PAGENO="0001" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WAR ON POVERTY PROGRAM OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES EIGHTY EIGHTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON H.R. 10440 & BILL TO MOBILIZE THE HUMAN AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES OF THE NATION TO COMBAT POVERTY IN THE UNITED STATES PART 2 HEARINGS HELD: INWASHINGTON, D.C.,. APRIL .15, 16, 17 20 AND 21 1964 Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor ADAM C POWELL Chairman Ci t J 1;~ PETER H. ~. FRELINGHIJYSEN, MC. FIFTH DISTRICT, NE\'V JERSEY U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 31-847 WASHINGTON : 1964 PAGENO="0002" COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR ADAM C. POWELL, New York, Chairman CARL D. PERKINS, Kentucky PHIL M. LANDRUM, Georgia EDITH GREEN, Oregon JAMES ROOSEVELT, California FRANK THOMPSON, JR., New Jersey ELMER J. HOLLAND, Pennsylvania JOHN H. DENT, Pennsylvania ROMAN C. PUCINSKI, Illinois DOMINICK V. DANIELS, New Jersey JOHN BRADEMAS, Indiana JAMES G. O'HARA, Michigan RALPH J. SCOTT, North Carolina HUGH L. CAREY, New York AUGUSTUS F. HAWKINS, California CARLTON R. SICKLES, Maryland SAM GIBBONS, Florida THOMAS P. GILL, Hawaii GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., California LOUISE MAXIENNE DARGANS, Chief Clerk RUSSELL C. DERRICKSOY, staff Director Dr. DEBORAH PAXTRmGE WOLFE, Eduáation Chief LEON ABRAMSON, Chief Coun~ei for Labor-Management PrnLIP it. RODGERS, Minority Clerk and Counsel CHaBLES W. RADCLIFFE, MiinotityClounsel for Eth,ca,t~on SUBcoMMIrrnn ON THE WAR ON POVERTY PROGRAM ADAM C. POWELL, New York, Chairman CARL D. PERKINS, Kentucky WILLIAM H. AYRES, Ohio PHIL M. LANDRUM, Georgia ROBERT P. GRIFFIN, Michigan EDITH GREEN, Oregon ALBERT H. QUIE, Minnesota JAMES ROOSEVELT, California CHARLES E. GOODELL, New York FRANK THOMPSON, JR., New Jersey DONALD C. BRUCE, Indiana ELMER J. HOLLAND, Pennsylvania DAVE MARTIN, Nebraska JOHN H. DENT, Pennsylvania Dr. DEBORAH PARTRIDGE WOLFE, Director PETER H. B. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey WILLIAM H. AYRES, Ohio ROBERT P. GRIFFIN, Michigan ALBERT H. QUIE, Minnesota CHARLES E. GOODELL, New York DONALD C. BRUCE, Indiana JOHN M. ASHBROOK, Ohio DAVE MARTIN, Nebraska ALPHONZO BELL, California M. G. (GENE) SNYDER, Kentucky PAUL FINDLEY, Illinois ROBERT TAFT, Ja., Ohio U PAGENO="0003" CONTENTS Hearings held in Washington, D.C.: Page April 15, 1964 721 April 16, 1964 829 April 17, 1964 923 April 20, 1964 1009 April 21, 1964 1083 Statement of- Baker, Mrs. Helen, member, board of directors, American Friends Service Committee; accompanied by Miss Barbara Moffett, director, community relations program 1034 Besse, Ralph M., president, the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co:~. 829 Bishop, Dr. C. E., executive director, Agricultural Policy Institute, North Carolina State College 899 Bonner, Hon. Herbert C., a Representative in Congress from the State of North Carolina 931 Breathitt, Hon. Edward T., Governor of Kentucky; accompanied by Miss Katherine Peden, commissioner, Kentucky Department of Commerce; and John Whisman, administrator, Kentucky Area Program Office 978 Brooks, Hon. Jack, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas 1120 Cavanagh, Hon. Jerome, mayor, Detroit, Mich 775 Daley, Hon. Richard J., mayor, Chicago, Ill 755, 758 Doran, Dr. Adron, president, Morehead State Teachers College, More- head, Ky., representing the NEA 1099~ Graham, Harry L., legislative assistant to the master of the National Grange 1014 Hecht,' George J., chairman, American Parents Committee, Inc., and publisher, Parents' magazine 970 Higgins, Msgr. George, director, Social Action Department, National Catholic Welfare Conference 945 Hirsch, Rabbi Richard G., Union of American Hebrew Congregations.. 1126 Johnson, Reuben, director of legislative service, National Farmers Union ioo~ Martin, Virgil, president, Carson, Pine, Scott & Co., Chicago, Ill 834 Nichols Thomas, chairman executive committee, Olin Mathieson Co 831 Nicholson, Mrs. Stephen J., executive secretary, General Federation ofWomen's Clubs 1051 Sanford, Hon. Terry, Governor of North Carolina 923, 931 Schifter, Richard, general counsel, Association on American Indian Affairs 1053 Schottland, Dr. Charles I., chairman, Division of Social Policy and Action, the National Association of Social Workers; accompanied by Ruloph Damstedt, Washington representative 1083 Scott, Hon. Ralph J., a Representative in Congress from the State of North Carolina 930 Tucker, Hon. Raymond R., mayor of St. Louis, Mo., president, U.S. Conference of Mayors 785 Vincent, Joseph J., superintendent of schools, South Park Independent School District, Beaumont, Tex 1120 Wagner, Hon. Robert F, mayor, New York, N.Y 721 Walsh, Hon. William F., mayor of the city of Syracuse, N.Y 794 Welsh, Hon. Matthew E., Governor of the State of Indiana; accom- panied by Jacques H. Le Roy, director, Indiana Youth CounciL - - 863 Whitten. E. B., director, National Rehabilitation Association 1068 PAGENO="0004" IV CONTENTS Statements, supplemental material, etc.: Baker, T~1rs. Helen E., member, board of. directors, American Friends Par& Service Committee, testimony presented by 1038 Bell, Alison, staff associate, American Association of University Women, telegram to Chairman Powell 1133 Bishop, Dr. C. E., executive director,- Agricultural Policy Institute, North Carolina State CoHege~ statementOf 899 Brademas, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana: General Eisenhov~ er s ~ ie~ s article by Walter Lippmann in the Washington Post of April 16, 1964~ 897 "Indiana's Low IncomOFamilies;" pamphlet entitled~ - 875 It W ill Be a Long `~\ ar article by Bernard D TN ossiter_. - 884 Branch, Harllee, Jr., Atlanta,Ga 919 Brèathitt, HOn. Edward T., Governor, State of Kentucky: Ke~tucky education by county (table) 989 Kentucky income by counties-Ranked by percent below $3,000 (table) 988 Percent of families with income belOw $3,000 (chart) 987 Ca~ anagh Hon Jerome ma or, city of Detroit 1\lich remarks by. 778 Daley, HOn. Richard J., mayor, Chicago, Ill., statement by 758 Higgins, Msgr. George, director, Social Action Department,~ National Catholic Welfare Conference: "A Religious View of Poverty," statement of the department of: social action_~ 946 Gallagher, Rt.~ Rev. Msgr. Raymond J., secretary, National Conference of Catholic Charities, statement of 952 Resolution adopted by the executive committee of the National Catholic Rural Life Conference, Urbana, Ill.,January 29, 1964. 955 Hirsch, Rabbi Richard G., representing the Commission on Social ACtion of Reform Judaism, testimony of 1126 Newsom, Herschel D~, master of the National Grange, statement of 1014 Schifter, Richard, general counsel, Association on American Indian Affairs, statement by 1053 Vincent, Joseph J., superintendent of schools, South Park Independent School District, Beaumont, Tex., proposed plan for Armed Services Institute for Training and Education for Young ~ - 1124 Walsh, Hon. William F., mayor, city of Syracuse, N.Y..,statement*by~ 794 Welsh, Hon Matthess E, Go~ ernor, State of Indiana Prepared remarks of 863 Sümniary Of a followup repOrt on the Indiana Youth Conserva- .tion Corps, Harrison State Forest, Corydon, Ind 866 Whitten E B , director National Rehabilitation Association Amendment to H R 10440 proposed by TN ational Rehabilitation Association - 1072 Queations and aiiswersèxplainhig the reasons for the amendment toHR 10440 1072 Statement of 1068 ~Tyatt, Robert H., président, National Education Association of the United States, statement of - 1099 PAGENO="0005" ECONOMIC OPPO1ITIJNITY ACT OF 1964 WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 1964 HousE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AD 1-Too SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WAR ON POVERTY PROGRAM OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, lVashi'rtgton, D.C. The ad hoc subcommittee met at 10 :10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 429, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Adam C. Powell (chairman of the committee) presiding. PRESENT: Representatives Powell, Perkins, Landrum, Green, Roose- velt, Thompson, Dent, Frelinghuysen, Ayres, Griffin, Quie, Goodeli, and Martin. Also present: Representatives Pucinski, Carey, Hawkins, Gibbons, Bell, Finnegan, Murphy (Illinois), Price, and Riehlman. Staff members present: Dr. Deborah Wolfe, education chief; Leon Abramson, chief counsel for labor-management, and Charles Radcliffe, minority counsel for education. Chairman POWELL. The committee will come to order. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Oregon. Mrs. GREEN. I request unanimous consent that an article which appeared in this morning's Washington Post by the very outstanding and noted columnist, Roscoe Drummond, be inserted in the hearings of the committee. Chairman POWELL. Without objection, it is so ordered. The chairman would like to note that Mr. Drummond is one of the outstanding spokesmen for the Republican Party. The committee will stand adjourned until Mayor Wagner arrives. He is the leadoff witness. (Shortrecess.) Chairman POWELL. The committee will come to order. 1 would like to welcome the mayor of my town, my village, my ft iend, the Honol able Robei t F W'ignei You may go right ahead. STATEMENT OP RON. ROBERT P. WAGNER, MAYOR, NEW YORK, N~.Y. Mayoi WAGNER Thank you, Mr Chanman and membei s of the committee, I count it a real privilege to be here before this committee today, whose chairman and one of whose members here I am happy to claim as my constituents and whom, along with many other members of this coimnittee, I am pleased to salute as very old friends. Because of the company, I couldn't feel more at home. Because of the subject, I couldn't feel more deeply that this is an important 721 PAGENO="0006" 722 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 occasion, involving the highest interests of the people of the city of New York. I am here to speak for them. Of course, as a citizen, I am concerned for the rest of the country, too. I think this legisla- tion is necessary for the national interest and for the welfare of every part of this country. There is no large city in this country of which I am aware, which does not know the problem of poverty. I want especially to emphasize that I consider this legislation to be very much in the national interest, for the Nation as a whole. While this legislation deals directly with those fellow Americans who are handicapped by poverty, the rest of us would also benefit. All of us would share very substantially in the advantages that would flow from even the partial removal of the blight of poverty from among our people or any part of them. We all pay a part of the cost assessed by poverty. Financially, it is an expense we all pay a part of. We pay it in the various forms of taxes for the several kinds of public welfare programs. This coming year the city's new budget provides over $464 million for the various activities of our welfare department. This is a $70 million increase over last year. The large bulk of this money is for chil- dren under 18 while the next largest category of persons receiving assistance from the city are disabled adults, followed by adults over 65. We pay for poverty in the cost of the upkeep of the slums; yes, we do pay for the upkeep of slums in lower returns on our real estate taxes. We pay for poverty in the loss of the taxes that poor people would pay if they were receiving average incomes instead of substandard ones, and in the loss of the purchasing power that these people would have; in terms of their decreased contribution to the gross national product; in the cost of hospitalizing them when they are sick, and supporting them when they are very young, and when they are very old, and when they get into trouble with the law. And these are just some of the financial costs of poverty. There are others. I have recited these to indicate what poverty costs you and me, the citizens and taxpayers, and the business firms of New York City, of Portland, Oreg., of Trenton, N.J., of South Bend, md., and of the countryside, too. Just as poverty is nationwide. and distributed equally between the cit~y and the country, so is the social cost of poverty, and among all the elements in the population. Certainly the interests of New York City are, indeed, deeply in- volved in the legislation before you. It is impossible for me to over- emphasize the importance which we attach to it-not just to the legisla- tion itself but even more to the program for which it stands, and the problem which it undertakes to attack. I refer to it as a problem. Actually, it is many problems. It is a complex of problems. It is a crossroad of problems, a network of problems. A considered and concerted attack on poverty-on its roots as well as on its manifestations-should be regarded as an unavoidable under- taking. It isn't a question of whether we should. It is a question of how, how much, and how soon. This legislation proposes nothing radical or radically new. This Nation has long recognized its obligation to do something about the poor, the underprivileged, the disadvantaged, and the un- fortunate. PAGENO="0007" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 723 Many of the titles in the Social Security Act are devoted to ~his purpose. The Public Housing Law of 1937 was directed entirely. to that essential objective. So are many other laws on the statute books of this Nation and many other programs authorized and appropriated for by this Congress. The basic theme of these laws is to help people help themselves and t~ assist and encourage The localities to help people-to help bring ~ople out of the morass~øf~belplessnesa and into the main road of the social and econi~mnrftfeTof theifcommunities and of the Nation. In other words, the legislation before you proposes to attack, in a more fundamental way, the same problem that the Congress has been attacking for a generation and on which Congress has spent billions of dollars. Let me say at this point that the people of N~* York City have paid more than their proportionate share of the~total amount of what the Federal Government has spent for this purpose. I am not saying this as a complaint but I do want to make this point in connection with the appeal that we are making here today for prompt considera- tion and action on the pending legislation which would contribute, in a significant way, to the attack upon h nationwide problem of which we in New York City have our proportionate share. It is interesting that we in New York City have about the same percentage of poverty in our populatiOn as in the rest of the country. It is surprising how precisely this works out. I will refer to these statistics in a moment. But first I want to stress that we do need Federal leadership. We need Federal funds. We need the incentive and the definition of the prob- lem and the kind of cooperation and mobilization of all resources, pub- lic and private, that will be facilitated by the passage of this law. The fact is that the Federal Government, the State governments, and most local governments have been spending a good share of their resources on poverty for quite a few years now. Back in 1927, New York City spent a total of $12,000 on public welfare and on poverty. Today we are spending almost a third of our entire $31~/3 billion budget on poverty and its effects. Recently, we made a list of New York City's governmental expendi- tures designed principally to sustain and reduce poverty and mdi- gency. We did this simply by scanning our budget. The total amount was $781 million for the current fiscal year. And I would guess that another $200 million is actually being spent for the same general purpose, which cannot be located in the budget by merely scan- ning it. I am thinking of some of the community activities in which our police department engages, such as its special youth services. And the same would be true of other major departments. Now let me recall, if I may, that I saw the importance-indeed the urgency-of a war on poverty quite sometime before President John- son proclaimed this war. In August of 1962-and that is almost 2 years ago-I addressed the New York City Council and said: New York City's poor and their poverty is the root of many of New York City's problems. The socioeconomics problems related to both unemployment and poverty present us with inescapable challenges to action. It will require the maximum ingenuity, energy and resources of all branches of our city government to achieve the solutions that must be found. To accomplish this, we need many PAGENO="0008" 724 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 specific measures. One thing I must say to you and to all my fellow New Yorkers- and today I direct these words to the members of this committee and the Congress- We dare not indulge ourselves in the useless luxury of *ishing that we did not have these problems or of hoping that if we just sit still, they will go away. They will `not. ,,. Last D~E~einher while I w'ts m Puerto Rico attending `t conference bii unemployment and automation, I said in a speech that heroic and unusual measures were required to meet the problem not just of unem- ployment-but of the special kind of unemployment that we have to- days including the unemployment of a substantial number of people who cannot readily be ti amed 01 1 eti `uned to fill the highh skilled jobs for ~which there are'O~ienings tockiy, nor for those jobs which ~vo~ld be created by a conventional-type public works program. So I said in Puerto Rico that, what we needed was a major public works program of two kinds-a coiiventional public works program to take up the slack in the skilled work force, and a special works program consisting of useful projects in which a majority~of those employed could be relatively unskilled and at. the same time be given some training. I proposed this early last December. Hence, I am very pleased to note that the Equal Opportunity Act now pending before. this coin- mittee makes provision in two separate titles, or at least authorizes the kind of undertaking I referred to as special public works in both titles 1 and 2. Many of us saw that the cost of poverty was mounting steadily and dramatically, both as a direct and an indirect charge upon the rest of us. We saw also that despite all the efforts being made to meet the impact of poverty, we weren't really making much headway-certainly not enough. In fact, I came to the conclusion that the problem was making headway against us, as a result of automation, among other factors. What we needed, I decided, was to take a fresh look at each of our antipoverty efforts and programs and to try to use each one to rein- force the other, focusing all of them on the goal of rescuing as many people as possible from the quicksands of poverty, in order to `convert them from social liabilities into social assets. It occurred to me that this had to be done on a social rather than an mclividual basis-and by a concerted, coordinated, and stepped-up effort. It had to be an effort that would enlist and enroll the maxi- mum participation by all the elements of the community in which these people live and by the community at large, citywide: statewide, and nationwide. Finally, I saw that we had to concentrate more effort on the roots of the problem of povertv-on the varied causes of individual and social disorganization and impoverishment. It was, of course, clear that this effort could best be made on a nationwide basis, with nationwide leadership and mobilization. But again I emphasize my feeling that local initia.tve and participation, including neighborhood leadership and participation, are essential t~ ~u~e~1 PAGENO="0009" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 725 Tod~y, many of our city programs, such as the neighborhood con servation program, the area services program, with both of which Chairman Powell and Mr. Carey of this committee are familiar, are based on these principles. From the point at which we had already arrived in our thinking, it was oniy a step to declare outright war against poverty at a city level I made that declaration in a formal address to our city council on January 14 As soon as President Johnson had outlined the national war against poverty, we asserted our intention of making the New York City front a part of the national front and lining up with the national army, so to speak. Now let me say a word about the very concept of trying to abolish poverty. I know we areS not going to abolish poverty the next year or the year after, or for a very long time to come. I don't know whether we can ever succeed in abolishing it entirely. But we cer- tainly must make major and meaningful progress in that direction. We really have got to get ahead of the problem and make headway, or we will be in a very sorry condition in many parts of our country. The urgency of this need is all mixed up with the revolution of rising expectations that has been sweeping the world for the last two decades. In this 7th decade of the 20th century, our affluent society simply cannot afford an impoverished 5th. It makes for social dynamite; besides, it costs too much. Poverty is much more difficult to define than it is to characterize. The famous British pundit, Dr. Samuel Johnson, once characterized poverty as "a great enemy to human happiness. It certainly destroys liberty, and it makes some virtues impracticable and others extremely difficult." That might be called a British understatement for anyone who has seen the kind of poverty that most of us have seen and which the legislation before us is trying to do something about. In getting underway with our efforts in New York City, we decided first of all to take some rough measurements of the amount and kind of poverty that existed in our city. So we mobilized the appropriate city agencies and directed them to review all official figures, including their own, and to come up with a report on the proportions of. poverty in New York. The result was a preliminary study we called the dimensions of poverty in New York City. The figures in our study of the dimensions of poverty in New York City show that 389,000 families plus 320,000 single individuals in New York live in conditions approximating poverty. This is one of every five New Yorkers. This is exactly the same ratio as that which exists for the country as a whole. You might be interested to know PAGENO="0010" 726 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 that these impoverished people consist of 106,000 Negro families, 69,000 families of Puerto Rican origin, and 214,000 white, non-Puerto Rican families. Of the total, 47.9 percent are Negroes and Puerto Ricans, while 52.1 percent are non-Puerto Rican whites. The study also disclosed that the largest single group of the poor whites are the aged. Of course, the poor in our city, as elsewhere in the Nation, have a different set of characteristics than they did 50 or even 25 years ago, and the problems they are up against are different. For one thing, they have a greater experience of permanent poverty, lasting from generation to generation. For another, there is a much greater per- centage of aged and aging people among the poor today; and it is precisely among this group that poverty is the most cruel in its effects. New York City has initiated many programs for its aged, at a cost approximating $100 million yearly. Indeed, speaking generally, the array and extent of social services available in New York City for needy and disadvantaged people are, we think, greater than in any other city in the country. But here again I must candidly concede that even though the cost. grows greater, the problem grows greater, too. Let me tell you something now about. the people whom we call the poor or the impoverished. .1 know them. I see them every day. They are white, black, Puerto Rican, Czechosiovak, Hungarian, Cuban, Anglo-Saxon, Irish. German, Jewish, Polish, and Italian. In short, they are New Yorkers and Americans. In the impoverished areas in New York City. which have been called pockets of poverty, you can knock on many doors and you will find heartbreak. But you will also find in those same neighborhoods an ample number of families and individuals exemplifying the highest qualities of honesty, integrity, diligence, industry, and sacrifice, and the highest moral principles, living next door to the most disorganized. Some of the people are so psychologically bruised and frustrated by their attempts to climb the steep walls of the deep well in which they feel themselves to be immersed that they have resigned themselves to life at its bottom-as did their parents and, in some cases, their grandparents. Yet we know that some of these people, certainly many of them, and perhaps all of them, can become useful and productive members of their community at some level of usefulness. It is up to us to provide the help. It is not only up to us morally; it is also up to us, as I have already said, from a straight dollars and cents point of view. I think I have spent more than enough time making the case for the need for this legislation. Now I want. to t.alk about the legislation itself. First of all, I want to emphasize that what is involved is not simply a matter of eovernmental expenditures and governmental effort. Even if the Congress were to increase the amount authorized far beyond that now authorized in this bill, and if all the cities and local- ities collectively were to increase their allocations for the war against noverty, it still would not have the impact that is necessary. What is needed-and this is emphasized in this legislation-is the involve- ment of the entire community and the mobilization of all community resources, including and especially the involvement of the people in PAGENO="0011" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 727 the neighborhoods in which the antipoverty efforts are to be concen- trated. In other words, it is to be hoped and expected that the Federal allocations authorized in this bill will prime not only the pumps of the local and State governments, but also the pumps of effort and involvement of all the neighborhoods and communities and areas which are affected. I emphasize that the local governments, with their limited revenue resources, have no hope of doing the full job by themselves. And I know I speak for all cities-although I can only speak with authority for New York City. In New York City we are alrea.dy doing almost all we can do, without some radically new revenue resources. The executive budget for New York City for the coming fiscal year, as it is being announced in New York City today-the budget I am recommending to our legislative bodies for their consideration and de- cision-amounts to $3,350 million. That is the second largest govern- mental budget in the Nation. Only the Federal budget is larger. But our budget is, despite its size, an austerity budget. We have had to cut back and place some of our departments and agencies on short rations. We are going to be putting out electric lights and watching our use of office supplies, just as the executive branch is said to be doing in Washington. We will be watching each penny as well as each dollar in order to have the money to pay for the most urgent essentials, including our participation in the national poverty program, under the terms of the bill now before you. Our city budget carries an item of $15 million new money for our participation in the national poverty program to pay Our share under title II and in the pertinent programs under title I, and also to do that which we feel we have to do and for which Federal grants will be insufficient. Perhaps it would be useful at this point if I were to sketch in broad outline some of the programs which we in New York City might pro- pose for inclusion under the umbrella of the Equal Opportunity Act, if and when it passes-programs that we probably would not be able to mount in practical scale without Federal leadership and assistance. I am thinking, for instance, of a vastly expanded program of tenant education and training in homemaking and housekeeping, which is one of the really basic and essential programs for the improvement of slum conditions. We are starting such a program on a small scale with funds we have been able to get from the Federal and State Govern~ ments, for training mothers who receive benefits under the aid-to- dependent children program, in order to enable them to improve their own homes and to teach others. Another major program for which we would need the hope that we could get through H.R. 10440 would be a program of preschool training to provide special educational stimulus and learning experi- ence for children of poverty-gripped families. Still another such program would be a plan for special health aids to enable people who have some physical incapacity or slight handicap which prevents them from working, to be put into shape for work. Still another program is a large-scale cleanup and rough fixing up of slum buildings which cannot be brought into livable shape by any of the other antislum weapons we have. PAGENO="0012" 728 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Still another would be the fixing up of school rooms, and school buildings, and school facilities which otherwise could not be fixed up. Still another would be training what we call supers, and are some- times called janitors, for the smaller apartment buildings in the city. There is a great dearth of them, especially dependable ones. An on- the-job training program in cooperation with the real estate industry is being studied and planned right now. There are many others, in different categories, such as consumer edu- cation, for instance, but the ones I have just listed are at least typical of the programs we have in mind. Now let me go as quickly as possible through the bill and express my judgments on the various titles in the broad sense. With regard to title I, part A, the Job Corps; we are strongly in favor of it and see nothing but benefit for the young people who will find a place in the Corps. There is a problem which apparently the bill does not envision; namely, the problem of recruiting those young people who most need the experience that is to be obtained through the Job Corps. Most of these particular young people will be very hard to reach, and even harder to convince that they should enroll in the Job Corps. J cannot speak for the rest of the country, but this would certainly be true in New York City. It wifi take a lot of "hard sell" but, about all, it will require the per- suasion and influence of indigenous community groups, and of the kind of community action organizations that is provided for in title II;. and of which we have a number now in existence in New York City, tobring forward the young people who most need the help of the Job Corps. Typical of the kind of our existing communication groups which would be very helpful for this and other purposes is the Asso- ciated Community Teams in Harlem, for whose development Chairman Powell can claim much credit and to whose support the New York City government has contributed. We in the city government of New York City would expect to pro- vide all the help that we could, directly or indirectly, to help make this program a success. Of course, we are very strongly in favor of both part B and part C of title I; namely, the work-training programs and the work-study pro- grams. These would be very highly desirable for us. The work train- ing program represents nothing new in concept, but this program is certainly very welcome in terms of the Federal leadership and finan- cial support that would be available. The work-study program for college students does have elements of newness. We have recently been thinking of this in New York City, and we would be very glad mdeed to have this program, as provided for in part C, serve as a model and pilot. As for title II, as I think I have already indicated, we are strongly in. favor of it. I do have one thing to say about this particular pro- gram. I feel very strongly tha.t the sovereign government, of each lo- c~tlity in which such a commimitv action program is proposed, should have the power of approval over the makeup of the planning group, the structure of the planning. group, and over the plan. It may well be that appropi iate language to this effect should be written mto the bill As for title III, I do not have much to say about that. We do not PAGENO="0013" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 729 have many farms in New York City, although we have some in Staten Island; and the census of 1950, at least, recorded several farms in Brooklyn and Queens. I must confess, however, that the census of 1960 did not find them. Turning now to title IV, we strongly favor this-both part A and part B. I think it most important that incentives be offered to private enterprise to employ long-term unemployed persons. The suggestion has been made that a tax incentive be provided for the employment of the unemployed, especially the long-term unemployed. Of course, any proposals for tax incentives run into major objections immedi- ately-the major objection being that government treasuries need more money and not less. However, we look forward to an experience under the provisions of the incentive program established in part A of title IV. We are already making some plans for taking advantage of part B, the small business loans. I feel that it is vitally important both to involve the business community in the antipoverty program and to encourage the entry into business of qualified individuals belonging to the minority groups. The special loan guarantees provided under part B of title IV seem to me to be a fine approach to this problem. I hope it works. We are going to do everything we can to make it work. As for title 17, our commissioner of welfare feels very strongly that this program is most desirable. Finally, as for title VI, the one section in that title which is of special interest to us is the volunteer program which is a scaled-down version of the old National Service Corps. We supported the legis- lation for a National Service Corps and developed an extensive set of program ideas for it. Now under title VT we would be glad to have the assistance of whatever size volunteer group could be assigned to us. We have had a very good experience with the Peace Corps trainees who have come to New York for their training. We have used them with great benefit by attaching them to our area services offices and neighborhood conservation offices in slum or deteriorating neighbor- hoods. The taste we have had Of these young Peace Corps people makes us very eager to have some of the volunteers who would be, we would hope, of the same caliber. That is the story as far as the pending bill is concerned. I hope that it has been helpful to this committee to have my de- tailed comments on it. In summary, I strongly support this legislation, and urge that your committee join in pushing it through the House so that it may be ready for Senate consideration at the earliest possible time. H.IR. 10440 is not a perfect or total prescription for the cure of poverty on a nation- wide basis. I don't think it pretends to be. I recognize it for what I think it really is-and no more than it is-an assortment of pro- grams which can enable the Federal Government to induce large-scale local and community participation in a farfiung and, hopefully, con- certed effort to attack some of the major aspects of poverty in this country. The $900-odd million authorized in this bill is not going to do away with poverty. The amount of Federal money which might possibly be allocated to New York City is not going to do the job or even begin to. As I said a few moments ago, the city of New York is al- ready spending practically a billion dollars a year for this purpose. PAGENO="0014" 730 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 We already have such programs as Mobilization for Youth and JOIN which have Federal support and which are pointed in directions similar to those in which the pending bill is pointed. So is the Man- power Development Training Act and the Vocational Education Act., recently approved by Congress. In other words, we in New York City do not look at the Equal Op- portunity Act, in itself, as either a bonanza or a cure-all. But it does sound a trumpet which, added to those which hopefully will be sound- ed in all the communities and regions of the country, will collectively signal an effort which can make a genuine impact on the problem. That is our hope. It must be our determination. Chairman POWELL. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for your most excellent presentation. I am very happy you referred to the Domestic Peace Corps because that was an experiment, a pilot project that grew out of the juvenile delinquency program authored by the gentlelady from Oregon, Mrs. Green, and which in testimony here the other night be- fore this committee was explained in detail by Mr. Wingate, showing how it has worked. I would like to ask a couple of questions. No. 1, it has been said that local government should take the initiative in dealing with the problem of poverty. In your opinion, why have not local govern- ments taken the initiative before? Mayor WAGNER. Mr. Chairman. I would say that I can only speak about New York City. I think local governments have had to take the initiative for a good many years. As I pointed out here, we do spend a great deal of money at the present time, even without any Federal assistance or State assistance, we pay a pretty large bill in this battle, but we do feel that the further assistance that we could receive and the direction and cooperation of the Federal Government would be very, very helpful. It is just en- larging on areas that we have already worked on and also working on the new programs that would possibly ensue from a bill of this type where the Federal Government in many instances would pay 90 per- cent and the locality 10 percent. As you know very well, very few localities haven't financial prob- lems, the ability to raise enough money to meet the demands and the necessities of the people in the area. Chairman Pow1~rL. I was not referring to New York, because I know you have done a wonderful job. In fact, some of the projects that have come out of this committee you have been carrying them almost totally for the past few months, such as. the Domestic Peace Corps. You have had a pretty good program for that since December. Next I would like to ask, do you think there will be any problem in New York City in getting young people to enter the residential centers? Mayor WAGNER. Well, I think that it is going to be a job to sell them on the beneflt.s of such a program; that is, the ones I suppose that you have to get, the hard core, and they are the ones we do find a problem even in our training programs that we do get underway. Surprisingly enough, when we opened up some of these area offices under the joint program, we were overwhelmed by the number of young people who came in for training. We actually didn't have the physical facilities to handle it. PAGENO="0015" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 731 We now have to enlarge it. But YOU will find that these are the ones that I am sure yOU would not have to have in one of these camps, and I think it is going to be a job to go out and sell them and I am sure it will need community support. That is the reason I emphasized as much as I could, not only should various governments participate in the program but it is very essential to get the people in the community, and we do find, I am sure, every community, whether they are of the wealthy, middle class, or poor, we do find a lot of good people who are willing to assume responsibility if they are asked to do so. Chairman PowEn~. The other night, Mr. Wingate brought out in examination before us, that the number of applicants for residential training and Peace Corps men amounted to 15 to 1 for the number of places they had available. I just wanted that for the record. Mr. QuIR. Along that line, if you will yield, I was wondering if the mayor could tell us, of the two Job Corps programs which one would fit the best and would there be any difference in the two on the young men who would likely take part in it? I mean one is the conservation camp where the person would learn reading, writing, and arithmetic and basic human skills and work habits. The other is the camp that would be like a military base. Mayor WAGNER. I think both would be very, very useful because you have problems in both fields. Of course, we do try to in some of our programs, in working with the board of education, to be able to give some of these youngsters and sometimes adults, of course, too, some of the basic training in reading, writing, and basic education. You don't necessarily have to send them away somewhere to give them that training. Chairman POWELL. The gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Perkins. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to join with you in welcoming Mayor Wagner to testify before this committee. I have always regarded Mayor Wagner as one of the outstanding public offi- `cials of the Nation. I am very much impressed with the testimony, especially the amount of money that you are spending in New York City trying to do something about the problem. At the same time, you state that you have just about done everything that you can possibly do and at the same time the problem keeps getting greater. Mayor Wagner, I notice you stated that there would have to be a hard selling job done in getting enrollees for the Job Corps. You are familiar with your employment offices in New York City. Do you anticipate having any difficulty when this program is enacted, getting enrollees for the Job Corps? That is, for the conservation part of the Corps and for the training centers? Mayor WAGNER. No. I say I think we have so much material that you would have to have a great many facilities to get into that ques- tion. I think that you will always find some difficulty in getting to some of the hard core young people. Our figures, for instance, in New York were a little lower than the average figures of most of the other cities in the country on unemploy- ment but we still have a great many. It runs into the hundreds of thousands. A lot of them are young people. So you would have to have a great many facilities before you would run short of ma- terial. But first of all you would get the ones with a little more PAGENO="0016" 732 ECONO~IIC OPPORTD~ITY ACT OF 1964 ambition and desire and you would have to work on the others, too, and we can't neglect on the others, because maybe through no fault of their own they are in the frame of mind that they have `become almost frustrated and if they have a kind word, somebody taking an interest in. them, they show ability. We have found in working with our youth board that some of the youngsters never had any understanding or care from their families or friends. That, when somebody does show some interest in them. their latent talents come out. Mr. PERKINS. If I understand you correctly, and what I am driving at, we already have the machinery, in existence, for instance, though the State employment offices, where we. can carefully screen these youngsters and the ones who should be assigned to conservation work would be assigned to the conservation camps and in all probability the youngsters that had only a third, fourth, fifth grade education and the youngster with a better education, through the employment serv- ice and the guidance counselors that we would have in connection with the service and the information that the employment offices would obtain from schools and other agencies, there would not be any problem separating the youngsters who should be assigned to the Job Corps, the conservation part, and the ones who should be assigned to training centers for better advanced training. Mayor WAGNER. I will say, Congressman, to merely be able to put them in various ca.tegories would be very difficult. The problem is to give them the training. This costs money. And the counseling serv- ice. I think it is important., too, tha.t people. when they get some training, ought to be able to look forward to a job. I think the most disappointing thing that could happen is that you would train people, and sometimes we find that has ha.ppe.ned in our vocational schools; that is why we are taking a look at our voca.tiona.l training program in New York, because we find in some instances we are training young people for jobs that are not available to them. Mr. PERKINS. I agree with you wholeheartedly in that statement. but are not the employment offices in a. better position to make that judgment, to decide who is better qualified for vocational training, to decide who is better qualified to go to the tra.ining centers that perhaps have just a. little less than a high school education, and to decide who should be placed in the Job Corps and conservation work? We already have all that machinery in existence and it will not. be any problem if this legislation is enacted. Am I correct in that statement? Mayor WAGNER. I would say that we have these setups now and they are not solving the problem. I think we have to try to use some new ideas in this. For many of them, it is a question of not just hav- ing them come into an employment center and fill out a slip and get a job. It is a question of having to stay with them for some time and counseling them so that they will come back into society and then make a. contribution. Mr. PERKINS. sow. under the work training program, I noticed in glancing through the mayor of Syracuse' testimony that he has more or less objected to the Job Corps because it. takes youngsters away from their home, it tears up home enviromnent. Don't you feel tha.t in many instances that it is the appropriate thing to do, to place youngsters in PAGENO="0017" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 733 conservation camps, especially when they want to go away from home, to give them some special training? Mayor WAGNER. Congressman, I only wish that all of them would like to be at home, but I think in so many instances the home envi- ronment is so bad that they are not anxious to be there and that is one of the reasons that they do get into trouble. They just don't want to go home and associate with others and form the gangs which we have been rather successful in working with through our youth board. But I think that many of them would find a better environ- ment in some of these camps under some supervision where they don't have some supervision at home Mr. PERKINS. We are going to be under the 5-minute rule, I under- stand, this morning. Do you feel that a work study program for the high school young- ster in addition to the work training program, as provided for in the legislation, would be advisable? Mayor WAGNER. I know from our exeprience, Congressman, we have initiated with our board of education and our civil service commission a program-I think we have about 600 or 700 youngsters in- volved in it at this point who were potential dropouts in high school. The board of education, their teachers, and principals, selected these young people as ones about to drop out. We then initiated this pro- gram where they worked part time for the city and also go to school at the same time. It is interesting when they say the average dropouts in some of the schools in the lower economic level runs as high as over 50 percent, with these youngsters who got an opportunity to work and supple- mental income and finding out that work has a certain amount of dignity to it in getting their school training, I think our dropout per- centage was about 3 percent. Mr. PERKINS. Thank you very much. Chairman POWELL. The gentleman from New Jersey. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to join in welcoming Mayor Wagner to this committee and express my sympathy for the problems he faces as mayor of that city. I am sure we all share your concern. As the gentleman from Kentucky has pointed out, we operate under this inhuman rule of no more than 5 minutes of questions. I have about eight of them, mayor. I will make mine brief. Mayor WAGNER. I will try to make my answers short. Mr. FRELINGHiTYSEN. You indicated that local initiative in New York City has been characteristic even without Federal and State help. You did not mean to imply you did not receive Federal or State help? Mayor WAGNER. I don't know whether I said it was characteristic. I said in some areas we have foirnd that and we can find that in most areas. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Well, in your own city, local initiative surely has a major role? You are not suggesting that there is not Federal and State help? Mayor WAGNER. No, I emphasized that we need that Federal and State help but we need the local initiative and we can't ask the peo- ple-maybe I didn't understand you. 31-847-64-pt. 2-2 PAGENO="0018" 734 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Are you receiving aid? Mayor WAGNER. We are receiving Federal funds. Mr. FRELINGHITYSEN. How much are you receiving in terms of Fed- eral assistance in this general area of fighting poverty? Mayor WAGNER. We have to calculate that because one-third of our welfare program is Federal assistance. We do receive assistance in some of the other programs-housing, and so forth. Mr. FRELINGHtTSEN. If you can give us a figure, roughly, of what you receive and also what you receive from the State- Mayor WAGNER. Federal assistance is more. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I would assume so. How much would you expect to get from this bill? What is the significance of this $15 mil- lion that you say has been set aside for participation in the national poverty program? Of course, there is no reference to New York City in this bill at all. What makes you think you will get any money fromit? Mayor WAGNER. We may not. I realize that I maybe painted that with too broad a brush. This $15 million will be used for our campaign, part of it would be used, depending on how much is available to us, when and if the legislation is passed. But we will use that money, also, for our own programs. That is not just set aside merely for the amount of money that we might expect from the Federal Government. As a matter of fact, we had hoped to even put a little more in this program, but because of the tightness of our budget, the limit that we could do at this point was $15 million. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. How much might you expect from this new program? Mayor WAGNER. As I understand, the ceiling to any State is 12 per- cent, and we would hope that in all fairness we would receive roughly around half of that amount, because we could have roughly about half the population of the State. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Do you think it is going to be done on the basis of population? Mayor WAGNER. I think any person who is mayor would argue to try to get as much as he possibly could. I would assume that depends on what is in the final bill and what the agency would set up under its rules and regulations. We have not attempted to calculate any par- ticular figure. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. As the bill is written, eight States might get all the money, and New York State might get none. Do you think some assurance should be written in the bill that your State at least would get some fraction of the total? Mayor WAGNER. I would say I prefer to see something written in the bill that New York City gets a share. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEX. I assure you there is no such protection for your city or State at the present time. Mayor WAGNER. I would assume that those who even under the present-I would like to see something even stronger along that line go in the bill. I would assume that those who would be responsible for the program would not ignore the large cities, which have a real problem. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We assume a great deal, but the trouble is that we are faced with the writing of legislation that will not provide PAGENO="0019" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 735 this kind of protection. I would think it might be wiser to put in cer- tain guidelines and safeguards so that a city such as yours would have a fair assurance of receiving a fair amount of money. Mayor WAGNER. I would have no objection to that. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I assume your needs for additional Federal assistance will far outstrip any amount available to your State even if your State would get 121/2 percent that is available. Mayor WAGNER. I think that would be true of any large city. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I see you criticize the language of the bill with respect to bypassing the local governments in approving these com- munity action programs. You are suggesting specifically that local governments should participate. Mayor WAGNER. That is right. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. In approving or disapproving of the projects. You note this is not included in the bill at the present time Mayor WAGNER. That is correct. Mr. FRELINGHtTYSEN. I am also interested in the problem of recruit- ing for the Job Corps. You suggest that the hard core unemployed among our young men would be the prime material for this Job Corps. If you were given a quota of 40,000, which is proposed for the initial year, and given the authority to select, on what basis would you select? How would you suggest that the Job Corps could keep these young men for the full 2 years of their tour of duty? What kind of discipline would you provide? I might say that there was a small project in my own State, the so- called Belleplain project, which lost about 6 of the 16 or 18 enrollees in the first week of the program. So it might well be that if they were not sufficiently motivated that they might drop out of the program before it got underway. How would you handle that? Mayor WAGNER. That could very well be. I think in these programs you have to get at the hard core and a good deal would depend on those in charge who would give some incentive to the youngsters. I think there is no doubt you would have in any program a dropout, but as the program proceeded and if, as we would hope, it would be successful, word gets back and gets around, that we are going to be able to get somewhere with this program and not feel that they are being put in a semimilitary organization for no purpose at all. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I wish I had time to ask you what you mean by "hard core" and what you mean by "incentives." What kind of incentives? Mayor WAGNER. I will be glad to write to you, Congressman, and I will answer you in detail. Mr. FRELINGHnYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Chairman POWELL. Mr. Landrum. Mr. LANDRUM. Mayor Wagner, I am delighted to see you before the committee this morning. I am grateful for your statement in support of the legislation. I regret that other engagements have pre- vented me from hearing your statement. I have read it carefully and I appreciate the constructive suggestions you have made. I wonder how you think section 209 will take care of the criticism just voiced by the gentleman from New Jersey about the possibility of no allocations being made to the State of New York or to New York PAGENO="0020" 736 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 City or about the distribution of this among needed sections. Now section 209 gives the authority to the Director to establish the criteria for determining the allocation of money based on need. Are you familiar with the section ? Mayor WAGNER. Yes. Mr. LANDRUM. Do you think that is a satisfactory provision insofar as assuring that the money that. we do appropriate will go to the needy sections? Mayor WTAGNER. As I said, it could be more specific if you would want it that way but I believe it certainly covers in the categories the problems that we have and, again, I am sure, anyone administering this program would not just ignore the larger citie.s. Mr. LANDRUM. Very specifically, Mayor Wagner, what do you mean? Do you intend to convey the impression that we should allo- cate x number of dollars to each State? Mayor WAGNER. No, I think, as you have t.he ceiling stated in here, the top that can go to a.ny State, I think you might get into a great deal of difficulty and might delay the passage of the bill in trying to get that specific. Mr. LANDIrUM. Is it not true, Mayor, that the problem t.hat is with us here in this legislation is that it is an impossibility to allocate definite sums to deffnit.e States ? Are we not going to be compelled to allocate it under a formula. such as this in 209? Mayor WAGNER. I believe so. I said, of course, I would be de- lighted to have it stated in the bill how much we would get. It would be a good amount, but I realize that it would be impossible to do it throughout the whole United States. Mr. LANDRIJM. So that, when we are dealing with the subject of poverty, we are going to have to provide enough discretion, enough leeway on the part of the Director, to deal with it wherever he finds it and not be in a straitjacket insofar as dealing with it within the con- fines of a Stat.e or within the confines of a. city? Mayor WAGNER. That is correct.. I think tfiat is so, Congressman. as you know so much better than I do in many of the other areas of Federal assistance. Mr. LANDRUM. Surely von do not take. seriously the su~ested an- ticipation on the part ~f the gentleman from Ne~w Jersey~that New York City might not get some of this money? Mayor WAGNER. I sincerely believe that those in charge of the prograrn~- Mr. LANDRUM. He does not. scare you, does he? Mayor WAGNER. No. Mr. DENE. Especially this year. Mr. LANDRUM. Thank you. Chairman POWELL. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Ayres. Mr. A~urs. Mr. Mayor, it is a pleasure to have you before the committee. Following up the statement of the distinguished author of the bill, Mr. La.ndrum from Georgia., based on the testimony that you have given here this morning, I think New York could use the whole pro- gram-New York City. You have pointed out here on page 7 that you have 389,000 families plus 320,000 single individuals in New York living in conditions approximating poverty. With a percentage like PAGENO="0021" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 737 that, Mayor, confining my 5 minutes to the Job Corps, and assuming you got your 6 percent that you said you would not necessarily be hap- py with but you would settle for it~- Mayor WAGNER. We haven't had any official offers. Mr. AYRES. Do you think, Mr. Mayor, that in view of the fact that 59.5 percent of all of the young men in the city of New York that are called up to take the draft examination are rejected, that in itself would give you far beyond the 2,400 that the 6 percent would give you. The number of court cases involving juvenile delinquents over a 1-year period would also give you 6 percent. The number of unemployed high school graduates alone would give you 6 percent. The number of illiterates that you have would give you 6 percent. The number of high school dropouts would give you 6 percent. Which of these five groups we are considering would you give prior- ity to? Mayor WAGNER; In the first place, Congressman, we spend a good deal of our own money on those problems. I don't believe that we are very far off on the general average of rejects from military service throughout the country. On juvenile delinquents, those figures can be deceiving. I think a lot depends-we had probably far less cases in the past when we didn't have as much law enforcement as now, but we have increased our police force and police our activities through the youth board and others, the youth groups in the police depart- ment. This has raised the number of cases. Now, it is very difficult to know whether 10 years ago, before these figures, we had more or less juvenile delinquency. We do know from the records of our youth board that have been charged with this that we have done a little bet- ter, in deference to my colleagues here from the other cities,, a little better in the past few y e'u s in leveling off the incidence of juvenile delinquency I would say what we would `have to do is perhaps use it in all of those aieas, not being `tble to tccomphsh everything in every area, but to realize that they are all very important. Mr. A~Es.' If you were going to do that, then, you would agree with m'~ny of us on the committee who feel th'tt you are going to h't~ e to have possibly five different programs within the Job Coips because y~u could not possibly have the same program for th~ il- literate as you would for the high school' dropout. Mayoi MT ~GNER Sometimes there is not much difference between the two.'' ` Mr. AYREs. How about "the high school graduate you have in New Yoik ~ ho is unemployed ~ You could not put him in the program At le'ist he would not be too happy M'~yor WAGNER Th'it is correct I think that is a problem with the high school graduate. I think that is why we emphasize continually thiough our bo'~rd of educ~ttion, in other w'tys, the necessity of com ~leting the high school' education. `Most of these~ people who do complete the education can find a position. , Mr. AYRES. You see, Mr. Mayor, in' your city of New York, in fact the whole State for that matter-there are only ,three States in the United States that have a higher percentage' of draft rejectees. The point I' am getting at is with the good education system that you e w ithin the city, wh~ do w e have this higher percentage when PAGENO="0022" 738 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 this percentage in itself would more than fill the quota which might be assigned to you? Mayor WAGNRE. We are a city that has a great deal of movement. We have people coming from other area*s into New York and many of these, particularly the youngsters, have not had the same educational opportunities and, therefore, it is an added burden for us and we are willing to share it because we do realize that these migrations to New York have been a. great source of labor supply for us. Therefore, we have to assume those other responsibilities in order to have that labor supply. Mr. AmEs. I do not know whether these figures are available or not, Mr. Mayor, but I think they are most important for the committee to have, not only from New York-Chicago, St. Louis. Cleveland, and so forth. What percentage of your population in New York City are native New Yorkers? Mayor WAGNER. Well, I am one of those unique ones. I am a native New Yorker. There are not very many. I would say-this is a very rough guess-probably about a quarter. Chairman POWEr4L. