted to have other witnesses at some time that we would cooperate with them at that point, but that this hearing would proceed.

If any other members of the subcommittee have any statements, I would be happy to hear from them. Mr. Kramer or Mr. Hawkins or Mr. Erdahl?

Yes, Mr. Kramer.

Mr. KRAMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to make some brief remarks.

First, I agree with the chairman that the statement that Mr. Ashbrook made when we started our hearings, was a strong statement but I also feel that no real specific changes were actually made on the statement.

Maybe perhaps I am looking at it as an attorney, but I think the statement was couched in terms of, "it would seem" and "it would appear," and "perhaps it will be found" rather than a definitive statement that in fact criminal activity had taken place and I wanted to offer that point for the record.

Second, I think that our concern, at least speaking for myself, my prior concern in the proceeding today is, as I recall, the imposition on the witnesses because of the lateness of the hour and the late request.

I certainly can understand the Chair's concern about that because it is one that I share in too, but I also feel that perhaps if we can get a significant degree of testimony and actual material as we possibly can from the various witnesses that have been asked to appear here that it would indeed be necessary to have the proper foundation work laid beforehand.

I would ask the Chair simply to insert into the record, if it has not been done, at this point, the letter of April 10, signed by Mr. Ashbrook directed to Mr. Brown in which much, a substantial amount of additional information was requested. It is my understanding that even as of this moment that information has not been forthcoming.

It does pertain specifically to the activities of some of the grantees and their relationship with the agency, which quite frankly would be a meaningful base from which to start questioning. Without having that material available, it does put us at some disadvantage.

I would also ask the Chair to consider our request, that we will be making I think at a later date, to subpoena the witnesses from the ACORN organization that have not willingly come forward. I think, depending upon what the factual material from the agency actually discloses when we have had the opportunity to review it at length and have seen it, the opportunity if the need then arises as a result of things that that information reveals to us, we will possibly recall some of the witnesses that have consented to join us today.

This is basically all the comments I would like to make at this time. [The information referred to above appears in the appendix:] Mr. Hawkins?

Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

May I say, I fully support the position taken by the Chair. I think it is certainly in order. However, speaking only as one member of the committee, I must express some great dissatisfaction with the manner in which these oversight proceedings are taking place in a circus-type

atmosphere. I do not think it is conducive to the good name of the Congress, and I think it is somewhat demeaning.

I fully appreciate the opportunity available to the members to request information, but it seems to me, however, that usually that information is generally requested through the Chair or through the committee proceedings.

If every member is going to run off half-cocked and begin irritating various departments and expect action overnight, I think that it is just a little bit unreasonable. I would like to register my grave displeasure with the fact that we are spending unnecessary hours on attempts to eradicate an agency of government and not enough time on some of the important issues of this Congress.

It just seems to me that this adds, I think, a great amount of disrespect for the legislative process when we do demean it. I would hope that we get back to a little degree of sanity and get on to the really serious business before us.

I have yet to see anything to corroborate any of the great charges, and I speak in this instance not as a lawyer, which I am not qualified to do, but certainly as one who has had many years of legislative experience. Charges which are couched in political language do not, in my opinion, do credit to those who address such letters openly to the public. We should either say what we mean and mean it, or else refrain from saying inciting remarks and statements that may be used by the press to unduly blemish the character of individuals.

I say that with respect to anyone, even those with whom I may disagree. This has been a farce so far, I think, and I hope that it would soon end and that some of us will not be required to keep attending these sessions and waste a lot of what I consider very valuable time.

Mr. SIMON. The Chair shares the opinion that we should bring this to a rapid conclusion. We will be proceeding on mark up starting next Tuesday and we will go from there.

I am advised that some of the witnesses have indicated they would prefer to be called individually. We will accommodate that wish.

Heather Booth, if you can identify yourself and the gentleman who is with you, who happens to be an old friend, we would appreciate that.