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentlelady from Oregon, Mrs. Green. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman from Ohio the other day argued that the Job Corps was too small and only Negroes might be enrolled with no enrollment space for white young people. This morning he apparently also feels- Mr. AmEs. That was not my statement. I am getting a little tired of being misquoted on it. Mrs. GREEN. This morning this questioning has, it seemed to me, followed the same line that the Job Corps would be too small for the number of applicants who would benefit by it. So I do hope that he will consider an amendment expanding the Job Corps if it is not sufficient to take care of the number we have who need this training. Mayor Wagner, you outlined the dimensions of the problem of poverty in New York City and you defined poverty very well in your statement. Our last witness yesterday afternoon urged that this Congress not take, any action on the bifi this year and that we study the problem, that a task force be appointed, that we delay any action because we could not define poverty. Would you agree with this analysis? Mayor WAGNER. Mrs. Green, I think that these problems have been studied and studied and studied and I think it is time for action now. As time goes by, the problems get worse unless we act as rapidly as possible. I certainly would like to see action, certainly in this session, and as fast as possible, so the localities can be in a position to plan and prepare and set into motion these programs as rapidly as possible. Mrs. GREEN. A question was asked you about the native population. Do you have figures on the in-migration to New York City this past year? ~` Mayor WAGNER. I would say our figures show about 2 million in the last 10 years. Mrs. GREEN. 2 million who came into New York? * Mayor WAGNER. 2 million. Roughly. `I suppose about the same leaving, because our population is roughly about the same, maybe a slight increase. PAGENO="0023" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 739 Mrs. GREEN. Could you tell us where this great in-migration has come from? Mayor WAGNER. It comes from-well, I suppose the largest would be from the South and from Puerto Rico, but we do have a lot of in- migration from other parts of the country, even one that most people don't recognize, we have had a tremendous increase, too, in the large office buildings, many of the large corporations are now centering their headquarters in New York and we have a migration of executives, too, to New York City. Mrs. GREEN. You have very realistically stated that the primary effort must be at a local level, but you have also called for a nationwide basis for a war on poverty and also for nationwide leadership in this which, it seems to me, is in line with the in-migration, the mobile popu- lation that we have. Also, last night, our last witness who represented the national cham- ber of commerce, made this statement in an exchange on the problems of schools and the fact that many youngsters are behind and need special help: I would ask you why it is that the richest metropolitan area in the world, New York-New Jersey-Connecticut metropolitan area, with 1 out of 10 people in the United States and the highest average income in the history of the world, cannot deal with its own school system. Would you comment on that? Mayor WAGNER. I cannot agree that we can't cope with our school system. We have a great deal of problems. I think that is so in every ]ocality. We have a shortage of school buildings, shortage of teachers, shortage of trained teachers. We, of course, have had a migration, as I pointed out, and oftentimes that brings special problems to us, but I would say that we have initiated more new programs. I mentioned last night in a speech in New York how over the past 10 years the vast changes that have taken place in the remedial reading teachers and audiovisual teachers, and all of these higher horizons, have raised the standards. Though we have problems and we must raise the educational opportunities in the so-called deprived areas much more than has been done, we still at the same time in some of our high schools, such as the Bronx High School of Science, take a good proportion of the prizes in education throughout the country. We have our problems but I am sure we can cope with them. Mrs. GREEN. Other colleagues have mentioned their concern about the recruitment of enrollees in the programs outlined in the bill. My concern is more about the recruitment of personnel. The success of title I and the success of title II will depend on the quality of the people whom we have administering the program-teachers and social workers, and so on. I have been advised that there are many applications at the head- quarters for the War on Poverty Program from people wanting to enroll, but I still am concerned. Just a minute ago you mentioned your problem in recruiting teach- ers in the city of New York. I know in some areas the best teachers want to leave the center of the city, and go out to the suburbs. Do you think shortage of personnel is going to be a problem, and should we write some language in the bill that would bring about some programs to train more people? PAGENO="0024" 740 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Mayor WAGNER. In discussing with some of our people the other day about the possibility of calling in some of our educational leaders in New York to step up their programs, for instance in the training of social workers, they seemed to be operating on an ordinary basis, some of them. Where they get 5,000 applications they will take in 300 to train and they will never catch up with this problem if we are going to have good social workers who can be helpful under the exist.- ing method of training social workers throughout the country. There is a. tremendous shortage everywhere. I think we need that. I think we need greater training in the vari- ous other categories. And I do feel tha.t the locality should play some role in the selection of those who are to carry on the program. Chairman POWELL. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Gri~n. Mr. GRIFFIN. No questions. Chairman POWELL. The gentleman from California, Mr. Roosevelt. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mayor. I welcome the distinguished mayor of New York, an old friend, and I am happy to have him here. May I just follow up a little bit along the lines of Mrs. Green's questions ? The chamber of commerce witness yesterday tended pretty much to blame the large communities of the United States for not solving this problem themselves, and simply said we would not have the. degree of poverty we have today if the larger comniimi- ties, such as Chicago and Los Angeles, New York, and so forth, had properly done their job. But would it not be fair to say that the fact is that we live in a country which prides itself upon free mobility, one can move from Los Angeles to New York, and vice versa, and,that this in itself is pa.rt, therefore, of the Federal responsibility? I Imow in Los Angeles we, too, are behind in some of the things we would like to do, but. the city is limited in its revenue approach and if you get too much of an influx at one time this means you are going to fall behind and you will need outside help in order to catch up. Is this not, therefore, part of the Federal responsibility and part, therefore, of the proper exercise of Federal responsibility to assist communities of this kind, not to do the job for them but to assist them in catching up where, through no fault of their own, conditions have arisen which make it imperative to do something about the condition and certainly is no excuse for just waiting until the city acquires the facilities, the taxing power, whatever it may be. I think you have a few problems in the State legislature, if I read the paper correctly, in getting some of the assistance that will enable the cit to do it. So, it is not always the blame of the big city. or W~G~cER That is true I h'~ve many good friends in the ch'tmbei of commerce in New York but I must say that whenever we seek `my further le~islation to allow us to raise revenues so that we c'ui meet some of these problems in a better way, they have not thi owi' then caps in the `ur `~nd cheered `thout it I would also say, too, that, interestingly enOugh, on that figure of movement, we had our people on the planning commission take a look at the Federal census of 1960. 1 believe I am approximately correct th'~t of the people ovei 5 ve'irs of `~ge in the city of New York, in the period between 1955 and 1960, something like 43 percent were liv- ing in a different place in 1960 than in 1955. So, you see, that is real movement. PAGENO="0025" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 741 Oftentimes, when we have this migration, these youngsters even move with their families in the city, and that means transferring from school to school, and this, of course, is a handicap to them in education, and we have to initiate a lot of the programs which are costly for us in trying to give them the training and bring them up to the level of the class in which they are enrolled. Mr. ROOSEVELT. In Los Angeles, the migration into the city is usually of the lower income groups and then, as they catch on and they do fairly well, they move out of the city, often into the suburbs, and perhaps in other parts of the State, but as they move out they are already on the higher level and the people who are replacing them are on a lower level. So you have a constant problem at the bottom. The problem is not at the top but at the bottom. The matching of the in-and-out does not solve the problem. Mayor WAGNER. In the overall picture, that would be correct for New York City. I may say .they are the large numbers. When you get into the upper economic level or upper middle class, the numbers are not necessarily as great as the people who are in the lower economic level. But we do now find a return on the part of people in the middle and upper middle class to the city when they can find available space, because they find problems in the suburbs, that things were not quite so rosy as anticipated out there particularly in the field of taxation. Mr. ROOSEVELT. The witness yesterday also pointed out that we are lacking in some statistical figures as to the dimensions of the problem of poverty and urged that we pUt everything aside until we brought these statistical figures up to a better level. Would you not agree-and I gather you do agree, from your testi- mony-would you not agree that the problem is serious enough now so that any delay, rather than making matters easier for us in the future, is only going to compound the problem? Mayor WAGNER. I agree wholeheartedly, Congressman. I think that we have certainly enough statistics to show that the problem is with us and we must do something about it. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Thank you, Mr. Mayor; very much. It is good to see you. Chairman POWELL. The gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Quie. Mr. QUIE. Yes. Mayor Wagner, usually a State that has a high re- jection ratio in the preinduction examination of Selective Service is also one which has a high percentage of poverty. However, New York is not the case. There are 45 States in the Union that have a higher percentage of its population in poverty than New York, while there are only 3 States that have a higher rejection rate in preinduction exami- nation. How do you account for that? Mayor WAGNER. I would like to see the figures, Congressman, to see how many of the youngsters rejected are recent arrivals in New York. We don't know how long they have lived in New York or had the opportunity fOr the education assistance that we provide. Of course, we have had this large migration. * Mr. QUIE. Are the new arrivals largely of a group where there would be young people in the family? Mayor WAGNER. Yes, there are a good many families. There are some who come and find a job, the wage earner will come and find a ~ob and haYe enough then to bring his family with him, because that is a natural tendency for people to like to be with their family. PAGENO="0026" 742 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964. Mr. QuIE. What is the percentage of white to nonwhite population in the city of New York? Mayor WAGNER. I would say Negro population now runs around 12 percent, maybe a little more. Spanish speaking, which takes in Puerto Ricans, people from the Caribbean, South, Central American, will run around 10 percent. Then, of course, we have all different- it is hard to say which is which because we have 74 different nationality groups living in New York City. Mr. QuIE. Then the nonwhite would have a much higher percentage of underprivileged than the white when you use the figure of 47.9 percent nonwhites are in poverty, of the poverty-stricken people in New York City? Mayor WAGNER. On a percentage basis. Yes; for instance those we calculate on the line of poverty, still the majority of them are white. Many of them are older people who have lived here a long while. The basic reason for that is the fact that we have had large migrations from the South, Negroes from the Caribbean area, West Indies, and also Puerto Ricans from Puerto Rico. Actually, the mi- gration from Puerto Rico is now leveling off a bit. They come when they can find jobs, by and large, and they will leave when they can go back. I will say if we went back 40, 50, 60 years, the vast majority of the poor people would be Irish and Jewish and Italian. Then they had the opportunity of a few generations to improve their educational opportunities and move ahead. It is always the new migrants com- ing in who are poor. Mr. QuIE. We saw how those people improved their economic well- being, the ones who came before the Negroes from the South and the Puerto Ricans recently. Mayor WAGNER. We looked forward to having these recent mi- grants, at least their children and grandchildren being in the same category. Mr. ~ure. One of the reasons for this legislation is to help them improve faster. Has the city of New York thought of using camps and sending them away from New York into a wholesome setting out in the mountains or a somewhat rural atmosphere? Mayor WAGNER. This has been discussed but we don't own the prop- city outside the city of New York. We have worked with the State, for instance in the narcotics problem, along that line, we have had a few pilot projects. We can see the advantages of this. We haven't done it. I think another problem-I don't want to get in this discussion too long-one of the problems you have is to be able to follow up these youngsters after they have been at a camp of this type. We do find that many of our youngsters who get into difficulty and are then sent to a State iñ~titution, a correctional institution, I think because of the demand and the lack of facilities, they are not kept there quite as long as they should but even when they have some good basic training there, if they are allowed to go back into the old environment, without some counseling or supervision, we find there is great turnover of those who get into difficulty. Therefore, it is important and it is expensive, too, to follow up on what happens to these youngsters after they go throttgh a training program of some type. PAGENO="0027" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 743 Chairman POWELL. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Dent. Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman and Mayor Wagner- Chairman POWELL. Will the gentleman yield, Mr. Dent? Mr. DENT. Yes. Chairman POWELL. I regret I have to leave for the White House. The gentleman from Chicago will chair the balance of the morning. We hope we will move along because we have the distinguished mayor of Chicago and the mayor of Detroit, the mayor of St. Louis, and the mayor of Syracuse here. The House will meet today for the sole purpose of eulogizing our beloved colleague, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. O'Brien. As soon as that is finished, we will reconvene, which should be roughly around 1:30. Excuse me, please. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. DENT. In order not to delay the proceedings, I will make a couple observations to some of the observations made on the other side as well as by former witnesses. There seems to be a tendency here to sort of lay some kind of blame on the big cities in that they have not been able, as it were, to take care of this growing and yet a very old problem. Yet, few of us seem to take time to understand the situation, as I know it from my own experiences in Pennsylvania for many years. It is a question of balance of payments. The large cities and the so-called rich States have been in a position of being the victims of a negative balance of payments. We pay more into the Federal Government than we get back out on a percentage basis as compared to other areas of the country that do not have the large population or the so-called wealth behind the citizen. We get it in education, we get it in all of the various aids that the Government gives out. Finally it has to catch up. In this particular instance, in this field of battle dealing with poverty, it appears to me as though the natural thing will be that the big cities and the so-called wealthy States will receive more on a per- centage basis because of the incident of poverty being heavier in the city of New York and the city of Philadelphia and any other large city. So it is no strange phenomenon that those who have been getting the greater share out of the Federal funds on a percentage basis here- tofore would be a little bit complaining now about maybe a rather large cut of the pie, as it were, would be going to the big city. But everyone recognizes the need. A statement was made by one of the previous members of the com- mittee who said that the poor, as you described them, 40 or 50 years ago being immigrants coming over into this country, the Italians, Jewish, Irish, and so on, the Germans, and that somehow they got along and climbed out of this poverty, but we must understand one thing, they climbed out of the poverty during the days that this Nation had a growing job economy in relationship to population. We are now in a diminishing job economy in relation to population. So, therefore, those who come up, as has been explained, from the poorer States, are finding themselves in a diminishing job opportunity era. It is so necessary, as the mayor so well put it in his statement, through- PAGENO="0028" 744 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 out the statement the mayor called attention to the fact that he did not expect this bill to be the cure-all, he did not expect it to do the job. But any time you want to climb to a goal and have to go up a ladder, you have to start at that bottom rung or you will never get to the top. We certainly have to start somewhere. I agree with the mayor throughout his whole testimony that that is a move in the right direction; it does not have all of the answers, but it certainly has some. I appreciate your coming here and at this moment I will yield the balance of my time, if there is any left, to my colleague from New York.. Mr. CA~Y. Thank you, Mr. Dent. I want to welcome the mayor of New York and my city, my long- time friend, Mayor Wagner, today. For those on the committee and in the room who do not understand the association of the Wagner family to poverty, the `Wagner family has been fighting poverty for a long, long time. The great Senator from New York, the ma.yor~s fathe.r, certainly did a great deal in his day~ to help the lot of the workingmen through the `Wagner Labor Relations Act and other pieces of legislation which addressed them- selves to the poverty of his day. I Imow that many a family in York- ville has felt the helping hand of the IVagners on the way up the ladder for several generations. It is nothing new for a `Wagner to cme to Congress and help us out with the problems of poverty. Mr. Mayor, in defense of our city, I am certain you will join me in indicating that this statistic tha.t is published, that we do not rank very well on the draft rejections, may be somewha.t misleading. Let us keep in mind in New York City, we offer the greatest table of educational opportunities of any location in the country. We have more people in education up to a. high level t.ha.n any other area in the country with the possible exception of California and its community colleges, but we are getting there. For this reason we have a great number of students who normally would be eligible in the draft but they a.re in the F-i deferment category while the education is going on. That means that those who are called for induction and nondeferred are probably in the lowest opportunity ladder. Tha.t would account for the high percentage of rejection. . If you t.ake. into consideration those in the colleges, in the community colleges, and in the high schools, and who are not eligible at this stage for flue draft until their deferment . -. status is over, that will change the statistics completely. `When the country needed good soldiers a.nd sailors a.nd airmen New York has supplied its share without question. The mayor was one of those in the Air ForceS as I recall. Mayor WAGNER. I would like to interrupt to say that we have our city university, which has free tuition, the largest university in the world. We will have about 120,000 men and women in that city university getting free. college education. . . Mr. CAREY. I think I read that the. New York City community colleges, including the first New York City community college in my district, just' had the extension of the free tuition plan in your new budget to include the community colleges. So we are doing a good job on our own in helping educate the underprivileged in New York City. PAGENO="0029" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 745 You did make your message on poverty on January 14. You formed5 a task force on poverty. You marshaled all the city depart- ments which are affected into one unified team on poverty. You are~ working in many areas to build up the table of. assistance wherever it is needed for the aged and for the young, and so forth. What I fear is that if we do not pass this bill, this is going to have sort of a siphoning effect on the rest of the country. People are going to find out very soon what New York is .dbing on poverty, what it is doing for the disadvantaged. It will bring into this p~oblem area a great many migrants, because we are doing so much, unless the rest of the country does its share also. That is why I think we in New York cannot stand alone on this. We hive to get the help of the rest of the country, otherwise we will get greater in-migration for legitimate programs of assistance that people can get in New York City. I think it would increase that in-migration. Mayor WAGNER. I would agree. I think many people have come from the other parts of the country to New York for the opportunities they can get there. I don't mean that they come there just to get on relief. It is a very, very small percentage of those. Very few ever get on relief until they have been in the city for over 6 months and that is a very small percentage. They come there for opportunities. We do know, as an example, Puerto Rico. When the best jobs are available in New York City and the economy in Puerto Rico has been on t.he march, there have been many who have left to go back to their own place.. Mr. CAREY. In the last 5 years, more people have returned to the Conimonwealth than have come into New York City. MayOr WAGNER. That is right. It is difficult. to calculate because there is so much movement and being part of the United States there is no necessity for passports. It is just like taking a plane to Wash- ington, Chicago, or anywhere else. But that is generally accepted as the figure. . Mr. CAREY. By reason of our education and assistance, and so forth, they are returning in better shape than that in which they came. They are going back with some savings and better educational benefits than they had before, and they are making a contribution to the Common- wealth, which they gained in New York. MayOrWAGNER. Also, we have a great many men from New York who are pensioned and they return to the island there for the rest of their lives. Mr. CAREY. Yes, they make a great contribution there also. Is it not true that figures are deceiving that in New York we have a great deal of relative poverty even though we show a high average standard of living? In connection with the publication of the annual report of the Catholic Charities a statement was made that the number of people you pointed to here, roughly one in five, are living in about a 1939 standard of living in New York City based upon the comparison with our optimum standard or our good standard of living. For this reason it has generated, it has had a virile effect, it has generated a good many more problems. The frustrated family tends to break up, tends to lose the control and care of its children. It has thrust upon us a great many more expensive problems in the welfare and social work PAGENO="0030" 746 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 field because of the relative poverty even though we may show a high average standard of living. Is this not true? Mayor WAo~ER. That is correct. I may say we have had a lot of emphasis on the fact of creating poverty by migration. We have had a lot of people needing assistance whose families have been there for generations, too. It is not all the newcomers that we should blame for these things. Mr. PERKINS (presiding). Mr. Martin. Mr. M~nTIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mayor Wagner, do you feel that the Federal Government should guarantee an income of, let us say, $3,000 a year, or more, to all citizens of the United States? Mayor WAGNER. That would be like a labor negotiation, like a bar- gaining session, that you would set a minimum. I think if they have set the minimum, certainly as far as New York is concerned, at $3,000, you would have a lot more problems. Mr. MARTIN. You could not guarantee wages to everyone in this country? Mayor WAGNER. To set a figure? I think the objective has always been to try to get a job for everybody. The Full Employment Act, which, back in the late forties, passed by Congress, was an attempt to try to assure everyone a job and, therefore, to make a greater contribu- tion. I don't see how it is possible that you can ever guarantee a cer- tain wage. What I think we would like to do is to give everyone a full opportu- nity to be able to make a contribution. Mr. M141n~nT. You are not in agreement, then, with the conclusions of this ad hoc committee on the triple revolution that reported to President Johnson about 2 weeks ago that recommended people be paid whether they work or not? Mayor WAGNER. I think they are already being paid. Certainly if they are not working, they are on welfare. Being paid is a cost to the Government. Mr. LANDRUM. Will the gentleman from Nebraska yield for half a minute? Mr. MARTIN. Just a moment. Let me read a couple of sentences from their report: The economy of abundance can sustain all citizens in comfort and economic security whether or not they engage in what is commonly reckoned as work. Wealth produced by machines rather than man is still wealth. We urge, there- fore, that society through its appropriate legal and governmental institutions undertake an unqualified commitment to provide every individual in everyfamily with an adequate income as a matter of right. In other words, you would not agree with that statement? Mayor WAGNER. What is this committee? Mr. M~irn~. This is the ad hoc committee on the triple revolution which reported to President Johnson on their conclusions about 2 weeks ago. Mayor WAGNER. An official Government committee? Mr. MARTIN. It was not an official committee. It was a committee composed of educators, labor, labor leaders, economists, and so forth. They started their hearings last October~ It received wide~pubiicity in the press at the time. PAGENO="0031" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 747 Mayor WAGNER. I remember seeing something on it. I don't know the workings of the committee. I think people are practically guar- anteed some money because anyone who is unable to work gets some welfare payments. I think our job is to try to raise the standard and train these people so that they can qualify for positions. I think one of the things that we have to be concerned about is that unless we do some of these things and train some of these people, par- ticularly in some Of these semiskilled and skilled jobs-of course, the unskilled jobs are drying up, then you have to come to something like that and you have a permanent dole. I think our job is to train them so that they can make a contribution instead Of being welfare cases through their whole lives. Mr. MARTIN. It is being connected up with this entire poverty pro- gram which we are considering in this committee. Let me read to you point 7 of their conclusions which they propose to do. Here is what it says We prOpose a major revision of our tax structure aimed at redistricting income as well as apportioning the cost of the transition, period equitably. To this end, an expansion of the use of the excess profits;tax would be important- and so on. In other words, redistribution of the wealth has gone on in countries which are out-and-out completely Socialist. We have this same kind of plan worked `out in Communist nations. This is being proposed supposedly by a responsible committee. Mayor WAGNER.' I am not a member- Mr. MARTIN. I have not had 5 minutes. Mr. PERKINS. I recognize the gentleman from California. * Mr. MARTIN. I resent this, Mr. Chairman. Yesterday I had about 2½ minutes and today I have not had my full time'. Mr. Pnnxr~s. You have had a fullS minutes. Mayor WAGNER. Could I have the opportunity of answering? I must say I am not a' member of this committee. I have not read their report. I would be glad, to comment on it, but it seems to me that they are suggesting something that certainly is not within the realm of possibility at this point. I think it is more important that we try to get legislation, which is before the committee, through now and. get to the problem immediately Mr. MARTIN. This whole thing is all interwoven into this.problem we are considering in this committee this morning.. Mayor WAGNER. I think the people who are for this in New York are not part of'that ad hoc cOmmittee. Mr. PinuuNs. The gentleman from California is recognized. Mr. LANDRUM. Will you yield? "Mr. Bm~L. I will yield to Mr. Landrum for a few seconds. Mr. LANDRUM. Do you know any provisions of this bill which this committee has now under study calling for such actiOns as the gentle- man from Nebraska has interrogated you about? Mayor WAGNER. I know of none. Mr. LANDRUM. Is there any provision of this, bill that you know about which will guarantee anyone any amount of income? Mayor WAGNER. I know of hone. It is merely, `as I said before, Congressman, this bill will at least help to give some people the oppor- tunity to get `some dignity. PAGENO="0032" 748 EC~NOMJC OPPORTtNITY ACT OF 1964 Mr. LANDRU3r. As a matter of fact, we ipake no effort to determine income. We make an effort to determine capacity to earn a living, to be employed. Is that what the bill does? Mayor WAGNER. As I see it. Mr. LANDRtrM. Thank you, Mr. Bell, for yielding tome. Mr. BEJIL. Mr. Mayor, it is a real pleasure to welcome you before this committee. I have often admired your fine work in administer- ing the problems of New York City. I wanted to make a statement, Mr. Mayor, relative to your comment on juvenile delinquency and the problems of followthrough after the completion of their course in State schools. I think that you would be the first to. recognize that this bill actually, as far as the Job Corps is concerned, is not at all connected with juvenile delinquency to the extent that one is voluntary and the other is not. I agree the followthrough feature may -be an important part if this becomes a part of it. As your experience as mayor of New York will tell you, I think that you approach problems from a very realistic standpoint, and I think you have to analyze them carefully and then rifle in on the programs that are going to be workable and. practical and realistic. I do not think that you start out programs with a lot of different kinds of ideas that may or may not- make sense just to get something done, or moving in the right direction of an experimental nature. Mayor WAGNER. We try to avoid that. Mr. BELL. As you Imow, we have several, ongoing programs to fight poverty. Many of them have been passed or a-re in committee. Two of them which I certainly favored and I thought were very good steps in the right direction were vocational education and manpower develop- ment and retraining. . . - Now, the concept of recruiting 100,000 youngsters between 22 and 16 in a hundred camps throughout the Nation is a kind of startling approach in a-n experimental fashion, it appears to me. I think that our basic problem that we a-re trying to get to is to find jobs, is it not., and get people trained so that they can be employable and thus enhance their economic livelihood? Is that not then basically- the problem we are after?. Mayor WAGNER. Yes: I might say that you have to train many of these people so it is possible to ifil the jobs that are available or could be created. - Mr. BELL. So I think the approach to these problems is to rifle-in on these problems directly, get these men-retrained-by perhaps expanding the vocational education prograni, expanding manpower development a-nd retaining program, doing many things of this kind that have a direct- effect rather than trying to rely on something that is remote a-s a possibility of success. I note that you indicated some question as to whether or not you could recruit or sell people for the Job-Corps, that it takes some selling to do. I gather that that may be not one of the most desirable of the programs that you are thinking of for this package; is that correct? Mayor WAGNER. I think that all of these programs are helpful. There has been a great deal of discussion on the question of these camps. I think that is just one phase of a large program. We do know that the-re are many who seek the opportunity to have a bet-ter PAGENO="0033" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 749 education and to seek a skill or to be retrained when they are losing out because of automation or movement of plants, and so on and so forth. We also have those who, the minute you open up an office in some area and say: "We will now recruit here for those who would like to go to a camp," you will not be, at 9 o'clock in the morning, overwhelmed with applicants. These are the youngsters, particularly, who have be- come absolutely frustrated, and they have lost their will to move. Therefore, that is where you need the community help and the com- munity leaders even in the lower economic areas to bring them out. Mr. BELL. I certainly agree with you when you speak of your com- munity and local interest. I think this is an important thing. I think this is one of the things that the Job Corps gets away from a bit, the community interest and approach. If you had some extra money and resources with which to expand your program to help fight poverty in your city, I think maybe you might prefer some kind of urban conservation corps program where you would work in parts of your local area. Would this not be a more appealing factor to you? Mayor WAGNER. It naturally would, but I think we have to realize that you have various categories that you are dealing with. I assume that what we are getting at in these camps are the real hard core ones who will need much more basic training before they can even be trained in the vocational schools and be a part of even the school community. We have some in N~w York, as they have everywhere throughout the United States. They are the ones who need greater supervision, who, because of no fault of their own, have not had at home. No one cares about them. Some don't know who their fathers are. They have no hornelife. They need that basic training and I think can be made into decent citizens. Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Dent has kindly offered to extend my time for a minute or two, I believe. Is that right? Mr. DENT. I just said when the gentleman from Georgia, the spon- sor of the act, was talking, he is a little excited, I said "I am sure we will give him the time back." Now, Mr. Chairman, honor my com- mitment. Mr. PERKINS. We have given him more than his time. Mr. Hawkins? Mr. HAWKINS. I will yield my time to Mr. Bell and 1 minute to Mr. Carey, 2 or 3 minutes to Mr. Bell. Mr. BELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Mayor, what I am basically getting at is the idea of the youth conservation camp may be a very fine idea if you had the extra amount of money. This may be a very fine thing in the long run, but I think we have to walk before we can run. I think one of the main things that we should shoot at is getting these men educated and retrained. I do not believe they would do this in this conservation corps prograi~ ~. Mayor WAGNER. I think all of these programs are important and I think this can fill a real need because those who have had experience in dealing with some of these youngsters find that a method as drastic as this is absolutely necessary to get them in the frame of n~ind and the attitude that they would actually go along with the counseling 31-847-64-~pt. 2--3 PAGENO="0034" 750 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 program and training program. Otherwise you find that you will get. them down there one day and spend a good deal of money on theni for a week or two and then you will never see them again or they will leave their job anyway. Mr. BELL. I will yield back my time to Mr. Hawkins. Mr. HAwKINs. I yield to Mr. Carey. Mr. CAREY. One closing observation, Mr. Chairman. I just want to thank, on behalf of the committee, the mayor of the city of New York for his excellent responses and the help he has given us in the preparation of this bill a.nd to assure hini he need not have too much. concern about the admonition of our distinguished colleague from New Jersey, who was worried about the share that New York might get under this bill. We will be watching out for the city's interest. at all times. I think you will agree with me that Albany is where you have a tough time of getting your tax benefits. At this level in the libraries,. we were able to include you for the first time. In the Interstate Corn- mittee, we are considering authorizations on Hill-Burton which will. give us money for renovation of the city hospital for the first time. In a great many areas, the inte.rests of the city are very carefully guarded. I a.in sure you will have no concern about the majority of the com- mittee taking care of the interests of the State and city of New York. Mayor WAGNER. Congressman, at the beginning of my remarks, I paid my tribute to you a.nd the chairman and again I want to express. my apprecia.tion for your help for our city problems. I know you. are always watching out for us. Mr. CAREY. Tha.nk you very much. Mayor WAGNER. You have good assistance, too, because your secre- ta.ry, Miss Akins. was one of my father's se.cretaries. Mr. GrBBoxs. It is not true, the reason why we cannot a.pproach this problem on a. little city basis, even though New York is large and. wealthy, is, that no matter how hard you try to eradicate poverty in your city because of the mobility of our population, the poor people will just continue to come to your area seeking additional opportunities and therefore your program almost become self-defeating; is thatT accurate? Mayor WAGNER. It makes it. very difficult t.o keep up with the prob-. Tern working with the tools that. we have at this point. I think tha.t if we. can get. assistance. here, as modest as it is, when you stretch it all over the TJnited States, it can give us some tools that will be helpful. to begin to win the. battle. Mr. GIBBONS. You cannot wipe out pove.rt~ in any one section be- cause of the mobility of our people. We. have to wipe it out through- out the ent.ire United States. Mayor WAGNER. Yes, it. is a national problem. Mrs. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago I wa.s accused of misquoting the gentleman from Ohio. I do not remember the exact word.s I sa.id. I certainly do not want. to he unfair to him. I have the record of April 7 in which the. gentleman from Ohio and the Attorney General were engaging in a colloquy in which the gentleman from Georgia, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr... PAGENO="0035" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 751 Thompson, and myself also engaged. Reading from the record at one point, Mr. Ayres said: Do you find nationally that in this group of minority people that the IQ, itself, regardless of the financial situation, is lower? The ATTORNEY GENERAL. Not necessarily. Mr. AYRE5. But you have come to the conclusion that there is a direct rela- tionship between the dropouts and poverty? The ATTORNEY GENERAL. It is a factor, congressman. It is not the sole factor. It isa factor. Mr. AYRES. But in the vast majority of cases, the dropout is a low IQ student? The ATTORNEY GENERAL. No, not at all. No. I will ask later that all these pages be put in the record. Then, at another point, the Attorney General, in response to a question, said: "I think people should be selected"-in regard to the Job Corps- "without regard to their race, creed, or color." Then Mr. Ayres at another point said: But if you take these people on the basis of the percentage of those eligible, then you will have, perhaps, all Negro camps. This is what I thought I said a few moments ago but perhaps I did not. Then at a later point in the colloquy, the gentleman from Ohio said: I do not mean it in that vein at all, Mr. Attorney General. The Attorney General had just said: I think that is a reflection on those of us who are white. Mr. Ayres said: I do not mean it in that vein at all, Mr. Attorney General. On the other hand, if we are going to set up any set of standards with the limited number of people to be covered by this program, there won't be any white people in it. Mr. Thompson at a later point had this to say: Mr. Ayres, this line that you have taken is nothing less than incredible. In the first place, your basic premise is entirely wrong. I will be glad to provide you with a bibliography establishing beyond any question the equal native intelligence of all peoples. I would ask unanimous consent that the pages of the transcript from 452 to 459 be included at this point in the record. Mr. PERKINS. Without objection. (The pages referred to follow:) Mr. AYRES. Do you find nationally that in this group of minority people that the IQ, itself, regardless of the financial situation, is lower? The ATTORNEY GENERAL. Not necessarily. Mr. AYRE5. But you have come to the conclusion that there is a direct rela- tionship between the dropouts and poverty? The ATTORNEY GENERAL. It is a factor, Congressman. It is not the sole factor. It is a factor. Mr. AYRES. But in the vast majority of cases, the dropout is a low IQ student? The ATTORNEY GENERAL. No; not at all. No. i~Ir. AYRES. Then how would you suggest, Mr. Attorney General, in view of the fact that we have far more dropouts, far more delinquents, than what the Job Corps, under the present proposal could accept, how would these applicants be screened, chosen, or selected, whatever word you want to use, to be eligible to get into the Job Corps? The ATTORNEY GENERAL. I think you are going to have to set up a system and establish it across the United States and then start with the help of local corn- munities to select people. I would not agree with your premise at the beginning, PAGENO="0036" 752 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Congressman. I am not sure that the people who participated, whether I visited a CCC camp or not, I do not know that those who attended the CCC camps, looking at the statistics of education in the United States, or the years of edu- cation in the 1930's as compared with the 1960's, I do not think they bad any greater education during that period of time, the young people, than they do at this period of time. Mrs. GREEN. Wifi the gentleman yield? Mr. AxnEs. Yes. Mrs. GREEN. If I understood your question correctly, Mr. Attorney General, do you know of any study that has ever been made that shows that the IQ of any race is lower than that of any other race, any minority group more than any other group? The ATTORNEY GENERAL. No. Studies have been made that prove the contrary. Mrs. GREEN. Every study that has ever been made shows that the IQ of all groups is comparable. The ATTORNEY GENERAL. That is correct. Mr. PucINsKI. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. AYRES. I would love to, but I know that the chairwoman will call me down in a few minutes. I have one other question. Mr. Attorney General. There is a direct relation- ship between juvenile delinquency, unskilled workers and the unemployed, and education. In other words, the less education, the larger the percentage that would fall in those categories. The ATTORNEY GENERAL. I would put it that given no opportunities, no help, and the idea of no future. a young person would more aptly turn to crime than a person in a differeat category. Mr. A~n~Es. We have two States in the United States that do not require children to even enter school. We have eight States where they do not even have a truant officer. They do not bother to follow up whether they go or not. As long as we have conditions like that existing, are we not bound to have in our society a lot of untrained people to fit into society? The ATTORNEY GENERAL. Yes, and I hope thOse States do something about it. Mr. AYRES. One last question: In the operation of the Job Corps and the selection of these people. would you want these camps to be comparable, as far as the organization is concerned in the CCC camps, completely integrated? The ATTORNEY GENERAL. I think people should be selected without regard to their race, creed, or color. Mr. A~Es. That is not my question. The ATTORNEY GENERAL. They can be completely integrated or not completely. I do not want them completely integrated, but I want everyone selected as long as they are T5.S. citizens, Americans. Mr. AYRES. But if you take these people on the basis of the percentage of those eligible, then you will have, perhaps, all Negro camps. The ATTORNEY GENERAL. That is fine. As I say, I do not care what they are, as long as they are Americans and need the help. Mr. AYRES. In other words, the people who need the help the most, regardless of race, will be the first group for those to enter? The ATToRNEY GENERAL. I would think so. Would you not advise that? Mr. AYRE5. No, I would not. I would think that if we are going to follow a policy of trying to help all of the persons, we will have to take a percentage of those who are in need of help and do our best. The ATTORNEY GENERAL. I do not think you are going to get everybody u-ho needs help, but I think we should start with those who need the help the most. Mr. PERKINs. The bill contemplates only 40,000 the first year, and the State employment offices throughout the country would be the agency primarily engaged in the selection. Naturally these youngsters are going to be carefully screened; they will consult with the military, maybe with the schools, and the other agen- cies involved. As I see it, the youngsters will be enrolled who have dropped out of school, who are unemployed. It should be done on a basis of without regard to race, creed, or color. In the Appalachia section or down my way you may not find many Negroes, and in an industrialized area where you have a lot of unem- ployment you might have a lot of them. Be that as it may, there is nothing in this bill that discriminates against any person who is unemployed and out of school. I cannot think of any better place to put a youngster than to put him in a camp or in a training center. PAGENO="0037" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 753 Mr. AYRE5. My point, Mr. Attorney General, is this: We have had testimony from different people holding high office like you, who have pointed out that we must make certain that the low IQ person who is a dropout is taken care of. We have other testimony that the juvenile delinquent can be taken care of under the program. We bad testimony from Mr. McNamara that this would be a great program for the rejectees from the service. Mr. Goodell pointed out the high percentage of rejectees that are Negroes. We are rejecting far more than what the program is going to take care of just in one department, you might say. The ATTORNEY GENERAL. And I think that is a reflection on those of us who are white. Mr. AYRES. Well, I do not want to get into that discussion. Mrs. GREEN. Can I ask the gentleman from Ohio to limit himself to one more question? Mr. AYRES. I do not mean it in that vein at all, Mr. Attorney General. On the other hand, if we are going to set up any set of standards with the limited num- ber of people to be covered by this program, there won't be any white people in it. The ATTORNEY GENERAL. I do not agree with you at all, Congressman. I think if you went into the chairman's State, if you go down into West Virginia and some of these other areas, you will find that there are many white people who have as difficult a time as Negroes do, who would be brought into this program. Mr. LANDRUM. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. AYERs. Yes. Mr. LANDRUM. I regret to interrupt the distinguished Attorney General, but I would say for the record that Negroes are not the only poor people in the world. I have been associated with this condition of poverty for more than a half century, and I know many, many white people who have been associated with it. To the extent that the Negro is involved as a direct subject of this disease of poverty, I want it clearly understood that I am going to do everything I can to help relieve that situation, because I think it is a blight on the American scene. Likewise, where the white person is involved, and there are many of them, I shall do everything I can to relieve them. I think this bill is drafted so that it will assist in the relief of poverty wherever it occurs and in whatever color or condition it appears. That is the basis of my support. Mr. AYERS. For the record, so that we are not involved in something that is not understood, I am not arguing that this bill should take care of just one group of people, regardless of race, creed, or color, but what I am saying is that with the problems that we have in our cities and in these ghettoes, and we have them in Cleveland, in Chicago, in Los Angeles, all over, in every major city, if we have a limited number of people who are going to be in this program because of this low economic bracket that they fall in, because of the terrible conditions they have been raised in, they will be the ones who will qualify. I will yield back the balance of my time. Mrs. GREEN. Mr. Thompson? Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Ayres, this line that you have taken is nothing less than incredible. In the first place, your basic premise is entirely wrong. I will be glad to provide you with a bibliography establishing beyond any question the equal native intelligence of all peoples. Mr. AYRES. I am not arguing that point. Mr. THOMPSON. That is as old as the protocols as the learned elders of Zion. The purpose iS quite evident. In the first place, the statistic that you apparently base this on is Mr. Goodell's, which, as I recall, is that 40 percent of those who fail to pass.the military, tests are Negroes. Mr. AYERS. Fifty-four percent. Mr. THOMPSON. Fifty-four percent. Why don't you talk about the other 46 percent? I know why you do not. It is obvious. Of course you might con- ceivably in an area have all white or all Negro 111 one work camp, if there was not a shifting around arrangement. No one has suggested, however, that there be segregated camps under any circumstance. The fact is that the basic premise from which you proceed is utterly and completely fallacious. Mr. AYRES. What is the premise that you are proceeding from? What is the premise that you think I am proceeding upon? Mr. THOMPSON. On the basis that an overwhelming number of the disadvan- taged with low intelligence quotients are going to be Negro. Mr. AYRES. Not at all. PAGENO="0038" 754 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Mr. THoisipsoN. Then you did not make it very clear. Mr. AYRES. I am saying in the lower economic bracket, and my question is: Is there any question between being poor and `being in the poverty class and having a low IQ? Mr. THoMPsoN. Then you made the suggestion that color determines somehow or another IQ. Mr. AYRES. No. The only thing I am primarily interested in is who is going to be in the camp. Mr. AYRES. Will you yield? Mrs. GREEN. Yes. Mr. ATRE5. Tile lady from Oregon is always so sweet and gentie I almost hesitate to discuss this with her. I am glad that you have inserted this in the record because I think most of the testimony, we have shown, is that it is due to no fault of the people that they find themselves in poverty imless we set up a quota system based on not race, creed, or color, but percentage that fall in these various categories that the mayor was so kind to discuss. if we are going to take those who through no fault of their own find themselves at the bottom of the economic barrel, then percentagewise we would have more of the minority groups in the Job Corps. What I am going to ask Mr. Shriver when he comes back is to try to spell this out. Mrs. GREEN. Yesterday afternoon we engaged in, with the chamber of commerce witness, in an exchange about the support that the chamber of commerce gives to various programs at the Federal and also at the State and local level. They opposed the war on poverty and they have opposed every education bill which has been before the Congress. A moment ago, in response to a question from the gentleman from California, I believe you said you did not see the chamber of commerce waving their hats and cheering about raising revenue in the city of New York. Would it be possible for anyone on your staff to provide me with any history or record of the programs that the chamber of commerce has supported in New York City and the ones that they have opposed in the field of education and in the field of public weTfare? Mayor WAGNER. Yes, we will do that. Mrs. GREEN. I would be most appreciative. Mr. PERKINS. Thank you very much, Mayor Wagner, for appearmg. We appreciate your appearance. The next witness is Mayor Richard `J. Daley, mayor of Chicago. `Come around, Mayor. Mr. ATRE5. The chairman of the whole committee, Mr. Chairman, I believe, was in error when he said that we were going to eulogize the late Congressman O'Brien. The regular order of business is going to go on this afternoon. Our late co1lea~-ue will be eulogized on April 23. So the House will be in session today to consider legislation pre- viously scheduled. Mr. LANDRUM. Is there going to be objection to the committee sitting this afternoon in general debate? Mr. ATRES. Not from me. Mr. LANDRUM. Do you have any knowledge there might be objec- tion from your side? Mr. AYRES. We have a number of people `who usually object. Mr. LANDRUM. Yes, you do, I agree. PAGENO="0039" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 755 Mr. PERKINS. Mayor, what is your preference? Would you prefer to commence reading your statement at this time? Mayor DALEY. If possible, I would like to return to' our city as fast as I can. Mr. PERKINS. All right, you may proceed. First, Mayor Daley, I wish to welcome you here. I regret that Con- gressman `Pucinski `had to go to the White iFTouse and is not able to introduce you, but we are delighted to have you with us. STATEMENT OP HON. RICHARD L DALEY, MAYOR, CHICAGO, ILL. Mayor DALEY. Thank you very much. I wish to express my appreciation to the chairman and members of this committee for this opportunity to testify with regard to the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, the legislation recommended by President Johnson to carry out the proposed war on poverty. As mayor of `Chicago I am `here to give full support to House `of Repre- sentatives bill 10440-a bill to mobilize the human and financial re- `sources of the Nation to combat poverty in the United States. This committee has already heard considerable testimony citing national statistical and technical data demonstrating the need for the enactment of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. But many times the use of technical material and national statistics of sociological definitions and statements of economic trend's and projections seek to cloud what we are all primarily concerned with; what the program means to people. In support of thi's legislation, my remarks will be `directed to de- scribing programs which are being carried on in Chicago; which, I believe, demonstrate convincingly the contributions that the Presi- dent's program can make to improve the economic and social well- being of one-fifth of our American families who live in poverty. Further, in some instances these programs are being conducted only in Chicago, and in others Chicago is a pioneer in seeking to expand and improve public and private programs to provide greater economic opportunity for all Americans. One of the pilot programs in the Nation, launched last October, is called Job Opportunity Through Better Skills-known as JOBS. It is a cooperative program being conducted almost entirely by three private agencies: the YMCA of Metropolitan Chicago, the Chicago Boys Clubs, and `Chicago's Youth `Centers cooperating with such pub- lic and private `agencies as the Illinois State Employment Service, the Cook County Department of Public Aid, Chicago Commission on Youth Welfare, and the Welfare Council of Metropolitan Chicago. This year-long project, first and largest of its kind, is financed by the Federal Manpower Development and Training Act. The pilot project is designed to help the 1,000 youth, many of whom lacked the equivalent of a sixth grade education, reach the necessary education level of employment-to acquire some job skill experience, and, finally, be placed in employment. JOBS represents a special attack on the unemployment problems of the disadvantaged youth. Most of the trainees are between the ages of 17 and 21, most dropped out of high school their second year, and most were classified as "functional illiterates" when they entered PAGENO="0040" 756 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 the program. Unable to read or do arithmetic past the fifth grade level, some had never worked, all were unemployed, none had a con- sistent employment record. During the first 24 weeks of the program, attendance averaged 80 percent. It must be understood that no one was screened, but the program was offered on a first-come-first-served basis. About 80 percent of the trainees, those between the ages of 19 and 22, received a $19 a week training allowance-a major motivation to keep them in class. Project officials point out, however, that the pros- pect of a job, of a pay-your-own-way ticket in life, appears to be as effective an incentive as a training allowance. JOBS conducts two principal programs. Approximately 600 of the trainees are enrolled in basic education units, learning reading, writing, arithmetic, and employment disciplines. Of these, 147 have been placed in on-the-job training stations in industry. The remaining 400 are in vocational workshops, training as auto- mobile service station attendants, duplicating machine operator train- ing, mail handling, and clerk-typist, training. They will all be placed in jobs this summer. Training cost.s average $1,500 a person. This may appear to be high for a program that teaches the three R's and simple vocational skills, but the support cost for a youth on general assistance amounts to $1,500 in two and a half years. Further, it is estimated that an employed trainee will repay that amount in income taxes in from 3 to 4 years. Another important aspect of the program is that young people who join it are frequently induced to go back to school to finish their education. The Chicago Board of Education has a number of specialized pro- grams to assist disadvantaged youth. Its urban youth program de- velops educational and job training programs for school dropouts between the ages of 16 and 21. This program was begim in late 1961 and has been continuously accelerated a*s funds, facilities and persomiel have become available. The urban youth program is divided into three phases: 1. Census and counseling. 2. Education and employment. 3. Training and transition. This three-pronged attack reaches the roots of the dropout prob- lem, and equips these young people with the skills and knowledge to make them productive members of society. In the first phase of the program-census and counseling-known as double C-all school dropouts are contacted and requested to visit the office of the urban youth program for counseling. A fohlowup service is built into the double C phase. The counselor attempts to persuade the individual to return to school or enroll in the urban youth program or is referred to another agency or trade school for job training. To date over 2,000 students have been contacted for counseling. The second phase of the program, education and employment, known as double E-is a cooperative work-study program in which the student spends 12 hours a week in school classes and 24 to 32 hours a week on the job in a merchandising or clerical occupation. The school curriculum is job oriented and instruction is given in the areas of English, social studies, mathematics, and business organization. At- PAGENO="0041" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 757 tendance is arranged to suit the student's work schedule and high school credit is given in the subject areas. Some 450 students have enrolled in this program and 270 of them have been placed in jobs in 32 corporations that are cooperating with the board of education and special counseling and educational service are part of the double E phase. The third phase, training and transition, called double T-is designed to help those youths who are in need of immediate jobs be- cause of the impracticality of their returning to day school. The training and transition classes are short-term, job-oriented and low- order skills, designed to developed wholesome attitudes toward work with the hope that the results will be the acceptance of the retraining process and the stimulation to continue training a a higher level. Trainmg is offered in the fields of tailoring, gasoline station workers, automobile mechanics, civil service examination preparation, elec- trical appliance repair, beautician, and hospital service training. Over 1,300 students have enrolled in this training. No high school credit is given for double T training but many students in this program have enrolled in school and are working toward diplomas. Many have been placed in jobs. The first class of the double E phase was financed by a grant of $50,000 from the Ford Foundation and early classes of the double T phase were partially financed by Ford Foundation grants. Begin- ning in 1962, however, the Chicago Board of Education assumed the total cost of the program, and for 1964 $200,000 was budgeted to carry out the work of this program. The three phases of the urban youth program have served a mini- mum of 2,171 different individuals during its 32 months of operation. The Chicago Board of Education also employs a cooperative work- study program and a work-internship program to assist young people to find jobs and to develop their aptitudes and skills. These programs are operated on a cooperative basis between employers, the schools, the students, and the parents. These students attend school mornings and work at a regular job in the afternoon. These projects are aimed at young people 16 years of age or older who are potential dropouts or nonachievers; those whose ability is other than academic; and those who must support themselves or contribute to family support and are capable of graduation. Since these programs were begun a little over 6 years ago, some 2,750 students have been employed by 185 firms, and they have been trained in 18 different occupations and trades. Another highly effective program of the board of education is the distributive education program. This program is cooperative with schools and employers providing supervision. Students are hired in nonmanufacturing, retail, and wholesale industries and are paid a going wage for the work done. School credit is given for satisfactory performance. The latest figures show that there are now 1,030 boys and girls enrolled in the distributive education program with 41 high schools participating. This program is of tremendous importance because projections indicate that there will be a marked growth in distributive industries. Mr. LANDRUM. Mayor Daley, will you permit us to interrupt you at this point? This seems to be a place where we can break off. PAGENO="0042" 758 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Would it incoiivenience you greatly to return at 1:30? We have had three bells, which is a quorum call. We will be in trouble if we sit. I am sure many members of the committee not only would like to hear the remainder of your statement, but would like to interrogate you on various points of it. Could you return at 1 :30? Mayor DAr~uY. Being a baseball man, I Imow what three strikes are, so I will be glad to come back. Mr. LANDRUM. This committee is recessed until 1 :30, when we will resume with Mayor Daley in the chair. (`Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the committee recessed until 1 :30 p.m., this same day.) AFI'ERXOON SESSION Chairman POWELL. Please come to order. I would like to welcome again the mayor of Chicago, Richard J. Daley. We are most happy to have with us our colleague, Congress- man Ed Finnegan from Illinois. He is not a member of the com- mittee but he is one of the mayor's good friends. Mr. FINNEGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman POWELL. Now, you got as far as the end of the first para- graph on page 6. STATEMEI~T OP EON. RICEARD L DALEY, ?~TAYOR, CHICAGO, ILL.-. Resumed Mayor IDALEY. Mr. Chairman, in the interest, of conserving the time of the committee, I would like to skip my statement and put it into the record, with your pleasure. We are all familiar with what the problem is in New York, Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis. You have other witnesses. So I would like to just pose a question on page 10 which I know wifi be anticipated. Chairman POWELL. Without objection, the testimony will be in- cluded in the record in its entirety. (The stutement referred to follows:) STATEMENT BY HON. RICRABD J. DALEY, MATOB OF CHICAGO I wish to express my appreciation to the chairman and members of this committee for this opportunity to testify with regard to the Economic Oppor- tunity Act of 1964, the legislation recommended by President 3~ohnson to carry out the proposed war on poverty. As mayor of Chicago I am here to give full support to House of Representatives bill 10440-a bill to mobilize the human and financial resources of the Nation to combat poverty in the United States. This committee has already heard considerable testimony citing national sta- tistical and technical data demonstrating the need for the enactment of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. But many times the use of technical mate- rial and national statistics, of sociological definitions and statements of eco- nomic trends and projections seek to cloud what we are all primarily concerned with; what the program means to people. In support of this legislation, my remarks will be directed to describing programs which are being carried on in Chicago; which, I believe, demonstrate convincingly the contributions that the President's program can make to im- prove the economic and social well-being of one-fifth of our American famifies who live in poverty. Further, in some instances these programs are being conducted only in Chi- cago, and in others Chicago is a pioneer in seeking to expand and improve public and private programs to provide greater economic opportunity for all Americans. PAGENO="0043" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 759 One of the pilot programs in the Nation, launched last October, is called Job Opportunity through Better Skills, known at JOBS. It is a cooperative pro- gram being conducted almost entirely by three private agencies: the YMCA of Metropolitan Chicago, the Chicago Boys Clubs, and Chicago's Youth Centers, cooperating with such public and private agencies as the Illinois State Em- ployment Service, the Cook County Department of Public Aid, Chicago Com- mission on Youth Welfare, and the Welfare Council of Metropolitan Chicago. This year-long project, first and largest of its kind, is financed by the Federal Manpower Development and Training Act. The pilot project is designed to help the 1,000 youth, many of whom lacked the equivalent of a sixth-grade education, reach the necessary education level for employment-to acquire some job skill experience, and, finally, be placed in employment. JOBS represents a special attack on the unemployment problems of the disadvantaged youth. Most of the trainees are between the ages of 17 and 22, most dropped out of high school their second year, and most were classified as "functional illiterates" when they entered the program. Unable to read or do arithmetic past the fifth-grade level, some had never worked, all were unemployed, none had a consistent employment record. During the first 24 weeks of the program, attendance averaged 80 percent. It must be understood that no one was screened, but the program was offered on a first-come, first-serve basis. About 80 percent of the trainees, those between the ages of 19 and 22, received a $19 a week training allowance-a major motivation to keep them in class. Project officials point out, however, that the prospect of a job, of a pay-your-own- way ticket in life, appears to be as effective an incentive as a training allowance. JOBS conducts two principal programs. Approximately 600 of the trainees are enrolled in basic education units, learning reading, writing, arithmetic, and employment disciplines. Of these, 147 have been placed in on-the-job training stations in industry. The remaining 400 are in vocational workshops, training as automobile service station attendants, duplicating machine operator training, mail handling, and clerk-typist training. They will all be placed in jobs this summer. Training costs average $1,500 a person. This may appear to be high for a program that teaches the three R's and simple vocational skills, but the support cost for a youth on general assistance amounts to $1,500 in two and a half years. Further, it is estimated that an employed trainee will repay that amount in income taxes in from 3 to 4 years. Another important aspect of the program is that young people who join it are frequently induced to go back to school to finish their education. The Chicago Board of Education has a number of specialized programs to assist disadvantaged youth. Its urban youth program develops educational and job training programs for school dropouts between the ages of 16 and 21. This program was begun in late 1961 and has been continuously accelerated as funds, facilities, and personnel have become available. The urban youth program is divided into three phases: 1. Census and counseling. 2. Education and employment. 3. Training and transition. This three-pronged attack reaches the roots of the dropout problem, and equips these young people with the skills and knowledge to make them productive members of society. In the first phase of the program-census and counseling-known as double C- all school dropouts are contacted and requested to visit the office of the urban youth program for counseling. A followup service is built into the double C phase. The counselor attempts to persuade the individual to return to school or enroll in the urban youth program or is referred to another agency or trade school for job training. To date over 2,000 students have been contacted for counseling. The second phase of the program, education and employment, known as double E-is a cooperative work-study program in which the student spends 12 hours a week in school classes and 24 to 32 hours a week on the job in a merchandising or clerical occupation. The school curriculum is job oriented and instruction is given in the areas of English, social studies, mathematics, and business orga- nization. Attendance is arranged to suit the student's work schedule and high school credit is given in the subject areas. Some 450 students have enrolled in this program and 270 of them have been placed in jobs in 32 corporations that PAGENO="0044" 760 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 :are cooperating with the board of education and special counseling and educa- tional service are part of the double E phase. The third phase, training and transition, caned double T-is designed to help those youths who are in need of immediate jobs because of the impracticality of their returning to day school. The training and transition classes are short- term, job-oriented, and low-order skills, designed to develop wholesome attitudes toward work with the hope that the results will be the acceptance of the re- training process and the stimulation to continue training at a higher level. Training is offered in the fields of tailoring, gasoline station workers, auto- mobile mechanics, civil service examination preparation, electrical appliance repair, beautician, and hospital service training. Over 1,300 students have enrolled in this training. No high school credit is given for double T training but many students in this program have enrolled in school and are working toward diplomas. Many have been placed in jobs. The first class of the double B phase was financed by a grant of $50,000 from the Ford Foundation and early classes of the double T phase were partially financed by Ford Foundation grants. Beginning in 1962. however, the Chicago Board of Education assumed the total cost of the program, and for 1964 $200,000 was budgeted to carry out the work of this program. The three phases of the urban youth program have served a minimum of 2,171 different individuals during its 32 months of operation. The Chicago Board of Education also employs a cooperative work-study pro- gram and a work-internship program to assist young people to find jobs and to develop their aptitudes and skills. These programs are operated on a coopera- tive basis between employers, the schools, the students. and the parents. These students attend school mornings and work at a regular job in the afternoon. These projects are aimed at young people 16 years of age or older who are potential dropouts or nonachievers; those whose ability is other than academic; and those who must support themselves or contribute to family support and are capable of graduation. Since these programs were begun a little over 6 years azo, some 2750 students have been employed by 185 firms, and they have been trained in 18 different occupations and trades. Another highly effective program of the board of education is the distributive education program. This program is cooperative with schools and employees providing supervision. Students are hired in nonmanufacturing, retail, and wholesale industries and are paid a going wage for the work done. School credit is given for satisfactory performance. The latest figures show that there are now 1.030 boys and girls enrolled in the distributive education program with 41 high schools participating. This program is of tremendous importance because projections indicate that there wifi be a marked growth in distributive industries. Widespread programs have been developed and are in use by the Cook County Department of Public Aid to attack poverty and unemployment. In March of 1962, the department of public aid in collaboration with the board of education, commenced their now well-known attack on illiteracy. It is undebatable that the basic requirement for employment in this day and age is the ability to read and write. The ability to read and write is necessary to get even an unskilled job. The people who are planning the Nation's retraining programs have learned through bitter experience that the unemployed in large numbers were not ready to take training because they could not read, write, or do simple figuring. Fur- ther, they were the natural victims of predatory salesmen of cheap and inferior merchandise, and unsound financing. We learned in Chicago, as they are learning:throughout the Nation, that basic education must precede training, retraining, or vocational education. In March of 1962, the department of public aid and the Chicago Board of Education inaugurated an adult education program for public assistance recipients that is unprecedented in the entire history of public welfare and education. This program was designed to send public assistance recipients back to school if they could not function at a reading level of fifth grade work. The program also recognized the need for increasing the educational skills of those who could function at better than fifth grade level if they demonstrated difficulty in securing employment. Since the inauguration of this educational training program in 1962, the enrollment has grown to better than 10.000 public assistance recipients. Even though any substantial educational growth can be expected to take place at a very PAGENO="0045" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 761 slow rate, some 1,200 public assistance recipients have been upgraded to the eighth grade within the first year and a half of the program's operation-and in March of this year there were 63-recipients enrolled in the elementary program and 2,000 enrolled in high schools working toward a high school diploma. This program is one of the least expensive ways in which we can help people function in a socially and economically independent manner. This basic educa- tional training is being given to public assistance recipients by the department at a cost of less than $6 per month per person. This is astonishing when it is remembered that the program stresses quality, that it uses only certified teachers, and that our public assistance recipients are promoted oa the basis of tested, grade-level achievements. These students are not passed along from one grade to the next if they cannot do the work. It is estimated that in Cook County it would cost $1,300,000 to place 20,000 adult students in class for a year. This is a small sum of money to spend on rehabilitation when compared with the $184 million spent in Cook County in 1963 for public assistance. The department also conducts educational programs to reduce dropouts and has recently conducted an electronic teaching experiment among the illiterates which shows genuine promise. The training programs developed by the Cook County department of public aid with the cooperation of private companies and public agencies are having dramatic results. More than 800 men have been training to become cabdrivers. They and their large families have left the relief rolls. Many of these trainees learned their rea.dthg and writing in the literacy courses, and now they can make out their trip sheets, read their street guides, read street signs, and make change. Other programs include training for gas station attendants, domestic service, practical nursing, nurses' aids, licensed foster home operators, maintenance men and janitors, food service, and maid service. Through this wide variety of training programs and through intensive job finding and job placement efforts, more than 14,000 relief recipients were placed in or secured jobs in 1963. Almost all of them required extensive counseling and preparation. It is through efforts of this kind that from a peak reached in May 1962, relief costs have been reduced by more than $2112 million a month, and relief volume has declined by 23,000 people. The department is also conducting an extensive program of homemaking classes that covers basic information concerning money management, meal plan- ning and preparation, housekeeping techniques, sewing, and first aid. In other classes they teach recipients of public assistance how to teach other recipients in these areas of homemaking. Both labor and industry are also participating in the war on unemployment and poverty in our city. Labor is supporting fully the activities of other agen- cies and is addressing itself to an improved and expanded apprenticeship program. The committee for full employment, sponsored by the Chicago Association of Commerce and Industry, has a twofold purpose-to minimize unemployment in Chicago and to promote equal employment opportunities throughout the busi- ness community. This committee has begun a study to determine the dimensions of the problems in unemployment and employment, and is conducting a man- power survey to locate job openings. Some of the objectives of this committee are- To increase job opportunities for youth, with special emphasis on the problems and needs of disadvantaged youth; To increase the economic growth rate of the Chicago area through aggressive economic development as the basis for long-range strong employment; and The promotion of new industries by both Negroes and whites to increase growth in personal service industries and provide additional employment for those lack- lug skills. These are some of the major programs which are underway, and there are many others which are being undertaken in education, in strengthening the family unit, in youth welfare, and other vital programs. For example, more than 4,000 adults and children are being taught by volunteer tutors in 71 classes being held currently throughout the city. The mayor's committee on new residents-which is a division of the Chicago Commission on Human Relations-reported that 750 adults are being taught by 65 tutors, and 3,400 children by 1,500 tutors from 31 colleges, churches, syna- gogues, high schools, sororities, and alumni groups. PAGENO="0046" 762 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 The Committee expects to double the number of tutors involved in such pro- grams during 1964. The City of Chicago Commission on Youth Welfare, which has over 50 field- ~vorkers carrying on activities in 51 communities, serves to promote and coordi- nate neighborhood youth employment opportunities. It serves as a neighborhood information center about employment counseling and training resources for youth. It helps to n~iobi1ize neighborhood business and industry to provide work opportunities. It encourages the extension of local remedial programs such as college tutoring and follows up with personal contacts in individual cases where family problems are causing unemployment among youth. It has organized a series of youth employment and opportunity conferences. The neighborhood worker is the on-the-spot representative of all Chicagoans who want to help our young people. Throughout Chicago there are many other organizations which are carrying on neighborhood based programs covering a variety of activities in this field. - It would be quite proper for this Committee to ask why we are supporting the measures proposed by the President in light of the programs that are being tarried out in Chicago. The fact is that many of these programs are only reach- ing a relatively small number of those who need help. Other witnesses have given testimony concerning the increasing number of young people in our population. A survey of almost 144,000 of the unemployed `men and women showed that fully 68 percent of the unemployed in Illinois bad hot finished high school and 17 percent had not even finished the eighth grade. The census reports that in 1960 nearly 9 percent of the population in the city of Chicaro. or a total of 190,000 persons, were functionally illiterate, and for ~Jook County 71/2 percent were illiterate. The Nation as a whole reflects these figures showing a total of nearly 8 million or approximately 8 percent functionally illiterate. In Chicago, we will continue to expand our programs as far as possible within our resources, but we will not be able to meet the urgent needs of many, many thousands of young persons and adults. The passage of this Federal legislation will permit us to carry on vastly ex- panded programs and to initiate new programs so desperately needed by so many. You have already heard experts' testimony concerning the contributions that the Civilian Conservation Corps made in the early thirties. Youth programs I have cited have proven themselves to be successful, but they may not be effective for many of our unemployed, uneducated, and impoverished youth. In this area, the creation of a Job Corps holds a tremendous promise. There are many young people in our large cities who would benefit tremendously by being able to get away from their present urban surroundings. Under the leader- ship of trained personnel they would learn not only new skills, but habits of reliability and study. A Job Corps camp certainly is not a panacea for all the problems of our youth, but it can make a direct contribution to thousands of young people who would not ordinarily respond to training in their present environment. In this testimony I have emphasized titles I and II of the proposed legislation. There has been a common assumption that our ability to find answers to economic and social issues would advance with the growth of specialized knowledge and functions, but it is becoming evident that our national tendency to deal with environmental problems piecemeal has prevented us from for~nulating a public policy and public responsibility for the broad human and social environment. Of the greatest importance in the war against poverty is the recognition by President Johnson of the need for a comprehensive program. Certainly poverty is not only an urban problem, and title III, which outlines an attack upon poverty in rural areas, is of the greatest importance. Programs to increase employment and investment incentives contained in title IV give much needed attention to small industry and small business. If we are to successfully attack all aspects of the problem of poverty, it is essential to have a broad program of research and demonstration projects in the area of family unity, which is provided in title V of the act. The final title of the act concerning administration emphasizes coordination, which is the cornerstone of the war on poverty. In Chicago, we have appointed a committee on poverty which stresses a comprehensive, coordinated approach. The membership of this committee is composed of the heads of city depart- ments and commissions, welfare and civic agencies, representatives of business PAGENO="0047" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 763 and labor, and elected city and county officials. For the most part all of the members are directly involved in some aspects of the war against poverty. I would like to emphasize the necessity of active participation and leadership on the part of local government, for it is local officials who are most directly involved and concerned in this endeavor. In Chicago, for example, the board of health, the police department, the human relations commission, board of eclu- cation, commission on youth welfare, Chicago Park District, Cook County De- partment of Public Aid, Illinois Youth Commission, Chicago Housing Authority, and the Cook County Board, are all carrying on direct programs in education, recreation, public assistance, health, housing human relations, community im- provement, and employment. They have the resources, the staff, and the know-how which, combined with the contributions of citizen agencies, can formulate a program that the entire com- munity will support. In our first organization meeting last Friday we asked every representative to submit the program his agency was now carrying on and in our next meeting we will blend these programs into a common effort. We will work together to improve and expand existing programs and initiate new ones. Certainly this is one program that should be beyond any partisan or political consideration. Regardless of what party we represent, all of us must agree that no person in our society should be deprived of the benefits that our American society can give. There is one more vital element in this total picture which I believe should be given grave consideration. The basic goal in our entire attack on poverty is to provide jobs. It is not necessary, especially before this group, to give any de- tailed account of the penalties that our society pays for unemployment. We do know that within this affluent society we have 5 percent unemployed, we do know that automation at the present time is eliminating more jobs than it creates. We do know that there is a diminishing need for unskilled labor, in an area where the people are most helpless. We do know that it hits the older worker and the younger one. We do know that the problem is greatly aggravated among the minority groups. To meet our immediate problems, confident that our private enterprise system will meet the challenge in the long run, we need meaningful work. now for our adult population and for our youth to accompany their education or retrain- ing, or to follow it as they await economic growth to create jobs for them. It appears to me that there is no better way to rescue ablebodied, employable, but unemployed, men from their presenteroding idleness which slowly kills moral and initiative, destroys the spirit, and infects the offspring, than to give them meaningful work at decent wages. I hope that if such a bill were adopted it would not be cailed a Works Prog- ress Administration and that it would pay a more decent wage than the bare subsistence concept of that legislation. In cities throughout the Nation there are public works projects that could provide long-term benefits for all of their citizens. This work could involve the construction of recreational facilities, cleaning up slum areas, stream and air pollution control, beautifying our cities, and in many other ways. I know that the Chicago Committee on Poverty will be in the position to present meaningful recommendations for this program and other programs to aid in this war on poverty. Men and women need work. They need the chance to find themselves in the world. Next to the church and the family the opportunity for a meaningful job is the most important fact in maintaining a basic level of dignity in our way of life. One characteristic of the American people when a war is declared is that all sides come together, and this is a war. I urge the committee to approve House bill 10440 and the House of Repre~senta- tives to pass it. Mayor DALEY. It would be quite proper for this committee to ask why we are supporting the measures proposed by the President in light of the programs that are being carried out in Chicago. The tact is that many of these programs are only reaching a relatively small number of those who need help. Also, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we have in Chicago appointed a committee on poverty which stresses what I PAGENO="0048" 764 ECONOMIC OPPORTCNITY ACT OF 1964 think is the reason behind this bill: a comprehensive coordinated approach. With this in mind, Mr. Chairman, we in Chicago have appointed a committee composed of both public and private agencies in operation with an executive director in order to coordinate all the things that are being done separately, because we find to do a job more efficiently and more effectively and surely with greater emphasis, there has to be coordination in many of the fields of government activities. We are confronted with it every day in the operation of the city of Chicago as you are in the Federal Government, the neces- sity of coordinating and bringing together the various elements and factors rather than dealing with them separately which ha.s been sometimes the practice in the past. Now we are struck with the realization that in order to approach a question of this magnitude, there must be various methods of ap- proach, but surely in the interest of a better job we believe coordina- tion, cooperation, and surely bringing together all the elements will do the job. Chairman POWELL. The gentleman from Georgia, the distinguished author of the bill. Mr. LANDRUM. Thank you. Chairman Pow~n. Will you yield to me? Mr. LANIRtTM. Yes. Chairman POWELL. I have to leave so will the gentleman from Georgia kindly preside? Mr. LANDRTJM. Thank you, Mayor, for your clear statement and a concise, clear analysis of what we are proposing in this bill. In addi- tion to that, I wish to thank you for your very fine demonstration of patience. I think perhaps that is a quality that we all ought to recognize in you and perhaps we ought to acquire a little bit of it ourselves. I want to thank you for it. Now, I do not want to take up the time of the committee. I yield t~ the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Frelinghuysen. Do you desire to interrogate this witness? Mr. FRELIXGKUTSEN. Surely. I was just discussing with the chair- man about the possibility of the minority being able to get some wit- nesses to testify on the bill and he stuns me, to tell you the truth. Chairman POWELL. Beware of Greeks bearing gifts. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mayor Daley, do you have any idea how much Federal assistance the city of Chicago is getting now? Mayor DALEY. No; I don't specifically, and I don't think any other mayor would, because there are so ma.ny programs and such diversified actions that for one to carry this around with him would be virtually an impossibility. I would say to you if you want to break it down specifically and definitely, in the field of urban renewal, we have a program in which we probably receive somewhere near $12 to ~ million in the period of 2 years. We have grants from the health serv- ice in which we have participated to the extent of a million dollars. We have had assistance in programs of aviation which would average $5 million. We have had participation in the youth program of $250,000. But we have relief and assistance and the schools which will probably be about two and a. half million dollars. PAGENO="0049" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 765 Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Is it because these programs are so diverse that you think that a comprehensive coordinated program is going to be of value? Mayor DALEY. No; but it is in their infancy. Like any other leg- islation, it grows up because you have an interest of someone else and you pass legislation to take care of one specific element of this program. We are now faced with the challenge that we must take it in a com- prehensive way. We can no longer treat it piecemeal. The question of whether or not we have a coordinated or a cooperative program would appear to me to be a very intelligent one because, if you are dealing in all these fragementary ways, surely to do a more efficient a more economical operation, you would be better off if you put it all together and tried to direct it- Mr. FRELINGJIUYSEN. What Federal programs now are uncoordi- nated that you would anticipate would be coordinated with this new Office of Economic Opportunity? Mayor DALEY. We know the question of employment and the ques- tion of education are the two fundamental questions in this bill. We know that there is not disturbance in the language of the bill as it affects the respective departments. Surely you or anyone else will concede there is a direct relationship between education and training and employment in industry and jobs. We think if you are talking about youth programs in Chicago, both private and public, if you read this statement you will find out there are hundreds of variations of this program going on. If we did nothing else under this Federal legislation but to co- ordinate what is going on now, it would be a great step forward. It would be one of the most successful steps the Congress could take. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I will have to reread your statement to un- derstand it. Mayor DALEY. I wish you would. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Are you suggesting that the Manpower De- velopment and Training Act needs to be coordinated with something else in order to be effective? Mayor DALEY. I am telling you the Manpower Development and Training Act certainly relates to other things; it relates to education, it relates to industry and jobs, it relates to the conditions under which people are living. You can't talk about manpower isolated from its training. it is the whole problem we are talking about. This is why I think this is great legislation. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I am not sure what you mean. What would this program add to the effectiveness of the manpower development and training assistance that Chicago receives? Mayor DALEY. I pointed out to you that this would coordinate at a local level, for it must be coordinated if it is to be done. The only way it can be done is on a local level. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Is there a lack of coordination in t.he use of this money provided under the manpower development and training assistance? Mayor DALEY. No; I did not answer that question. You did not ask me that because there has been no misuse of money in the city of Chicago on any Federal programs. There are, however, programs 31-847-64-pt. 2-4 PAGENO="0050" 766 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 going on in all the different departments, in all the different phases, which I think should be brought together and that is all we are pro- posing, that is all I am supporting. We are trying to do them on the local level. Mr. FRELIXGHUYSEN. No existing Federal program is going to be transferred out of that agency, HEW or Labor, to the new one. Mayor DALEY. I understand that. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. How is it going to achieve a different re- sult? Ma or PALEr. I think it is evident to anyone who knows the opera- tion in the field. Mr. FRELINGH1TYSEN. It certainly is not evident from your testi- mony, Mayor. Mayor DALEY. I am sorry I have not made myself clear. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. How much money would you anticipate re- ceiving? You say on page 11 of your statement that passage of this Federal legislation will permit Chicago to carry on a vastly expanded program. How vast an expansion would you anticipate? Mayor DALEY. I wouldn't care if the city of Chicago would not re- ceive a cent under this program. I would be for it if other places would get it. Mr. FRELING~UYSEX. You express the hope that Chicago will get some money. Mayor PALEr. I do; but we are not asking for any money. Mr. FRELINGHUTSEN. You say you anticipate that passage of this bill will permit Chicago to carry on vastly expanded programs. Mayor PALEr. That is right. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. How vast an expansion? How much do you think Chicago could use? Mayor PALEr. I think under our governmental system we have faith in you and the Congress. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We are not going to be running the program, Mayor. Mayor PALEr. You have to have faith in the Federal Government. I have faith in them. I know the men and women who put this to- gether will be fair in their administration as they have been in the past. I don't see any unfairness in the distribution of these pro- grams by the Federal Government and I think, as we do even in local government, Congressman, someone has to have faith in the local official that he will do the right thing. When we pass an appropri- ation for the entire city, we can't say that there must be spelled out specifically what is going to be spent in what section of the city. We think that the public officials have a responsibility, that they will set their priorities and their priorities wifi be set on the need as they do in many Federal programs. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Surely, there are needs in Chicago for which, I assume, you feel there will be some Federal money available. It sounds to me as if you had been planning to spend all you can get, if you anticipate vast expansion of certain programs. Mayor DALEY. I hope there is. Mr. FRELINGUUYSEN. Mayor, do you have any thought about the advisability of including the local government in participation in these community action programs? Or do you feel that they should be bypassed? PAGENO="0051" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 767 Mayor DALEY. No; we are now. Mr. FRELINGI-mYSEN. There is no legislation enacted yet, Mayor, so you could not be included in legislation that has not been enacted. Mayor DALEY. Maybe I misunderstood your question. I thought you said the local government carrying on these programs now in a coordinated way. We are. Mr. FRELINGH1JYSEN. I am not talking about existing programs at all, Mayor. I am talking about the new programs envisaged under this Mayor DALEY. Congressman, if we were to only continue the exist- ing programs in Chicago on a larger scale, this is what we ask. Mr. FRELINGHtTYSEN. This is not what the bill would do, Mayor- Mayor DALEY. As far as we are concerned, Congressman, that is what it does. Mr. FRELINGRUYSEN. Title II will provide new money for so-called community action programs and the local governments have no say in whether they approve or disapprove of those programs. The only role for any government other than the Federal is that a Governor may make comments. Mayor Wagner and the mayor of Detroit just said they thought the local government should have a say in these programs. Do I make my- self clear? I do not know why it is so hard to communicate today. Mayor DALEY. Maybe it is, Congressman, but in my statement I did not read to save your time, we cover that point and say it quite defi- nitely and explicitly. We think the local officials should have control of this program. Mr. LANDRUM (presiding). The gentleman from Georgia has con- sumed 91/2 minutes. The gentlewoman from Oregon. Mrs. GREEN. I have just one comment and then I would like to yield to the gentleman from Illinois. If I have heard once during the last 7 days, I have heard at least 10 times the question asked: You realize that nothing is going to be re- served for your city and your State and that all the money in the entire program could go to eight States? This is based on the 121/2-percent limitation for any one State. The question is used, I judge, to try to detract from the bill or to help try to defeat it. Yet, in the college construction bill, which was passed last year, not only in the loan pro- vision is there no allocation by States but in title II, which provides for grants for graduate centers, which the gentleman from New Jersey supported-and I am grateful for his support on this particular bill- there is no allocation t.o States, there is still just the 121/2-percent limitation to any one State. Conceivably all of the money under title II of the Higher Education Facilities Act and all of the loan funds could go to eight States, but this was not raised as a strawman or a threat to the legislation. May I also say, Mayor Daley, that especially after yesterday's testi- mony, I am delighted to find a person who recognizes he lives in the 20th century and has a plan not only for the 20th but also for these younger people who will live most of their lives in the 21st century. May I yield to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Fiimegan. Mr. FINNEGAN. Well, to the gracious lady, not being a member of this committee, and Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity PAGENO="0052" 768 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 to say a word and to ask a question or two of the mayor of Chicago of whom not only are we proud but we wave the flag for him any time we have a chance because I believe that all of us know not only of his administrative ability but we know of his courage in appearing so many times before the committees of Congress, not only this committee but others. His answers to the questions, I believe, and his statements are very, very clear, but I think it should be emphasized m one par- ticular fashion and the gentleman from New Jersey seems to have been toying with the idea, and I hope the mayor can answer and I am sure he can, as to who he believes should administer the money, if there is going to be any money from the Federal Government, and the second point being that if there is going to be no money, can we get along without it? Mayor DA.LEY. The question of money is one that surely con~erns the very basis of the programs we have talked about. We are looking for the direction. We think there has to be confidence in local officials as well as there has t.o be confidence in other officials. We think the local officials, whether they are dealing in health or welfare or whether they are dealing in police work or whether they are dealing in all phases Of eduëation, there must be some confidence placed in them. We think very strongly that any program of this kind, in order to succeed, must be administered by the duly constituted elected officials of the areas with the cooperation of the private agencies. Mr. FINNEGAN. Would I be wrong in thinking that your great thesis is the fact that everything that this bill attempts to accomplish has to do with the coordination of present and existing Federal programs? Mayor DAiai~Y. I would think that was one of the basic reasons for the bill, yes. Mr. FINNEGAN. You are entirely in favor of that? Mayor DAr~r. Yes, sir. Mr. FINNEGAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. LANDRUM. The time of the gentlewoman from Oregon has ex-~ pired. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Griffin. Mr. GRIFFIN. I have no questions. Mr. LANDRUM. Mr. Griflin yields his time? Mr. GRIFFIN. I yield my time to one of the gentlemen from Chicago over there. Mr. Landrum. You yield to the gentleman from Chicago? Mr. Gi~rsTIN. Yes. Mr. LANDRUM. Would the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Price, like to interrogate? Mr. PRIcE. I appreciate the generosity of the gentleman from Mich- igan, Mr. Griffin. I do not desire to participate in the proceedings. I am here to lend moral support to the mayor of Chicago and also. the mayor of St. Louis. You see, I claim both of these mayors. Mr. LA*DRUM. Thank you, Mr. Price, we are glad to have you on this committee as a distinguished Member of Congress. I also want to thank Mr. Gri~n, as you did, for yielding to you. Heis a most generous person. Now we also have Congressman Murphy from Illinois. Would Mr Murphy c'n e to `isk some questions ~ PAGENO="0053" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 769 Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe the mayor of "Chicago makes a first-class witness because of the great experience he has had with life in a great city or community like the city of Chi- cago. I had the pleasure of serving with him for 4 years. I know of his great interest in thesee many problems. I just want to be here today in support of the position that he has `taken. Mr. LANDRUM. Th'ank you for your comment to the committee. Now the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Martin. Mr. MARTIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have not had an opportunity ,to read your entire statement, Mr. Mayor, but I note so far that you have at least seven programs in this field in Chicago, in the field of vocational education, the retraining `of workers, and so on, which I think is mighty fine and I want to com- mend you for it; in fact, I feel that the, local level is where these pro- grams should be conducted and not by the Federal Government or by funds from Washington. I am particularly interested in the pro- gram I have marked "6." It happens to be at the bottom of page 6, conducted by the department of public aid and adult education pro- gram for public assistance recipients. In this program, you say that since 1962, the beginning of the program, the enrollment has grown to better than 10,000 public assistance recipients. You do not state, however, as to how many of these recipients of public aid after taking this training course have gone off the relief rolls or the welfare rolls of Chicago. What have been your positive results from this program? Mayor DALEY. 800 have gone to work for the Yellow Cab Co., as chauffeurs, as mechanics, and as washers. That is one phase of it. The figures are rather difficult but we think this is one of the finer pro-V grams in training people `and then getting them jobs. In the period of time, judging from hotels and janitorial and serv- ice occupations and trying to give them training and maintenance, it is estimated that there have been thousands of men taken off relief rolls and put into employment. Mr. MARTIN. Do you have any actual figures or statiStics on these 10,000 who have taken this program who have been dropped from the relief rolls? Mayor DALEY. No. It is related to the number of people who have been changed from the relief rolls every 2 or 3 months. I found out that the majority of men and women who can get a good paying job don't want to be on relief Or welfare. They will accept a job. Mr. MARTIN. I was interested in the results of the program. Is there any way you can determine that? Mayor DALEY. I think Mr. Hilliard, when he testifies before your committee, will have the statistics. I think you realize the difficulties in the statistics. When a man is taken off and has a job with Yellow Cab, he might not necessarily stay there. He might promote himself again and take another job because of the basic training. We point out here that when we put the men in the Yellow Cab, these were men who were functional illiterates but they were taught to read and write, and they could balance their sheets. I think this is one of the finest programs in the country. PAGENO="0054" 770 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 I would hope that we have many more of them. As to the actual figures on how many thousands, I could get them and send them to you or Mr. Hilliard can give them to you when he testifies. Mr. MARTIN. Can you give me an explanation as to why 800 have gone into this one field of driving cabs? Mayor DALEY. I suppose because of the turnover and the easy way in which to train a person for the job of taxicab driver and the idea that out of the taxicab there are many private operations. Mr. MARTIN. If you have any figures or statistics as to other lines of work that these people have gone into and perhaps of their being able to earn a living for themselves and their family and their being off relief rolls, I am sure it would be of interest to the committee. As you well understand, we would be cutting down the cost of these welfare programs by putting them on a paying basis. Mayor DALEY. That is what we put in the. statement, the cost to train a young man for a job and what it cost to keep him on relief. If we are training him for a job, we are not only helping him but we are helping the government to reduce its public welfare costs as well as helping the government gain in the field of income tax which he is paying. That is why we think this is a great program. Mr. MARTIN. Do you think the Federal Government should guar- antee every citizen a job in this country and an adequate income? Mayor DALEY. Senator, I think in this affluent society, we have a responsibility not to perpetuate a segment of our society on dole. Cer- tainly we have the responsibility someplace of giving these people an opoprtunity. Whether they accept it and whether they go tre- mendously far or whether they go a middle way or short way, I would like to see everyone be given an opportunity, an equal opportunity. Then I would like to see everyone in our country, I hope this will come, receiving an annual income by which they can keep their family and children in decent living conditions. Mr. MARTIN. Are you saying that the Federal Government should guarantee a definite income? Mayor DALEY. No; I did not say that. Mr. MARTIN. That was the question I asked you, if you felt that the Federal Government should guarantee a minimum income for all citizens of the country. Mayor DALEY. No; I don't think so, but I think the Federal Gov- ernment and the Congress can provide the atmosphere under which private industry can provide and should provide employment for people in order that their compensation be. such that they can raise their families in dignity and give them educational opportunities and give them all the things that we in America stand for. I am for that. Mr. MARTIN. In other words, you do not think that the Federal Government should guarantee a minimum wage for all citizens. You do not say "Yes." You must say "No," then, to that question. Mayor DALEY. Not necessarily. It is nOt a question that you can answer "Yes" or "No." There are too many elements to the question to answer "Yes" or "No." In other words, what we are saying here is that, under this legislation, we are hoping to provide conditions under which people in private industry, and we hope this will always he America, and in private employment will receive the opportunity, PAGENO="0055" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 771 first, which they don't have now of having a skill in which they can earn a living in order to keep their family in the circumstances of what we call at least a fair and livable economic state. We are saying the Federal Government, the State government, and the local go~- ernment have a responsibility to bring that atmosphere and to bring about that condition and then the Federal Government would be re- lieved of the obligation they have now, whether it be in welfare or another phase of Federal Government. If the families in America receive a decent income and this one- fifth of the population receive a job with a decent income, the situation would correct itself. Mr. LANDRUM. Will you yield, please? Mr. MARTIN. I will be glad to yield. Mr. LANDRUM. I will ask the mayor of Chicago, are you aware, sir, of any provision in this legislation now under consideration to guar- antee any person, rich or poor, an income of any dimension? Mayor DALEY. No, I don't think it is in the bill. I haven't seen it. Mr. LANDRUM. Do you desire further recognition? Mr. MARTIN. Just one other remark, Mr. Chairman. The commit- tee report to which I alluded this morning and which has been tied in at least by the press, and I think with some logic, as the next step after this poverty program which we are considering here today, the prop- osition as presented by that committee in its report to the President was that men should be paid whether they work or not. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. LANDRUM. The gentleman from California, Mr. Roosevelt. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mayor, I want to say that I have read your statement and heard your remarks in answer to these questions. As usual, I think you have hit the bell exactly. It seems to me that the gentleman from Nebraska does not grasp the point that the committee that he is talking about is not an official committee. It is a group of private people who got to- gether to express a point of view. Thank God, that is their right in America. And by imputation to say that we should have that view- point attached to this bill does not make any sense at all. I would say to the mayor that it seems to me that I would like to have his comment and I asked Mayor Wagner the same thing this morning, is it not a fact that because we have measures that are now working in this area, such as vocational education bill and the manpower and retraining bill, that for us to simply say that because these are on the statute books and working that we should delay any other effort to get at the poverty that exists is a mighty poor excuse and that we use the measures in this bill as a supplementary weapon to accomplish the aim of trying to get a better America in which to live for this percentage of the population? Mayor DALEY. I think you are right, Congressman, and I think the bill will accelerate and expedite and enlarge what we are doing. This is our problem. We are doing the many things you mentioned but we are doing them in such magnitude in order to have the proper impact. We think the sooner we do it, the better society we will have all over America. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Will not this bill coordinate many of these things? Mayor DALEY. Yes, it will. PAGENO="0056" 772 EC0N0~HC 0PPORTU~ITY ACT OF 1964 Mr. ROOSEVELT. So that-I forget who it was this morning who said a general did not go into battle without making sure that all the various elements he had supporting the attack were working together. Does not this bill bring into battle against poverty that element of coordina- tion? Mayor D~ARy. Yes, it does. Mr. MARTIN. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. ROOSEVELT. Yes. Mr. MARTIN. I am well aware that this committee is not an official committee of the Government, but I am also aware that sometimes things of this magnitude are purposely planned as tria.l balloons to see what the public reaction is before perhaps official stands or posi- tions are taken, of which I am rather suspicious in this case. Mr. ROOSEVELT. The gentleman may be suspicious but he has no evidence that this was set up as a trial balloon, does he? Mr. MARTIN. I have a himch; let us put it tha.t way. Mr. ROosEvELT. I cannot stop the gentleman from having hunches. Mr. LA~DRUM. The gentleman from New Jersey. Mr. THOMPSON. You may have hunches, but I would not bet on those kinds of hunches. Mayor, I got here late during your presentation, but I have had an opportunity during the last 20 minutes or so to read your state- ment. I would like to commend you, first., for the efforts you have made in Chicago and to commend you particularly for your state- ment in response to Mr. Frelinghuysen to the effect you want this pro- grain whether or not your city, which has a desperate need, gets any of it.. You are not the. first to have said this, but you demonstrate an understanding of the need. I think that probably the genesis of your attitude is that you realize that there is a. grea.t migra.tion to Chicago from deprived a.rea.s elsewhere and if they get assistance you will get it. Mayor DALEY. That is right. Mr. THOMPSON. I think it is very fortunate, from a personal point of view, that our friends on the other side have not been exposed to this grinding, miserable poverty, which exists in so many places. I think it is unfortunate, however, that they do not understand it. They seem not to be able to have any vicarious understanding of the poverty and the suffering of other people. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. A point of order, Mr. Chairman. I am not sure just what that remarks means. Mr. THOMPSON. I will explain it. Mr. FRELINGHDTSEN. The Republicans on this committee have just as much understanding of the nature of poverty and the problem it presents. I would like to hear an explanation of that understanding from the gentleman. Mr. LAxDR~r. Wifi the gentlemen from New Jersey wash your dirt~v linen in private? The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Thompson, is recognized. Mr. THoMPsoN. I was not aware there was any personal reference at all. I was ma.ldng a general statement. Mr. FRELINHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, if we may, I would like to have the statement rere.ad. Mr. THOMPSON. I would be delighted to. PAGENO="0057" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 773 Mr. LANDRUM. The Chair rules the point out of order. The gentleman from New .Jersey will pursue the questions. The distinguished mayor from Chicago is here, now delayed in his hour of departure. We will straighten these things out in the record later. Proceed with the mayor. Mr. THo1'~rrsoN. Do I have consent to revise and extend? Mr. LANDRUM. Without objection; yes. Mr. THo1~rPsoN. Mayor, I will not take any more time because our colleague from Illinois, Mr. Pucinski, is awaiting his opportunity. I simply would like to commend you for the generosity of your state- ment, for the thoroughness of it, and for your understanding. Thank you. Mayor DALEY. Thank you. Mr. LANDR1IM. Mr. Pucinski. Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Mayor, as a resident of Chicago, I certainly am very happy to see you as my mayor join a most distinguished list of witnesses who have testified in support of this legislation. As far as I know, this is the first time in the history of this country that all of the Cabinet members, except the Secretary of State, have testified in support of an important measure. The President certainly has as- *signed this as one of the most important measures of his administration. I am even more gratified because you have brought to this commit- tee specific examples of how this program can work on a national scale and what it means in terms of human values. My colleague from Nebraska inquired how much money was saved with the 800 taxicab drivers who were trained in Chicago and put to work. At the rate of minimum figures, using four members of a family receiving in general assistance a minimum of $200 a month, this one project has saved the people of Chicago and Cook County some $71/2 to $8 million in 1 month. Now, I think this testimony is particularly imposing and impres- sive because it shows us specifically what this bill means to America. I wonder if you would care to comment on the fact that when we speak of 800 men who were put back in the gainful employment, we are really not only talking about 800 men, we are talking about 3,200 people, on the average, who were removed from the welfare rolls or other public assistance programs. Would you, on the basis of your experience, care to expand on that, Mr. Mayor? Mayor DALEY. I think you are absolutely right, that when you talk about one person on relief, we in Chicago know it involves three more, generally the wife and two children is the average. So, actually, we are not talking about 800, we are talking about 4 times 800, which is approximately 3,200. Mr. PUOIN5KI. This is what makes your testimony today so tre- mendously impressive. You have, Mr. Mayor, for instance, pointed out, on page 7 of your statement, that it is estimated in Cook County itwould cost $1,300,000 to place 20 adult students in a class for a year, dealing with special training programs. Then you point out, this is a small sum of money to spend on rehabilitation when compared with the $184 million spent in Cook County in 1963 for public assistance. We have had testimony here and witness after witness has been asked what will this program cost. You have given this committee PAGENO="0058" 774 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 an insight into the alternatives if we do not have a program like this. It appears to me from your testimony we can draw this con- clusion: That perhaps the most expensive single item in any govern- ment's budget today is an unemployed American worker. Would that be a safe conclusion. Mr. Mayor? Mayor DAJ.