STATEMENT OF HEATHER BOOTH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

MIDWEST ACADEMY, CHICAGO, ILL.

Mrs. BOOTH. My name is Heather Booth. I am director of the Midwest Academy and a recipient of a national grant. I received a letter from the chairman of the committee requesting me to attend today and address three specific areas of questions.

I understand that the previous people who came before the committee were asked to comment under oath. I requested the assistance of a lawyer. This is Mr. Joseph Rauh and he is my counsel now.

Mr. SIMON. We welcome you. Unless there is a request for the witnesses to be sworn, we will proceed.

Mr. KRAMER. I think that would probably be preferable.

Mr. SIMON. I ask you to raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God?

Mrs. BOOTH. I do.

Mr. SIMON. You may proceed now with your statement. Let me add for this witness or any of the other witnesses, if you prefer to enter the statement in the record and then briefly summarize, that would be fine, however you want to proceed.

Mrs. BOOTH. Thank you.

I have looked forward to and welcome this chance to appear before you, both to respond to your concerns and to give recognition to the exceptionally fine work which VISTA volunteers and citizens groups have been doing.

By letter, you have asked how I came to be involved with the VISTA national grant program. To answer that I would like to review briefly how I came to be involved with community activity and start the Midwest Academy.

I have been working on behalf of poor and powerless people for about 20 years. It started in part in 1960 when Woolworth's refused to serve some young black people who had gone to their soda fountain in North Carolina and there was a national boycott. I joined the protest where I lived. When this was successful and blacks were served in the stores, it raised larger questions for me. What could be done so that blacks, and all citizens, could have the money to buy those hamburgers, once the barriers to eating were removed?

This increased my interest in social and economic justice and my commitment to participation in citizen activity. Along those lines, while at college in Chicago I helped with civil rights organizing. I later went to the State in which I was born, Mississippi, in 1964, and with thousands of other volunteers, helped in voter registration drives. That in part led to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I continued to have concerns in related areas.

At the beginning of 1972 I decided to establish a school, the Midwest Academy, which could analyze the techniques and approaches needed to keep ours a democratic society. We are a training school. We have a staff of instructors and consultants, who on a regular basis teach adults who come from a wide variety of organizations including neighborhood and civic groups, senior citizen organizations, consumer organizations, churches, health care organizations, trade unions, and the organizations of minorities and women.

The academy teaches skills based on three principles. The first is that our students should go out and try to win real improvements in people's lives. This includes lowering utility bills, helping to make better medical care available, insuring that public services are given on an equitable basis. Today the issue is not that people are not aware of what the problems are. Today, many people are aware of the problems, but think that nothing can be done about them. Seeing no improvement, no concrete gains, leads to apathy, hopelessness, and a cynicism undermining democracy. Winning improvements is essential in restoring faith in our country.

The second principle which we teach our students at the Midwest Academy is that people need to have a sense that they have the ability to impact on the decisions which affect their lives, a sense of their own power. This is essential in restoring faith in ourselves. This gets to the very meaning of participation and making democracy an active in

stead of a passive idea. We have seen a rise in the number of people dropping out, dropping out of schools, of churches, of participation in elections, out of sharing community responsibilities.

If we want our children to be able to lead secure lives, and I have two kids, then this trend has to be reversed. My belief is that if effective tools for participation are available to enough people, it will raise hope and diminish the disillusionment, isolation, and fear. This is why we urge our students to try to revive the forum of the town meeting.

Our third principle is that in order to restore and preserve improvements, organizations must be built and nurtured. It is in this sense that we talk about changing the relations of power, building organizations which then become permanent factors in the decisionmaking process and through which our precious rights can be retained. This is essen tial in restoring faith in each other.

Back to VISTA, and our involvement in the agency. I met Marge Tabankin about 1973 in my capacity as director of the academy. She was at the time, as you know, director of one of the most active foundations in the country, the Youth Project. She made it her business to find out which groups were doing effective work on behalf of the poor and less represented communities. The academy had become one of the most respected training schools in this field, so of course we knew of each other's work and we saw each other several times.