~Y. I think it is because we are suffering the severe pen- alty of not only the loss of his productivity but we are also imposing npon the Government the cost of his keep while lie is unemployed. So the greatest thing for the Government to do and all people in the Government is to try to get as many people to work as quickly as possible and to give them educational opportunities and training in order that they be fit for work. Mr. PUOINSKI. Mr. Mayor, you have earned a reputation through- out this country and I daresay in many sectors of the world as an outstanding municipal administrator and executive. I wonder if you would care for the guidance of this committee to define more precisely the relationship that you see in implementing this program between local governments and then flowing through the local gov- ernrnents the rights and authority to distribute this progra.m to other agencies either public or private that may be working in harmony with the local government? Mayor DALEY. Congressman, as I have said in my statement and as you know, we have tried in all phases of government to coordinate activities. It is one of the questions I think that any mayor has in any city. We try to coordinate public works, which many times are divided in various segments. We try to put them together and have a coordinated public works program. In this field we know that there have been many activities from our board of education, from our health department, from the Chi- cago Association of Commerce and Industry, from the YMCA, and the Boys' Clubs, all of them working on individual projects. We know that the Illinois State is involved, county welfare, county departments, and in bringing all their activities together we think this, in itself, is a highly desirable thing to do because it focuses the attention of what is going on as well as coordinating it and giving it widespread publicity in order that. more and more people will participate. For instance, our literacy program, this, in itself, adult literacy, the only way you get the people who are adult to come into t.he classes is to get more and more publicity and more and more people interested, the churches, various organizations, to urge people to come into the classes in order to remove illiteracy from our midst. I will say frankly to you, this is one of the things we have been trying to do in Chicago. We have been doing it ourselves. We admit very frankly and honestly we haven't got the resources to do it the way it should be done, therefore we ask the Federal Gov- ernment for help. Mr. Puc.INsKI. The gentleman from New Jersey. Mr. Frehng- huysen, raised the question, What do you need a Federal program for? What will it do that is not now being done? I would like very strongly to call his attention to Mayor Daley's statement on pa.ge 11, the last sentence, where he points out: * * * it is becoming evident that our national tendency to deal with environ- mental problems piecemeal has prevented us from formulating a public policy and public responsibility for the broad human and social environment. PAGENO="0059" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 775 I think that this certainly states more succinctly than any statement I have heard in the testimony today the need for this program, what it is going to do, and what is its basic philosophy. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I might say to the gentleman that the mem- bers of the President's `Cabinet have not come in with any such testi- .mony. They do not say that their programs result in a piecemeal dealing with environmental problems as Mayor Daley argues. Mr. PUOINSKI. On the contrary, the testimony of Mr. Shriver- Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I might say he is not in the Cabinet. I have not included Mr. Shriver. We may have high hopes of where he is going but, as a matter of fact, he is not in the Cabinet. Mr. PU0INsKI. He has been named by the President as adminis- trator of the program and I know the mayor of Chicago has had vast experience in dealing with agencies of government at all levels. Both these gentlemen have given you firsthand, personal impressions. Both have stated that, while there are many programs today in existence, this program is designed to tie them together, to coordinate them, to make them more economical and in the long run save the taxpayers money. That is the essence of the testimony I get from the mayor of Chi- cago as one of the Nation's outstanding administrators. Mr. LANDRUM. Do you have any more questions? Mr. PuoINsKI. No. I would like to thank the mayor of Chicago for his contribution today. Mayor DALEY. Thank you. Mr. LANDRUM. Mayor, we are pleased to have had you. We are grateful for your patience. We are better equipped with, the knowl- edge you have left with us. Thank you very much. Mayor DALEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. LANDRUM. We are glad to welcome the distinguished mayor of the city of Detroit, realizing that his plane leaves here at 3 :30 and he has been delayed by the business on the floor of the House. STATEMENT OP HON. JEROME CAVANAGH, MAYOR, DETROIT, MICH. Mayor CAVANAGH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Con- gressman Griffin. Let me first say I appreciate the opportunity to appear out of turn beèause I know that Mayor Daley had been testifying. But for the purpose of the record, `my name is Jerome Cavanagh. I am mayor of the city of Detroit. I am pleased with the opportunity to be able to testify here today with other mayors in support of the President's legislative program for war on poverty. I believe that it is a good program. I believe it is a realistic program. I think most im- portantly, though, it is a needed program for our country and certainly for the children of America. As far as our city is concerned, Detroit needs this program as do our sister cities in the North. The South, the rural areas need the pro- gram for the problems of the poor are shared by country dwellers and urban residents, and I think it is a program that really could be used to unite Americans because it is an appeal to conscience which, in my judgment, makes very good economic sense. PAGENO="0060" 776 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF* 1964 In Detroit, I think it has been seen really as a moral challenge free from political connotations. One of the reasons I say that is that the present planning committee, and I am deviating here from my testimony, but the present planning committee which has been created by our office is representative of every interest in the community including the local chamber of com- merce which is represented on this committee and very actively rep- resented in the planning process. So we have geared up in Detroit for all participation in this program or in the programs which await the passage of this Economic Opportunity Act. We have been acutely aware, really, of the need for a concerted and very determined community action against the roots of poverty. We have not merely been standing by awaiting the declaration of the so- called war on poverty because we have been engaged in some prehm- `i~~ary activity and achieved some degree Of success. Really, our efforts are modestly scaled because the needs are so great. Certainly, as you know as well as I, the limitations on local funds derive really from the realities of what I term the central cities fiscal of financial strin- gencies. It is true of our city as well as every other major city in the country. These limitations really prevent the allocation of persomiel and funds which are needed to come to grips with the problems which we know exist. We have sought to create some new jOb opportunities in our com- murntyby working closely, for example, with the Area Redevelopment Administration. It has been my privilege to serve as a. member of the National Public Advisory Committee of ARk and to participate in some degree in the shaping of policy which I think have meant so much even in a limited way to the jobless of America. We have been able, for example, to study the potential of our port, our riverfront in our community. Through the ARA, it has given us the blueprint for future development which is being. implemented by private developers. Through ARA we have been able to study Detroit, its potential as a research center. There are many other things that ARA has done that I could spell out in greater detail but because of the limitations of time I won't. As I appear here today, the final touches are being given to an action program to combat juvenile delinquency and the highest areas of delinquency inside our city. It is called CADY, Community Action for Detroit Youth. It has brought together what I term really town and gown in a cooperative effort and cooperative drive using the re- sources of public and private agencies in a coordinated program to attack not only the causes but the effects also of juvenile delinquency. We are hopeful certainly that t.he President's Committee on Juvenile Delinquency will agree with us that it is a good program so that we can implement this comprehensive plan. Under a grant from the Department of Labor and HEW, we have been training in our city some out-of-school youth, using a split pro- gram of work experience in city job stations and supplementary train- ing in a youth employment center. Only ~OO youngsters will be trained in the course of this program during the year out of an estimated 35,000 jobless youngsters in our community between the ages of 16 and 21, all of whom are sons and daughters of Detroiters who are out of school and out of work and I think most importantly, though, fre- quently out of hope. PAGENO="0061" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 777 Speaking as a father I am deeply. disturbed but, as a mayor of a community, I think I have a responsibility of trying to do some- thing more than that which we have done. I assure you, gentlemen, that the President's legislative program in relation to poverty does offer a hope to myself as the mayor and hope to the parents and the children of our community that more will be done. Our community is. united, I believe, behind the need for the Presi- dent's program. On just this Monday, a meeting was held in my office attended by the leaders of industry, labor, education, and government and at that time this committee about which I am speaking, the Metropolitan Committee on Employment Opportunity, unanimously agreed to act as the policy body for the community action program on poverty, which is an intrinsic part, obviously, of the total package and a full- time staff has been assigned to spell out the details of our local pro- gram in this total action against poverty. I have a.dded to my formal statement an organizational chart and it details the membership on this committee and its relationship to other ongoing community efforts. I think that has some degree of importance here because it does represent, as I said earlier, Mr. Chair- man, not only the representatives of labor but the members of the board of commerce, the officers of the board of commerce, our educa- tional institutions, our religious leaders, the entire spectrum of com- munity interest is re.presented on this employment committee, the committee on employment opportunity. I think that our city, at least to some degree, is unique in recogniz- ing the need to supplement our community renewal program studies of the physical problems, for example, of urban renewal by some studies, some preparations of what I term "action programs," to deal with other socia.l problems, because certainly there is a direct correlation between inadequate income and inadequate housing, be- tween inadequate education and unemployment or underemployment, between slums and delinquency and other forms of social and personal disorganization. The CRP, or the community renewal program, in Detroit, is devot- ing much of its time and energies to attempting to find solutions to some of the social ills that I mentioned. In the flow chart, which I attached to the testimony, it shows some of the things that they have been doing right now. This CRP staff in our city is coordinating our governmental and private agency planning and educational planning for our community action program in this area of poverty. To supplement these efforts and to assure our full participation as a city, some time ago I had the opportunity to form, and I did form, a departmental council on poverty programs prior to even the Presi- dent's message coming to the Congress. Health and welfare, recrea- tion, housing, youth, industrial development, these local agency heads are directly involved in working up the city's portion and the city's participation in the poverty program. Obviously, we have given most of our attention to the young people but certainly there are many others who need our help, the physically and emotionally handicapped, the mother who has to support her family by herself, the older worker who has no place to turn when automation displaces him, as so fre- PAGENO="0062" 778 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 quently happens in a city like Detroit, the educational needs of our youth and adults are really only a part of the total educational needs of our community. I have read the presentation made by Mr. Shriver on the 17th of March before this committee, and I think it is a complete exposition of what I term "the needs and the proposed solutions." I would like merely to add my endorsement to his statement, also to take the opportunity to publicly ask for the continuation of pro- grams such as the accelerated public works program and area redevel- opment, which I think form an important part of this total war on poverty in America. I think in conclusion, if I might say, there is a. time for talk really and a time for action, as has been said, and certainly I think we need action now to demonstrate to the Nation and to the world that America does care about those poor unfortunate people who live behind what might be termed the "tattered curtain" in America, who really are the poor who dwell among us. Certainly I can think in conclusion of really no finer concept of governmental action than that which is signified by this poverty pro- gram because what we are saying is that the Federal Government in concert with State and local governments and private agencies and interested private groups does care about a very significant portion of our American citizenry who, unfortunately, find themselves in the very agonizing depths of poverty. It is an invitation, really, to rouse the conscience of American citizens and I think for that reason, above even the money involved, it is important. It stimulates and it. is a catalyst to action. Chairman POWELL. Thank you ever so much. Without objection, the charts and your prepared testimony will be included in the record. (The charts referring to Detroit's Total Action Against Poverty (TAP) appear in the committee ifies.) (The statement referred to follows:) REMARKS BY HoN. Jlmo3rE P. GAvANAGH, MAYOR, DETROIT, MIen. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Jerome P. Cavanagh. I am mayor of the city of Detroit, Mich. It is a privilege arid an honor for me to appear here this morning with other mayors to testify in support of Presi- dent Johnson's legislative program for a war on poverty. It is a good program. it is a realistic program. It is a needed program for America and America's children. Detroit needs this program and so do our sister cities in the North and in the South. The rural areas need this program for the problems of the poor are shared by country dwellers and urban residents. This is a program to unite America and unite Americans. It is an appeal to conscience which makes good economic sense. In Detroit it has been seen as a moral challenge free from political connotations. I am pleased to report to you that we in Detroit-in the Metropolitan Detroit area-have geared up for full participation in the programs which await pas- sage of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1984. Since I first assumed office in 1982 we have been acutely aware of the need for a concerted and determined community action program against the roots of poverty. We have not been standing by awaiting the declaration of war on poverty. We have been engaged in preliminary skirmishes and have some achievements. But our ~ff~rts have been modestly scaled though the needs are great. Limi- tations on local funds derive from the realities of central city financial stringen- PAGENO="0063" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 779 des. These limitations prevent the allocation of the personnel and funds needed to come to grips with the problems we know exist. We have sought to create new job opportunities by working closely with the Area Redevelopment Administration. It has been my privilege to serve as a member of the National Public Advisory Committee of the ARA and to partici- pate in the shaping of those policies which, in my judgment, have meant so much to America's jobless. Technical studies of Detroit's port potential have given us a blueprint for future development now being implemented to some degree by private investors. Shortly, another study will be undertaken of Detroit's potential as a research center. We are concerned not only in filling existing jobs which go begging because the skills are not found in the community, but also to "grow" jobs-to create new jobs through research and development centers. iDemidco-Detroit Metropolitan Industrial Development Corp-is doing just that in processing loan applications to ARA. As I appear here the final touches are being given to an action program to combat juvenile delinquency in the highest delinquency area of Detroit. Com- munity Action for Detroit Youth (CADY) has brought together town and gown in a cooperative drive using the resources of public and private agencies in a coordinated program to attack the causes as well as the effects of juvenile delin- quency. We are hopeful that the President's Oommittee on Juvenile Delinquency will agree with us that this is a good program and provide some of the funds it will require. Under a grant from the Department of Labor and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, we have been training out-of-school youth using a split program of work experience in city jobs and supplementary training in the Youth Employment Center. Only 600 youngsters will be trained during the year out of an estimated 35,000 jobless youngsters who are the sons and daughters of Detroiters and who are out of school, out of work, and too frequently out of hope. As a father I am deeply disturbed. As mayor I have the responsibility to try to do something more than we have done. And I assure you that President Johnson's war on poverty offers hope to me as mayor and to the parents and the children of Detroit that more will be done. Detroit is united behind the need for the President's program. On Monday a meeting was held in my conference room attended by leaders of industry, labor, education, and government. At that time the Metropolitan Committee on Em- ployment Opportunity unanimously agreed to act as the policy body for the community action program on poverty which is an intrinsic part of the poverty package. A full-time staff has been assigned to spell out the details of our local participation program which we refer to as TAP-total action against poverty. An organizational chart has been provided with my statement and details the membership of this committee and its relationship to other ongoing community efforts. I think Detroit is unique in recognizing the need to supplement our community renewal program studies of the physical problems of urban renewal, by studies and preparation of action programs to deal with social problems. There is a direct correlation between inadequate income and inadequate housing; between inadequate education and unemployment or underemployment; between slums and delinquency and other forms of social and personal disorganization. The community renewal program is devoting much of its energies to the solutions of our social ills. The flow chart you have in front of you shows some of the things they are doing now. The CRP staff is coordinating our governmental, private agency, and educational planning for TAP, our community action program. To supplement these efforts and to assure our full participation-as a city- in poverty action programs, I have formed a departmental council on poverty programs. Health, welfare, recreation, housing, youth, industrial development-these local agency heads are directly involved in working up the city's portion and the city's participation in the poverty program. Obviously, we have given most of our attention to the young. But there are others who need help; the physically and emotionally handicapped, the mother who has to support the family herself, the older worker who has no place to turn when automation displaces him. The educational needs of youths and adults are only a part of the total educational needs of our community. I have read the presentation made by Sargent Shriver on March 17. It is a complete exposition of the needs and the proposed solutions. I would merely PAGENO="0064" 780 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 add my endorsement to his statements and ask for the continuation of the accelerated public works program and the Area Redevelopment Administration. There is a time for talk and a time for action. I think we need action to demonstrate to the Nation and the world that America cares about those behind the tattered curtain-the poor who dwell among us. Chairman Powi~i~. There are many questions I would like to ask but due to time imposed upon us by your having to catch a plane and the fact that the House was in session, I will withhold my questions. The gentleman from Georgia, the distinguished author of this bifi, Mr. Landrum. Mr. LANDRU3I. Mayor Cavanagh, for the same reasons expressed by my chairman, I wifi confine my questions to one brief question. It appears from your statement and from the attachments to your printed remarks that the city of Detroit, under your direction, has marshaled a considerable program against this business of poverty on its own. Do you feel, Mayor, that the resources of your city of Detroit are sufficient to cope with the problem in its present magni- tude without the services of the Federal Government. Mayor CAVANAGH. To say very categorically the answer is "No." I think the most frustrating thing that I personally find on this job which I have had for 2 years is the fact that, as hard as we work and as many resources as we locally can marshal, that we just can't make the consequential dent in the areas under consideration, the ill-fed, delinquencies, school dropouts, that obviously are needed. Unless we have assistance, and thank goodness we have in so many other areas, the assistance of the Federal Government, it is impossible to move. This touches an area which I am very much interested in which we could speak about if there were more time, but I Imow, as far as Detroit is concerned, and I think other cities, that too frequently State legis- latures have not been discharged their responsibilities to some of the urban areas across the country, not only in my State but others. As nice as it would be, for example, to have the State participate more fully, I am not a person that decries Federal assistance, because I say on the record thank goodness that our Congress in their wisdom has recognized some of the problems that do exist in the metropolitan urba~i centers and has taken some action to combat them. Mr. LANDRUM. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Chairman POWELL. The gentleman from Ohio. Mr. A~nss. No questions. Chairman POWELL. The gentlelady from Oregon. Mrs. Glu~EN. I have no questions. Chairman PoWELL. The gentleman from Michigan. Mr. GRU'FIN. As a representative from Michigan, IL want to indicate how pleased we are to have the mayor of Detroit before the subcom- mittee. I find his statment very interesting and very helpful. I wonder, Mr. Mayor, you base a great deal of your support for legislation on the problems in Detroit and the needs there, I wonder if you have figured out under the formula in this bill how much of the close to a billion dollars that is authorized is going to go to Michigan? Mayor CAVANAGH. I have not figured out how much would go to Michigan. I would assume, of course, if there were a particularly aggravated situation in Michigan or the southeastern part of Michigan in relation to poverty that that area would be entitled and obviously would receive from the Federal Government fair and favorable con- PAGENO="0065" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 781 sideration to at least start to combat this problem. Such has been the case in some of the other programs that I mentioned in my testi- mony as well as other Federal programs, the accelerated public works, for example; our State and our city has done well because I think there was a serious problem there and these programs were tailored to meet the problems as they existed there. Mr. GRIFFIN. Of course, under the bill and, as you probably know there is not any allocation at all as far as the States are concerned no assurance that any State or any community will get anything. The allocation of funds is completely within the discretion of the bureauc- racy in Washington. The only limitation I know to that statement is that no one State can receive more than 12 percent of the funds. I think it is a fact that many people do not seem to be too much aware of that. You indicated a certain amount of unhappiness with the un- derstanding and action of the State legislature with respect to the problems of urban areas; ~.But I think we also ought to keep in mind as we consider this legislation that if you are deeply concerned about the problems of Detroit and Michigan that it costs Michigan tax- payers at least a dollar and a quarter for every dollar that they can get back from the Federal Government. That is the most conserva- tive figure that the tax foundation or. any other group puts forth. I also suggest, where do you think the Federal Government is going to get this billion dollars? You have in mind, of course, that we are going to borrow it and that is what you want us to do, but the city of Detroit does not want to borrow money that they need, is that right? Mayor CAVANAGH. Of course, the city of Detroit has borrowed money. I think every city in the country is probably as near their maximum potential as far as being able to fund some of their own pro- gram. In Michigan, as you know, Congressman, so well, the area which I represent pays in about $108 per year, yet receives back from our State legislature $66 a year. So I think this is some slight evidence of some- times the attitude of our State legislature about urban areas, includ- ing even your own city, Traverse City. My point is that there is a need here and I do not think there is aily question about it. When you have 35,000 youngsters walking the streets in just my city alone, and I can't calculate the number in Battle Creek, Muskegon, and Kalamazoo, I am sure there are that many else- where in proportion, too, the local government is unable to meet and cope with this problem itself, I think there is a moral responsibility on the part of the Government to involve itself in it. I don't think any- one claims that Government alone can solve the problem. They can't. But the design of this bill is to encourage sort of a community com- prehensive approach by private agencies as well. That is what is so interesting and I think salutary about this legislation. Mr. GRIFFIN. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. Chairman POWELL. The gentleman from California, Mr. Roosevelt. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Mayor, I am delighted to have had the opportu- nity of hearing your excellent statement. The main thrust of the opposition witnesses so far and somewhat the questioning of my friends on the other side of the table has been that the Vocational Education Act and the Manpower Development and Retraining Act, if we would just give them more time to work 31-847--64---jpt. 2-~5 PAGENO="0066" 782 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OP 1964 that that will take care of the situation and what is in this bill should wait until we see the results of that. I would like your view on that. Of course, I have my own feeling that it can do its job but it cannot get at much of what this bill is aimed at and that we should certainly add this to the other programs. You are in an area where you see all these programs in operation and I would like to have your view.: Mayor CAVANAGH. Yes. As good as those programs are and they are excellent programs and the amendments to the Vocational Educa- tion Act and the other legislation which the Congress has passed, I think I speak with a degree of unanimity from the leadership in our community, leaders in education, labor, industry,'and so on, that these devices alone are not sufficient. One of the interesting things about this particular bill is the fact that we propose to coordinate most of the existing programs in this area as well as extend into some new areas to develop a more compre- hensive approach to attack the total problem. I think one of the problems, at least in the cities, is the fragmenta- tion of approach as evidenced by individuals and separate programs enacted either locally or on a Federal level. Mr. ROOSEVELT. I certainly thank you very much. Ithink you have brought out the point very well. Chairman POWELL. The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Martin. Mr. MARTIN. No questions. Chairman POWELL. The gentleman from Illinois. Mr. PtrcINsKI. I want to make one observation. Perhaps you might care to comment. The gentleman from Michigan made a point of the fact that you send more money to the Federal Government than you receive back. Is it not a fact, though, that if the wealthier States of the country do not help the poorer States in this program of preparing people for work and training them for work, then because of the high rate of migration in our country-one out of five families in America moving every year-then do you not. have a much more serious prob- lem as people move into your city if they are not trained? Even though in the short range it. might appear that you are spending more, sooner or later the investment made in this program is going to pay off in people who for various reasons might move in your city. Is that not a fact? Mayor CAvAxAGH. Yes, Congressman. I think it was brought out this morning the tremendous mobility that is going on in this country and has been for some time and is reflected certainly by the shifts in population in a city such as the one that I live in,~ Detroit. This truly is a national problem, it is national in. scope, and should be attacked that way. I would agree also with what you say about the national obligation involved on the part of the Federal Establishment. Mr. Pucixsni. Thank you very much. Mr. GRirrix. Would the gentleman yield to me for comment?* Mr. Ptrcixsni. Yes. `~ Mr. GIUITIN. Ithink the point that the gentleman makes is a good one if you: come here and testify for this bill on the;basis that you are here to help some other less fortunate area or poorer State or some- thing of that kind. But when you come here supporting the bill on PAGENO="0067" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 783 the basis you have problems in Detroit, you are trying to solve your problems there and how do you best finance it, if you are interested in the best way to finance it, I am just pointing out it costs us a dollar and and a quarter in Michigan to get a dollar back from the Federal Gov- ernment. I just question whether on that basis it makes sense. Mr. PUCIN5KI. Wouldn't the gentleman agree that when you hope to remove human poverty and misery and when you invest m human beings, whether in Illinois or New York, sooner or* later the whole country benefits from it? Mr. .FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield? Mr. PuCINsKI. I do not think I have any more time. Chairman POWELL. He has 1 more minute. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I recognize the mayor has to catch a plane. I regret we did not schedule you at a time when we could have ade- quate time for a questioning period. I would like to ask you ques- tions, too, but bon voyage. Chairman POWELL. The gentleman has 5 more minutes. Mr. FREYLINGHUYSEN. I thought he had to catch a 3:30 plane. Mayor CAVANAGH. No, I have to leave at 3:30 to catch a 4 o'clock plane. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Oh, this is a relief. Mayor, I regret I was not here to hear your testimony. I would like to ask whether you consider that Michigan is surely going to get some of this money should we adopt this program? Mayor CAVANAGH. I would assume on the basis of past experience of comparable programs as well as the need that would exist in our State, not only our city but the Upper Peninsula, that, yes, Michigan would qualify and get some benefits as a result of this program. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You recognize under the formula or distri- bution of aid that eight States could receive the entire amount. Might this not conceivably, perhaps not in an election year, eliminate Michi- gan from consideration? Mayor CAVANAGH. Well, it is conceivable but I don't think that has been the pattern in some other Federal programs in which they have been administered on the basis of need, as I see it. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We have never had a program that would allocate all the funds from 50 States to 8. I assume the gentleman knows this. Mrs. GREEN. Would the gentleman yield? * Mr. FRELINGIIUYSEN. Yes; I will be glad to yield. Mrs. GREEN. The loan provision in the Higher Education Facilities Act is similar to that, so that not more than 121/2 percent of the funds could go to any one State. So all of the money conceivably could go to eight States.. The Juvenile Delinquency Act does not provide that any money has to go to a particular State, and Detroit receives a large amount. . . Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. 1 do not want to argue with the gentlewoman when we have the mayor here. Surely there is an allocation fdi~mula in the loan program ~md, so far as I know, in any other Federal aid program except this. . * . Wh'tt puzzles me is why you think $1 billion in this form is gomg to be more effective than the tens of billions of dollars that we have in. existing Federal programs. PAGENO="0068" 784 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 What makes you think you are going to be able to solve problems in Detroit because a new agency is set up with almost complete freedom to spend the money as desired? If you happen to be on the inside with Mr. Shriver, or if you happen to be able to make a very appealing c.ase, you may get some of this money. However, there is no safe- guard to see that some money goes to the neediest areas in every State, which is one of the things that is at least reason for us to hesitate be- fore we give this program a blank endorsement. Mayor CAVANAGH. Well, if I might respond in this fashion, Mr. Congressman, it is true that the Juvenile Delinquency Control Act un- der which Detroit has received a substantial Federal grant of $250,000, I believe, if I am not mistaken that had no schedule of allocations within it and it has been placed, as I understand it, this money, in those cities of need throughout the country notwithstanding the politi- cal composition of the cities and the fact-I. don't think at any time have I claimed nor certainly do today, and if I did I would like to cor- rect the record, that this program represented the total solution to the very problem that exists in Detroit. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Nobody has sa.id, I would hope, that an addi- tional bfflion dollars in spending would represent a panacea. This is a strawman argument. No one is suggesting that. MayOr CAvANAGH. I think. it is a highly consequential and sig- nificant step, because it does say to the people of our community and to the people of the country, yes, Government utilizing both public and private resources does propose to wager comprehensive attack for the first time in the history of our country on the causes and result of poverty. Mr. FRELINGHtTYSEN. Why do you say for the first time in history? You have already indicated that the Federal Government at least has been taking an active interest in the manpower and development train- ing program and vocational training program and otherwise. Now, where does this bill show that the Government has a heart now where before it did not? Mayor CAVANAGH. I said, and I continue to say, that it is the first time that a comprehensive approach has been used in relation to this program instead of isolating a particular area of concern such as urban renewal or juvenile delinquency or one of these others. Mr. Fm~r.morrIrrsEN. I think you show a misunderstanding of what is contemplated. There is no coordination planned of existing programs. The existing agencies will continue to have their own little empires, but a new one is being built, superimposed to a degree upon it. This, in itself, does not make it comprehensive whereas before it was patchwork. To my mind, this bill is a patchwork of the worst kind. It not only involves educational problems of the country but land reform programs, Small Business Administration. None of these fall under the jurisdiction of this committee. Nor do I think the Director is given sufficient power to knock heads together so that we will suddenly have a comprehensive program whereas before we did not, unless all the secretaries of the various Federal departments have come in here under a misapprehension as to what is going to happen to their responsibilities. They are assuming that their re- sponsibilities remain the same. PAGENO="0069" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 785 Maybe YOU read the bill differently, but that is what they think. Mayor CAVANAGH. No, but it does require this, as I am sure you will agree, on the part of local units of government, on the part of my city, it requires a more comprehensive and coordinated approach to participate in the development of this community action program and. to participate in the benefits of the legislation than ever before in the history of our country. Mr. FRELINGHtTYSEN. The local governments are bypassed corn- pletely. You do not have any say whether a Federal program should come in your area or not. Mayor Wagner said he thought language should be put in the bill~ that would allow you to pass judgment on the programs, but there is no such authority now. Mayor CAvANAGH. I know there is no such authority, and I would agree with Mayor Wagner that there are certain things that I would like to see placed in the bill clarifying, for example, the role of local units of government. Obviously, the intent, as I read the bill, is to require the coordination of existing agencies both public and private on a local basis to participate in the benefits of this legislation. Whether it is required or not, I think it will be and as I read it that is the intent, we have done just that within our city when I pointed out that the president of the chamber `of commerce, the heads of our major universities, the heads of our labor unions, the highest ranking clergymen of all the faiths are participating as the policy com- mittee in developing our community action program for the pur~ pose of participating. Now, these are men that are of a different polit- ical faith than I am and they still see the benefits of this legislation. Mr. FRELINGHtTYSEN. Mayor, how much Federal assistance does Detroit presently receive? Do you have any figures available? Could you supply this for the record if you do not have it with you? Mayor CAVANAGIT. I could supply it for the record. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I should think every mayor would carry that in his head. Mayor CAVANAGH. No. Chairman POWELL. Thank you so much, and we again apologize. I hope you do not miss your plane. Mayor CAVANAGH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. LANDRUM. The mayor of St. Louis who is, I believe, next, Mayor Tucker. Mayor Tucker we are delighted to have you before the committee. STATEMENT OP RAYMOI~Th R. TUOKER, MAYOR OP ST. LOUIS, AND PRESIDENT, U.S. CONPER~ENCE OP MAYORS Mayor TUCKER. Happy to be here. Mr. LANDRUM. You have a written statement. You may proceed by reading it or by submitting the statement for the record and sum- marizing it just as you wish. Mayor TUCKER. I think it is brief. If I may have the privilege I will read it. Mr. LANDRUM. Very well, sir. Mayor TUCKER. I am Raymond R. Tucker, mayor of St. Louis and president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. In both capacities- PAGENO="0070" 786 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 speaking not only for my own city hail and community but for the chief executives of other major cities where the sores of poverty fester most distressingly-I appreciate this opportunity to join other wit~ nesses before this subcommittee in applauding purposes of the Eco- nomic Opportunity Act of 1964 and underscoring pressing needs for its program. The conference of mayors was one of the first recruits in President Johnson's "unconditional war on poverty in America" for which the proposed bifi is the plan of battle. In a policy memorandum addressed to the President in January, the conference's executive committee pledged frontline services of mayors in this national crusade against the enemy which has made such damaging inroads into our society and economy. "The major battlefields in the war against poverty lie in the cities and towns all across America," the memorandum to the President pointed out. We noted that 18 million persons in the forgotten fifth of our population live in urban slums and blighted areas. Often trapped by conditions from which they can find no escape, they are virtual foreigners in an affluent society which now holds little promise for many of them beyond the poorhouse-like confines of relief rolls. In our time we are not going to eliminate the scourge of poverty. No doubt it always will be with us and with generations to come. * But it is irresponsible defeatism to accept this as a fact of life and cynically let it go at that-or to brush it aside as something that can be faced locally on a neighborhood charity basis. The poor are a national problem a.nd a national shame. They need a.nd deserve national attention. All of us in government-at all levels-are obligated by the public trusts we hold to do more than bemoan the situations in which so many of our citizens find themselves. The subcommittee is well supplied with official statistics on how many poor there are. I cite one item in one working paper-"The War on Poverty," submitted as a congres- sional presentation at the outset of these hearings: There are "nearly 10 million families who try to find shelter, feed and clothe their children, stave off disease and malnutrition, and somehow build a better life on less than $60 a week." If we are to accept and not evade the challenge of poverty, we must devise and perfect more effective weapons to try to check the enemy's advances, stop the infiltrations which have penetrated so deeply, and rescue victims of poverty whose lives can be salvaged and restored for the good of the whole community as well as of themselves. The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 provides an arsenal needed for a mass mobilization of our forces-Federal, State, and local-to get the counterattacks underway. A general national offensive against poverty is long overdue. The weapons blueprinted for it in the administration's bill-the Job Corps, work-training and work-study programs, urban and rural community action programs, employment and investment incentives, Volunteers for America-aren't revolutionary or even visionary. There are imaginative concepts, but they aren't all new. Some of the devices-such as the Job Corps-are adaptations of methods which already have been tested, in however limited ways, and found effective. In fact, the Economic Opportunity Act can be regarded fairly as PAGENO="0071" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 787 a necessary supplement to and extension of existing Federal-local pro- grams whose accepted objectives essentially are the same-to make a better, healthier, and more productive America. There is no need to do more than tick them off here: Programs for housing, urban re- newal, accelerated public works, hospitals, schools, job training, juve- nile delinquency control, and libraries. What the pending proposal does is to wheel up weapons and am- munition together for the first time for a coordinated, concerted, mul- tifront offensive against the patterns of poverty in our economic and social wastelands-patterns in which families existing on less than subsistence levels are enmeshed, along with illiterate rejects, ]obless school dropouts, displaced and discarded unskilled workers, disad- vantaged minorities, all of the legions who find their lives luckless and hopeless. In short, the act proposes to do something purposeful about human deterioration, to make human renewal at least as important as the renewal of the Nation's physical plant. And I submit that the achninistration's price tag for the act- $962.5 million for fiscal 1965-represents a bargain for the Nation even if the bill brings not much more than a start to the undertaking in the year ahead. As a mayor, I am particularly struck by the potentials for the common good opened up by title II of the act, through conununity action programs initiated locally on a share-the-cost basis, to improve the lot of the Nation's cities and the underdeveloped people who live in them. For this sector of the antipoverty offensive in rural as well as urban communities $315 million would be earmarked to be used for Federal participation in local projects. Under the bill's provisions, the Federal share in financing the plans would be no more than 75 percent of costs normally, although exceptions up to 90 percent could be made in cases where municipal budgets already are fully com- mitted and added local revenue sources can't be found immediately. In addition, local governments must demonstrate that they have in no way diminished the efforts they have already undertaken. The Nation's cities have borne by far the greater load in the fight against poverty up to this time. We have done well to hold our own in this struggle. We welcome the Federal Government to the battle and pledge our continued effort so that the war can be won. Mayors of cities in the U.S. Conference of Mayors stand ready, I am sure, to see to it that they fulfill their financing responsibilities and to answer "Yea" to questions about any local plan they advance to further the war against poverty: 1. Does it demonstrate a basic knowledge of the facts of poverty in the area? 2. Does it propose to attack the real causes of poverty? 3. Does it promise effective solution to the problems which it * identifies? 4. Are there community organizations which will work together to carry out the plan responsibly, speedily, and efficiently? 5. Is the community itself dedicated to the achievement of the goals, contributing its own human and financing resources toward that objective? PAGENO="0072" 788 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 I also am sure that the mayors would have many additions to make to a list of likely local projects outlined in the war on poverty working paper as qualified under the bifi. They range now from development of new employment opportunities to reducing adult illiteracy and from rehabilitation of the handicapped to improving home manage- ment skills. Mayors will not have to be inventive to keep the project pipeline full. The unfilled community needs are visible from any city hail window. In my own city of St. Louis, we know from close experience of the impact of poverty upon our citizens. Generally speaking, the overall St. Louis area shares in the general "affluence" of our present society. However, within the central city, serious pockets of poverty exist. Our St. Louis community is presently participating in every Federal and State program aimed at combating the effects of poverty. Our local government spends tens of millions on hospital care for the indigent, health care, and other ameliorative programs. Continual efforts are made to provide safe and sanitary housing. Our board of education has pioneered in the effort to lower dropout rates and to upgrade the motivation of young people and their parents. Fundamentally, hard-core unemployment under present conditions is not seriously affected by good economic conditions. Hard-core un- employment lies largely among the unskilled and untrained, among the semiskilled who are being displaced by teclmological changes-and most heavily among those deprived of advantages because of racial prejudices. In St. Louis we are most concerned about the snowballing effects of this hard-core unemployment and poverty. We feel it to be essential to break the grip of poverty upon the youth of today and future gen- erations. This job can only be done with massive Federal programs dovetail- ing with State, local, and private efforts. We have created the St. Louis Human Development Corp. to coordi- nate an attack on the basic causes of poverty and youth crime in a target area of 110,000 people in the heart of our city. In this area, family incomes are below the level needed for decent living. Unemployment, disease, broken homes, unsafe and unsanitary housing, school dropouts, and high death rates run together. Forty-five percent of the people in the target area are under 20 years of age. Fifty-five percent of the residents are Negroes and 45 percent are whites. The Human Development Corp. heads a program for better coordi- nation and focusing of the existing public and private social and wel- fare services rendered in this area. However, we have recognized the need for more than coordination. We seek to bring services directly to the people through neighborhood stations located throughout the target area. These neighborhood stations will provide initial contact points for programs in the fields of employment education, group therapy, f am- ily counseling, legal assistance, youth groups, housing improvements, and health services. PAGENO="0073" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 789 Central to this concept is securing through the neighborhood sta- tions the active participation of the residents of the area, and our overall objective is to bring particularly the young people of the area to the point where they can share in an expanding economy. Obviously, only an expanding economy with constantly. greater job opportunity can supply the final answer to poverty. But the crucial question with hard-core poverty is to prepare the individuals affected to be able to participate in such an economic expansion. I can only touch upon the basic nature of the St. Louis human devel- opment program. We do think it represents a kind of local format, aimed at local conditions, which can provide a basis capable of expan- sion through the Federal poverty program. Cities all over the country, with State and Federal assistance, are developing approaches to the problem of poverty. These ap- proaches, however, cannot be significantly implemented from the over- strained fiscal resources of local government. The magnitude of the task is beyond local capacity, and the root causes of the problem are national in character. The essential strength of the proposed Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 lies in its provision of Federal support for basic programs which can be flexibly related to local efforts. It would provide the vital impetus to assure success for local programs which seek through enhanced coordination and refocusing better to utilize private and public funds devoted to social and welfare services. Mr. Chairman, both as mayor of St. Louis, and as president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, I support most strongly the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. The U.S. Conference of Mayors is prepared to march with President Johnson and Congress in the war against poverty. Thank you. Mr. LANDRUM. Thank you, Mayor Tucker. May I ask of you if this part of your statement relating to the position of the U.S. Con- ference or Mayors represents an official action that you have taken in any meeting? Mayor TUCKER. The executive committee, yes. Mr. LANDRUM. It is the executive committee? Mayor TUCKER. That is right. Mr. LANDRUM. The conference does endorse this program? Mayor TUCKER. That is right. Mr. LANDRUM. Thank you, Mayor Tucker. Mrs. Green, do you de- sire recognition? Mrs. GREEN. May I congratulate the mayor on a very forceful state- ment in support of what I think is a very desirable program. I have listened now for several days to some of the people who oppose it and who bring up all the arguments that we should delay and study and analyze. We can plan a war on poverty and illiteracy and disease in other countries of the world and we can plan on a trip to the moon but somehow there are those who believe we offend the gods if we plan a war on poverty in our own country that would help the people who are at the bottom of the economic ladder. So I am delighted with the statement you have made to the committee. Mayor Tuciri~. Thank you. PAGENO="0074" 790 ECONOMIC OPPORTUN1TY ACT OF 1964 Mr. LANDRtTM. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Frelinghuy- sen. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have enjoyed hearing Mayor Tucker's testimony. It is not clear to me yet, Mayor, whether you said the conference of mayors has endorsed this bifi or endorsed the idea of fighting poverty. Mayor Thcxi~n. It has endorsed the. program which was initiated under job training. Mr. FunI~n~GnursBN. I did not hear what you- Mayor Tuci~n. I would say "Yes." My understanding is the action of the subcommittee has meant endorsing this particular program and all features of the bifi except one. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What is the one they don't like? Mayor TUcKER. We believe that local communities, something similar to our corporation on human development, should program and control and have the program under their jurisdiction. Mr. FRELINGHITYSEN. If you are presenting the position of a con- ference I should think this would be an essential part of your testi- mony. How does it happen not. to appear in your testimony? ~ Mayor Tucunu. It did appear in my testimony in the end when I showed you what St. Louis was doing. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Where did you say anything there that there should be a local responsibility? Mayor Tucxun. I said we have developed a corporation, the Human Development Corp., through which local and private funds shall be coordinated. Mr. Fiu~Ln~GnmrsEN. I understood you to say that the federally financed programs under title II of this bill should not bypass local governments. Isn't that what you just said? Mayor Tuc~un. That is what I said. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. But you don't say that in your statement. Mayor Tucic~. It may be a question of semantics. Mr. FRELINGHtTYSEN. I don't call this a question of semantics. It may be an inadvertent omission but I should think this would be a significant change you were proposing in the bill. Is that not the case? Mayor TucKER. No; I would say it was not either advertently or inadvertlently omitted. The thought was that with the statement on the St. Louis program it was indicative of the fact that we felt that the local comnumity should not be bypassed. In fact, I would say, if I may, Mr. Frelinghuysen, that the very purpose of the con- cept of this Human Development Corp~ was the fact that we have many agencies in the community that were the recipients of Federal funds, private funds, foundation funds, working in the areas and doing an excellent job. Mr. FunLINGnuY5EN. How much Federal money does St. Louis get? Doyouknow? Mayor TucKER. As the previous mayor had made the statement, it comes from so many different sources I do not have that figure in my mind. We have 114 private agencies that receive grants, some from the Federal Government, some from private sources, and from local collections like united ftmds, things of that character. We have the school board, which is not under the jurisdiction of the city, receiving grants. We have two universities receiving grants. They all do not flow through any local area. PAGENO="0075" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 791. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I am not talking about the assistance to private efforts. Do you know how much comes to governmental entities? Mayor TUCKER. That could be found out. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You suggested it would be irresponsible de- featism is we shOuld brush aside the questions of poverty. You are not suggesting that those of us who are skeptical of this particular pro- grain are irresponsible defeatists? Mayor TUCKER. Skepticism does not necessarily mean you are de- featists. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. In what way, specifically, do you think th~s bill will alleviate the real causes of poverty? Mayor TUCKER. I will speak from my own experience. These gate- way stations which we intend to locate in the neighborhood will deal directly with the families in the neighborhood. Not only will they deal in questions of health and education, things of that character, but they will go into the homes of these individuals. They will teach bet- ter housekeeping. They will try to find the reasons and the causes which permitted the environment to develop in which these people live. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You are suggesting that there are going to be research projects? Mayor TUCKER. No, these are not research, they are working opera- tional projects. We will enlist people in the areas themselves, people who have stature, as volunteers, to train them, train the other people, have advisory committees from the neighborhoods. In other woods, we are going down to the grassroots to work with these people. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Do you think this will mitigate the dropout problem, the motivation of young people? Mayor TUCKER. Yes. Mr. FRELIN~GHUYSEN. How? Mayor TUCKER. Because if you set up a training program, you bring it to them, you can show them that by being trained and educated there is an opportunity to get a job and then endeavor to provide jobs for these people, then I think you will stop your dropouts. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. How about this Job Corps? If you had a quota to supply to a National Job Corps, how would you select them? Presumably it would come out of these hard core unemployed you referred to? Mayor TUCKER. Yes. I will say this: The Job Corps could be selected, for instance, in this gateway station which we have set up. There will be counseling on jobs. There will be an attempt to find the lack of abilities that are present. These could be fed into the program. Mr. FRELINGIJUTSEN. How can one be motivated to want to join the Job Corps? Mayor TUCKER. I think that that motivation can be had if you get down and work with these people. You will never know what the results are until you try it. To try to say you will not do something because you believe the people will not respond, I don't think is a good reason. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The cost of $4,700 per enrollee is a fairly ex- pensive program. You could put an individual in a fairly good private school for that amount of money. It is quite possible you could spend PAGENO="0076" 792 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 that amount of money more effectively some other way. I am not suggesting it would not be worth a try. In fact, we have residential schools under the vocational education program, as I assume you know, but we are not yet ready to give those a trial to see whether they work before we launch into this program. I am curious about how you would choose them? How would you keep them from dropping out of the Job Corps if they did not like it? = Mayor TUCKER. Of course, I would say this, Mr. Congressman, that the area of choice should be left in the hands of those who are trained to make those choices. Mr. FRELINGHTLTYSEN. You are not suggesting they should decide whether a young man should go in or whether he should not? Is it not the free choice of the young man? Mayor TUCKER. It is, but they could make the recommendations to him. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Supposing he does not want to go? Or suppose he goes in for 1 week and decides to move out? I would assume we would want to avoid excessive turnover? Mayor TUCKER. We would assume that. I think too, anyone that drops out, the reasons why they drop out should be ascertained. There should be a followup on all these cases. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. LANDRUM. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for com- pleting his time before the gavel. The gentleman from California. S Mr. ROOSEVELT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mayor Tucker, I want to tell you how delighted I am that you finally made it this evening because I think you have made a fine contribution to the committee hearings. I think the record should show that the mayor's community of St. Louis has reelected him enough times to make him an expert on the subject about which he has so eloquently spoken today. Mr. Mayor, I want to emphasize, and I am sorry my Republican colleagues have not been able to remain but I want to emphasize, if I may, that any constructive suggestion such as the improvement of the bill is something which I think they wifi find great assistance on this side of the aisle to obtain. Any obstruction or any attempt to sidetrack it or to weaken it naturally is going to get our resistance. So I would like to ask you in that spirit whether you feel we would be strengthening the bill if in section 2 we were able to find the right words-I mean title 2-the right words to direct the Director that where there existed such an instrument as the St. Louis Human Devel- opment Corp., and incidentally we have a very similar agency in Los Angeles, whether we would direct the Director to be responsible for coordinating all of the nongovernmental requests-private, nonprofit are the words that agent uses-to channel it through such an agency rather than having the danger that the Director, not knowing the local situation as well as the people there, might approve a project which, without his knowing it, might impinge on some of the work being done or having been approved by the corporation to which you have referred in St. Louis. Mayor TUCKER. I think it would strengthen the bill and it is the con- cept that we have for this Human Development Corp. that all of these PAGENO="0077" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 793 grants would be channeled through this corporation and they in turn would enter into contractual relationships agencies who are skilled in the area where work has to be done. Mr. RoosEVELT. Mayor, let me tell you I have already had at least a dozen proposals for private, nonprofit effort that have come directly to me as a Member of Congress that I intend to, at the moment, transfer to the Director. It would seem to me that unless we write this into the bill that the Director may well find himself listening to all kinds of people coming direct to him. Whereas if we coordinate it we probably would make fewer mistakes. Would you not agree ~ Mayor TUCKER. I think that is true. I think in any setup the local government must be an integral part of the development. I think too- Mr. ROOSEVELT. I think the author~ of the bill might possibly be willing to consider such an amendment. Mr. LANDRUM. I will say that not only will I be delighted to con- sider it but I assure the gentleman from California as well as the dis- tinguished mayor from St. Louis that steps are already being taken to draft language to accomplish that. We thank the mayor of St. Louis for this very constructive suggestion. Mayor TUCKER. Thank you, sir. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Again, Mayor Tucker, it has been good to see you. I certainly appreciate your testimony. Mayor TUCKER. Thank you. May I say I am very happy that my very good friend from across the river came to bolster me and help me and encourage me. Mr. PRICE. Mr. Chairman, may I express my thanks to the commit- tee for permitting me to sit on the dais this afternoon during the hear- ings to hear the mayors of the two great cities. While I am an 1111- noisan and I am a Cardinal fan and a great admirer of the mayor of St. Louis. Mr. ROOSEVELT. May I add to that that I am always delighted to see the Cardinals' win except when they are playing the Dodgers. Mr. LANDRUM. We all say that we are delighted to have Con- gressman Melvin Price with us. He is not only a distinguished Mem- ber but an effective Member of Congress. Thank you, Mayor Tucker. Mayor TUCKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. LANDRUM. Now, another distinguished mayor has been await- ing his turn the whole daylong. Mayor Walsh, of Syracuse, who has a very fine presentation to make, will come around. Mayor Walsh, as you well know, your distinguished Congressman Riehlman has been here awaiting a turn along with you, and anx- iously wanted the opportunity to present you to this committee. He has, because of another engagement, been required to leave and is now tied up with a group meeting in his office and could not get here for the next several minutes. Due to the lateness of the hour, I have inquired of him if it would be all right for us to proceed with you and let his statement precede your statement. He has so agreed. With that, we are glad to welcome you to the committee, Mayor Walsh. PAGENO="0078" 794 ECONOMIC OPPORTTJTNIITY ACT OF 1964 STATEMENT OP HON. WILLIAM P. WALSH, MAYOR OP THE CITY OP SYRACUSE, N.Y. Mayor WALSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two statements, one that I submitted in advance to the committee. It runs some ~O or so pages. I have prepared a synopsis of that statement in the mterest of time. Perhaps I should read the synopsis. It contains the same material. If you are interested in following along as I read the synopsis, there are additional copies of it here if the staff would like to pass them out. Mr. LANDRIThr. Very well. Mayor WALSH. It is about a third shorter than the original. I think we can save time. It covers the pertinent points. Mr. LANDRLTM. Without objection tie entire statement will be in- serted in addition to the synopsis. * (Mayor Walsh's statement follows:) STATEMENT BY HON. WILLIAM F. WALSH, MAYOR, Cwx OF SYRACUSE, N.Y. 1 am Mayor William Walsh of the city of Syracuse in New York State. I have accepted an invitation from Congressman Adam Clayton Powell to discuss with you my views on H.R. 10440-the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. INTRODUCTION Initially, may I emphasi~ that my education, experience, and background gives me some authority to speak from knowledge and conviction about the prob- lems of poverty. I have a degree in sociology from St. Bonaventure College, I studied at the School of Social Work at Catholic University here in Washington, and I have;amaster's degree in social work from the University of Buffalo. I have also completed the course requirements for a Ph. D. in sociology at the Maxwell School of Citizenship at Syracuse University. Additionally, I have had many years of working experience with social problems as an executive of the State commission against discrimination, now the Commission on Human Rights. I was elected commissioner of welfare of Syracuse and Onondaga County, and later elected mayor of the city of Syracuse~ LOCAL ECONOMIC CONDITIONS Syracuse is not a pocket of. poverty. Syracuse is not a depressed area. As mayor, I am proud to say that our present economic performance, and our indicators of future economic potential, present a pattern of economic growth which seems to assure Syracuse of continuing prosperity. Our area employment is at an ailtIme high; our unemployment percentage rates are lower than either the New York State or~ National averages; more than 3,000~ new jobs have been created each year for the past 5 years, and indications are that this growth rate will continue and expand during the next 5 years; Syracuse leads every other metropolitan area in New York State, on a per capita basis, in both the number of students graduating from high school and the number of students entering institutions of higher learning. This record did not just happen-it is the result of hard work and fiscal re- sponsibility by the people of Syracuse, with financial assistance in some cases, from both the State and Federal Governments: During the last 5 years, local funds have built more than $20 million in new public schools, and $14 miffion more in~ school construction is planned during the next 5 years. More than $12 million iii Federal funds has been spent in the same time period to provide over 700 units of. new low-income public housing, including over 400 unitS for the elderly; and, an additional 350 units of public housing for the elderly, costing over $6 million, is now in the design stage. In the field of urban renewal, we have a 101-acre slum clearance project in the execution state; a 62-acre downtown renewal project in the survey and plan- PAGENO="0079" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 795 ning stage; a 265-acre downtown general neighborhood renewal program, in the planning stage; and, a citywide community renewal program, almost completed. The total investment in these programs when they are completed, including Fed- eral, State, local, and private funds will be in excess of $200 million. We have a 2-year community college with 1,200 students, and a new technical high school built at a cost of $2 million. We have a publicly financed city-county office of economic development, created to promote the economic welfare of the Syracuse area; and we have recently engaged consultants to prepare a 5-year action program for `industrial development. We have a local mayor's commission on human rights and a mayor's commi.s- sion for. youth; I will discuss the latter in a few minutes; we have local job training and school dropout programs. In essence, we are well equipped for any attack of poverty, or as we prefer to call it-a crusade for opportunity. Yet, in the midst of this prosperity, surrounded and buttressed by the facilities and programs I have just mentioned, we have some poverty. More than 7.6 percent of the families in Syracuse have incomes under $2,000 per year; 16.3 of the nonwhite families, and 7.1 percent of the white families fall into this category. If the income level is raised to $3,000 per year, the figures for nonwhite families jumps to 30 percent, and for white families to 13 percent. EXISTING PROBLEMS Three distinct social problems face our country today. In Syracuse we like to i~efer to them as our three dilemmas-delinquency, dependency, and discrimi- nation. In our low-income areas w.e find a clustering of the social problems producing delinquency and chronic dependency. Discrimination plays a major role in trapping many of our citizens, who could otherwise escape this dilemma. Official records of local law enforcement agencies bear out our contention that Syracuse has a delinquency rate about three times that of the rest of Onondaga County with the highest rates occurring in the low-income sections of the city. In the area with the highest rate, half of the 14- and 15-year-old boys have had at least one recorded encounter with the police. In our higher income areas, the proportion is 1 out of 10. Additional studies show that two and half times as many unemployed youths-ages 16 to 21-are arrested as compared to em- ployed youths. Again, it is in the low-income sections of the community that unemployment and chronic dependency are concentrated. The cost to the com- munity and to all levels of government of this series of associated problems is enormous. In Syracuse during .1962 there were 1,065 juvenile police contacts resulting in 1,350 cases. Of the 677 cases not handled by the police department and re- ferred to court, 72 juveniles or more than 10 percent were committed to insti- tutions. In New York State institutions the average cost per day for each child is $15.25, or $5,566.25 per year, far more than it costs to send your son or daughter to college. Thus, these 72 juveniles alone are costing the taxpayers $400,700 per year. This is only one measure of what delinquency costs us. In addition there is the cost of vandalism, police enforcement, and correctional measures. Chronic dependency is the second part of the dilemma and was one of the most serious problems `toward which my attention as welfare commissioner was directed. It was the problem of the "welfare child" who, upon reaching the age of physical maturity, took steps to reenact the events that initially produced the welfare family of which he was a part. I was, and still am, greatly troubled by the children of our welfare famifies who get married on Friday and appear at the welfare office on Monday to make application for themselves as a separate family unit. In simple and direct terms, this is the best example of a most serious breakdown in our social system. Obviously, we' cannot deny these physically mature individuals the means for survival. And while we do give them relief the steps we take to help them toward a more self-sufficient and satisfying way of life have not been sufficiently effective. Thus, we are taking some long and. deliberate strides toward the creation of a permanent welfare culture `that is totally unacceptable to the majority of the `people in my community and, `I am sure, my State, and, indeed, the country as a whole. Discrimination is the third part of our dilemma. The inmigrant Negroes moving to northern communities from the South find their way to our cities and begin their life in our communities in crowded conditions. It is no coincidence PAGENO="0080" 796 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 that the question of integration of the Negro into the life of northern commu- nities and our concern and attack upon areas of high incidence of social break- down are intimately related. In our community the growth in Negro population on a percentage basis has been phenomenaL Since the end of World War II the Negro population in Syracuse has increased approximately 400 percent. Here is a group of people who, by reasons of their move, have indicated their interest in taking drastic steps to improve their lot in this world. They are motivated toward a better way of life. It is our responsibility to take steps that will help insure a way for these immigrant citizens to develop their potential to the fullest. The city of Syracuse has recognized this problem and has taken steps to correct it. By virtue of a planning grant from the President's Committee on Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime to the Mayor's Commission for Youth, Inc., we have developed an action program focusing particularly on the problems of youth in the inner city. We are in the process of establishing an urban league, and, through my commission on human rights, we are taking vigorous steps to provide more `equal opportunity for all of our citizens. EXISTING SERVICES In Syracuse and Onondaga County we have health, welfare, and character- building services that compare favorably with those found in any American com- munity. They are addressing themselves, in great measure, to the problem about which we are concerned today. As a matter of fact, in Onondaga County, through city, county, and private philanthropy, we will spend almost $40 million' a year on programs of health, welfare, and character building, or almost $100 per person. But of this amount, how much is being spent on our low-income group and our regular welfare clients? If we were to assume only 50 percent, or $20 million, it would amount to approximately $500 per person per year. This does not include at least another $40 million that is being spent on the education of our youth. In Syracuse it amounts to $528.15 per student per year. People in Onondaga County do not do without the basic necessities of life. There are schools and other service programs to which they can turn for assist- ance and support, but our institutional services are not adequately reaching the people who need the most help. For too long we have concentrated our efforts on material assistance and have neglected to provide the spiritual giudance and help that would assist in preserving and strengthening the moral fiber of our people. This suggests that we need programs that visibly and dramatically open the door to opportunity so that these people can see for themselves that properly focused effort can produce desirable changes in their patterns of living.' MAYOR'S COMMISSION FOR YOUTH For the past 16 months Syracuse, through the mayor's commission for youth, has directed its attention, in great part, to the issue of poverty. The final proposal, drafted by the commission, has just been delivered to ~the President's Committee on Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime for their review. Our concentration in this program has literally been; on the next generation. While we have developed supportive programs to help upgrade parental care and improve the exercise of parental responsibility, we have built our major thrusts on the strengthening of the holding power of our educational system, the crea- tion of more realistic curriculums, and the involvement of unemployed youth who are not in school in constructive work training programs., In our attack on youth problems, the mayor's commission for youth has focused on these problems as they are concentrated in our inner city where families with incomes under $3,000 ranges as high as 33~ percent. This obvi- ously hits the geographic area of greatest intensity. I am convinced that in the mayor's commission for youth program a good start has been made in developing techniques that will permit an all-out attack on material poverty. Here are some of the highlights of the program. PAGENO="0081" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 797 EDUCATION In today's complex society, education is our only hope for the future. Most of the school dropouts in Syracuse come from the lower socioeconomic areas. For example, in 1960 there were 541 school dropouts. Of this number, 370, or 69 percent were from the most depressed section of the community. This section contains 44 percent of the city's population. In our lower income areas, a much higher proportion of droputs leave school before reaching the ninth grade. Nearly 20 percent of low-income dropouts leave in the seventh or eighth grade; whereas, less than 7 percent drop out at these grade levels in the rest of the city. Over half of the boys in our low-income areas are 2 or more years behind the grade normally attained by their age group on a citywide basis. Approximately one-third of our low-income dropouts come from broken homes or one-parent families while in the higher income areas the proportion of drop- outs with broken homes is only one-half as great. To counteract these problems, the mayor's commission for youth has developed the following programs: 1. A new and creative reading and language skills program to educate youths who find it hard to read and speak effectively. 2. A curriculum materials development program to create entirely new cur- ricular materials for education programs designed for low-income groups. 3. Guidance programs specifically designed to help youth and their families through counseling, to meet their immediate problems and to develop insight into ways of handling difficulties in the future. 4. Work and education programs emphasizing vocational education, and pro- viding an alternative curriculum that would lead to a high school diploma. 5. A program to overcome the wide gulf that exists between low-income pop- ulations and the school by developing community schools and neighborhood study centers where school personnel can work informally with low-income families. A variety of recreational, vocational, and educational programs will be offered to serve the needs and interests of neighborhood residents. YOUTH EMPLOYMENT We have estimated, on the basis of available data, that over half of the 16- and 17-year-old boys in our low-income areas, who are out of school are idle. More than 25 percent of youths who are actively seeking positions are unable to find them. The problem among Negro youths is far greater than it is among white youths. In the field of employment the focus of the commission's programs is on training of people in work skills and habits so they can enter profitable employ- ment in those trades and occupations that are developing in our community. Obviously, this is the most direct way to reduce poverty, reduce our welfare caseloads, and increase the competence of our citizens so that they become tax- payers rather than tax users. Among these programs will be skill centers to train people for the labor-hungry trades and services; work stations where people will be trained in actual coin- mercial or industrial settings in cooperation with the owner; and workcrews to develop skills while doing necessary and important work in the community A strong educational component is included as part of the training plans. Through participation of the city school system we are making arrangements for remedial education, as well as trade instructions. We are also planning to develop a high school equivalency program for people who can't go back to school. The mayor's commission has already enlisted the cooperation of the business and industrial community as well as labor to make this employment program a. success. COMMUNITY SERVICES The community services programs of the mayor's commission are designed to develop the competence of our low-income population through self-help and self-improvement programs. In addition, we are concerned with getting the right service, to the right people, at the right time and to coordinate all the efforts of the agencies now serving these areas. The mayor's commission is committed to the philosophy that the people who are served by programs must 31-847----64---lpt. 2-~O PAGENO="0082" 798 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 be involved in their planning and development. It is because of their lack of involvement that many programs have floundered and failed. We are under no ifiusions that we know all the answers to such a complex problem as poverty. But, as a result of our investigations we have considerable insight into the problem. We know that poverty has many roots: Inadequate education, lack of appropriate skills for a fast-changing economy, erratic employ- ment patterns, inadequate work habits, and ill health. We know that much more research is needed before we can successfully determine the causes of poverty and how to combat it; the causes are many, diverse, and complex. Such research would be of inestimable value to Syracuse and other communities with similar characteristics. It is only through research and creative experimentation and demonstration that we may finally develop a workable solution. SPECIFIC COMMENT ON THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 I approach my specific comment on the proposed legislation from the single viewpoint of being mayor of the city of Syracuse-A middle-size urban area functioning as the heart of a middle-size metropolitan area. Our problems are not the problems of the relatively few great metropolises of the Nation, nor are they the problems of the rural areas-but, they are problems, I believe, common to many of the 81 cities across the Nation, with populations ranging from 100,000 to 250,000, and many of the 48 metropolitan areas with populations ranging from 250,000 to 500,000. My lack of comment on certain titles and sections of the proposed legislation does not mean that I categorically support or oppose these sections; it means, only, that these sections are not, in our community's mind, necessarily critical to the Syracuse situation. I would recommend revision of the Job Corps proposal under title I, "Youth Programs," section 102. The concept of recruiting 100,000 young men between the ages of 16 and 22 and placing them in more than 100 camps across the country for 2 years of work and training may not be the best expenditure of public funds; it removes the young man from direct family and community associations; it may be injurious to his sense of self-reliance and responsibility, substituting the authority and direction of the Job Corps for his own will and resourcefulness; it is one further breach in family solidarity; and, most important, it violates the principle of local control. We strongly believe that Federal grants for poverty programs should be made direct to the community. There are two outstanding reasons: (1) The programs do not become fragmented. They are part of an integrated program directed at the problems of the community and directed by that community.: (2) The programs can be so designed as to meet the specific ~lemands of local labor markets. I suggest a modification of the Job Corps proposal that, for middle-size cities, funds earmarked for the Job Corps be utilized to establish an urban conservation corps. This proposal would encompass the purposes of the Job Corps to prepare for the responsibilities of citizenship and to increase the employability of male youths aged 16 through 21 by providing them with education, vocational training, and useful work experience, including work directed toward the conservation of natural resources, and other appropriate activities-but it would do so at the local urban level. The urban conservation corps would keep young men living at home and working in their own communities while they received their education and training; it would encourage, rather than discourage, an understanding and belief in the concept of family life; and, it would provide manpower for the many public projects, such as park development and expanded recreational services, that our ubran communities so desperately need. I believe that the city of Syracuse would welcome the opportunity of estab- lishing and administering a unit of an urban conservation corp. Our local education agencies would provide the education and vocati~nal training, and the city government would create the public projects needed to provide the work experience I also recommend that the young men enrolled in the Urban Conservation Corps receive a monthly ~age~ for their work so that we have an organized learn-and-earn program while we integrate the program into the family life and working life of the community. - PAGENO="0083" ECONOMIC `OPPORTIJNITY ACT OF 1964 799 I support the proposals under title I for community work-training programs and work-study programs, sections 111 and 122. I believe the Urban Conservation Corps can be correlated, at the local level, with both the work-training and work-study programs. And, all three of these programs can be locally controlled, providing a better atmosphere for the train- ing and education of young people and a more careful control over the expendi- ture of the public funds involved. I generally support title II, "Urban and Rural Community Action Programs." However, I ask that section 204, financial assistance for conduct and adminis- tration of community action programs, paragraph (d), "Eligibility for Assist- ance," be broadened. The present criteria or incidence of poverty appear to possibly limit assistance only to communities which have severe existing poverty problems. Communities such as Syracuse, which do not have severe poverty problems, nevertheless should be eligible to develop programs which would not only elim- inate existing poverty problems but, equally important, eliminate the seeds of poverty, thus preventing poverty from taking root and growing anew in the community. The purpose of the legislation should be to prevent the poverty of the future as well as to end the poverty of the present. Under this same section, I ask that paragraph (a), "Special Consideration to Eventual SeLf-Supporting Community Action Programs," be strengthened. The sooner these programs become a complete local responsibility-both admin- istratively and financially-the sooner Federal funds can be used to assist other needy communities, and local control can be completely guaranteed. Also, under Title II, I recommend that section 203, "Financial Assistance for Development of Community Action Programs," be strengthened to. guarantee 100 percent Federal assistance for local research projects leading to the devel- opment of community action programs. To eliminate poverty we must understand the causes of poverty. These causes are varied across the Nation and in each community. The present and/or poten- tial cause of poverty in Syracuse certainly must differ in kind, size, scope, and intensity from the causes of poverty in a multimillion-person metropolis or a rural farm area-indeed, these causes probably differ in degree from one middle- size city to another. If we are to succeed in our crusade for opportunity in Syracuse, if we are to root out the seeds of poverty, we must know the exact causes, we must deal in detailed specifics not in indefinite generalities. Only through sound research can we obtain the answers we need for success. I believe the general purposes of the legislation will be better served if the Federal Government can completely guarantee the funds needed to conduct sound research programs on the local leveL I also ask that section 206, under this title, "Research, Training, and Demon- strations," be broadened to specifically allow institutions of higher learning to work with public agencies in performing the research needed to develop com- munity action programs. I generally support title IV-employment and investment incentives-part A, incentives for employment of long-term unemployed~ persons, section 411. The concept of long-term, low-interest loans to firms that employ long-term unein- ployed persons is a good one. However, the section should be expanded to explain, in detail, the firm's responsibilities under the legislation, for example: The length of employment of a long-term unemployed person hired as a result of a loan under this section. It should also include a section on training unem- ployed people so they can adequately perform their jobs. This includes not only skill training,but'remedial educittion as well. Also, section 412, . paragraph (b), should be strengthened to more tightly integrate loans granted under title IV with the community action program activities outlined in title II. This `would help to assure more local control in the administration of this proposal. We believe that the bill as proposed is also lacking in other respects. For example, there are many aged people in our population who are living on grossly inadequate incomes and whole problem as long as they live will become increas- ingly desperate. Every time the cost of living goes up, or real estate and other taxes increase, their real income decreases proportionately-and `there is no way whatsoever that they can supplement these incomes I would strongly recommend additional and broader social security coverage at the earliest pos PAGENO="0084" 800 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 sible dates. I would also further recommend a study of the possibility of direct grants to municipalities and communities that would allow us to upgrade our retirement programs. I also believe that great efforts must be made to stem the growing tide of divorce, separation, and desertion. I am convinced that one of the basic causes of poverty and social breakdown is the direct result of these factors. Great efforts should be made to keep families intact. I would recommend the provision of funds to establish marriage counseling bureaus to help prevent the breakup of families, and to reestablish normal family relationships in already broken homes. I would further recommend stronger legislation to cope with the deserting husband and father, who transfer their parental responsibility to the community. I would suggest considering legislation that would make desertion a Federal offense. This would make it easier to arrest and prosecute deserting husbands and fathers. I would also recommend legislation to provide for social service work with families displaced by urban renewal. Urban renewal has pioneered among public displacement programs in its con- cern for the human beings displaced. In almost every respect, it is geared to checking and preventing the spread of blight which breeds new slums. However, one grave problem has not been faced-the problem of the small handful of "troubled families"-whose living standards are such that they jeopardize any area to which they are transplanted. They number only 7 or 8 percent of the total, but they.give substance to the fallacy that all families moving out of slums are "carriers" of blight. This fallacy is unjust to the hundreds of people who have been forced to live in slums by economic or racial barriers. Nothing but patient casework can hope to change the living patterns of these families. CRUSADE FOB oppon~ui~irr In this presentation I have suggested what my community might do to correct conditions of poverty as we find them in our community if we had the resources. Our local program must be not only an attack on poverty, it must be an attack on the seeds of poverty-the conditions, either existing or potential, that make poverty possible; lack of housing, education, family life solidarity and job op- portunity. This shift of emphasis, from not only eliminating existing poverty but also eliminating the present and potential conditions that create poverty, is an important one. I am frank to admit that we are more certain of some techniques than of others, and that we need more research into the present and potential causes of poverty. This is why I recommended the strengthening of research activities under title II of the proposed legislation. My community wants area redevelopment in its broadest, most human sense, combining physical and social planning and attacking such questions as housing, recreational facilities nad programs, welfare policies and payments, improve- ment of neighborhood appearance and parent participation in education. My commnunity wants to deal with the interrelated causes of poverty such as alcoholism, chronic dependency, disease, emotional immaturity, mental break- down, unmarried mothers, and children born out of wedlock. My community wants to preserve family life. My community wants to do away with second and third generation welfare families-economic misery is not a birthright-we want a heritage of hope, not a heritage of poverty in Syracuse. The Syracuse program must not be just a war on poverty, it must be a crusade for opportunity. It is to these ends that I have addressed my remarks on this legislation. I would like to indicate, briefly, the type of activities which we could sponsor in our crusade for opportunity. These activities would be coordinated with our existing programs. A position of opportunity coordinator could be created as part of the office of the mayor, and necesary staff provided to coordinate existing and new programs under the crusade for opportunity. A bipartisan opportunity council could be created, composed of informed citi- zens in the areas of housing, education, and jobs. This council would advise the mayor and the community on the crusade. A public works education training program could be established to provide edu- cation and vocational training for young men. In turn, these youths would work PAGENO="0085" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 19 64 801 and be paid for working on local public works or services in the public interest. Hopefully, this program could be carried out through the Urban Conservation Oorps. Social and educational programs developed by our school system and by the mayor's commission for youth could be established in low-income areas. An expanded vocational training program could be established through the public school system, using Federal funds in direct grants to our city. Persons in the age bracket over 21 would be included, as well as our youth, in this program. All existing public and private job-training programs could be coordinated to insure maximum effectiveness for both the trainees and the local firms seeking personnel. Our learn and earn program could be expanded, and more potential dropout students could be urged to continue their education on a part-time basis, and part-time paying jobs found for them with local business and industry. Social work activities in public housing and urban renewal could be increased, with particular emphasis on large families and the elderly. A concentrated effort could be made to encourage local business and industry to employ long-term unemployed persons, seeking Federal loans, if necessary, to do so. Neighborhood citizen councils could be formed where needed, and professional staff provided to explain what each neighborhood could do to be part of the crusade for opportunity. I wish to emphasize that the twin principles of local initiative and local con- trol have been paramount in my mind, while appearing before this committee. I hope that my specific comments on the legislation indicate my community's concern for local control. And, I hope that my comments on the Syracuse situation and the programs we have, or would initiate, under our crusade for opportunity, indicate the readiness and ability of Syracuse to provide local initiative. CONCLUSION This committee will receive many definitions of poverty and I shall not try to impose mine. It shall hear of the causes of poverty rather than a single cause. I think it will recognize that poverty is a complex of conditions and the causes are usually interlocking. I hope that it will cOme to the conclusiOn that poverty in the midst of plenty, and as we know it in our modern society, is seldom entirely due to the fault of the individual himself, or to his race, or creed or color. It shall also receive many formulas to remedy the condition. I have none. Depressing as the picture may seem, when we consider the amount and the ramifications of poverty, we must realize that a marked change has taken place in our society's attitude toward poverty-not only are we trying through a pre- ventative program to break the vicious circle of poverty leading to poverty- but we really believe that poverty and dependency, in any considerable degree, are not a necessary evil. Perhaps the first step in the cure of poverty today is to spread the idea, once regarded as Marxian, that society is responsible for much of our poverty. Out of the realization of this fact we have designed numerous attacks on the problem. Some of our great social legislation including social security-medical care, old-age assistance, have made poverty less acute. Unfortunately, the emphasis on relief problems during the preceding decades has resulted in the appearance of many false prophets who offer futile panaceas to the problem of poverty. The success of some, whom I need not mention, was due to the universal human desire to solve major problems by some simple feat such as wand waving. I need not remind you of some of these speilbinders who raised hopes, but ultimtaely crushed spirits. While some were sincere, they played on the emotions of the poor and led them down the road to complete disillusionment. Some preached with the sophistry of demagogs and aroused false hopes and fanatical zeal. I would hope that this committee would approach the subject of poverty with a knowledge that present information is almost totally inadequate, and that what facts we do have point to no universal solution to poverty as a social problem. No immediate cure-all is available. Centuries of concern with this problem have not resulted in a solution. Whatever the ultimate answer, it is certain PAGENO="0086" 802 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 that such an answer must depend upon clear and logical analysis of the problem. This legislation, in my opinion, can help us determine the nature of poverty. It can plan remedies and it can correct many conditions conducive to poverty. To hold this legislation out as a panacea for poverty would be a disservice to our own less fortunate citizens and we know that, in the long run, the poverty stricken will be the n ajor sufferers. I sincerely hope that the authors of this legislation offer this bill in this spirit. Thank you. Mayor WALSH. I have also been asked to give some of my back- ground, because I am not so well known as some of the other mayors who have appeared here. I have a degree in sociology from St. Bonaventure College, I studied at the School of Social Work at Catholic University here in Wash- ington, and I have a master's degree in social work from the Univer- sity of Buffalo. I have also completed the course requirements for a Ph. D. in sociology at the Maxwell School of Citizenship at Syracuse University. Additionally, I have had many years of working experi- ence with social problems as an executive of the State commission against discrimination, now the commission on human rights. I was elected Commissioner of Welfare of Syracuse and Onondaga County, and later elected mayor of the city of Syracuse. You might be interested to know I also taught sociology on a part- time basis at Syracuse University. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman, may I say this? It is delightful to know that there are brains also in politics. Mr. LANDR1I&t. He has such a nice background from which to speak. I know he will have some valuable advice to offer the committee. Mayor WALSH. As the father of seven children, I sometimes feel I have more than a working knowledge of poverty at times. Syracuse is not a pocket of poverty. Syracuse is not a depressed area. As mayor, I am proud to say that our present economic performance, and our indicators of future economic potential, present a pattern of economic growth which seems to assure Syracuse of continuing prosperity. Our area employment is at an all-time high: Our unemployment per- centage rates are lower than either the New York State or national averages: More than 3,000 new jobs have been created each year for the past 5 years, and indications are that this growth rate will continue and expand during the next 5 years. Syracuse leads every other metro- politan area in New York State, on a per capita basis, in both the number of students graduating from high school and the number of students entering institutions of higher learning. This record did not just happen-it is the result of hard work and fiscal responsibility by the people of Syracuse, with financial assistance, in some cases, from both the State and Federal Governments. Yet, in the midst of this prosperity, surrounded and buttressed by the facilities and programs I have just mentioned, we have some poverty. Three distinct social problems face our country today. In Syra- cuse we like to refer to them as our three dilemmas-delinquency, dependency, and discrimination. PAGENO="0087" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 19 64 803 In our low-income areas we find a clustering of the social problems producing delinquency and chronic dependency. Discrimination plays a major role in trappmg many of our citizens, who could otherwise escape this dilemma. Official records of local law enforcement agencies bear out our con- tention that Syracuse has a delinquency rate about three times that of the rest of Onondaga County with the highest rates occurring in the low-income sections of the city. The 72 Syracuse juveniles finally committed to institutions last year alone cost the taxpayers $400,700. Chronic dependency is the second part of the dilemma and was one of the most serious problems toward which my attention as welfare commissioner was directed. It was the problem of the "welfare child" who, upon reaching the age of physical maturity, took steps to reenact the events that initially produced the welfare family of which he was a part. I was, and still am, greatly troubled by the children of our welfare families who get married on Friday and appear at the welfare office on Monday to make application for themselves as a separate family unit. In simple and direct terms, this is the best example of a most serious breakdown in our social system. Obviously, we cannot deny these physically mature individuals the means for survival. And while we do give them relief, the steps we take to help them toward a more self-sufficient and satisfying way of life have not been sufficiently effective. Thus, we are taking some long and deliberate strides toward the creation of a permanent welfare culture that is totally unacceptable to the majority of the people in my community and, I am sure, my State, and indeed, the country as a whole. Discrimination is the third part of our dilemma. The in-migrant Negroes moving to northern communities from the South find their way to our cities and begin their life in our communities in crowded conditions. It is no coincidence that the question of integration of the Negro into the life of northern communities and our concern and attack upon areas of high incidence of social breakdown are intimately related. In our community the growth in Negro population on a per- centage basis has been phenomenal. Since the end of World War II, the Negro population in Syracuse has increased approximately 400 percent. Here is a group of people who by reasons of their move have indicated their interest in taking drastic steps to improve their lot in this world. They are motivated toward a better way of life. It is our responsibility to take steps that will help insure a way for these in-migrant citizens to develop their potential to the fullest. EXISTING SERVICES In Syracuse and Onondaga County we have health, welfare, and character-building services that compare favorably with those found in any American community. As a matter of fact, in Onondaga County, through city, county, and private philanthropy, we will spend almost $40 million .a year on programs of health, welfare, and char- acter building, or almost $100 per person. PAGENO="0088" 804 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 People in Onondaga County do not do without the basic necessities of life. There are schools and other service programs to which they can turn for assistance and support, but our institutional services are not adequately reaching the people who need the most help. This suggests that we need programs that visibly and dramatically open the door to opportunity so that these people can see for themselves that properly focused effort can produce desirable changes in their patterns of living. MAYOR'S COMMISSION FOR YOUTH For the past 16 months Syracuse, through the mayor's commission for youth-and I would like to thank the subcommittee for their careful attention to Syracuse as one of the key cities in the juvenile delinquency program-through the mayor's commission for youth, Syracuse has directed its attention in great part to the issue of poverty. The final proposal, drafted by the commission, has just been delivered to the President's Committee on Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime for their review. Our concentration in this program has literally been on the next generation. While we have developed supportive programs to help upgrade parental care and improve the exercise of parental respon- sibility, we have built our major thrusts on the strengthening of the holding power of our educational system, the creation of more realistic curricula and the involvement of unemployed youth who are not in school in constnictive work training programs. The mayor's commission for youth has developed the following programs: 1. A new and creative reading and language skills program to edu- cate youths who find it hard to read and speak effectively. 2. A curriculum materials development program to create entirely new curricular materials for education programs designed for low- income groups. 3. Guidance programs specifically designed to help youth and thelr families through counseling, to meet their immediate problems and to develop insight into ways of handling difficulties in the future. 4. Work and education programs emphasizing vocational education, and providing an alternative curriculum that would lead to a high school diploma. 5. A program to overcome the wide gulf that exists between low- income populations and the school by developing community schools and neighborhood study centers where school personnel can work informally with low-income families. A variety of recreational, voca- tional, and educational programs will be offered to serve the needs and interests of neighborhood residents. In the field of employment the focus of the commission's pro- grams is on training of people in work skills and habits so they can enter profitable employment in those trades and occupations that are developing in our community. Obviously, this is the most direct way to reduce poverty, reduce our welfare caseloads, and increase the com- petence of our citizens so that they become taxpayers rather than tax users. PAGENO="0089" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 805 COMMUNITY SERVICES The community services programs of the mayor's commission are designed to develop the competence of our low-income population through self-help and self-improvement programs. We are under no illusions that we know all the answers to such a complex problem as poverty. But, as a result of our investigations we have considerable insight into the problem. We know, that pov- erty has many roots: Inadequate education, lack of appropriate skills for a fast-changing economy, erratic employment patterns, inadequate work habits and ill health. We know that much more research is needed before we can suc- cessfully determine the causes of poverty and how to combat it; the causes are many, diverse, and complex. Such research would be of inestimable value to Syracuse and other communities with similar characteristics. It is only through research and creative experimenta- tion and demonstration that we may finally develop a workable solution. SPECIFIC COMMENT ON THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 I approach my specific comment on the proposed legislation from the single viewpoint of being mayor of the city of Syracuse, a middle- size urban area functioning as the heart of a middle-size metropolitan area. Our problems are not the problems of the relatively few great metropolises of the Nation, nor are they the problems of the rural areas, but, they are problems, I believe, common to many of the 81 cities across the Nation, with populations ranging from 100,000 to 250,000, and many of the 48 metropolitan areas with populations ranging from 250,000 to 500,000. My lack of comment on certain titles and sections of the proposed legislation does not mean that I categorically support or oppose these sections; it means, only, that these sections are not, in our commu- nity's mind, necessarily critical to the Syracuse situation. I would recommend revision of the Job Corps proposal under Title I-Youth Programs, section 102. The concept of recruiting 100,000 young men between the ages of 16 and 22 and placing them in more than 100 camps across the country for 2 years of work and training may not be the best expenditure of public funds: It removes the young man from direct family and community associations. It may be in- jurious to his sense of self-reliance and responsibility, substituting the authority and direction of the Job Corps for his own will and re- sourcefulness. It is one further breach in family solidarity. And most important, it violates the principle of local control. We strongly believe that Federal grants for poverty programs should be made direct to the community. There are two outstanding reasons: 1. The programs do not become fragmented. They are part of an integrated program directed at the problems of the community and directed by that community. 2. The programs can be so designed as to meet the specific demands of local labor markets. PAGENO="0090" 806 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 19.64 I suggest a modification of the Job Corps proposal that, for middle- size cities, funds earmarked for the Job Corps be utilized to estab- lish an urban conservation corps. This proposal would encompass the purposes of the Job Corps-to prepare for the. responsibilities of citizenship and to ircrease the employability of male youths aged 16 through 21 by providing them with education, vocational training, and useful work experience, including work directed toward the con- servation of natural resources, and other appropriate activities-but it would do so at the local urban level. . The urban conservation corps would keep young men living at home and working in their own communities while they received their education and training. It would encourage, rather than discourage, an understanding and belief in the concept of family life. And it would provide manpower for. the many public projects, such as park development and expanded recreational services, that our urban com- munities so desperately need. I believe that the city of Syracuse would welcome the opportunity of establishing and administering a unit of an urban conservation corps. Our local education a.gencies would provide the education and vocational training and the city goverment would create the pub- lic projects needed to provide the work experience. I also recomend that the young men enrolled in the urban conser- vation corps receive a monthly wage . for their work so that we have an organized learn-and-earn program while we integrate the program into the family life and working life of the community. I support the proposals under title I for community work-training programs and work-study programs, sections 111 and 122. I believe the urban conservation corps can be correlated at the local level with both the work-training and work-study programs. And all three of these programs can be locally controlled, providing a better atmosphere for the training and education of young people and a more careful control over the expenditure of the public funds, in- volved. I generally support Title IT-Urban and' Rural Community Action Programs. However, I ask that Section 204, Financial Assistance for Conduct and Administration of Community Action Programs, para- graph (d)-Eiigibiiity for Assistance-be broadened. The present criteria or incidence of poverty appear to possibly limit assistance only to communities which have severe existing poverty problems. Communities such as Syracuse, which do not have severe poverty problems, nevertheless should be eligible to develop programs which would not only eliminate existing poverty problems but, equally im- portant, eliminate the seeds of poverty, thus preventing poverty from taking root and growing anew in the community. The purpose of the legislation should be to prevent the poverty of the future as well as to end the poverty of the present. Under this same section, 1 ask that paragraph (e)-Special `Con- sideration to Eventual Self-Supporting Community Action Pro- grams-be strengthend. The sooner these programs become a complete local responsibility-both administratively and fiancially-the sooner Federal funds can be used to assist other needy communities, and local control can be completely guaranteed. PAGENO="0091" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 807 Also, under title II, I recommend that Section 203-Financial As- ~sistance for Development of Community Action Programs-be strengthened to guarantee 100 percent Federal assistance for local re- search projects leading to the development of community action programs. If we are to succeed in our crusade for opportunity in Syracuse, as we prefer to call it rather than a war on poverty, if we are to root out the seeds of poverty, we must know the exact causes, we must deal in detailed specifics not in indefinite generalities. Only through sound research can we obtain the answers we need for success. I believe the 1general purposes of the legislation will be better served if the Federal Government can completely guarantee the funds needed to conduct sound research programs on the local level. 1 also ask that section 206, under this title-Research, Traimng, and Demonstrations-be broadened to specifically allow institutions of higher learning to work with public agencies in performing the re- search needed to develop community action programs. I generally support title TV-Employment and investment incen- ~tives-part A, incentives for employment of long-term unemployed persons, Section 411. The concept of long-term, low-interest loans to firms that employ long-term unemployed persons is a good one. How- ever, the section should be expanded to explain, in detail, the firm's responsibilities under the legislation, for example, the length of em- ployment of a long-term unemployed person hired as a result of a loan under this section. It should also include a section on training unemployed people so that they can adequately perform their jobs. This includes not only skill training but remedial education as well. Also, section 412, paragraph (b), should be strengthened to more tightly integrate loans granted under title IV with the community action program activities outlined in title II. This would help to assure more local control in the administration of this proposal. We believe that the bill as proposed is also lacking in other respects. For example, there are many aged people in our population who are living on grossly inadequate incomes and whose problem as long as they live will become increasingly desperate. Every time the cost of living goes up, or real estate and other taxes increase, their real income decreases proportionately, and there is no way whatsoever that they can supplement these incomes. I would strongly recommend addi- tional and broader social security coverage at the earliest possible dates. I would also further recommend a study of the possibility of ~iirect grants to municipalities and communities that would allow us to upgrade our retirement programs. I also believe that great efforts must be made to stem the growing tide of divorce, separation, and desertion. I am convinced that one of the basic causes of poverty and social breakdown is the direct result of these factors. Great efforts should be made to keep families intact. I would recommend the provision of funds to establish marriage counseling bureaus to help prevent the breakup of families, and to reestablish normal family relationships in already broken homes. I would further recommend stronger legislation to cope with the de- serting husband and father, who transfer their parental responsibility to the community. I would suggest considering legislation that would make desertion a Federal offense. This would make it easier to arrest and prosecute deserting husbands and fathers. PAGENO="0092" 808 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 I would also recommend legislation to provide for social service work with families displaced by urban renewal. Urban renewal has pioneered among public displacement programs in its concern for the human beings displaced. In almost every re- spect, it is geared to checking and preventing the spread of blight which breeds new slums. However, one grave problem has not been faced-theproblem of the small handful of "troubled famiies"-whose living standards are such that they jeopardize any area to which they are transplanted. They number only 7 or 8 percent of the total, but they give substance to the fallacy that all families moving out of slums are "carriers" of blight. This fallacy is unjust to the hundreds of people who have been forced to live in slums by economic or racial barriers. Our local program must be not only an attack on poverty, it must be an attack on the seeds of poverty-the conditions, either existing or potential, that make poverty possible. This shift of emphasis, from not only eliminating existing poverty but also eliminating the present and potential conditions that create poverty, is an important one. My community wants area redevelopment in its broadest, most human sense, combining physical and social planning and attacking such questions as housing, recreational facilities and programs, wel- fare policies and payments, improvement of neighborhood appearance and parent participation in education. My community wants to deal with the interrelated causes of poverty such as alcoholism, chronic dependency, disease, emotional immaturity, mental breakdown, unmarried mothers and children born out of wed- lock. My community wants to preserve family life. My community wants to do away with second- and third-generation welfare families-economic misery is not a birthright-we want a heritage of hope, not a heritage of poverty in Syracuse. The Syracuse program must not be just a war on poverty, it must be a crusade for opportunity. It is to these ends that I have addressed my remarks on this legislation. I would like to indicate, briefly, the type of activities which we could sponsor in our crusade for opportunity. These activities would be coordinated with our existing programs. A position of opportunity coordinator could be created as part of the office of the mayor, and necessary staff provided to coordinate existing and new programs under the crusade for opportunity. A bipartisan opportunity council could be created, composed of in- formed citizens in the areas of housing, education and jobs. This council would advise the mayor and the community on the crusade. A public works-education training program could be established to provide education and vocational training for young men. In turn, these youths would work and be paid for working on local public works or services in the public interest. Hopefully, this program could be carried out through the urban conservation corps. Social and educational programs developed by our school system and by the mayor's commission for youth could be established in low- income areas. An expanded vocational training program could be established through the public, school system, using Federal funds in direct grants PAGENO="0093" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 809 to our city. Persons in the age bracket over 21 would be included, as well as our youth, in this program. All existing public and private job-training programs could be co- ordinated to insure maximum effectiveness for both the trainees and the local firms seeking personnel. Our learn-and-earn program could be expanded, and more poten~ tial dropout students could be urged to continue their education on a part-time basis, and part-time paying jobs found for them with local business and industry. Social work activities in public housing and urban renewal could be increased, with particular emphasis on large families and the elderly. A concentrated effort could be made to encourage local business~ and industry to employ long-term unemployed persons, seeking Federal loans, if necessary, to do so. Neighborhood citizen councils could be formed where needed, and professional staff provided to explain what each neighborhood could do to be part of the crusade for opportunity. I wish to emphasize that the twin principles of local ithtiative and local control have been paramount in my mind, while appearing before this committee. I hope that my specific comments on the legislation indicate my community's concern for local control. And, I hope that my comments on the Syracuse situation and the programs we have, or would initiate, under our crusade for opportunity, indicate the readiness and ability of Syracuse to provide local initiative. In conclusion: This committee will receive many definitions of pov- erty, and I shall not try tO impose mine. It shall hear of the causes of poverty rather than a singie cause. I think it will recognize that poverty is a complex of conditions and the causes are usually interlocking. I hope that it will come to the con- clusion that poverty in the midst of plenty, and as we know it in our modern society, is seldom entirely due to the fault of the individual himself or to his race, or creed or color. I would hope that this committee would approach the subject of poverty with a knowledge that present information is almost totally inadequate, and that what facts we do have point to no universal solu- tion to poverty as a social problem. No immediate cure-all is available. Centuries of concern with this problem have notresulted in a solution. Whatever the ultimate answer, it is certain that such an answer must depend upon clear and logical analysis of the problem. This legislation in my opinion can help us determine the nature of poverty. It can plan remedies and it can correct many conditions con- ducive to poverty. To hold this legislation out as a panacea for poverty would be a disservice to our own less fortunate citizens and we know that, in the long run, the poverty stricken will be the major suffers. I sincerely hope that the authors of this legislation offer this bill in this spirit. Thank you. Mr. LANDRUM. Let me assure you, Mayor Walsh7 that as one of those associated with the development of this legislation that as- sociation has been throughout designed to accomplish just what you state in your last sentence. We do offer this bill in the spirit which you suggest in the last. paragraph. I want to thank you, Mr. ROose- velt. PAGENO="0094" 810 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OP1964 Mr. RoosEv~T. Mayor Walsh, I want to say I am delighted I was: able to stay to hear you. I think you have presented one of the most interesting and one of the most provocative statements given to us in the spirit you have given it to us. I would like to cover a couple of specific points. On page 7 where you generally suggest that we con- sider a revision of the title I and that we substitute the establishment of an Urban Conservation Corps, this has been great appeal to me. My question, I think, would be whether, in your experience, you feel that most urban areas would have the facilities available to make such a program possible. Now, they might be available, I recognize, in the situation you have in Syracuse. But is it a practical thing for instance to believe that in the city of Chicago that an Urban Conservation Corps would be able to find a home and be practical? I am somewhat con- cerned about my own city of Los Angeles where we would go outside the city, yes, but where the cost of land and the other facilities might make it impossible for the city to carry such a program out. Is it your belief that most of the urban areas would be able to carry out your sug- gestion effectively? Mayor WALSH. I would put it this way, Mr. Congressman, that most cities have untold jobs, that if they had untold millions of dollars they would love to carry on. Park projects, recreational programs, different programs within the community that we never seem to have the money to do and we can't raise through taxes. I would guess that the mayor of any large city, mine included, could find excellent jobs. I think there is a difference here and what is being proposed. I think perhaps the committee had in mind the Civilian Conservation Corps of the depression days. As I look back and many of my friends were in that Civilian Conservation Corps, these were kids that had graduated from high school and could not get a job. They were not misfits in our economy. We are talking about people who are misfits in our economy, the dropout in our school. I don't think you can get a city kid and put him in the country and rehabilitate him. You can't get the city out of him. He is going to come back to the city and live. To me it is more appealing to keep that same kid in the city and give him something to do in the city where he is going to come back to live, where he is going to have to make his adjustment anyway. I think we can find-I imow I can-I can find task after task after task for an Urban Conservation Corps. Mr. LANDRUM. Will the gentleman from California yield? Mr. ROOSEVELT. Twill be glad to. Mr. LANDRUM. One of the things that we tried to do in drafting what is now part A of title I was to make it possible under this law to do something similar at least to what the mayor is suggesting. A careful study of the proposals to implement this legislation will show that we do hope to have a great many residential training centers where these youngsters, who are misfits, will spend at least half the time in one of these residential centers acquiring basic educational skills as well as basic vocational skills and then perhaps a half or maybe less than half in some of the conservation practices. Never- theless, I am interested in the approach that the mayor is bringing to ~he problem and I ~Ope that we may be able to work that out. Now, while the gentleman has been good enough to yield to me, the bill itself specifies male p'trticipants So does the m'tyor's state PAGENO="0095" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OP 1964 811 ment specify male. I regret that Mrs. Green had to leave. I am sure she would have taken issue with the mayor, as she has with us, and suggested the possibility of amending it to include female en- rollees, also. Now, would the mayor have some specific view with regard to an amendment of this type to include females? Mayor WALSH. To include females in the Urban Conservation Corps? Mr. LANDRUM. Yes. Mayor WALSH. Yes, I would certainly allow girls to get into this. Just thinking again of some of our needs, we are trying to develop some lots in some of the depressed areas of the city where we take out houses and we pay for the lot and invite the kids to come in. We could take some of these girls and put them under our recreation leaders and have them assist in the recreation program. We could use them as homemakers, learning homemaking. I was in a welfare home the other day, the whole problem sort of fascinated me. Here were six kids, the father had disappeared and the mother had died and they were now in the care of an aunt. The home was in an atrocious mess. I said to the 12-year-old girl, I said, "Why in the world don't you take the dishes and wash them and clean the dishes off the stove and get them out of the sink?" She said, "I never washed a dish in my life." Now, I think we could give them some kind of training right within the city that would be very helpful. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Mayor, I think your concept is a most interest- ing one. I would certainly like to find a way, as the gentleman from Georgia has said, to see if we cannot at least indicate that we would like to see a good portion of these funds used in this area. Now, the prob- lem is a little different when you get outside the urban area. I don't know whether you then have the same capability of taking people and giving them the opportunity within their local area. There just may not be that situation. You may have to have a combination of both. 1 think we will just have to explore it and possibly give the director the discretion, perhaps to give him an indication of our preference and say where this is not feasible give him the discretion to set up the other kind of example. On page 8 of your summary statement, Mr. Mayor, you ask us to broaden the financial assistance requirements and generally indicate that otherwise the areas of existing severe poverty problems will get priority. You brought up a very interesting point because in essence you say to us that we had better also look out and see that other areas that do not now have serious poverty may be acquiring it, that may be we should be taking preventative steps as well as curative steps. Mayor WALSH. That is right. Mr~ ROOSEVELT. Yet, I must say to you in all honesty that the prob- lem in this area is that we ourselves admit, as you admit, that this is not the overall solution to the whole problem of poverty and if we don't have the funds to do the overall picture all the way, even though we may recognize that there are other areas we would like to get into, which would be better in your opinion: to first attack the areas of worse poverty if we only have a few dollars to spend relatively speak- ing, or divide that up so that we did not really affect either of the two are'ts too seriously ~ PAGENO="0096" 812 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Mayor WALSH. I think you can solve this problem, Mr. Congress- man, through two possibilities. One through research and one through demonstration projects. I would suggest that funds be allocated in this way, to areas where there is not a high incidence of poverty, they can be used for demonstration areas, they can be used for research purposes. I would certainly hope that tremendous money be poured into the research part of this. One of the other things I neglected to mention is that I served as a research director for Onandaga County for 3 years. This is why I emphasize research. I think in order for you to best spend your money, you have to do something similar to what was done with the mayor's commission or rather the President's Committee on Juvenile Delinquency. You have to put some funds into research, you have to put some money in demonstration. Mr. ROOSEVELT. I agree with you. I was saddened yesterday when the chamber of commerce representatives suggested to us we should spend most of our research effort by. getting private people to come into a Federal agency for research and beefing up our statistics. Would you not agree it would be better to divide this out in the local communities, there being probably nO one rule of thumb that will apply to every area. Mayor WALSH. That is right. I think you ought to take. cities of different sizes a.nd study the problems of poverty there. Again I see Mr. Gibbons there-I met with his Committee on Juvenile Delin- quency, and Mrs. Green, and I would like to see an approach similar to that used by that committee. What .we are now recommending as a result of what we have now done in Syracuse has good sound planning behind it and every dollar we will be spending on the basis of .good, sound, solid planning. . Mr. ROOSEVELT. I agree with you. I am delighted to hear you em~ phasize it. I have one more question. On page 91 think you are quite right in drawing attention to title IV and your suggestion that you stress the firm's responsibilities under the legislation, for example, the legislation of employment of a long-term unemployed person hired as a result of a loan under this section. You pointed up here the need of coordination in the various parts of the program. Otherwise we could get somebody who might well be hired and have absolutely no ability to do the job. Mayor WALSH. That is right. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Not only would you hurt the employer to whom this loan has been made in order to put him to work but you have done a disservice to the individual in the process because he well might be losing the opportunity to put whatever talents he might have m ap- propriate direction. So I think you have done us a favor there, also. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to the witness I am just sorry that all the members of the committee could not hear his statement. Thank you. Mr. LANDRUM. Thank you, Mr. Roosevelt. The other witness members will indulge us just a moment. We will go back to the point in the beginning and recognize Mr. Riehiman, who will make the statement that we alluded to earlier. Mr. RIEHLMAN. Mr. Chairman, I deeply appreciate the opportunity to be recognized at this time. I regret that I was not able to be here at the opening and say some things about the mayor of the city of PAGENO="0097" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 813 Syracuse, whom I respect and admire. I would like to say just this, I am delighted he was here. I was pleased to hear the statement from Mr. RooSevelt in respect to the presentation Mayor Walsh has made before the committee. I felt sure he would be constructive and he has been. When he comes to Washington to express his views with respect to Federal legislation affecting our part of the country and our city of Syracuse particularly, he always speaks with knowledge and from extensive preparation. With your permission, I would like to tell you how proud we are of Mayor Walsh and the tremendous job he has done in Syracuse. Mr. LANDRUM. Mr. Riehlman, that permission was asked and granted you before you came in. Mr. RIEHLMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. LANDRUM. We will be glad to have you do that. Mr. GIBBoNs. Mr. Riehlman, I want to say that having dealt with your mayor before and having listened to him today I am very im- pressed with him. He makes a fine presentation. He has evidently devoted a great deal of time and energy in the preparation of his state- ment today. In my opinion he has been one of the outstanding pres- entations we have had here. Mr. RIEHLMAN. I deeply appreciate that statement. I know that it comes from a person who is very sincere in everything that he has to say and particularly when he comments about witnesses before the committee. I want to say that this has been my experience with Mayor Walsh through the years, that he does not make a presentation in respect to activities in the city of Syracuse and those that he is interested in without thorough preparation. I am delighted that I can be here to say some kind words about our mayor. It has been my privilege to work with Mayor Walsh for many years and I must say that he is the type of public official in whom the citizens can place and do place their complete trust. He is openminded on all topics and will give all opposing sides an opportunity to air their views. He does not jump to hasty conclusions. It is not easy to administer the affairs of a metropolitan city like Syracuse. There are always diverse factions on all issues and even the smallest decision tends to become controversial. Mayor Walsh has weathered all the storms, knowing that he acts for the good of all the citizens of our community. It is a distinct pleasure for me to comment on his outstanding char- acter before the members of this important committee. His presentation was most constructive and I feel sure will be useful to this committee. Mr. LANDRUM. Thank you, Mr. Riehiman. Mr. GOODELL. I think it is time some Representatives said something about you, too, from the committee, Mr. Mayor. We are very happy to welcome you here. I think it is a very prospective and thoughtful presentation. It will be very helpful to our committee. I wonder if you have any suggestions with reference to your comment on page 15 about the difficulty of guaranteeing the length of employment of long-term unemployed persons. This is the $10,000 loan section, title IV. We have dealt with this problem previously in some of our discussions before the committee. If a Government agency is going to make a decision to loan $10,000 to a company, the basis of the guar- 31-847----64---~pt. 2~-7 PAGENO="0098" 814 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 antee of that company that it will hire a majority of long-term unem- ployed, the immediate question is: Can they hire them one day and fire them the next, or are we going to freeze these employees in their jobs for a given period regardless of their performance., and is this going to be an economical, sensible way~ of doing it? Will any em- ployer want to be frozen in for a. rigid period of time? Aren't we going to need some basis here for an employer being able to dispose of those who show no inclination to perform on the job? Mayor WALSH. I tried to spell out-and incidentally the Congress- man is quoting from the lengthy statement, the one that I submitted, and I read a synopsis of that statement. So that there is no page 15 in the synopsis that I read. In the interest of time I read a synopsis of that statement. So there are two statements. With respect to what I have said on this particular point, I have indicated that. I think more attention needs to be given to the responsi- bilitie.s of the employer here, just what he has to do and how he does it. I do not think that we can set these down in the few minutes that I have available here. But I do think that something like this is fraught with grave danger unless you can spell out the responsibilities of the employer and the employee very, very clearly. I think you could get into real deep trouble on it. I am sure you are going to have, if this provision of the bill goes through, some difficulties with it because you are going to try to em- pioy long-term lmemployed, and my experience with some of them has been that they have poor work habits, that. you are going to have to try to-and this is what this section tries to do-to try to give them decent work habits. It is going to take some skills and it' is going to take some pretty capable people to do it. Mr. GOODELL. I agreQ; I think there are some problems with refer- ence to that section. I like your comments with reference to the Youth Conservation Corps and your suggestion that an urban conservation corps might be more appropriate for a. city such as Syracuse. I think your state- ments on page 11 and 12 of the prepared text are very, very mean- ingful here with reference t.o either need wherever possible to keep these youngsters integrated into the community and using the word "integrated" in the least controversial, sense. They are èlose to the. commimity. function as a. part of that community to the. extent. `~o~- sible rather than isolating them into camps far from the.ir normal milling, if we may say that.. It is your thought that if given a.n opportunity to set up the urban conservation camps there would be no difficulty in get.t.ing cities to participate in utilizing the edu-~ cational facilties, personnel. and so `fOrth to the~ maximum of local control over the, operations? . .. . Mayor WALSH. I am sure we can do it.. I don't know whether you were here, Mr. Goodell. when I made the point that. in my judg~ ment it makes more sense to keep city children in the city. I don't think it makes good sense to take them out and put them in a rura.l setting because they are going to ha.ve.to come back and make their adjustment in the city.' if we give them programs with- in the city, work and earn programs. using our. educational facili- ties, I think that. this is where a city child . belongs-in the city. I know we can do it, we have the projects. `We could spend millions PAGENO="0099" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 815 more on city projects if we had the money. We just don't have it. I am talking about city money now, not Federal money. If we had money we could do a much better job of some of the things we would like to be doing in the community. But your taxing struc- ture won't stand it. Mr. 000DELL. I also was intrigued by your reference to making it a Federal offense for husbands and fathers to leave their family. These are perennial bills that are introduced regularly. We call them runaway bills which make it a Federal offense. The Justice De- partment and the FBI always oppose these bills rather strenuously They indicate that if you are going to push the Justice Department and the FBI into domestic relations they are going to have to use most of their personnel on these cases alone. As in the past these bills have been considered and rejected by the Congress on that ground. There is not any question that the difficulty in various State jurisdic- tions is a very serious one, trying to force upon the fathers the re- sponsibility of supporting their children. Mayor WALSH. I was interested in this when I was welfare com- missioner. I made a suggestion that was later adopted, to a legisla- tive committee holding hearings in New York State, that they set up a sort of central index on deserting fathers at the State level and this has been done where all the resources of the State, the irnemploy- ment insurance, the chauffeur's license, all of these records be made available to the central index so that you could go there and find out where a deserting father might be. This is working well. We find that a person might leave the family in Syracuse and go to Rochester and we would have difficulty catching him. But strangely enough they might keep that name on the driving license. Now we might pick him up this way. The question of desertion, I think, if you measured it in terms of the impact that it has on the economy of the country, has a far greater impact on the economy of this country than does baiik robbery, which is a Federal offense-kidnaping. When you consider the millions and millions of dollars of Federal funds that are spent on the ADC program alone I think you could make a pretty good case for the Feder~tl Government or FBI taki ig over the responsibility of at least helping people, helping men get back to their families. I think it is a travesty to allow a man to go out and raise a family and then walk out completely and not come back again and dump that responsibility. This is a situation that has always disturbed me. I know of no remedy for it but I do think that the problem is too big for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to overlook. Mr. GOODELL. What progress are we making with uniform State procedures, State laws? Mayor WALSH. These are excellent. The reciprocal agreements between the States are good. It is the problem of finding them. It is the problem of finding them, getting them to court in another State, and getting either an agreement for support or return to the place. Now, some people say let t.hem go, but I think with the type of pro- gram that we are talking about, with wise marriage counseling, if you could return some of these fathers-and remember, they. walked out, some of them, just because they were so completely overcome with the responsibilities in trying to raise a family, that if they got some wise marriage counseling you might be able to rehabilitate them. PAGENO="0100" 816 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT. OF 1964. In terms of the impact on our economy and in terms of the impact on poverty, I thmk it would make a tremendous inroad into this problem. Mr. GOODELL. Mayor Walsh, you would like to believe that your confidence was well placed, that there would be a high degree of local initiative and local control recognized in this program. I hope this ~s true. There is very little in the bill, itself, to guarantee this. This is one of my very deep concerns. WTe have always and inevitably the authority in some Federal Agency to set Federal standa.rds. It is true that the locality then may make proposals on its own but the proposals must conform to the Federal standards and we as a com- mittee and we as a congress seldom get into the details as to what those standards are going to be. We grant the general authority and then we find out subsequently what standards have been applied. On both sides of t.he aisle we frequemitly find standards set up are too uniform nationally, too rigid, and iii many cases are excluding types of programs that we did not have in mind. I hope that we will be able to adopt some either legislative history or specific amend- ments that will clarify our intent here. We want a maximum of local initiative and local control. Now let me ask you a difficult question from the viewpoint of a city that is short on funds. To what degree do you feel that the cities can contribute to the program, over a long term, the cost of some of these programs? To what degree should we require them to continue in order that they have some control and . initiative in the situation? Mayor W~&i~sn. Let me tell you what the picture is of the cities in New York State and I think I can speak with some knowledge on this because I am a member of a committee that the Government put me on which has been for the last 2 years studying the problem of State aid to municipalities. My own city, for instance, this year we are within $200,000 of our taxing limit. In other words, we can't raise any more money by taxes. We are within $200,000 of our taxing limit. That answers the ques- tion on operation. We can't raise any more money. I might add that welfare in Syracuse is not a function of the city; it is on a county basis. The $16 million that is raised for public welfare in Onondaga County is raised in the coimty and in the. city but it is administered by the county. We are within $43 million of our bonding limit. You can't borrow money for this type of program. We are working, how- ever, on programs that will build up the tax structure of the commu- nity and through urban renewal we hope to be able to do this. Your question, to be speciflc-"What can we put in now ?"-the answer is "None." Mr. G00DEIL. Let me follow up. Don't you think it is a bit naive to expect very much local control and local initiative control if you are not putting the money in? Mayor WA1~sH. I would hope that it would not be naive. I would hope that at least in my locality it would want to go into the program unless I had something to say about it. Mr. GOODELL. You are asking the Federal Government to pay the bill for a program that you control completely. I would like to believe this could be done, it might be done at the outset. As a. matter of fact, I think maybe this is the only way we can get these programs PAGENO="0101" ECONOMIC `OPPORTUNITY ACT `OF 1964 817' started. But on a continuing basis do' you expect to have very much initiative and control of your own? I think the history of other programs would indicate that some kind of contribution, some kind of teamwork effort here is going to be neces- sary.' `Perhaps not at the city' level. Perhaps at the State level. Mayor WALSH. I would certainly agree with that, that this is what we would want too. We would like to get eventually city money into it. As I say, we are spending $15 million on poverty in Syracuse because we pay half the taxes. There is some State and Federal money in that program. I should not say half of the $15 million. About $2.5 mil- lion comes from the Federal Govermnent. Three or $4 million from the State and the balance from local money. But over the long haul we would certainly be putting money into the program. Here is the city budget this year. There is no way of raising any more money there. We are within $200,000 of our tax limit. This is true of all cities in the State. Mr. 000DELL. I might say, Mr. Mayor, and I think you are aware of this, that the budget problems and shortage of money is not limited to the cities. If you want. to look at the Federal budget it is a rather massive `document and when you get to Congress budgets it is really a question of priorities. This is part of our function to decide what the Federal priorities are, to see to it that the State and local priorities are preserved and where tdieir primary responsibility is. Mayor WALSH. I might point out to you that you are in the poverty' program now making a contribution of about $2.5 million in Onon- daga County. This is treading the surface. It does not allow for research programs: it doe's not allow for demonstration grants. These are the programs now, old-age assistance, assistance to the blind, and ADO that are keeping the stomach full which is about all they are doing. They are merely treating the patient, they are not going be- yond that and finding out why they are there, w'hy the patient is ill. Mr. GOODELL. I certainly appreciate your testimony, Mr. Mayor. I would like very much your crusade for opportunity. I think this is a more positive approach psychologically to the problem. I hope we will be able to beef up this legislation not only in title II but in perhaps a separate title in terms of the research and study and corre- lation of data that is presently available to some of the agencies that are starved for personnel and funds to really utilize that data. This is a very acute problem. It is frustrating to most of us because this is not available to us in a meaningful way in terms of trying to map out an attack on poverty or a~ way to create new opportunities. In conclusion, I think you are well aware, Mr. Mayor, of the very high e'steem all of us have for the Congressman from Syracuse. We are very privileged to have him come here and be with us today. I am privileged to acknowledge him as one of the leaders in New York State not only as a Repu'blican but on all issues. Mrs. GREEN. Mayor Walsh, your statement has also attracted my attention in regard to Federal legislation, for fathers who desert their families. In Syracuse can a family receive ADO payments if there is an able-bodied but unemployed male in the house? Mayor WALSH. Yes. The program was changed about 2 years ago and they can receive aid. PAGENO="0102" 818 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Mrs. GREEN. Is this true in most places in New York? Mayor WALSH. As far as I Imow, it is. Mrs. GREEN. We have what I think is a most disgraceful and most shocking situation in the District of Columbia, and I understand in some other places in the United States, where we actually have the kind of program which encourages fathers to desert in order that hungry children can be fed. Can the mayors do anything to bring some action to eliminate that? Mayor WALsH. I think you should have asked the question of the previous mayor who is president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Mrs. GREEN. I am sure that you have a strong voice in the confer- ence of mayors. Mayor WALSH. Unfortunately I don't. I am not a member of any committee. Mrs. GREEN. Has that question ever been discussed? Mayor WALSH. Not to my Imowledge. Mrs. GREEN. isn't. this something that would be worthwhile looking into? Mayor WALSH. Yes. I might say~ that I never got any place with the commissioners, my fellow commissioners when I tried to get them to take action on this desertion bill, either. So maybe I am barking up the wrong tree, I don't Irnow but I still feel strongly about it. Mrs. GREEN. I am very sympathetic to the father and husband being held financially responsible, but I must say that as I read the studies that are now being made of child abuse, of the youngsters, the babies and small children who are brought to the hospitals, some of them beaten, or chained to beds or tables, I am coming to the con- clusion that the father or mother who does not want his or her child ought to be able to leave it in some institution where it would be properly cared for. Mayor WALSH. I think wise counseling would determine which families are worth working with and which are not worth working with. Mrs. GREEN. I think wise marriage counseling would help. But since some fathers and mothers don't want their children, I think the children ought to have a home where they will be treated decently. Let me also pursue the point that Congressman Goodell raised in regard to the Urban Service Corps. I am sure that Congressman Goodell will recall the visit we made to New York City when we went into the slum areas. Then we had a group of youngsters on a panel program. These were gang leaders. To each one of these young- sters on the program we said: If you were given the chance to join a Youth Conservation Corps out in one of our beautiful parks or forest lands and go there for 6 months or maybe 2 years, would you want to do it? In every single case the answer was "No." Now h~re are youngsters who grew up in New York City in the slum areas, this was all they knew, and they had no desire to join such a Conservation Corps. So I am particularly pleased with your emphasis on the Lrban Service Corps. I am in favor of a Job Corps and a conservation camp. I think this is good for some youngsters. But I think far more important would PAGENO="0103" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 819 be an Urban Service Corps where they would be trained in the skills and in the city to which they undoubtedly will return, or where they will spend most of their lives. Mr. GOODELL. Will the lady yield? Mrs. GREEN. Yes. Mr. GOODELL. I do recall. I agree with what the gentlelady is say- ing. Perhaps the most vivid example of that was a young boy that we asked if he or any of his friends-how many of his friends-would be interested in going in a Youth Conservation Corps and he said, "You mean to work in the country?" We said, "Yes." He said a minus number. I think we would have a very difficult time, in terms of a Conserva- tion Corps, attracting the average urban youth whose whole back- ground and environment is so different. As a matter of fact, another thing I think we were so impressed with was the smallness of their world. Some of them had never been more than 12 blocks from where they were living and where they had been born. The concept of going `to the other side of' the city was alien to them, to say nothing of going out into the country. Mrs. GREEN. I think that of all the alphabetical agencies the CCC probably contributed a*s much or more than any other. So I do not minimize the importance of this. But certainly it is not the whole answer. I have not read your statement carefully. Do you limit the Job Corps to young men? Mayor WALSH. Not if it is the Urban Conservation Corps; `no, I would like to see it opened up to young women. Mrs. GREEN. I think that maybe we are over the hurdle and we have persuaded the powers that be that young wOmen need Job Corps training, too. One other question, Mayor V~Taish: On page 11 of your statement, one of your criticisms of the Job Corps proposal is this: You say, "It may be injurious to a sense of self-reliance and responsibility sub- stituting the authority and direction of the Job Corps for his own will and resourcefulness. It is one further breach in the family's solidarity and, most importantly, it violates the principle of local control." For many years we have had a very extensive military program where young boys have been taken away from their homes. Do you think that this has been injurious to the self-reliance and respon- sibility, substituting the authority for his own will and resource- fulness? Mayor WALSH. I spent 5 years in the military, Mrs. Green. I don't see any correlation between the type of military training that you would get under a military setup and the type of training you would get under a civilian job training corps as it is outlined here. .1 think the situation is entirely different. I cannot see where they are related. Mrs. GREEN. If this is true, in a residential training program, `why would it be injurious t.o their self-reliance and responsibility-more so than in the military service? Mayor WALSH. I think if you take a boy out of a family setup and put him into a setup like this where somebody else is doing his think- ing for him-telling him what to' do and how to do it-I think it can be injurious. PAGENO="0104" 820 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OP 1964 Granted all of the children that come out of this program are not going to come from a family setup, you can develop some responsibil- ity in some of them. But I can see where, if you take a child out who is insecure to begin with and put him in a situation like this, there could be some harm. Mrs. Gn~Ex. You do not think that holds true if you take the same child from the same environment and put him in the military service? Mayor WALSH. No; I don't. I think the military is an entirely dif- ferent setup. You can't walk out of the military if you don't like it. Mrs. G1IBEX. I am talking in terms of injuring self-reliance and re~ sponsibility and substituting the authority. Mayor WALSH. This is a difficult question; this is difficult for me to answer, and I thought this over very carefully before I inserted it in there but it seems to me it is one more breach in this family solidarity where you are substituting another authority for the parent, for the mother, or for the father. Many of these children may have difficulties with their relationships-with their father and mother. I am not just certain you are going to do them any good by substituting this type of authority. This is what I am trying to get at in this statement. Maybe I am not making myself clear. Probably, I am not. But there seemed to be one other possibility here. How serious it is is a guess, of course. Mr. GIBBONS. Will you yield? Mrs. GREEN. Yes; I yield. Mr. GIBBONS. I am interested in this line you are pursuing. I would like to throw some of my thoughts in about the difference between the military and the Job Corps. In the military it is something that you do because of responsibility, either because of the draft or because of your having volunteered, and you are there because of a national mission that imbues the trainee. You are also trained in that type of training to develop responsi- bilities of leadership and of carrying out missions where, in this pro- grain, it may be a littje different. I see a difference. I don't place as much difference in it as you do, but I do see some difference. I do agree that in all of these programs we ought to try to preserve and reinforce and build up the family, not only as a unit immediately but as a unit that any normal young man or young woman should try to preserve and protect and build up and strengthen. Perhaps taking a young man away and putting him into projects that sometimes might border on the "make work" would tend to destroy the family unit. That is all I have. Mrs. Gu~N. One of the conferences I have had this afternoon was with the executive secretary of the American Personnel and Guidance Association. He is much concerned over the President's statement in his message to Congress that we would need at least a thousand guid- ance and counseling personnel to be in the employment centers, and so on. He said we just don't have them; we don't have enough guid- ance and counseling people in our schools. From your experience as mayor, do you think there is going to be any trouble in recruiting the necessary number of qualified adults to carry out the programs that are outlined? Mayor WALSH. I think there is a danger in some of these situations where you might set the qualifications too high. I think if you are PAGENO="0105" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 821 talking about neighborhood counseling and work in youth programs, work and study programs, I think you can find the resources within the community. I think that you could use people in our school setup who could do the type of counseling. You may have to pay them to work extra hours, after school or in the evening, but I think you can find them. If you get into psychologi- cal testing and some of this you may be in trouble; you may not have the qualified people. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much. Have all the Members had an opportunity to ask questions? Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I have not had a chance. Mrs. GREEN. The gentleman from New Jersey. Mr. FRELINGIIUYSEN. Madam Chairman, I would like to compli- ment Mayor Walsh on a very stimulating statement. I suppose it is too much to claim that it is because he is a Republican that he made such an interesting presentation. It may have something to do with the hour of the day. I notice it is 5 minutes of 6. I am glad to see that at least the late hour means the waiving of the 5-minute rule. Perhaps that lends itself to a more reasonable discussion of some of the issues presented by the bill and in the testimony from the wit- nesses. I only wish we were not operating on a schedule that obliges us to meet as late as this. I have been reading your statement with interest, Mayor. I notice you point out that over twice as many nonwhite families in Syra- cuse than white families have incomes under $~,OOO a year. I got in trouble because of some slight misrepresentation in the press when I asked a question earlier about this. President Johnson was asked for comments on Republicans' sugges- tions that perhaps Negroes would benefit more than whites. He assumed, quite erroneously in my mind, that Republican criti- cism of his program was based on the fact that we didn't think that Negroes should be benefited. I surely do not think that is the case. I khow of no Republican who feels that the program should be criticized because it may benefit Negroes. I wOuld hope that if they are in the poverty category that they would receive most of the benefits. I would assume this would be the case in Syracuse as in any other place that might received Federal funds. I was interested also in your statement on the discussion of an urban conservation corps. I would like to ask you about your suggestion that Federal grants under the programs should be made direct to the community. I am sure you realize that the Job Corps is not to be run by, and the funds are not to be provided to, communities. These are to be federally financed and operated programs. Is it your suggestion that if there are city programs, urban pro- grams, that they should not be so operated? Should they be run by the cities to which they are connected or in which they are located? Mayor WALSH. Yes; I would like to see the grant come directly to the city so that we could set up the program and administer the funds. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Of course, this is a very direct challenge to the basic purpose of the legislation as it is written. All the community action programs bypass the community entirely. They are sought for PAGENO="0106" 822 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 advice as to what kinds of programs might be suitable but once the Federal Government decides which projects they think should be th~anced there is no comment even from the mayor of the city or the governing body as to the advisability of proceeding. You do under- stand that, I assume. Mayor WALSH. Yes. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You disapprove of that form of bypassing as did other mayors who preceded you today? Mayor WALSH. I think I may have indicated earlier, Mr. Freling- huysen, that if we could not have direct control of the program we did not want it. Mr. FRELINGHUTSEN. I am interested to hear you say it. You are the first one who has said such a thing in so many words. It would make quite a different kind of program than what is contemplated, both because it would not mean a transfer from an environment but because it would be quite a different, type of control. Whether a fully Federal financed program would ever be fully locally controlled, as Mr. Goodell pointed out, is open to question. I would doubt very much whether we would be willing to transfer responsibility for the operation of the program that we are financing entirely from the Federal level. Your suggestion is an interesting one and I hope it will receive consideration. 1 have no further questions except to again compliment you on your testimony. Mrs. GREEN. The gentleman from California, Mr. Bell. ~[r. BELL. Mr. Mayor. I am partIcularly glad to see your statement. I have read it over hurriedly. Part of the reason is because there are so many things that I agree with in the. statement. I think you have made an excellent, statement. I don't know whether you were here this morning hut my questioning of the mayor of New York City, Mr. Wagner, was geared somewhat to this youth conservation program and the style of questioning that I have., been carrying on during most of the hearings which is in effect the questioning of the validity, the practicality of this Youth Conservation Corps or Job Corps or what- ever you choose to call it, and substituting something such as you have suggested in your statement. Mayor WALsH. I didn't hear his remarks, Mr. Congressman. Mr. BELL. I asked him whether it would not be better to have some- thing like the Urban Conservation Corps locally controlled. He, as I recall, indicated that there was some merit to it but he still thought there was merit to having a Conservation Corps throughout the Na- tion. I didn't get a chance to question him further from there. I note, further, that you left out title III in your mentioning of it. I assume that is because you are a mayor of Syracuse and not in- volved in the farm programs and projects and that is the reason. Mayor WALSH. I didn't really feel competent to discuss rural pro- grams. Ours is a metropolitan area. Although as welfare commis- sioner my duties took me in all of the 19 towns outside of Onondaga County, I didn't feel that I knew enough about the rural problems to really comment on them. Mr. BELL. You have no opinion other than that, is that it? Mayor WALSH. That is right, sir. PAGENO="0107" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 823 Mr. BELL. On the Conservation Corps, as you referred to it, specifically what kind of program would you set up? Would you have primarily park work, these people living at home, and you would give them a job in parks, at least part of the time, and the other part of the time you would be training them in either vocational educa- tion type of effort or manpower development and retraining type of effort. Mayor WALSH. This is what we would do. We have, for instance, North High School. We have just completed a new high school. North High School will be vacated this June. We would move in and set up a work-and-earn program and school program utilizing North High School as the base probably because it. would be the one that is readily available. We would train the boys and girls in dif- ferent programs. I am concerned about our parks. Our total capital program of $9 million this year, we have only allocated about $30,000 to parks and we need much more than this. This is not operating, this is for capital improvements. We could do a lot. We could do much more in our parks. We want to plant. a thousand trees a year in Syracuse.. MTe have a. Dutch. elm problem up there. We could step up this thousand trees a year to three or four thousand trees a year. The tree trimming program, again to control the Dutch elm disease. In.. the recreation. field we have hired young men, some of them college basketball players, who worked for the city during .the sum- mer. We could have these young men who are coming, . who are highly respected in the community, work with them in. the recreation program. We want to bring tot lots around the community where smaller children can play. Land is expensive in the city and you can't buy a big area and make a new park, but in the depressed areas, in the crowded areas, we would like to set up these little lots and we are doing that. Where we take down some slum housing we try to create a tot lot, for instance. Then we create other lots, we make basketball .courts. Basketball is a very popular game up our way. We put in a basketball court. We could use them in our public works department. We could teach them how to wash trucks, we would not be replacing the city workers. In our area if you wait 5 minutes the weather changes, and washing a truck is a problem. We wash them now maybe two or three times a week. We could use them to wash trucks every day. This is still teaching them and it is still giving them work habits even though it is washing a truck. My own son is washing trucks on Saturdays. These are some of the things that we can do. Mr. BELL. Mayor, getting back to the program of the Youth Corps, don't you visualize, also, a problem in the Youth Corps as pictured in the bill? Although it is voluntary to join this Job Corps, if they are close to delinquency or anything of the kind, you would have to be taking people who would want to go, and in doing so might you not be robbing some people who might be able to handle vocational edu- cation or other type of training, manpower development and retrain- ing, or you might in truth be taking kids that possibly could be en- couraged to continue school? Isn't this a likely possibility? Mayor WALSH. I am not in favor of this camp idea at all if it is taking him out of the city. I want him kept in the city. PAGENO="0108" 824 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Mr. BELL. For the reasons that you mentioned? Mayor WALSH. ~`es. Mr. BELL. I just mentioned this as an added reason. Mayor WALSH. This could be possible, I suppose. I had not given. much thought to it. Again, if we used them in the Urban Conserva- tion Corps, if we teach them good work habits, if we teach them good study habits I think we would stimulate them to go on to a good school. Mr. BELL. Either to a vocational school or learning a trade? Mayor WALSH. Yes. Mr. BELL. You would possibly be arranging for them to take that training while theywere in this program? Mayor WALSH. Yes. Mr. BELL. Again, I want to thank you for your statement and to say that I regret I wasn't here earlier, but I had to be on the floor until the House adjourned today. I had a duty there. Mrs. GR~x. `Would the gentleman yield for one question? Mr. BELL. Yes. Mrs. GREEN. The gentleman from New Jersey did not raise this when he was here, but to other mayors he has raised the question: What do you think of bypassing the community, the city, in granting funds under title II? Title II was patterned after the juvenile delinquency control pro- grams and my memory was that we didn't bypass the city or town. Can you show me any part of this bill where we are bypassing the city? It seems to me that the funds are to be given directly to the city. The gentleman from New Jersey, as I understood him, wants every mayor to say he is opposed to the bill because we are going to bypass the city. If I can read the bill, this is not what the bill says at all. Mayor WALSH. My point is that we want the money to come to the city and if we didn't have local control we didn't want the money. Mrs. GREEN. Under the bill it does go to the city and you do have control. Mayor `WALSH. Yes. This is my understanding, that the money would come directly to the city. It would bypass the State, however. Mrs. GREEN. Yes. The only thing is that the Governor would be asked to make some comments on it. Under the juvenile delinquency program the money does go to the city directly, directly to the local community. Mayor WTALSH. I don't think we were in disagreement over this. I think lie understood that it would go directly to the city. I think that is what he wanted. I again made the statement that I would not want the funds unless we had some loca~I control over it. Mrs. GREEN. Has the gentleman from Minnesota had a chance to question the witness? Mr. QuIR. No; I have not. I would like to ask a few questions. I am sorry I came in late, too, Mayor Walsh. I have had a chance to read your statement, however, since I have been here and I think it is excellent. I would just like to make a couple of inquiries because the hour is late. PAGENO="0109" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 825 In line with the questioning of the gentlelady from Oregon, do you think there ought to be any State relation in title II that is not provided in the bill right now? Mayor WALSH. My own inclination is that the money should come directly to the locality and not go through the State. Mr. Qtm~. Do you think that the Federal agency ought to make the decision which locality receives the money rather than anybody making that decision on the part of the State? Mayor WALSH. I am not sure that I understand that question, sir. Mr. QuIB. In some Federal programs a State agency sets the priori- ties as to which communities shall receive money. Do you think there is any necessity of that in the State or do you think that each community ought to go to the Federal Government? Mayor WALSH. I think each community should go to the Federal Government, just the way we did on this Juvenile Delinquency Act, and establish a program. Then the Federal Government decides which are more worth while. Mr. Quu~. The juvenile delinquency program was done on sort of a pilot basis, to do some studies in different parts of the country and to distribute it around the country in order that the other conimuni- ties who had the juvenile delinquency problem as well could study the program in the cities and could benefit thereby. I don't look on this as a pilot program but rather one for the Federal Government to participate in the community's problems of poverty and correcting those problems. So that is why I was wondering if the State should be not involved in some way. Take Hill-Burton, your public health department makes decisions on which communities need themoney the most. It sets up a priority schedule. That is the way the higher education bill is going to be administered. The vocational education program is going to be ad- ministered through the State board of education. I may be wrong on this, but I always had the feeling that programs that were inaugu- rated to be on-going, to continue for some time on a pilot basis, the State did share a portion of the responsibility. Mayor WALSH. The problem when get the State in, Mr. Congress- man, is that you again get too much control. If you get State con- trol or if you get Federal control there isn't much left for the locality to decide. Most of the decisions have been made for them. I think that we at the local level are mature, responsible adults and we are capable of making decisions for ourselves. Mr. Qmi~. Would you expect-and I gather from your statement that this would be true and you may contradict it if it is not-that with the help of the Federal Government to get these programs into opera- tion that eventually you would want to finance them 100 percent your- self if they proved to be successful? Mayor WALSH. This is what we would hope. Through your urban renewai we are attempting to build up our tax structure to the point that we will be able to take over these programs and finance them. I would hope that the, sooner the locality gets into it the better off we would all be. Mr. Quu~. On a different subject, you criticized section 102 because it removes the young man from direct family community association. PAGENO="0110" 826 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Now we have always had the philosophy in this country that the family is a very important unit and the strength of the community which sets social morals, which keep people in line and build them up, and we see this breaking down. I agree with you in your statement that this needs to be clone and any help that we could give to the corn- mimity and to the family I think would be worth while. However, I have been engaged in conversation with a number of people who have been studying this who feel very strongly that we no longer can de- pendon the family especially the famii~of children in tl~e center of the city, the ~l~ettoes that I am talking about. who cease to have an influence on the child after 6 years of age and some of 3 years of age. I would gather that some of the proponents of this legislation think that it is important that we get the child out of the family and out of the city for a period of time. The mayor of New York, Mayor Wagner, indicated the problem they have where they do this with certain individuals, that it is quite a task to adjust them back to their community again afterward. I just gather from this conversation that it can be a difficult thing to take them out in the first place. Do you think there are some individuals where there is no possibility of assisting the family and community and we must be thinking of taking them out? Mayor WALSH. Let me put it this way: If you do have to substitute for a family situation for a mother and a father, you have to sub- stitute a mother and a father. This is the only way that I know of unless you want to institutionalize every child. I think any type of family situation, any good family situation, even if it is a foster home, it is much preferable to institutional care. I don't think this will be any substitute for family life. I certainly hope not. We have to find ways of building up family life in this country. The problems that we are faced with today are the~ problems of the breakdown of family life and when you take a look at your delinquency records and. your dependency records you will find that these people are there simply because one of the contributing causes is a breakdown of family life. And unless this program can find ways of strengthening family life I don't think the program is worth while. I think this should be one of the greatest points of this total program on poverty and that is that it should be directed to find ways of strengthening family life in this country so that we can develop a more cohesive family unit than we now have. If you substitute anything for a family you have to substitute a family. I don't think you can substitute institutional care at alL You certainly can't substitute a Job Corps for it. Mr. QuIB. Some individuals are so emotionally disturbed, or per- haps we might say morally deprived, that they may have to be institutionalized. Mayor WALSH. That is right. Mr. QuiE. We are not talking about that individual? Mayor WALSH. No. And there are families-the family that I mentioned a little earlier, there is no family unit there, it is gone. So that the only thing you can do with this family is to institutionalize the children. This is expensive. Mr. QurE. Now we are talking about young men from 16 to 21 years of age. The younger the person the more important the family is. PAGENO="0111" ECONOMIC `OPPORTUNITY ACT' OF 1964 827 For a 16-year-old it certainly~ would be true. Perhaps from 16 to 21 it would not be as true. Then is it not more important ~hat the com- munity build an acceptance of this individual, a place for the mcli- vidual and his job and civic affairs and such? Mayor WALSH. This is one part Of the bill that worries me a little bit, this concern with the group up to 21. We find that there are any number of families where the father is over 21 who is in this p'overty class. I don't think we should-the thinking of the committee should-be limited to just taking care `of this group up tO 21. You have to in your other programs consider persons over the age of 21 and try to retrain them. Hopefully some of the retraining programs that are available under other legislation would take care of these but we are finding a lot of the younger men, say, in the 30-year-age group, from 25 to 35, who are in this poverty-stricken class who are on welfare. Mr. QUIR.' Do you find in your urban renewal program and your construction `of low-income housing that it takes a while to develop a sense of community in the area?, Mayor WALSH. By sense of community you mean a cohesiveness? Mr. QUIE. Cohesiveness and the people developing a sense of `respon- sibility toward the area, their environment around them. Mayor WALSH. Yes; I think this is true. Again it depends on what you tei m community I think m'tny times we `ire overly concerned about the looks of an area rather than the cohesiveness of an area. ,`As people are being displaced and mOve into' new areas I think that what we are trying to do `now through our urban renewal program, we have wh'tt u e c'tll a community organization specialist who is working with groups in the community trying to get them to' take an interest in their particular comthiin'ity and it. seems to be working. We :are getting some good results with this, where people are trying to build up a community feeling for the neighborhoOd. Mr. QrnE. I think that is all the time I will take, Madam Chair- man. I thank Mayor Walsh for his excellent statement again. `Mr. GREEN. Oiie of my concerns about this'program is that we really don't do anything until the youngster is about 16 years old. May I ask you, as a person trained in sociology, isn't this pretty late `for a child who comes from a multiple problem family? Mayor WALSH. I think you are right. Mrs. GREEN. What about residential schools for children under that age who would benefit by a change in the environment? Mayor WALSH. 