When we were designing our curriculum, I first corresponded with Sam Brown. I did not know him, though, of course, I knew who he was, a national organizer against the war and later the elected Treasurer of Colorado. I wrote to him to ask if the academy could reprint an article he had written on how to hold rallies. He granted permission and that was the only contact I had with him until he became director of ACTION.

About March 1977 after Marge Tabankin and Sam Brown were in office, I was asked to serve on a panel reviewing the past activities of VISTA in my region. I served reluctantly because I knew it would take a great deal of time and travel. But the potential and past history of VISTA was important to me and I believed Sam Brown to be sincere in his interest in serving the poor, so I agreed.

It was logical for ACTION to ask for our participation in this review, since our training has gained the respect of many of the leaders of citizen organizations around the country. For example, just two quotes from supporters. One is:

If we are to eliminate effectively the problems of poverty and injustice in America, it is important that organizations such as the Midwest Academy continue providing their valuable administrative training and consulting services to these organizations.

That is from Msgr. John J. Egan, assistant to the president, and director of the Center for Pastoral and Social Ministry, University of Notre Dame.

Or another comment:

At a time when many Americans despair of their ability to take control of the forces that shape their lives, more people should have the opportunity to learn the skills that the Midwest Academy teaches.

This was a comment by Jerry Wurf, international president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees.

I first saw Sam Brown, as I recollect, after I was invited to a discussion in the ACTION office. In this meeting in early May 1977, there was an exchange between his top career staffers and a number of citizen organization representatives on what kind of organizing was going on and what kind of services ACTION was mandated to support.

At this meeting, I remember most of us being enormously skeptical that ACTION would actually do what it said it should, namely, aiding programs designed to alleviate the causes of poverty. Our experience with other programs indicated that once involved, the bureaucracy would overwhelm you.

At the academy we also always argue that organizations must plan how to become financially self-sufficient and not dependent on outside funding or resources. Therefore, at this meeting I was reluctant to get directly involved with government support. At no time in the meeting was the idea of a national grant specifically discussed or certainly discussed by name. About the middle of June, I was called by a career VISTA staffer who suggested the academy submit a proposal to set a model for how volunteers might be used.

With great efforts to meet guidelines and deadlines, we submitted and were awarded a national grant contract starting September 1977 for 105 volunteers to help identify and train supervisors who would provide initial volunteer training for us to do inservice training and administration.

In a way, the choice of the phrase "national grant" is an unfortu nate one. Grant implies that a large amount of money was given away to be used at the discretion of the recipient, as is the case with a foundation grant, or a research grant. Of course, the VISTA national grant is not of this nature at all. It is a contract in fulfillment of which we provided a specified service.

The total amount given to us with which to provide this service was $596,315 over an 18-month period. Of this, $432,875 was for direct payments to VISTA volunteers, all of whom had been approved by VISTA at many levels. These payments for stipends and other expenses were at levels set forth in the VISTA guidelines over which we exercised no discretion. The bulk of the rest, about $120,000, went to 10 supervisory salaries, each supervisor earning on the average about $10,000 a year paid over an 18-month period.

Thus 92 percent of the whole amount of the grant simply passed through our books from VISTA to the VISTA volunteers and supervisors. Volunteers are paid about $4,800 a year for exceptionally demanding work and long hours. About 8 percent went for training, recruitment, and onsite visits.

You will notice that I did not mention the costs of rent, phone, postage, office equipment, and other overhead. These costs were not covered by the grant. The academy spent well over $37,000 on these items for which it was not reimbursed. This amount represents a loss to the academy and a direct subsidy to VISTA. I add that the average cost for the agency for recruitment, training, and payroll administration for one VISTA volunteer not on the academy grant was $640, but for the academy grant VISTA allocated only $363 per volunteer. This represents a substantial saving to VISTA and indicates how efficiently we ran our program.