1 don't know, the answer. I think I recall these statistics, don't hold them tO me accurately, but a study done in 1957 in New York State showed that about 86 percent of the heads of pub- lic assistance families had never finished high school and about 72 percent of the heads of public assistance families never finished gram- mar school. Now we are finding in our studies with the mayors' commission for youth that the dropout problem is beginning in the sixth, seventh, and eighth grades. These are down where the 11-, the 10-, and the 9-year- olds are. `This is where your problem is starting, if ways could be found to make this group more concerned with school. What we are trying to do now, with certain projects in Syracuse, is trying to con- centrate on keeping them in school at that age and, by trying to treat PAGENO="0112" 828 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 the dropout at that level, we feel we can make a real impact on this problem so that again it is like discrimination. The earlier you can get them the better off they are going to be. Mrs. GREEN. You say at 9 and 10, in the fifth or sixth grade. Doesn't a child make up his mind even earlier that he is not going to try and motivation is dulled? Mayor WALSH. That is possible. Mrs. GREEN. Why don't you lend your talents to some suggestions that will help us in this legislation to reach some youngsters before they are 16 when it may be too late to do anything with them? Mayor WALSH. I would be happy to discuss it with you. I have alluded to discrimination before but I think that the best statement I can make along this line on poverty and discrimination is "at your mother's knee and other joints." I think you get this thing in the same way on dependency and discrimination. They all tie in; you get it pretty early. I would be glad to talk with you about it but unfortunately I have a city to run and drawing up legislation is not in my field of competence. Mrs. GREEN. I could argue that point. We will adjourn until tomorrow morning, at 9 o'clock, when we wifi reconvene and hear a panel of businessmen: Virgil Martin, Thomas Nichols, and Ralph Besse, and also the Governor of Indiana; and Ed Bishop, head of the department of agricultural economics at the North Carolina State College. Mr. QUIE. Madam Chairman, may I ask one further question? Do you assist people in the city of Syracuse with birth-control information? Mayor WALSH. No, sir. Mr. Qtm~. Does the planned parenthood operation operate in Syra- cuse? Mayor WALSH. Yes, it does. Mr. Quis. Is this the one organization that provides that informa- tion, or are there other organizations that do? Mayor WALSH. As far as I know, that is the only one. There are doctors, of course; surely. Mr. QuIE. I mean providing the information free. Mayor WALSH. Free, as far as I know. It is just planned parent- hood. Mr. Qurs. Is that financed out of community chest funds? Mayor WALSH. No, sir; it is financed out of private subscription. Mrs. GREEN. If there are no further questions we will adjourn now. Mayor WALSH. May I present, while you are adjourning, my niece, who is a student at Catholic University here and who has sat patiently all through the testimony. Mrs. GREEN. We are glad to welcome her. Mayor WALSH. She is the oldest of eight children from Corpus Christi, Tex. (Whereupon, at 6:30 p.m., the committee was recessed, to be recon- vened 9 a.m. Thursday, April 16, 1964.) PAGENO="0113" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 THURSDAY, APRIL 16, 1964 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AD Hoc SUBc0MMHmE ON THE WAR ON POVERTY PROGRAM OF THE COMMIrn~E ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The ad hoc subcommittee met at 9 :20 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 429, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Phil M. Landrum presiding. Present: Representatives Landrum, Green, Roosevelt, Thompson, Holland, Frelinghuysen, Griffin, Quie, Goodell, Bruce, and Martin. Also present: Representatives Pucinski, Brademas, Hawkins, Gib- bons, Gill, Brown, Bell, and Taft. Staff members present: Dr. Deborah Wolfe, education chief; Leon Abramson, chief counsel for labor-management; Charles Radcliffe, minority counsel for education. Mr. LANDRUM. I believe we will proceed. The committee will come to order. We have as our first witnesses this morning a panel of distinguished. leaders in the field of business, Mr. Virgil Martin, of Carson-Pine- Scott Co.; Mr. Tom Nichols, of Olin Mathieson Co.; and Mr. Ralph Besse, of Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. Mr. Besse, you have a prepared statement. Since we are awaiting the arrival of other members, and I understand that your two asso- ciates will speak extemporaneously, I wonder if you could proceed with your written statement first in the hope that, when we get down to the oral extemporaneous statements, the others will be here. Is that agreeable to you? Mr. BE55E. I will be glad to do that. Mr. LANDRUM. You may proceed. STATEMENT OP RALPH M. BESSE~ PRESIDENZ TilE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING Co. Mr. BESSE. Thank you. My name is Ralph M. Besse. I am president of the Cleveland Elec- tric Illuminating Co. in Cleveland, Ohio. I am also president of the Cleveland Commission on Higher Education and vice president of the Educational Research Council of the Public Schools of Greater Cleveland. The poverty problems of Greater Cleveland are essentially the same as those in most north-central industrial cities. I will not repeat them unless requested. The important considerations is to find a solution. After many years of involvement in many facets of this 829 31-847-64~--pt. 2--S PAGENO="0114" 830 ECONO~llC OPPORTUNITy ACT OF 1964 problem in Cleveland, I have developed some personal convictions about the subject that I believe will be helpful in analyzing title II of the poverty bill, which is the oniy section, incidentally, of this bill that I have studied. The elimination of urban poverty involves an unbelievably com- plex cluster of factors. The complexity magnifies the difficulty of solution. Any program designed to improve all factors at once is very apt to be too complex and comprehensive to manage. I believe, therefore, that basic programs should first be launched to make peo- ple afflicted with poverty economically self-supporting. This involves two groups of people-those in school and those who have finished or dropped out of school. The opportunity to do an effective job of poverty elimination is much greater for those still in school than for those out of school. Because I believe that the most effective pro- grams in the entire poverty problem area are those that can be devel- oped among the young, I will direct my rema.rks to this subject. I am convinced that any solution to the problem of poverty, even for those now very young, must meet the following tests in order to be effective over the long term. First, the program adopted must apply to the entire geographic area affected. Demonstration solutions in small areas are helpful as re- search but not lasting as cures. Second, the program must be designed to continue indefinitely. The problem of poverty has been with us from the beginning of history. It is not apt to be fully solved in t.he next genera.tion even in America. The machinery for its solution, therefore, should be structured to continue indefinitely. Third, the program should be managed by a single authority with prime responsibility to get the job done Over a long period of time. In other words, a mere coordinating agency.would not be strong enough to. do the job in spite of the fact that any plan will call. for substantial coordination among many agencies. Fourth. the program must be financed on a basis that permits more activity than has so far resulted from the combination of public and independent institutions working on the problem. There. are many reasons why the present system of public and private activity has failed. Lack of money is not only one of such reasons, it is a con- trolling reason. Fifth, the program must. involve the families in the poverty area served. In Negro areas this will be, predominantly, mothers, with- out such involvement motivation for learning or change is too difficult and the institution in charge of the program cannot influence factors having a dominant impact on the people involved in the program. Sixt.h, a program has the greatest chance for lasting effectiveness if it starts with children at the earliest age they can be made available for extra family institutional attention. The problem of retrieving dropouts or retraining adults to a level of economic self-sufficiency is infinitely greater than the problem of preventing new generations of children from joining the lost generations. The younger the child, the greater the chances of lasting progra.m benefit. Seventh, the program must cover more hours of the day, more days of the week, and more weeks of the year than are now covered by the combination of public and independent agencies. Without better time PAGENO="0115" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 831 coverage a fully adequate program cannot be provided and positive training is substantially offset by the negative influences of a poverty culture. I believe that the only existing institution capable of meeting these tests is the public school system. It already has the major training responsibility in the poverty communities. It is organized to cover all the geographic areas involved, however defined. It is a permanent continuing institution in being with established staff and facilities. It is well accepted in the public mind. Its program can be authorita- tively organized so that it does not have to depend on voluntary cooperation of other institutions for its effectiveness. Without the help of something comparable to title II, however, a public school system is unlikely to do much more than it is now doing. The basic reason -for this conclusion is that the dollars will not be available from local tax sources to finance the kind of program needed. The poverty classes of cities are predominantly Negroes. White vot- ers, however, predominate in the total population of most northern industrial cities. They think that their own schools and other public service agencies should be improved. As a matter of practical politics it is too much to expect that white voters will vote for the diversion of general tax funds to the special and expensive solutions of poverty area problems. When this is coupled with the well-known difficulty of getting levies approved for any purpose, even though the opposition voter shares in the benefits, it seems clear that only a massive national effort can solve the poverty problems dealt with in title II. Such effort should, of course, be directed at the special solutions needed and limited to the poverty areas. Local districts should not be permitted to pass on to the Federal Government their normal routine school costs. In addition to finances, the school systems need an almost revolu- tionary approach to a program if it is to have any reasonable chance of success in reducing poverty. New objectives, new curriculum, new facilities, new teacher training, new family relationships, new coordi- nation with other public and private agencies, new time coverage, new cultural involvement-in short, a whole new set of concepts must be adopted to make headway in eliminating poverty. Few school systems are apt to take these steps except as an incident to a major overall program supported by substantial outside financing. Yet, the situation clearly indicates that present methods are inadequate. In a comparable situation, a business institution would shake up its methods, research solutions, apply newly tested techniques-or it would die. A city and a nation should do no less to solve their biggest domestic problem. Mr. LANDRUM. I believe the desired plan is to proceed with a state- ment from all three of you gentlemen before any discussion takes place. We will ask Mr. Nichols, of the Olin Mathieson Co., to proceed. STATEMENT OP THOMAS NICHOLS, CHAIRMAN, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, OLIN MATHIESON CO Mr. NICHoLs. Thank you. I will identify myself as Thomas Nichols, chairman of the execu- tive committee of the Olin Mathieson Co., also director of Fruehauf Corp. and other companies, and a life trustee of Johns Hopkins TJni- PAGENO="0116" 832 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 versity. If further identification is required, I will be glad to go into that, but I would not want to bore you with details, so I will get on, if you please, sir. The purpose of my appearance before you is to talk not about pov- erty but economic opportunity and the immediate need for an' orga- nization to provide it. For opportunity, as I am sure you all appreciate, is the very breath of a free society. When opportunity threatens to be displaced by dark pockets of despair, a society is forewarned that it is past the summit of achievement and is headed down the steep slopes of decline. The United States passed through one nightmarish period when op- portunity seemed beyond recapture for many million worthy Amer- icans. It must never drift into another for failure to act decisively and in time. Over 30 years ago, the entire Nation shivered under the impact of a major economic disaster. We have learned much since those op- pressive days, but not enough. Happily, we have learned to stop arguing about who caused the great depression and to agree that the business community and government together must develop and main- tain a cohesive unity of purpose that will put even the threat of a~ major economic collapse forever behind us. This state of mind I sin- cerely believe is bipartisan or unpartisan and is shared generally by the vast majority of our thinking citizens. This, I am sure you will agree, is as it should be. I hope and pray for some new maturity in our thinking. But I think the Nation has reached a new stage in her existence when we need to push this nonpartisan approach another firm step forward. The concept of government and the business community as disaster crews is hopelessly obsolete. Neither government nor the business community ought to be viewed as a Red Cross task force speeding to the scene of each successive disaster area; rather, they should be partners joined in the prevention of disaster. Our national economy, as we well know, suffers from several nag- ging conditions of unsettlement that disturbs us all. It is a familiar cataloging: depressed areas, people thrown out of work because of automation who require new training; dropouts from our schools who lack skills for proper placement; older people who have been out- flanked by technological change and need the opportunity to retool; small business that can soon become source of employment if given the cha.nce to move ahead; and many others. Now, the mastery of all these problems is, as I have said, a biparti- san, not a partisan, concern. I believe and repeat that the business community is ready and willing to view it as such. The bill before you for consideration, which I know I should not have to go into details on-you are as familiar with it or more familiar with it than I am-but the bill before you outlines a reasonable begin- ning, a project that brings into appropriate posture, in my humble opinion, t hese problems that beset us. It is a beginning step, an orderly attempt and, in my judgment, one that certainly warrants trial, but let me be frank: it can only succeed if the full resources of labor, busi- ness, and the agencies of Federal, State, and local government march side by side in support of it. PAGENO="0117" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 833 The advancement of economic opportunity is not going to be brought about by a massive transfusion of Federal funds. Nor can it be super- imposed from the top through directors with some supreme authority designed to work miracles all over the trouble spots of this Republic. Opportunity, if it is not to become a snare and a delusion, must be generated by the time-tested traditional forces that have sustained this Nation from its inception: a strong belief in the individual and his mobility within our society. On this matter, there can be no doubt. We have an abundance of managerial talents and resources to make America a fortress of freedom. We have within our grasp the op- portunity to banish blight and the brooding patches of despair that darken the lives of perhaps one-fifth of our fellow Americans. But we must act and act with resolute will. Why? Because it is morally right. It is our national destiny and there can be no compromise. Ours is a robust, muscular economy. It is a society that is incor- rigibly optimistic. We must keep it that way. Yet, we know that today America rides the eye of the hurricane in world affairs. The people of the world watch our every action, how we comport our- selves, how we handle our mnay diverse problems here at home. Today the world knows and applauds the fact that 35 percent of those over 18 in America go to college, twice that of any other nation. Yet, it must wonder, it must ponder, why a nation that performs such spectacular feats, in bringing that opportunity to one segment of its population cannot organize and coordinate its efforts to open a new door of hope: to millions of its citizens whose only hope, I am afraid, is a shore dimly seen. It has often been remarkedby European service that in America everyone has a second chance and many times a third chance. This was once true. But increasingly, I am afraid this is no longer true for vast numbers of our people. We dare not tarry, pause, or postpone a concerted effort to restore opportunity for all. In summation, I underscore a few points: Economic opportunity has receded badly for large grolips of our citizens for reasons quite beyond their control. These conditions are becoming increasingly aggravated. No systematic attack with continuity has yet been devised tO get on top of the situation. Social unrest and unsettlement is steadily becoming more explosive in our great urban centers. The crime rate is rising and I am afraid will continue to do so unless we address ourselves consistently to the uiiderlying causes. Moreover, it is not only our cities where contracting economic op- portunity has reached disquieting proportions, in many parts of the Nation small farmers cannot make ends meet. They should be given assistance, and assistance, in my humble opinion, again, as outlined in this bill. Another unsettling problem of the rural area is the death of the small town. All over America small towns are deteriorating into ghost towns and their dwindling inhabitants are becoming almost faceless characters whose future is behind them. Happily we still work in the light. We can do something. But the world is watching and wonder- ing if this bountifully blessed Nation has no longer the resources, the will, and the spirit to meet the supreme test to help all its people have an equa.l place at the starting line. PAGENO="0118" 834 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Opportunity has been the watchword of American progress for 175 years. It was the spirit that animated the system tlmt the Found- ing Fa.thers bequeathed to us. Economic opportunity for all, if we are to reach dry, firm ground, will come only if we combine the powerful resources we have, private and public, National, State, and local, for one mighty coordinated effort. So I say to you, our trustees, that the Office of Economic Oppor- tunity, as proposed by President Johnson, should be established with- out delay. Two points occurred to me as I was talking with some of my other trustees. Some reference h~s been made about Federal agencies get- ting into business~ and so forth. Two points occurred to me which I think might be analogous. I am sure, and particularly sure that some of the other Congressmen with whom I discussed this will recall the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. Perhaps many present here were either the direct or indirect beneficiaries of its assistance-this tem- porary Federal agency in the national emergency to which I referred. I am sure you also recall, as I do, as an Administrator of the Na- tional Production Authority, that during the Korean emergency it was essential to enact the Defense Production Act of 1950, pursuant to which the President could and did create an Office of Defense Mobilization to direct and coordinate the many facets of Government presumably responsible for the defense of our Nation in order to bring the full forces of our resources into solid unit under the direction of the most competent personnel it could enlist to attack the problem. Thank you very much. Mr. PuciNslil. Mr. Martin is from Chicago. We are pleas~d to have him here. Mr. Martin is one of our most outstanding civic leaders. I thmk the committee is indeed privileged to have his views this morning on this very important subject. I just want to tell Mr. Martin that Mr. Bell and I have another committee meeting. If I have to leave any- where during the testimony, it is because of a conflict. Mr. V. MAJrnN. I understand. Mr. BELL. I understand that none of the gentlemen has submitted statements. Is that right? Mr. LANDRU~I. Mr. Besse had a formal statement from which he read. Mr. Nichols spoke extemporaneously. Mr. Martin wifi likewise speak extemporaneously. You may proceed, Mr. Martin. STATEMENT OP VIRGIL MARTIN, PRESIDENT, CARSON-PIRIE-SCOTT CO., (IEICAGO, ILL. Mr. V. MARTIN. Thank you very much. My name is Virgil Martin, president of Carson-Pine-Scott Co., in Chicago. We are essentially a. retail and wholesale distribution coin- pany with approximately 8.500 employees situated in 4 Midwestern States, . but headquartered in Chicago. About 3 years ago, I was the chairman of the Illinois Public Aid Commission, which was then a commission rather than a code department to which it has been changed now and, as such, was the nonpaid chairman of a citizens group which was in charge of the welfare activities within our State. PAGENO="0119" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 835 Our company, which was founded in Chicago in 1854, has always had the very real feeling that its officers, as well as its shareholders, must be concerned with the total welfare of the community because we cannot be prosperous unless the community or the State in which we are located in prosperous. Therefore, as has been indicated, it has been the tradition of our company for its officers to take a concern m those socioeconomic areas where we think, over the long pull, the interest of the total community, including the business community, are affected. Mr. Besse has sj~oken generally about the responsibilities of educa- tion and I can simply say that I agree wholeheartedly with him, especially the area in which he indicates that it will be necessary for education to flex and to change to meet certain circumstances which exist in our contemporary society. I am in hearty accord with what Mr. Nichols stated as to the desirability of the Office of Economic Development and the strength that can come from the coordination of all the factors involved, but I want to address myself particularly this morning to the fact that there are specific areas of immediate concern that should have the attention of such an office and I know have the attention* of this committee. In the city of Chicago, we have on the average 1,000 youngsters dropping out of school in their sophomore and junior years each month. This means that over the course of a year, there are roughly 10,000 of our high school students who do not finish their work. It has been conservatively estimated that, for the balance of this decade, in the United States there will be roughly 71/2 million of these young- sters who will not complete their high school work. This can be a very substantial part of a work force, not only of a community, but of a country. Now, probably one of my virtues in appearing here today is that I come from one of the last businesses that defies automation. It is simply impossible for any machine to replace a sales person behind a counter with a customer. It is impossible for a machine to handle the roughly 150,000 different items that we handle in most of our stores in any organized way. It takes the human hand, it takes the human mind. Yet, in an industry that has defied automation, except in certain of its accounting areas, we find ourselves, like all other indus- tries, greatly handicapped in getting people who have fundamental skills in basic mathematics. As the president of our company, I would dislike being placed on the floor to run what we call a classification cash register which rings up a simple sale for a spool of thread. This is a very complicated proposi- tion and I am always amazed that we have anything less than college graduates who are able to do this because it still defies me. But the most important thing is that even in that simple job behind the notion counter today there is required a certain fundamental skill of reading, of writing, of understanding. In keeping simple stock records, it is important that we have the ability to read symbols and to understand where this particular merchandise moves. This all depends upon human knowledge. We have been concerned for some time with the fact that approxi- mately 10 times as many of the youngsters who come out of our census tracts in the city of Chicago, what we would call the poverty areas of PAGENO="0120" 836 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Chicago, that our rejections in those areas are 10 times the rate that they are in the normal middle-class and upper-class community. It very obviously stems from the very high incidence that we have in either lack of incentive to continue education or in the fact that they have ceased their education. In 1961, when I talked to Dr. Willis, who was our superintendent of schools, about our annual trip to the high schools to enlist 50 or 60 of the best high school graduates to come in, in what we call a junior executive training program-we have both a college trainee program but we also have a high school training program-Dr. Willis said to me, sometimes it would be very helpful if business would take unto itself the same concern about employing his dropouts or the city's dropouts as we did in employing quality graduates. Because of my work with the Public Aid Commission, I was very sensitive to this thing, and so we both went to the Ford Foundation and proposed to them that they set up an experiment which we dubbed, between the board of education, the Ford Foundation and ourselves, the "Double E" program, employment and education. This pro- gram was specifically designated to employ gainfully for 3 days a week youngsters who had dropped out of school. It was the basic requirement also that for 2 days a week they would be going to school. in other words, they had to go to school and they had to be employed. Therefore, it enabled us to put two youngsters on one job. In other words, one youngster would handle it for 3 days, the other youngster would handle it for 3 days. We did not create jobs but we used them on jobs that alrendy existed and on which we had vacancies. As a matter of fact, our average daily vacancy in our employment office runs 150 to 160 people. These are jobs that we can fill. Most of them are simple jobs requiring basic skills. The upshot of this was, the reason we approached the Ford Founda- tion was because the Chicago Board of Education did not have the extra money to segregate its teaching staff and to build a teaching staff which would necessarily have to develop a special curriculum for these youngsters, and the Ford Foundation money supplied to the board of education the money for teachers and for certain special sup- plies. Our contribution to it was in proportion to this. In addition to this, these yolmgsters were started at the regular minimum wage. They were reviewed every 3 months as is customary in our organization, and I will discuss the results of this in just a minute. Some 3 years later, we had 25 companies cooperating in this pro- gram. I thought it might be interesting to this committee that in the la.st 2 or 3 years this particular kind of program, working with the dropout, through employment but insisting that education be an essential part of this total program, that Kansas City has such a pro- gram, was sponsored by the Hallmark people and the telephone people, that Cincinnati has just launched a. program where a number of in- dustria.l and commercial firms have agreed to set aside 150 regular jobs for this kind of program, which really means that you will have 300 youngsters involved in it because one job in this kind of program really equals two jobs. PAGENO="0121" ECONOMIC~ OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 837 Just Monday of this week, we had one of the top personnel officers of Standard Oil of New Jersey from Newark spend 2 days in our store with our personnel department and they have geared 6 companies in the Newark area that will provide 100 jobs provided it is done on this education and employment basis. This, of course, is pinpointing one very small facet of this total program which this committee is considering, but it seems to me it does demonstrate two or three things. It demonstrates that business and industry are quite as conscious of their responsibility with public agen- cies for this whole poverty program as any other segment of society; that business and industry do recognize the . important part that edu- cation, continued education, will have to play in preventing these 7½ million people becoming regular payrollers in welfare departments. Now, what are the results of this? Here is a bulletin that was just issued on March of 1964 by the special staff from the public schools in Chicago that have been working with us. We start in Chicago now a class of 60 dropouts every 60 days. Companies absorb them. Normally, the course of employment and education runs roughly 40 weeks. Out of the 62 students who started in May of 1963, 7 months after they had completed their 40-month stint on. the employment and education, 17 of the 62 were working full time with the employer who hired them through the program; 11 were working at full time at jobs that they found themselves in light of the work experience they had; 12 are attending regular high school; 4 are in specialized training, such as body and fender work, cosmetology, and so forth; 12 of the 62 have gone back to high school and have graduated from high school; 5 have entered the armed services; 6 were married. Out of the 62, 7 months after the class, there are only 9 who are still unemployed and only 1 of the 9 has been unemployed continuously since he left the program. Now, my reason for wishing to testify this morning is that the fi- nancial cost of such a program as this is quite beyond the normal re- sources available to a local school board. The number of teachers that we have per student here is roughly half the number of teachers that are `in the public schools, but these are socially and culturally deprived. Incidentally, for the record, only 60 percent of all the people who have gone through this Double E . are Negro; 40 percent are white. Interestingly enough, a large percentage of them do not come from poverty areas, not a large amount, about 10 percent, but they come from what we would call middle-class areas. Now, to supplement-I think Mayor Daley was here yesterday- but to supplement what he said about the very orderly cooperation between the county welfare department and private industry and the schools in Chicago, I would simply like to say that this is another evi- dence that there is latent in the communities the willingness and some financial muscle to help do the job, but it is beyond the capacity of any school board or any community to do the total job. For example, in our supervisory help in our store, we have to, when we put in Double E students in a department, we have to roughly adjust that supervisor's load down by 10 percent because it takes that supervisor more time to give this person the assistance. But interestingly enough, out of all the people that we have had, we. have only had involuntary separa- tions of about five. But the desire for success has been a very real one. PAGENO="0122" 838 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 The second point I would like to make, and I know that most of you who are familiar with Chicago are familiar with our O'Hare In- ternational Airport-this is a very extensive operation. It handles about 12 percent of all the inbound-outbound air passenger traffic in America. Our company, through a subsidiary, runs the food and beverage service at O'Hare National Airport. This was an entirely new business. We had to build a workforce of 700. We needed a skilled cadre of about 70 people, meatcutters, saladmakers, bakers, waiters; we needed a real professional cadre of 70 people. For I year-for 1 year-in the Chicago area and throughout the Middle West, we attempted to enlist this cadre. Without robbing any- one or taking these people away from already gainfully employed jobs, we came up with one. We finally had, with the permission of the State labor department, to go to West Germany, Italy, and Switzer- land, to pick up 35 of the 70. These 35 were brought into the United States a year ago to take jobs with beginning salaries of $5,000 plus meals up to $18,000 plus meals. Since that time, the school board has put in at. some considerable expense to themselves a training program for people in service indus- tries. But in order to do this, they had to sacrifice other areas of edu- cation. Today, because the school board has done this, we have not had to replace any of these people from the outside but we now have Puerto Ricans. whites, and Negroes. all coming up in a training pro- gram with the result that in conjunction with the board of education, we right now have on this group enough trainees, many of them who are still in high school, some of whom dropped out. of high school but have returned to do this, we now have enough trainees so that our basic skill requirements can be fulfilled. but it was only through the co- operation of the board of education and ourselves. Again I wish to emphasize, the board of education had to sacrifice something else in order to do this. I know the committee is very conscious of the fact that business and governmental statistics would indicate, that the service industries are the growing industries. These are industries fortunately that can use the less skilled people. But I also want to submit, as has been pointed out by Mr. Besse. that unless they have the basic skill which good, early training will give them and the proper family and neigh- borhood incentive, it will be very difficult for them to fill even the minimal jobs in these service industries. As a country, certainly we have to begin to dignify and distinguish those people who do the personal service for all of us just as has been done in Europe for many years, because it is difficult for them to believe that socially this is an honorable position. This is quite apart from the consideration of this committee, but it certainly goes through the kind of training and the kind of incentives that are given the youngsters who are sent into this area. That is all I have to say. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. LANDRUM. Thank you. gentlemen, for three of the most eloquent statements, in support of a movement to rid ourselves of a very shock- ing problem, it has been my privilege to hear among all the eloquent statements we have had in support of this legislation. I wish to state for the committee and for myself as an individual member of the committee and of the Congress, our genuine gratitude PAGENO="0123" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 839 for your taking the time to come and present these very practical views and observations. I wish that it were possible, under the Rules of the House of Repre- sentatives, to present you three gentlemen to the entire House of Rep- resentatives at a time when we may have this legislation under debate. I am sure that the performance there, such as you have given here this morning, would demonstrate to the entire House, as it has demon- strated to us, that the leaders in the business community are not only thoroughly aware of the problems which exist but are giving seriOus thought to the means and methods by which we must rid ourselves of this disease. I think it would be unfair to these three gentlemen to say that we want to subject you to interrogation in the nature of cross-examina- tion. The thoroughness with which each of you has presented your views on the problem simply eliminates any necessity for cross- examination, and, insofar as I am concerned, disarms me with respect to any questions which I might want to bring up. I believe the three statements, or at least the ultimate goal of the three statements, could be summed up in what Mr. Besse brought out in the last paragraph when he said: Few school systems are apt to take these steps except as an incident to a major overall program supported by substantial outside financing. Yet, the situation clearly indicates that present methods are inadequate. * There is a sobering suggestion, statement, that unless we as trustees, as Mr. Nichols labels us, and I am proud to be labeled as one, unless we as trustees give the same study and thought to these, similar study and thought to these problems that you gentlemen have and shake up our methods, try to provide new techniques toward a solution, that we may allow not only a business to die but we could very well allow a society to die in later years. For me, personally, I want to thank you. I recognize Mrs. Green. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join the chairman in expressing an attitude of great encourage- ment that three such outstanding business leaders have come before the committee and presented arguments for replacing poverty, or at least making an earnest attempt to replace poverty, with economic oppor- tunity and to hear business leaders give all of the reasons why the war on poverty is a good investment from a~ business standpoint as well as from a social standpoint. I do not mean to be partisan or critical, but I am curious as to whether any one, or all three, of you gentlemen are members of the chamber of commerce or the National Associa- tion of Manufacturers? Mr. NIcHoLs. Not as an individual now. I have been associated with it. My associates are. Mr. V. MA1rnN. I am a director of the Chicago Association of Commerce and Industry, and it is a member of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Mr. BESSE. I am a member of the Cleveland Chamber of Commerce. Mrs. GREEN. We have heard the opposition of this organization. Why is it that such progressive leadership as reflected in your state- ment, is not reflected in the attitude or testimony of these organiza- tions which represent the businessmen of the community or throughout the Nation? PAGENO="0124" 840 EC~N~MIC OPPORTuNITY ACT OF 1964 Mr. V. MARTIN. This is as much of a mystery as the whole source of poverty. Mr. NICHoLs. I think that is a good question, and it is something I am sure a number of people with whom I am associated in rndustry would like to have a private talk with the heads of the NAM and others at an a.pproprate time. Mrs. GREEN. Does that appropriate time ever present itself? Mr. NICHOLS. I think we had better make it so. Mrs. GREEN. Have you gentlemen read the statement of the Chamber of Commerce which was presented to the committee? Mr. V. MARTIN. I have not seen it. Mr. BESSE. No. Mrs. GREEN. I wonder if it would not be constructive for you and other business leaders to read it and perhaps get others to state that it does not neèessarily represent your viewpoint? Mr. V. MARTIN. I don't know whether Mayor Daley referred to this yesterday when he was here, but I think he probably did: The Chicago Association of Commerce and Industry, which is the chamber of com- merce in Chicago, and it covers not just Chicago but what we call the SMA, the Standard Metropolitan Area, that the Chicago Association of Commerce and Industry as a body, with its individual members, has been very active in this whole job retraining program and has taken a very positive step, many positive steps to participate. I think it must be understood that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, we belong to that as an individual company. We belong to the Chicago Association of Commerce as an individual company. I think our local chamber also belongs to the national chamber, but I think it would be almost impossible to get a poll or a sense of business leadership. I know, as a member of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, I was not asked what statement they should make. This I know; but I have not. seen the statement. Mr. BESSE. Mayl speak to your question, Mrs. Green? Mrs. Giu~x. Yes. Mr. BESSE. I think that businessmen, as a whole, become successful because they have a well-developed talent in the particular business to which they apply it. This does not necessarily make them generalists in the affairs of the community or the affairs of the Nation. Most of them have not been trained as generalists. Therefore, to get the in- terest of a businessman, there has to be a communication to him in depth of the problem involved. By and large, where this has been done with businessmen they step aside from their spe~iality and acquire the general information that is needed to work on such problems. It is a difficult thing to communicate to anyone as busy as a busi- nessman because. everybody everywhere is t.rying to do this and lie already has a full-time job. Yet, in my community, a.nd based on the comments that have been made by the gentlemen on eit.her side of me and their conmnrnities, whe.re a businessman does become involved in these things, he makes a great community contribution. For ex- ample, the United Appeal Funds that are solicited in many cities. Long ago the basic welfare needs of community institutions were presented to businessmen. Businessmen give great leadership to this movement. Without them, I am confident it would have failed everywhere. PAGENO="0125" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 841 The same is true with special projects, two or three of which Mr. Martin outlined. I cannot speak for any chan~ber of commerce, but for busmess- men generally I think the big problem is really to communicate to them what the situation is. I do not believe, for example, that the businessmen of the city of Cleveland really understand the problems of the school system of the city of Cleveland. Nobody has been able to catch; their ear. When they do understand it, I think they will do something about it. Mrs. GREEN. The chamber's statement was that we must delay, we must not take any action now. We must study and analyze. All three of you have pointed out the urgency of the problem rather than the advisability of delay. Mr. LANDRUM. The gentleman from Michigan. Mr. GRIFFIN. I regret that I did not have the opportunity to hear the statements of all three of you gentlemen. I wonder if you have all read the bill. I assume you have. Do you believe in a govern- ment of laws or a government of men? Does anybody want to take that one and relate it to this bill? This bill sets up practically no standards or criteria. You refer to title II, for example, as being one which you favor. Title II says the Director is authorized to make grants to, or contract with, corn- mnunity action organizations, or, if he deems it necessary to effectuate the purposes of the act, other appropriate public agencies or private nonprofit organizations, to pay part or all of the cost of development of community action programs. Do you have any real idea what is going to happen under title II by reading the bill? Mr. BESSE. Yes; I have. Mr. GRIFFIN. You read the bill and you know what is going to happen? I. would like to know myself because I cannot tell from reading the bill. Mr. BESSE. I don't know what specifically will happen. I do know that there are many ongoing local agencies-In my testimony I stressed the school boards-that are concerned with these same prob- lems. As I read the bill, I thought it was reasonably clear that the basic objective of the bill was to coordinate these to attempt to solve some of the things that we now know how to do but are not being done. Mr. GRIFFIN. Would you like to have business regulated with legis- lation as clear as this legislation? Mr. BESSE. I don't like to have business regulated by regulation at all, sir. Mr. GRIFFIN. I am sure that is probably true. But if you are going to be regulated, you would like to know what is going to happen, wouldn't you? Mr. BESSE. Business is an authoritative organization with a boss at the top and an authority structure. But public affairs in general in a democracy cannot be regulated that way. So, we have to have more coordination. Mr. V. MARTIN. I would like to take that on for just a minute from the standpoint of principle. I am the president of a company with a great number of shareholders. We have elected by those share- holders a board of directors and that board of directors hires me to PAGENO="0126" 842 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 run the business. I am the man; within our legal charter, there are car- thin restrictions as to what as president I can do and what the board of directors can do. Sometimes our shareholders seem to think that the board of directors and the president might deviate somewhat from what the charter or what they have said we can do. At that time they have a right to express their opinion and, believe me, they un- equivocally do. It seems to me you have to have a gOvernment both of laws and of men but that the primary consideration of responsibility has to be upon the man who operates within the framework of the laws. Let me be specific. We presently are building a very large central city redevelopment downstate. This involves many millions of dol- lars. This was discussed in general with our shareholders and it was approved by them. It has been discussed specifically with our board of directors and it has been approved by them. But the basic ad- ministration within the framework which has been set up by our board has to be operated by Martin, and I have to be responsible. Now, there are rules a.nd there are laws. But. regardless of the laws or rules that are laid down by govermnent or by business, it still depends on the quality of the administration that you have to run those. So I say, in answer to you, on a principle you have to have both gov- ernment within business and within public affairs, by laws and also by men. I believe in both. Mr. GRIFFIN. You are satisfied that this bill lays down sufficient. guidelines and criteria so that we will have government by law, as well as of men, under this bill, I take it'? Mr. V. MARTIN. I would assume you would be the same as our own board of directors, that if there is not. specific detail in here that later has to be develope.d and spelled out, that t.his would be done. This is done with me as a business executive every month of t.he year. Where we have broad rules- Mr. GRIFFIN. We have had a. lot of witnesses who come in and say they `are against poverty, tha.t they a.re for the principles of the bill but then say, in effect. "I d6 not. want to be `concerned' about the Ian- gua.ge and the deta.il of the bill; that is up to you." I do not think tha.t is quite meeting the responsibility of testifying on a. piece of legislation because- Mr. V. MARTIN. I would simply like to comment on that. When you come into our store to buy something, I don't expect you Imow how to write the order or ring up the' cash register. I am going to sell it to you. I am not a specialist in government; you are. This is good `because there has to be specialist in government, there have to be specialists in business. All I will say to you is that the country needs to buy an antipoverty program.. Mr. GRIFFIN. If we pass this bill just the way it is. that is fine with von? Mr. V. MARTIN. You are asking me a question on specifics just a.s if I would ask you now, do yu want me to write this order and place it with Hart., Sc.haffner & Marx. or Kuppenheimer's. I can't ask you that. Nor can you ask me if I am satisfied with this bill. ` I `am not. a lawmaker. I am satisfied with the general purpose of th~ bill. ` I have read this through rather thoroughly. I am bewildered by car- PAGENO="0127" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 843 tam of your legalese in your government as I am sure you would be bewildered by the legalese in the merchandising business. I would expectthat you geiitlemen, who, again as Mr. Nichols said, are trustees for this, have competent staff that you will write in here the same sort of guarantees to protect the citizens as I hope as a businessman our buyers and our merchandise people write in their orders when they specify. Mr. GRIFFIN. But if we do not, we ought to pass it anyway? Mr. LANDRIJM. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. MARTIN. I ask unanimous consent. Mr. LANDRIThI. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. Mar- tin, I do not desire to be rude. The gentleman from California. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Martin, what you have said is the clearest expo- sition of one of the problems which I assume my good friend does not quite understand. I feel that we have asked you to come up here to tell us from your experience whether you think there is a problem and, if there is a problem, whether the general aim of the bill is going to accomplish something in this area. I thoroughly agree with you. In previous testimony we have discussed with experts from the Gov- ernment the details of administration. If we are not capable of working that out, then we are not doing our job. I do not say we are perfect. We may miss the point. As you have said, if we miss it, undoubtedly, we will have to come back and rectify it. We do that almost every year with different kinds of legislation. I have, read the statement of the president of the Cleveland Eleetric Illuminating Co. with interest. I think it goes in the right direction. I want to congratulate you and tell you that I have thoroughly en- joyed your testimony. Mr. LANDRUM. Mr. Goodell. Mr. GOODELL. I yield to Mr. Griffin. Mr. LANDRUM. Mr. Goodell is recognized for 5 minutes. He yields to Mr. Griffin. Mr. GRIFFIN. Gentlemen, Iwonder if we can consider, for a moment, the questioiri of State responsibility and the Federal-State concept of government. If you have read this bill-and I assume you have- you are aware that the State role in this field under this bill is com- pletely bypassed except in one situation which has to do with the Domestic Peace Corps. By endorsing this bill, as it is presented, do you approve of the elimination of State responsibility as this bill seems to do? Do you want the Federal Government to take over this par- ticular responsibility completely and work directly with the local government and not through the State government, as has been the situation in the past? Would you like to address yourselves to that general concept of government? Mr. BESSE. Yes. My statement was directed to title II and the possibility of what might be done through school systems. School systems in our State, at least, while they have some State regulation, are essentially local-action programs. The welfare agencies and other community agencies that might be involved in this are also local agencies. PAGENO="0128" 844 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Mr. GRrrFIN. Do you feel that any Federal aid should go directly from the Government in Washington to the local school district? Mr. BESSE. Yes. I know of no State organization that- Mr. GRIFFIN. You realize that this is. a new concept, it departs from everything we have Imown under constitutional government in the past, in the sense that education has always been a State responsibility, and, in the past, when we have had Federal aid suggestions, they have generally been with the idea that they would be administered through the State a.nd with partial financing by the State. There may be a program here or there which deviated from that statement, but that has been the general pattern. This, of course, ignores the historical pattern, and that is t.he trend which you want to advance? Mr. BESSE. We have an action in Cleveland right now with Federal aid that did not come through the State. It is called community action for youth. Mr. GRIFFIN. You approve of this? Mr. BESSE. It is one of the things that is being demonstrated that supports my belief that if we had extra funds, and we have been un- able to raise them locally, we could do a substantially improved job. Mrs. GRIEN. Will you yield? Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes; I yield. Mrs. Gn~N. The whole "impacted" school aid program is based on the Federal funds going specifically to the local school district. Mr. GRIFFIN. This is a question of whether we want to accelerate this trend or not. Mr. ROOSEVELT. I think it is important to point out that in yester- day~s testimony, the author of the bill agreed with several of the mayors that we would adoptS an amendment that would say that wherever there was an existing local organization, as there is in some cities and in some States, that any program would have to come from them to the Federal administrator before it could be approved. Mr. GRIFFIN. I am concerned about the State's role. Mr. V. MARTIN. Could I make a comment on this? I would just like to simply comment on this. I certainly believe in the importance of State government. I also want to point out that I was born in a rural community downstate; was educated downstate in fllinois; and came to Chicago for my graduate work and then into business. So, in that I Imow both sides of the State, I think that one of the startling developments in our whole governmental process here has been the con- solidation of populations and economic and industrial power in a given area. For example, in the county of Cook we have roughly as many people as there are downstate. In the Chicago area, we have over 6 million people in aS- or 6-county area. Now, I have worked with our State legislature and I have great respect for them as individuals, but, I understand, being a farm boy myself, exactly the attitude that downstate legislators have many times about giving to Cook County and the Chicago area what is a reason- able amount of funds or reasonable leeway in which to handle precise funds. For example, the county in which I was born and grew up as a farm boy-there are about 90,000 people there-89,900 of them are white. In the Chicago area, Cook County, we have roughly 25 per- cent; we will say, of our total population nonwhite, and here is where this terrific concentration of poverty is located. PAGENO="0129" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 845 In the counties surrounding Cook there is nOt this complication- Will, Mdllenry, you name them. I think the one virtue of the thing you are talking about which I do not believe violates State's rights but I think it approaches problems where problems exist basically because it is impossible for my sister and brother-in-law, who still live on the family farm, to understand Chicago's problems where we have 750,000 to 800,000 nonwhite, many of them recently have come in, while in the county they have only 100 nonwhites and these people have been well employed and longtime residents of the county. Now this, I think, is one of the great revolutions of our day, the terrific shift of total problems and concentrating them in areas such as Cook County; such as, New York City, Cleveland, and whatnot. I think this does, in some way, indicate the reason why there should be direct work with communities where there is a real serious poverty problem. Mr. GRIFFIN. I would like to make one comment, and it comes from someone considerably younger than you gentlemen. You are, in effect, telling us that the local community many times will not vote taxes, and will not put itself in debt to do such-and-such, that you are dis- satisfied with the way the State operates. Therefore, you are saying that our system of government and the way it is set up is frustrating and you are ready to throw it overboard and run to Washington. I want to caution you that everyone in Washington is not an expert or genius, by any means. All I have to do is point to the way we have "solved" the farm problem, and remind you that that is the way cen- tralized government sometimes works. If that is the direction you want, all right. I hope you realize that is the way you are pushing the country. Mr. V. MARTIN. Could I respectfully submit that you made this statement as to what I said? I didn't think I quite said that. Mr. GRIFFIN. I think that is inherent in what you have said. Mr. 17. MARTIN. No; I don't think so. Mrs. GREEN (presiding). The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Florida. Mr. GIBBONS. I would like to compliment you gentlemen for taking the time and effort to come here and prepare your statements. I have listened to all three of you from the very beginning. I think you show a great deal of insight and knowledge in what are the practical problems of a businessman. I associate myself with you. I spent 17 years in practicing law with businessmen. I think you have a fine understanding of what a businessman's responsibilities are in this field. I am glad to hear you talk about such things as State responsi- bility, I spent 10 years in the State legislature and I know the prob- lems they have there, and the way you pointed them out is exactly the way they happen. The States have plenty of responsibilities that they are unable to handle, unwilling to handle, and do not have the resources to handle. The problem is too large and complex for them because of the artificial restriction of State lines and State boundaries that really make very little sense when you get down to a practical basis. So I think that you enlightened businessmen have pointed out what is the Federal responsibility. We cannot solve this problem of poverty just on a mere sectional basis. We must solve it on a national basis. 3l-847--64------~,t. 2-9 PAGENO="0130" 846 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 As the mayor of New York said yesterday, in effect, he could not solve poverty in New York, as rich as New York was, because the more he solved it the more people flooded into New York to get better jobs. We have to solve this on a nationwide basis. I èommend and compliment you for the fine job you have done. Mrs. GREEN. Does the gentleman from New ~Jersey wish to ask questions? Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I should like to very much. I should like to apologize to the panel. It so happens I had a doctor's appointment. I made it on the assumption we would not begin until 10. I regret that I have missed this discussion. I, like the gentleman from Mich- igan, am very much interested in doing what we can to encourage as much responsibility on the part of State and local government as is feasible. I do not want to see the individual community turning to the Federal trough unless there is no alternative. How do you feel about the advisability of a Federal program trying to encourage a greater degree of participation on the part of the State and local government? I do not suppose any of you gentle- men are opposed to that as a. general proposition; are you? Mr. BESSE. No. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Are you against sin? Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I a.m going to ask you-you did not have to talk among yourselves-I am going to ask about matching funds, by which, in the past, we have specifically tried to encourage this sense of responsibility and participation. In your opinion, is that an old- fashioned theory that should be discarded? Mr. V. MARTIN. I don't think we would be in the field of entrepre- neural effort if we felt this way, which, essentially, business is, if we felt this way. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Does that mean you are in favor of a require- ment for, matching on the part of local and State communities in order to receive Federal funds? Mr. V. MARTIN. I thought you said you were riot talking about matching funds. Mr. FRDLINGHUYSEN. I am talking about matching funds as one of the tested ways in which, in the past at least, we have tried to en- courage a sense of participation and responsibility on the part of local and State government. Mr. V. M~4RTIx. I will answer as an individual. I cannot answer for the others. So far as I am concerned, I am completely accustomed to the theory of matching funds, and think there is substantial virtue in it. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEX. Do you think the bill would be improved if we should step up the matching requirement so that, instead of 90 percent of the money coming from the Federal Government, some- thing more than 10 percent would come from local and State govern- ments? Mr. V. M~irnN. I think whether you talk about 10, 20, 30 percent is irrelevant. I think you are talking essentially about, and agam I want to go back to this residential revolution that I talked about earlier, Congressman, I think you are talking essentially about a problem that many of the communities have inherited from a na- PAGENO="0131" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 847 tional situation and not necessarily generated locally. I agree with the theory of matching funds. The amount I could not intelligently discuss because I don't know what it should be. Mr. FRELINGHnYSEN. I do not know what local problems you feel have been inherited from the national situation, Mr. Martin. Mr. V. MARTIN. I think the tremendous mobility of population that we are talking about, the tremendous mobility of population in the northern cities. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. But the Federal Government is not responsi- ble for the mobility of the population. Mr. V. MARTIN. I did not say this. I said it is a national problem and not a local problem. I did not say the Federal Government was the cause of national problems. I said that there is a national problem. This is different than Federal. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You may have already answer this already, gentlemen, but do you feel that a State should not participate in the determination of the greatest areas of need within that State? Did I understand you to say you think the State should be bypassed? Do you feel this should be a local determination? Because you are being shortchanged by State legislatures you are seeking Federal assistance? Is that your position? Mr. BE55E. Yes; that is my position. I think we know a great deal more about the poverty problem in Cleveland, and have a much better organization to work on it, than anything I know about at the State level. Mr. FRELINGIItTYSEN. You feel that if the State has some role in the determination as to where the money should go, you would be short- changed? You lack faith in the participation of the State govern- ment in this process of determining where funds should go? Mr. BESSE. I don't lack faith in them. I just have more faith in Cleveland to handle it. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You are saying that you do not think that the State should play any role; is that right? Mr. BE5sE. Yes, on the item I testified to, which was title II, and the participation of theschools, where I believe the core of the solution lies. Mr. FRELINGHIJYSEN. Just to finish up with that point, you feel that the Federal Government should provide aid to education without any participation or approval by the State, through the community action program? Mr. BESSE. Yes, I advocate that. Mr. NICHoLs. Before you arrived, sir, I made an observation and conclusion when we were talking about Federal Government becoming involved in the State government, et cetera. I couTd not help but recall the formation of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which had to come to the rescue of the local communities in no uncertain terms. Now to get on to this point: If you read section 208 that covers your point, "Participation of the States agencies. The Director shall establish procedures which will facilitate effective participation of the States in community action programs. Such procedures shall in- clude provision for the referral of applications for aSsistance under this title to the Governor of each State affected, or his designee, for such comments as he may deem appropriate." To me, that is a commonsense approach. PAGENO="0132" 848 ECONOMIC OPPORT1XNITY ACT OF 1964 Mr. FRELIXGHUTSEN. I do not imagine that a comment of a Gov- ernor will affect a decision by the Federal Government as to whether a local program is advisable or not. Mr. NICHOLS. I think by analysis, the comment I would hope would have as much to do with it as a comment by you. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I would think we might well look closely at the language, with a view to tightening it, if you feel the States have a role to play. Mr. NICHOLS. I have listened to this, sir. If you have a better proposition, I will be delighted to come down one day and talk with you about it. Mr. LANDRUM (presiding). The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Illinois. Mr. PUCIXSKI. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful that these three gen- tlemen are here this mormng. I think their testimony is among the most important we have had today on this bill. I am sure Mr. Nichols and iMir. Besse will understand when I say I am certainly proud that Mr. Martin is from Chicago. Mr. Martin, you touched on one subject here. You said that you had 160 jobs that you could not fill in your store because these people required some basic skills that they did not have. Would it be proper to assume that, if an adequate training program were established, we could look forward to creating jobs for 160 people instead of, I presume, leaving them on tile relief rolls they are now on in many instances? Mr. V. MARTIN. Yes, sir, these are actual openings that exist day in and day out. They will fluctuate by nature but, essentially, this is what we need. It is in our budget. Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Martin, and gentlemen, my own observation is that our well-meaning colleagues on the other side are just coIn- pletely out of touch with reality OH this bill. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you for the compliment. Mr. PUCIXsKI. As a matter of fact, in some instances they are al- most downright discourteous in saying you cannot discuss among yourselves an answer. They cannot, apparently, understand the fact that unemployment because of people being functionally unemploy- able, as is the case in so many of these instances in poverty, is causing local, State, and Federal Governments literally billions of dollars a year and this is nonproductive money. This is money which has to be invested every 12 month and has to be expanded. No man is better qualified to discuss this point than Mr. Martin, himself, who served as chairman of the Illinois Public Aid Commission and had a magnifi- cent record there, a most distinguished record. Last year we, in Illinois, appropriated $690 million for the present biennium for general assistance in the State of Illinois. Mr. V. MARTIN. Of which 80 percent is for Cook County, in Chi- cago. Mr. PUOINSKI. Would you concede, Mr. Martin, that many of the recipients of these funds, and these are humane funds, many of these recipients are people who have for various reasons exercised their right under the American Constitution and migrated into Illi- nois from other areas seeking economic opportunities but because they were not prepared technically, not trained to accept jobs that PAGENO="0133" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 849 were offered to them, they became a burden of the State; is that not correct? Mr. V. MARTIN. Yes. And the rapid change of job skills required in Chicago. For example, steel and meatpacking have automated so very much that many of these, people who had good jobs before are without skills to accept a job today. Mr. PUcINSKI. The reason I asked you this question is because there is a constant question being raised here by the gentleman on the other side, is this a Federal responsibility? With the fantastic mobility of the American population, certainly, what happens in Georgia, hap- pens in California, happens in Illinois, or happens in Ohio, becomes a subject of interest to the whole Nation, does it not? Mr. V. MARTIN. I would simply say that when I was the chairman of the public aid commission, and I am sure it has not changed a great deal, that there was a complete recognition by the Federal Govern- ment that this was a national problem because I think a great part of our funds came out of finances which were appropriated by you on your annual budget. Mr. PUCINSKI. Now, Mr. Nichols, you pointed out here and I thought your statement was very timely-would you care to expand on this ?-there have been questions asked by the gentleman from Michigan-did you read the bill? Of course you read the bill. I presume any witness who ever came before this committee studied the bill and studied its effect. Leaving that for the moment, you have put the whole situation in proper perspective. You say this bill offers at least a reasonable beginning. Mr. NIcHoLs. That is right. Mr. PUCINSKI. Of course, this committee is going to make substan- tial changes in this legislation. The mayor made some very impres- sive recommendations. Even t.he Cabinet member who testified sug- gested certain shortcomings that have to be changed and tightened up. There is no question that this bill, when it comes out of committee, is not going to be in the same, form that it now appears before the com- mittee. The author, himself, has already indicated several changes he is going to offer. I think, Mr. Nichols, you have really put your finger on this, and I understand you represent one of the largest corporations in this country, when you suggested that this bill at least offers a reasonable beginning. I think that this is the first time, as far as I know, that this Nation or any other nation has attempted to coordinate all of the activities at all levels of government to deal with the problem of poverty. Mr. LANDRUM. The time of the gentleman has expired. Thank you. Mr. Bruce? Mr. BRUCE. I would like to direct a question to the gentleman from Illinois. What is the per capita income of the people of your State? Mr. V. MARTIN. It is one of the' highest. I wouldn't know exactly the dollar figure. I know that the family incomes in the Chicago area by census tract range from about $3,400 per family unit up to about $10,000 per family unit. Mr. BRUCE. I believe you rank eighth nationally. Mr. V. MARTIN. I would say we rate rather high. PAGENO="0134" 850 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Mr. BRUCE. I would like to direct a qu~stion to the gentleman from Cleveland. What is the per capita income of the people from Ohio? Mr. BESSE. I don't know that, sir, but in Cleveland I did study the poverty statistics on this basis. Mr. BRUCE. I am talking about your State. Mr. BESSE. It is pretty good. Mr. BRUCE. I believe you rate 14th in the Nation. I would like to direct the question to the gentleman from New York. What is the per capita income of the people of the State of New York? Mr. NICHoLs. I have forgotten, frankly. Mr. BRUCE. You rate fourth in the Nation. So, we have the 4th ranked State, the 8th ranked State, and the 14th ranked State repre- sented in you. three gentlemen. Are you telling us that your States are incapable of handling the problems of Ohio, of Illinois, and of New York with that kind of personal per capita income in these States? Mr. V. MARTIN. What State ranks first? Mr. BRUCE. Delaware ranks first. Mr. V. MARTIN. What State ranks last? Mr. BRUCE. MissisSippi ranks last. Mr. V. M~TIN. I would say, just talking of Illinois, that our pov- erty problem is concentrated in two areas. One is St. Clair County, in which East St. Louis is located, and the other is Cook County. Now, in the southern belt surrounding St. Clair Colmty, there are a number of counties that have been terribly depressed since coal mining dis- appeared. I would not say that the State, as a whole, proba~bly lacked resources if it were able to keep its resources within the State, but I am also saying that within the State there is such disparity of poverty and wealth- Mr. BRUCE. Let us pause there for a moment- Mr. V. M~irnx. Well, the county which I came from was prob- ably one of the wealthiest coirnties in the State. It is very dim- cult for a wealthy county-we are talking about the State problem- to vote with any great enthusiasm for a problem that is in St. Clair County and a problem that is in Cook County; whereas, on the Fed- eral basis-incidentally, the St. Clair County problem is identical to our problem in Cook County-on the Federal basis, it seems to me, there is a possibility of returning to the States as the situation indi- cates some of the money which comes out of the general well-being of the total State. Mr. BRUCE. You made the comment that if you could keep the re- sources there. Where are these resources going? Mr. V. MAIrnN. They are going many places. I think probably the biggest taxing unit is the Federal Government and the State of Illinois. Mr. BRUCE. Do you have any idea of the estimated projected cost of the program that you have endorsed? Mr. V. MARTIN. I think the figure I have read is in the neighbor- hood of $900 million. Mr. BRUCE. The flr~t year? Mr. V. MARTIN. Yes; I think that is appropriated the first year. In the State of Illinois now we are spending almost $400 million a year on public welfare programs. PAGENO="0135" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 851 Mr. BRUCE. What you are saying, then, and correct me if I am misinterpreting what you are saying, is that the rest of the people of Illinois really do not care about the poverty-stricken people in Illinois. Is that what you are saying? Mr. V. MARTIN. I am saying this is true of any State in the Union. I don't know what State you come from- Mr. BRUCE. But you believe that? Mr. V. MARTIN. They care, but it is completely impossible for them to articulate this care. Mr. BRUTCE. Do you think at the Federal level there is a greater genius of mind and brilliance that has greater compassion for the poverty stricken of Illinois than the people of Illinois do? Mr. V. MARTIN. As a local citizen, I would not agree with this. I think it is the modus operandi. In a business, you set policy and then you build procedures to perfect the policy. What I think we are saying here is that we do have a national problem. It is not isolated to Illinois. Therefore, what are the best procedures to handle the problem. This appears to me to be the best procedure. Mr. BRUCE. Let me ask you another question. In Cook County, for example, you mentioned the migration of poverty, as it were. Where are most of these people coming from? Mr. V. MARTIN. A great part of them are coming from the South. Mr. BRUCE. Why? Mr. V. MARTIN. I think that they feel that there is greater economic opportunity, probably some semblance of freedom. Mr. BRUCE. I again ask why? Mr. V. MARTIN. I talked to my Irish grandfather, who left Ire- land and came over here. The only reason he came here was because he thought he would have freedom and opportunity to develop. Mr. BRUCE. In other words, the failure of about 18 States to meet responsibility realistically with archaic laws causes you from Illinois to say rather than putting the emphasis on those 18 States, we should have a Federal program that will take more out of Illinois, give you back less than they take from you in order to try to correct the prob- lem. Is this sensible? Mr. V. MARTIN. I think you have led me along a very interesting path on which I have no comment to make. Mr. LANDRUM. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. Hawkins? Mr. HAWKINS. I yield my time to Mr. Pucinski. Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Martin, Mr. Bruce would have you create the impression before this committee that the people Of Illinois are only concerned about their immediate problems and have no interest in the problems of their fellow citizens. I know that as the chairman of the PAC, you do not share that view, because the whole State of Il- linois provides $400 million a year to take care of the needy of certain sections of the State; namely, those you mentioned in St. Clair and Cook Counties. Is that not a fact? Mr. V. MARTIN. Yes. I didn't agree with his statement. I think there is as much concern about other citizens in Illinois as there is in other States about their citizens. Mr. PUCINSKI. It again demonstrates the woeful lack of any under- standing of what this legislation is trying to do. PAGENO="0136" 852 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 The question was asked of you if you think that Illinois has any interest in what happens in these 18 States who, for various reasons, have not been able to take care of their citizens. As a member of a fine Republic of 50 States, would you not say that you have a. very intense interest as a resident of Illinois in what hap- pens in any other State of the country? Mr. V. MARTIN. I quite agree wit.h this. But I didn't know this was the area. we were discussing. I thought we were talking about a problem that was created in part by t.his. Mr. PUCIXSKI. The line of questioning that we have had here has tried to create the impression that we in Illinois and in New York and in Ohio, the wealthie.r States, are. paying more into the Federal Gov- ernment a.nd then somehow or other you gentlemen are being criti- cized for appearing here in support of this bill from these wealthier States. The fact of the matter is that if you, in Illinois, Ohio, and the other States do not help resolve the problems of the poorer States, sooner or later those problems are going to be on your own back door, are they not.? Mr. V. MARTIN. That. is right. This is a national problem. Mr. PUcIN5KJ. Therefore, when Mr. Nichols and Mr. Besse-Mr. Besse I thought made a.n extremely interesting statement when he said "the elimination of urban poverty involves an unbelievably complex cluster of factors." What. I submit is t.ha.t our colleagues on the ot.her side just cannot see it.. They want to bury themselves in a narrow little corn.munity. Certainly the gentleman from Michigan does not understand, because he comes from a rural part of Michigan. He does not understand the degree of the problems in Chicago- Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I make a. point, of order. The gent.lema.n from Michigan is not. here. Mr. PucIxsKI. Well, let me sa.y the gentleman from New Jersey does not understand. Mr. LANDRUM. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. Martin? Mr. MARTIN. I yield my time to the gentleman from Michigan, who is now coming in. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Would the gentleman from Nebraska. yield? Mr. GRIFFIN. Would the gentleman from Illinois repeat what he said? Mr. LANDRUM. The gentlema.n from Nebraska has yielded to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. GRIFFIN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. PUCINSKI. The gentleman from Michigan, coming from a basically rura.l area with some cities, smaller cities than Chicago, of course, just does not understand the intensity and the vastness of tile problem in cities like St.. Louis, Chic.a.go, New York, Boston, and various others, the large urban areas t.hat toda.y constitute 78 percent of this Nation's population, and tile complex nat.ure of the poverty problem. Mr. GRIFFIN. I get the gentleman's point-his evaluation of the gentleman from Michigan. I would like to say-never mind, I am not gomg to defend myself except just to let you know that my father worked most. of his life in a plant.; and, I worked my way through PAGENO="0137" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 853 school, and I believe I do know a little bit about poverty, Mr. Pucin- ski. I want to say to these gentlemen, in view of some of my previous questions, that I highly commend them and their companies for the programs that they have outlined which are already in existence without this Federal poverty package. You are to be highly com- mended. The very example of what you are now doing points up to me that there are other very more appropriate ways, in keeping with our constitutional system, which we could pursue in attacking this problem. Really, our disagreement, which is obvious here, is not over the end but, as it is so often the case, it is over the means or the ways of accomplishing an end. Really, our whole system of govern- ment, the reason we have our system of government, grows out of a deep concern about the means of accomplishing desirable ends. I would suggest that your approach, as laudable as your motives are, in endorsing this kind of blank check authority to bureaucracy in Washington, and abandoning State and local responsibility, is the wrong way to go. For example, would it not be well to have Federal tax incentives for business groups or business organizations to encourage the very things that you are doing? Would that not be another way of accomplish- ing, pursuing this type of goal? Have you thought about that? Mr. BESSE. I don't understand the comment, what you mean by Federal tax incentives. Mr. GRIFFIN. There are many ways that the Federal Government could provide tax incentives to business to do the very things you are doing without any special tax incentive; to encourage business to take a special interest and in providing apprenticeship training, for example. We have a very serious lack of apprenticeship training in this country. Could we not encourage businesses to set up more appren- ticeship training, other types of retraining programs, and so forth? Mr. BESSE. I would like to speak to that, if I may. Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes. Mr. BESSE. I think those programs are excellent; they do a wonder- ful job for a very small selection of the people. But what is needed in the poverty areas of a city like mine, Cleveland, is a massive attack on the problem, not a program that reaches a relatively small percent- age of the people. The people, for example, whose family incomes are less than $3,000 in Cleveland, and that is 17 percent of the population, with over 20 percent of the children, no spot program by industry is going to do much more than select a few people, highly motivated normally, who will benefit from this. This can't be done as a program by private industry. It must be done as some kind of a public centered program. What we would like to do, of course, is to incite the kind of individ- ualism that brought Mr. Martin's grandfather from Ireland that has failed. What we would like to do, of course, is have local government support its schools on a kind of program that would do this job, itself. But the fact is that issue afte.r issue presented to local voters has failed. We had to present the levy for the support of the city of Cleveland municipal government three times before it was passed in Cleveland. Mr. GRIFFIN. Maybe they did not justify it the first time around. It is much easier to run to Washington, is it not? PAGENO="0138" 854 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Mr. BE55E. It could be. But we have a tax rate that supplies for the schools of the city of Cleveland only half the per capita cost that the suburbs supply for their children. In the poverty areas, because the concentration is greater, it is even less per capita. Now, we could go to the State government, but the State government does not even raise enough money to do an adequate job in higher edu- cation where it has prime responsibility in the State. Mr. GRIFFIN. If you do not sell this tothe Federal Government, are you going to go to the United Nations? Mr. BES5E. This is a practical problem. We are faced today in Cleveland with race riots because we have not done an adequate job in the poverty end of our community. We have attempted to sell this and businessmen have almost universally been behind every school levy we have tried to pass in Ohio. I have worked on educational problems to the detriment of my job for years and years and years. As a practical matter we can't raise thernoney locally. Certainly we ought to. But, as a practical matter, we can't. Now, if we don't ~et some money from a source where the money is available, we are going to lose another generation of people who will not be able to support themselves in our community. The cost of what we have been doing under pure local responsibility, I believe, is sub- stantially greater than the total cost of correcting it. Mr. LANDRUM. The time of the gentleman from Nebraska has ex- pired. Would you desire another question? Mr. MARTIN. No; I have no question. Mr. LANDRUM. The gentleman from Hawaii. Mr. HOLLAND. Will you yield to me for one question? Mr. GILL. Surely, go ahead. Mr. HOLLAND. I just came through a fight in Pennsylvania on try- ing to increase taxes. We had a fine group of men who went around and spoke in schools, churches, and everything else. We got the worst licking we ever got in our life to increase taxes. We went to the State. The State is broke because we have the coal mines, and so forth. We have only one place to go to and that is the Federal Government. Mr. Qum. We are broke. Mr. HOLLAND. As far as the United Nations is concerned, they were broke long ago. Mr. LANDRUM. Mr. Gill. Mr. GILL. Thank you. I would like to just compliment you gentlemen on one factor which is not often evident in this committee; that is the fact that you people from the business world have taken the time and the interest to look into many areas that are not directly concerned with your own eco- nomic interest. It is very refreshing to hear you express opinions on them. I would like to move off this great philosophical debate we have been on in the last few minutes down to a more specific problem that I think is covered by title II. Let me outline a problem that I have had some contact with. We have what is Iniown in many areas, and I am sure it exists in your cities as it does in mine, hard-core cases. These are cases of people who have been on welfare, whose parents per- PAGENO="0139" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 855 haps have been on welfare, whose children look like they are going to be on welfare. There does not seem to be any way to break this vicious cycle. Statistics, at least in some areas, show that these types of cases use up a very high percentage of the total services and money available for this type of work. Now, here is a family that is in difficulty. Perhaps it is a fatherless family. The mother is receiving'welfare payments. So she is under the jurisdiction of a caseworker in a department of social service, whether it be city or State. There is a health problem in the family which is covered by the State health department and they have a State public nurse checking this family. One of the kids was caught steal- ing hubcaps. He is under the juvenile court, and they have a juvenile court worker working on this family. The family lives in an area where they have a private settlement house. They receive money from the conununity chest. All groups are concerned with this family. The question is asked, Do you think any of you will ever get together to try to come up with a program for this particular family that will pull all the ends together and try to get them out of this mess? The answer of the social worker and the department of social services is, "I have 90 other cases on my load, I can't spend more than 10 minutes a month." The health worker says, "There are only 12 of us in the Department. No more money this year." The juvenile court worker says roughly the same thing. The settlement house says, "The com- munity chest did not come up with enough this last year. We are stuck. We can talk to them and try, but that is the end." Now, is not one of the ideas behind title II that where these agen- cies have the expertise and the workers that know the problem that you can put together a combined program with Federal money to al- low them to meet this type of situation? Is this the concept that you see behind the bill? Does anybody care to comment? Mr. BESSE. That is one of the concepts, sir, that is one of the diffi- cult ones. It is possible to do that. Twenty years ago, we picked out the worst area of Cleveland, the Tremont area in `Cleveland, and con- centrated a lot of money and talent to see just what we could do with the kind of cases you just recited. The results were startling. We very substantially reduced delinquency, in fact, to about the median of the city. We reduced dropouts in schools. We got more of the people employed. But it was an exceedingly expensive thing to do on a reclaim basis. What I personally am advocating is a revision of the whole school structure so that we start in the beginning and don't let families get in that kind of situation because the costs and, as a businessman, I must be concerned with costs, to me the cost of doing nothing is infi- nitely greater than the cost of starting a program that will prevent this from-the kind of family you have described-developing in the future. Mr. `Giu. And the effort will be made basically by the people in the community who have knowledge of the situation and the skills to deal with it; is that right? Mr. BESSE. That is right. They are the only people who can work on this kind of problem because it is a personal problem. It has to be somebody who is on the scene. PAGENO="0140" 856 ECONmvIIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Mr. GILL. What we are doing is using local skills, local effort, local initiative with Federal tax dollars paid by people in that comnnmity in the first place. Thank you. Mr. LANDRU3I. The gentleman from Mhmesot.a. Mr. QUIE. I will yield to the gentleman `from New Jersey. Mr. FRELINGHDTSEN. I would like to plead wit.h the members of this committee to use a little good sense and perhaps a little more good humor than we have shown, with respect to our descriptions of fellow members. I was very unhappy yesterday at the characterization of the gentleman from New Jersey, and I am now unhappy about the remarks of the gentleman from Illinois today. This name calling is going to get us nowhere, especially when it is inaccurate name calling. Mr. P~TCINSKI. What name calling? Mr. FRELINGHvTSEX. This business you just indulged in. Mr. P~CIXSKI. I don't recall any name calling. Mr. FRELIXGHUTSEN. You referred to the gentleman from Michi- gan as being unaware. You referred to me as~ Mr. PUcIxsiu. That is a. perfectly frank statement. Mr. LAXDRUN. The gentleman from New Jersey has the floor. Mr. FRELIXGHUYSEN. The fact that our districts may not be ones with heavy unemployment, or heavily industrialized, does not mean that we do not have deep and continuing concern for the problems of urban areas. I do not think any Republican refuses to recognize the fact that Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, New York City, and so on, have problems. Nor d~ I think that most of us would feel that the Federal Government does not have a responsibility to help. However, we also know there are. vast programs of assistance already on the books which we hope is going to be of some value. I would plead for us not to make a spectacle of ourselves in dis- cussing what, admittedly. is a controversial question. I happen to think this bill is misnamed. I believe it is massive only in the sense of creating great expectations. A billion dollars is all that is being provided for all the programs under this bill. For the community action programs, it would interest you gentlemen, only $315 million will be provided. Fnless we are to boost this by many billions of doTlars, the chances are that Cleveland's share is going to be small, Chicago's share is going to be small, New York City's share is going to be small, or that. one or any of those cities may get nothing. I do not think that we. can fairly describe this as a massive attack. It lends itself, as written, to all sorts of possibilities which, to some of us, seem unwise. It. lends itself to competition between existing Federal pro- grams. It lends itself to a bypassing and a reduction of efforts by communities and States which are or should be made. In many ways, this bill is something that needs looking into. I hope our views are respected and that members of the committee, at least, will forbear and not. use us as whipping boys to the extent they have. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota. Mr. LANDRUM. The gentleman has consumed 4 minutes of the time allotted. Mr. FRELIXGHrTSEX. I thought the Chair was watching the use of time. PAGENO="0141" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 196.4 857 Mr. QIJIE. Mr. Chairman, I am glad these three businessmen have come before us today and expressed their. views. However, they note the men on this side of the aisle do not look at the Federal Govern- ment as a wise place to go for the source of revenues. Listening to some gentlemen on this committee, and I had better refrain from say- ing on which side of the aisle they are, the local communities are broke and States are broke, and we seem to have the same problem on the Federal level. Our taxes are so high they evidently reached the point of diminishing returns and we cut them by better than $11 million. We had to plan our budget in the red this coming year. I do not know how long that will coiitinue. Perhaps for a long time. The States do `not operate their finances in this way. Really, the situatioii is that the Federal Government has greater borrowing au- thority than anyone else. I think this is why we are the place of last resort, where everybody comes for some financia' assistat ice. When we look at the Federal Government's ability to solve the prob- lems where it does have jurisdiction, one only has to look at the Dis- trict of Columbia to see how well we take care of the problems of pov- erty here, of inadequate education, of the problems of the people of the minority race. We see that the Federal Government has fallen very short of the goal we have set for it. So, there is no superability or superintelligence on the Federal level. The one thing you point out here is the need for revision of the school structure. There has always been a strong fear around the country that if the Federal Government steps into the picture, at least it should not propose any changes in school operation. But here this is the one thing you recommend. Perhaps there ought to be changes in the school structure. All I can see in the program is the Federal Government picking up 90 percent of the cost to get us started. Any ideas on school structure still has to come from the local community. I wonder if once they~ know how to change their structure, perhaps this in itself will enable them to go ahead and do it. The reason you are unable to do it now is that the local connnunity has not accepted it, has not been told the story well enough. I have seen this happen time and again. When people with an idea on a local level have tried to put it into practice without letting the information be known to the rank and file and sell- ing them on it, bond issues are lost. When they get that slap in the face, they ought to go out and really do a job of public information,, and the end result would be that they finally accomplish what they want to. So, no matter- Mr. LANDRUM. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota has ex-, pired. Mr. FRELINGIJUYSEN. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be permitted to continue for 2 more minutes. Mr. QULE. Really, the local communities will have to make these changes and improve themselves. Nobody else can do it. What we are talking about here is money, how we ought to finance' these programs. Mr. LANDRUM. The gentleman from California, Mr. Bell. Mr. BELL. Mr. `Besse, I note that on page 4-my question goes some- what to what Mr. Quie was talking about-I note that you speak PAGENO="0142" 858 ECONOI'iIIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OP 1964 about local districts should be permitted to pass on to the Federal Gov- ernment their normal routine school costs. Then you speak of new objectives, new curriculum, and so forth, in short, a whole new set of concepts must be adopted to make headway in eliminating poverty. Few school systems are apt to take these steps except as an incident to a major overall program supported by substantial outside financing. I assume you mean by that the Federal Government, and that you mean direct Federal aid to schools? Mr. BESSE. Yes, sir. Mr. BELL. Is that correct? Mr. BESSE. Yes, sir. Mr. BEr1I,. Speaking of direct Federal aid to primary and secondary schools, would you think that that Federal aid should go to private, parochial as well as public schools? Mr. BESSE. I advocate that this be done through the public school system. Mr. Bi~rL. In other words, you would not have any Federal aid at all to parochial or private schools? Mr. BESSE. I think that there are activities of the private and pa- rochial schools that contribute to these solutions, but. I would have them under the coordination direction of the public school system. Mr. BELL. Would you have the Federal Government change any- thing in the way of teacher certification? Mr. BESSE. The Federal Government? Mr. BELL. Yes; the Federal Government improve the teaching standards through any method they want to recommend. Mr. BESSE. No; I would leave teacher certification as well us the details of an improvement program in the hands of the local people. Mr. Br~Lr,. I assume, Mr. Besse, now, as I understand this, in our education program a large part of our problem is actually getting good teachers and seeing that teac.hers teach the right curriculum. As you indicated in your remarks here, new curriculum, new facilities, new~ teacher training, new family relationships, new coordination with other public and private agencies, new time coverage, new cultural involvement-in short, a whole new set of concepts must be adopted to make headway in eliminating poverty-you are talking about teach- ers and about this massive program. You say the local government cannot handle it. I take it from this you must mean that the Federal Government should move into the area of teachers? Mr. BrssE. The local government can't finance it. They can handle it if they have the dollars. Mr. BI~IL. I mean finance it. Are you supposing that you might be- lieve that the State government, even though they had the financing of it, were not doing a good job of selecting teachers and changing the curriculum, and so forth, supposing they decided not to do this or make changes in this area, do you think the Federal Government should have something to say about it? Mr. BESSE. I think the local governments have not done a good job in these poverty areas. I think the principal reason they haven't is lack of funds. They could do it; in fact, in Cleveland they have demon- strated an abifity in some areas to susbtant.ially improve these things on a limited basis. There are not enough dollars to do it. PAGENO="0143" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 859 What we have done in Cleveland has, by and large, been in the sub- urbs where there is more money. Where the poverty is, we have not been able to raise the money to do it. Mr. BELL. You are talking about these national changes, changes on a national scope to fight this poverty. You have 50 different States. Supposing they do not go in the direction of fighting poverty ade- quately. Would you think that the Federal Government should play a part in this? Mr. BESSE. I don't think the Federal Government should direct the program. I think one of the greatest assets of our whole educational system has been its diversity. In spite of the diversity, we have had from the beginning, which you just characterized, we have developed our school systems to whatever level they are without Federal coorth- nation. I don't believe we need Federal coordination to do these things now. What we need is money. Mr. BELL. The argument on the other side, which I suspected you were going to raise, is the point that the Federal Government puts up the money, therefore, it has some responsibility to see that the overall program you are discussing is coordinated properly. I thought that is what you would say. You say still the States should control it. Mr. BESSE. Not the States; I would leave it with the school boards. Mr. LANDRUM. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. BELL. Could I have an additional minute? Mr. LANDRUM. Without objection. Mr. BELL. As you know, the power of the Federal Government, as I pointed out before, to approve a project is still inherent in most of our aid programs and particularly those dealing with this poverty package. That is a factor. So the Federal Government giving money is, in effect, de facto direction, is it not? Mr. BESSE. I would hope not. I think that is under the control of the Congress and the citizens as well as anything else that we do. We have set up a school system that is traditional in this country with the habit and practice of nmning its own affairs. I think that is so deeply ingrained that there is perhaps less chance of Federal inter- ference than almost any other kind of institution we have in the coun- try. Everybody went to a public school. Everybody's children went to public school with great pride in the local direction of public schools. If we keep this in the hands of the local school boards, the local teachers, finances them to do the job, I think they will work out their own direction on these things. Mr. BELL. I hope you are right, Mr. Besse. However, I can see it could be interpreted that this view might be on the naive side to think that the Federal Government is going to approve so many features of this and yet not be a factor in this direction. Mr. BESSE. Perhaps so. I doubt if it is as naive as thinking that there is going to be any solution to this biggest domestic problem we have if we don't have Federal aid. Mr. LANDRUM. The time has expired. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Holland, desires recognition? Mr. HOLLAND. I yield to the gentleman from California. PAGENO="0144" 860 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Mr. ROOSEVELT. Yesterday the mayor of Syracuse gave us a pro- gram of a. local area. in title I instead of having a national CCC camp or arrangement. Would you feel that this would be feasible in your community in Cleveland, and possibly in Chicago? Mr. BE5SE. I really haven't studied the Youth Corps phases of this bill, Mr. Congressman. It would take a great deal of study locally, as it does here nationally, to analyze these things. There has been no such proposal. We have no structure to do it locally. Whether it could be clone would depend on soundings in the community, the proposal for the source of finances which would be exceedingly difficult. I wouldn't say it could not be clone. Many wonderful things have been done by local leadership. as the Congressman over here said a moment ago, but I haven't studied the problem. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Thank you very much. Mi~. PUCIX5KI. Would you yield to me? Mr. LANDRU3I. The time of t.he gentleman has expired. Mr. Taft? Mr. TAI~r. Gentlemen, at the risk of being considered a. dangerous liberal, let me welcome you to the committee and say that I have en- joyed some past associations. indirectly or directly, with each of you. I certainly respect you as gentlemen who have contributed greatly to their own conununities and who have had some familiarity with the problems in individual areas. I guess that you realize by now that. you are in t.he middle of what is a polit.ica.l hassle. I think you should recognize. it is a political hassle in an election year. The hassle arises, and certainly I share in some feeling of friutration in this bill, because the bill generally repre- sents a new package, a ne.w ribbon, and a new tag put around specific proposals that have been presented to the Congress previously and have failed to pass on their own merits. Now, that does not mean necessarily t.hat this is not the time they should be passed or considered. However, the fact of the matter is that, for instance, the Youth Employment bill and the National Serv- ice Corps bifi were considered in detail by this committee. We had bills drafted and amended, ready to be drafted, ready to be proposed, going into much greater detail than the provisions of this bill a.nd they have now been put on the shelf. We are being asked here to accept and to take specific programs without any designation of what is really meant. Getting back to title II, I would like to ask any of you to specify the type of program that you think is involved here ot.her than some form of assistance to education which Mr. Besse has indicated. I have a hard time understanding wha.t the limits are, and what the objective is, within title II. I would be interested to hear your observations on what you think the objective should be. I would like to put this in the record to clarify the direction in which we are going. As to Ohio, in 1963, we received from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in various grants a total of $138 million in these three categories: Office of Education, Public Health Service, and, finally, in Welfare Administration. As I figure out the percentages, Ohio might be lucky, sometimes it gets 5 percent, sometimes it gets less. PAGENO="0145" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 861 In talking about this program, you might be adding to the $138 mil- lion, but unless there is some specific program we are aiming at, which we are not doing today, and should be doing, I have a hard time seeing how the small addition to the present grant is going to do the tremen- dous job that you gentlemen, and all of us, would love to do if we could do it. Would any of you care to comment on this? Mr. BESSE. Did I understand your question, Mr. Congressman, to be limited to plans other than education? Mr. TAFT. Yes; outside the educational area. In the educational area, I have had some other comments. Particularly, I would like to say with regard to Cuyahoga County and other counties in Ohio and throughout the Nation, certainly one of the problems is the complete imbalance of quality of the educational system within the county. You have several of the best, systems in the entire State, perhaps, in the entire Nation. I know this to be true. However, you also have some of the weakest and your central core city system apparently is in some difficulty from what you describe. Mr. BE55E. Particularly the poverty area~ of the core city. Mr. TA~r. Outside of the educational area, what are you thinking of under title II? Mr. PiJCINSKI. Would the gentleman yield for an answer here? Mr. TAFT. I want the answer from the witness. Mr. PUCIN5KI. Perhaps it will help the witness- Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Regular order, Mr. Chairman. Mr. LANDRIJM. Let us have regular order. Mr. BESSE. We have in Cleveland, and now tested for 5 years, an independent agency that has as members certain school districts. It is called the educational research council. We believe that the edu- cational research council, if we could finance it for the poverty areas of the city of Cleveland, could immediately launch a curriculum and teacher training program that would very substantially change the quality of education of those children who come from undercultured, underprivileged homes. This is one of the basic problems that at the beginning of the school system t.here are inadequate family back- ground trainings for the youngster starting in school and they start from a handicapped base- Mr. TAFT. Why would not a better way to handle this be to amend the various educational bills we are considering, and put in a specific provision authorizing appropriations for this kind of purpose rather than leaving this entirely in the hands of a Federal official who is going to be charged with many, many other areas not necessarily related to education? Mr. BE55E. The educational research is only one aspect of it. Mr. TAFT. Could you answer the question, I just interrupted with- Mr. BESSE. Because I think there has to be single direction of a program to make it effective. I don't believe a lot of piecemeal attacks on it will help. Mr. TAFT. I have a hard time understanding that from your printed testimony, Mr. Besse, because Mr. Shriver testified before us many times that he is only to be a coordinator. That he is not going to set up an entirely new department or bureaucracy. All he is going to 3i-847-~64~---~pt. 2--b PAGENO="0146" 862 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 do is coordinate programs with other areas. This is only a coordina- tion operation. I get some conflict from your testimony. Mr. BESSE. I have never seen Mr. Shriver, let alone understand what he has~ said, but my concept of the thing is that the school board is the central core but they can't do this alone. They need to bring in some other agencies to help them. In our case, you ask for things other than the school board. One is the research council we have. Another is the health agencies. TJn- fortunately, these are not all concentrated in the same place. For example, one of the common causes of absenteeism and dropouts in the poverty areas of Cleveland is lack of dental care, an important one. There are other health causes that the dentists have nothing to do with. I don't believe that you can put this in a whole lot of different pockets and have Mr. T~r. I don't think Mr. Shriver is going to take care of the dental care. Mr. BESSE. I want the school board to ha.ve the authority locally to bring in all these things that are supplemental and additional to an effective school system, so that it is the School Board of Cleveland that runs it in the poverty area. To the extent they need dental care, they bring in dental care. To the extent they need the direction of skills of the YMCA and- Mr. TAFr. He is not going to put all programs I mentioned, $138 million, under one centralized direction under this bill. We are only talking about a. small supplement at the very most. Mr. BESSE. You still will have the tremendous interrelationship and many complex factors in the type of community problem we are dealing with. We have made the same type of an attempt in my own community to aim at the overall problem. It is hard enough to do it on a local level. How you are going to do it on a Federal level I think defies the imagination. Mr. TAFT. I do not think the Federal people will develop the program. I thought that was the idea in title II, it would be put into the community-action hands. That is how I read the bill. Mr. V. MARTIN. It is a correlated attack, really, on the local level. Mr. TAFT. I think the way to do is take a correlated attack but I think you have to do it on a local level. I have a hard time to see how this bill can do that. Mr. BESSE. I thought that title II did exactly that. It called for the development of a local program to coordinate these things. Several of the questions here have indicated the problem is money. How does the local coordination that develops the plan and gets this rolling get the money to do the job, because it is extensive? Mr. LANDRUM. The time of the gentleman has expired. All time has expired. In behalf of the committee. Mr. Martin, Mr. Besse, and Mr. Nichols, we thank you very much for giving us this time and giving us the benefit of your valuable thoughts. Mr. V. MARTIN. Thank you, sir. Mr. LANDRUI%[. Governor Welsh of Indiana is our next witness. The Chair recognizes the distinguished member of the committee from Indiana, Congressman Brademas. PAGENO="0147" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 863 Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased and proud to be able to welcome to our committee today the distin- guished Governor of my State, Matthew E. Welsh, who has, I think, as much as any other Governor in our country, concerned himself not only with important State issues but with important National issues. He has given himself particularly to a consideration of the problems of young people in our State, has been a strong champion of education, and I am gratified that he has taken time from his own schedule to come out here and present his views as the Governor of the State of Indiana. I am very pleased to welcome you here today, Governor Welsh. Mr. LANDRUM. Thank you, Mr. Brademas. Now, the Chair recognizes the other distinguished gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Bruce. Mr. BRUCE. I want to join my colleague from Indiana in welcom- ing our Governor to this committee. It is good to see you again in Washington. We are all interested in the same goal of building the finest society that the country has. We know on motivation we are all in fundamental agreement. We are delighted to have you here, Governor. Mr. LANDRUM. Now, Governor, we note you have a prepared state- ment. If you wish to read this or if you wish to summarize `and have the statement inserted in the record, proceed according to your own desires. STATEMENT OP HON. MATTHEW E. WELSH, GOVERNOR OP THE STATE OP INDIANA; ACCOMPANIED BY JACQUES H. LE ROY, DIRECTOR, INDIANA YOUTH COUNCIL Governor WELSH. Mr. Chairman, I would prefer to summarize and state in my own words the gist of my prepared remarks because I think I can summarize it as well. Mr. LANDRUM. We will insert in the record at this point your com- plete printed statement, `and you may proceed. (The statement referred to follows:) PREPARED REMARKS OF HON. MATTHEW E. WELSH, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF INDrANA I have reviewed the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (H.R. 10440), a bill designed to attack on a broad front the persistent fact of widespread poverty in the United States despite a general economic prosperity. In Indiana we have more than 12,000 families receiving aid from the department of public welfare. In this group there are more than 34,000 children under the age of 16 years. The number of families subsisting on a yearly income of less than $3,000 reached 88,000 according to the Federal census of 4 years ago. The total number of unrelated individuals earning less than $3,000 a year swelled that total to nearly 122,000. The number of school dropouts and draft rejectees estimated for 1964 total 39,000. Of that number 23,000 fall into the first category and 16,000 in the latter, thus forming an intolerably large group of young persons facing a future of severely restricted opportunities. The recent report of the President's task force on manpower conservation stated that 40 percent of the persons in the selective service survey of mental rejectees never went beyond grammar school and 4 of 5 did not finish high school. The report also indicated these young persons were out of work, out of PAGENO="0148" 864 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 school, and in desperate need of a skill that would break their "cycle of dependency." In Indiana, for example, the statistics developed for the month of January 1964 listed 2,200 selective service rejectees of 5,700 youths examined. Of the rejectées, 702 were turned back for having failed the Armed Forces qualification test and for allied reasons. In a nationwide study, in which Indiana participated, it was determined that 4 of 5 of the rejectees for mental or allied reasons were school dropouts. Of the total, 211 were rejected for lack of educational achievement. Thus, it would appear that Indiana is in need of a program broad enough in scope to offer new hope to the impoverished and for the unemployed and un- skilled, the out-of-work and out-of-school young person a return ticket to the threshold of opportunity. I feel that H.R. 10440 is a great stride in that direction and I am here to give unequivocal support to the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. Indiana is particularly interested in the work-study programs for we. have considerable experience in this area. The Indiana program began in Harrison State Forest in which the work was directed toward conservation of natural. resources. The study was de- signed to uplift the educational attainment age through the teaching of basic subjects. Companion programs were initiated in other State parks and forests for youthful honor inmates of Indiana penal institutions. These camp projects proved successful in significantly improving the mental and physical health of these young men who were much in need of truly constructive rehabilitation. Their good work in these camps provided the impetus for another program wherein the State offers to private organizations and civic groups sites on a token lease basis for sponsoring campouts for young persons. In our first youth conservation work camp at Harrison State Forest we brought a group of unemployed high school dropouts (ages 17 to 22) the opportunity to learn skills that would better prepare them for gainful employment. At the same time they were doing useful work in improving our State forests and offer- ing additional maintenance at State parks. A rigorous 6-day schedule was set up. Five days a week the youths put in an 8-hour workday and then attended evening classes for 2 hours. One day a week was devoted to special classes and to individual conferences with job counselors. In return for their efforts, the trainees received S75 a month, their room and board, and a wealth of valuable experience. Of the 70 boys who completed the training in November of 1963, 62 are now employed. They are now taxpaying members of their communities, no longer dependent. In this pilot project we were disappointed that we were unable to provide the training necessary to impart the technical skills required to fill numerous job openings in Indiana and elsewhere. A study completed cooperatively by several departments of State government reach the conclusion that we should direct our efforts toward providing such training in selected fields. Therefore, in response to the demonstrated needs of large numbers of our young persons, and with the confidence gained at Harrison State Forest, we began plans on a much larger youth education program. Our planning is in an advanced stage and we are especially pleased to note that our proposed youth training center would seem to fit easily into the framework described in H.R. 10440. Our program-aimed at the school dropouts, the disadvantaged minorities, and military draft rejectees-is in fact the first skirmish in Indiana's war on poverty. We have proposed that this center be located at Camp Atterbury, some 30 miles southeast of Indianapolis, an area that is within a 50-mlle radius of nearly half of Indiana's population. Thecamp has been dormant since World War II except for a brief period during the Korean war. With a reasonable expenditure for renovation, several of the buildings on the reservation could be prepared for housing. feeding, schooling, and providing rec- reation for a large number of trainees. With thousands of acres available, on- the-job training could be provided in numerous building and heavy equipment construction trades. As we envision the youth training center, its trainees would be young .persons who w-ould not likely be successful in a regular program in the traditional school setting because of their limited formal education and lack of experience. While the program initially will be set up for men, programs for women w-ill be created later. PAGENO="0149" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 865 The trainees will be screened and referred by the Indiana Employment Security Division offices, and county welfare departments. While primary emphasis will be placed on the selective service rejectees, there are large numbers of unemployeed youth from families receiving public assist- ance and those from our disadvantaged minorities and rural pockets of poverty. The program is designed to offer trainees an opportunity through basic literacy training to raise their reading level sufficiently to qualify for additional schooling and future job placement and to offer new job skills for which there are predeter- mined job opportunities within the State. When the trainee arrives at the camp he will be given more intensive tests and interviews prior to being placed in the actual training program. Consultants in education, counseling, guidance, and training are being called upon to assist in developing both the basic educational and vocational curriculums. Trainees will be offered a 6-week to 12-month program making use of modern tools for combating illiteracy such as teaching machines and audiovisual presenta- tions. Practical job training will be offered on two levels, including pretraining and terminal training in order to meet the varying needs of those youngsters who will come to us with a variety of skill, aptitude, and learning levels. Training will be offered in the following occupational areas as based on the determination of the employment security division survey of job opportunities: Cook The office of vocational education is now developing training programs in these areas which will be tailored to the needs of the trainees. It is expected that a final curriculum will be adapted and based upon information obtained through the interviews and tests given the trainees. Counseling and guidance will be on a continuous basis provided through the office of employment security and staff counselors. Facilities for recreation will be provided for the trainees on the site. Leave time will be allowed on a regulated basis, with every effort made to keep the trainee in contact with his family and home community. Intramural sports will be encouraged as well as other games and activities designed to promote physical fitness. The development of job opportunities for those youngsters completing the program will begin early in the plamiing phases of the project. Staff coun- selors, working through the employment security division, will see that both job development and placement efforts are conducted on an ongoing basis. It is contemplated that a minimum of one block of barracks with adequate service buildings will be used to house the trainees. The adjacent shop areas will be used for training in occupational skills and for maintenance of equip- ment. Sufficient recreation areas are included in the proposed housing and training area. (Because the size of Camp Atterbury-41,000 acres-offers sufficient land area, Indiana also is *planning new public hunting, camping, and picnic grounds which will be opened up and developed by some of our early trainees. (We expect our first group to be at work in the area within a matter of a few weeks. Detailed requests for rights to the several areas under considera- tion have been submitted to the Secretary of the Army.) Groundskeeper. Landscape gardener Forester aid Painter Carpenter Plumber Electrician Operator of heavy equipment Combination welder Machine operator (general) Diesel engineer Auto service station operator' Electronic technician Roofers Maintenance men (building) Warehousemen Small equipment maintenance and repair Baker Meatcutter Turniture finishing Upholsterer Auto mechanic Auto body repair Small appliance repair Major appliance and TV repair Air-conditioning service and refrigera- tion Oil burner installation and service Typewriter and office machine repair Spotters Pressers Janitors Laboratory technicians, medical Heavy equipment-maintenance and repair PAGENO="0150" 866 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 We expect to open the Indiana Youth Training Center through the coopera- five labors and finances of several departments of State government and in cooperation with the Federal agencies involved. However, our proposal was drawn before the Economic Opportunity Act was introduced and was tailored to the requirements of the Manpower Development Act of 1962. We expect our original group of trainees to number near 60. Ultimately, we expect a mean population of 600 trainees. In summary, I reaffirm my wholehearted support for the Economic Opportu- nity Act of 1964. Our experience in Indiana has convinced us of the necessity and practical value of such programs as those projected in H.R. 10440. I commend this legislation to the committee and to the Congress as an en- lightened step forward in this Nation's never-ending quest for a better life and brighter opportunities for all her citizens. Thank you. SUMMARY OF A Foriowui' REPORT ox THE INDIANA YouTH CONSERVATION Conrs, HARRIsoN STATE FOREST, CORYDON, IND. On July 11, 1963, Gov. Matthew E. Welsh unveiled plans for the establishment of a youth conservation work camp patterned after the proposed Youth Conserva- tion Corps provided for by the Youth Employment Act of 1963. This camp was to be located at Harrison State Forest, Corydon, md. The announcement was made at a conference attended by representatives of the sponsoring agencies; namely, the Indiana Youth Council, Indiana Employment Security Division, department of conservation, division of labor, Indiana National Guard, and the department of public instruction. The youth conservation work camp had a dual purpose: First, to give the young men of Indiana an opportunity to work and to learn in the great out of doors; secondly the camp provided needed employment, job training, and a chance to learn good work habits and skills. The role of the Indiana State Employment Service was to recruit and select 100 young men for the camp from among an estimated 16,000 jobless between the ages of 17 years and 9 months and 22 years and 6 months. Enrollment was set upon the basis of the number of unemployed in each congressional district as determined by the employment security. Factors such as race, creed, religion, or political affiliation were not considered. In order to be eligible applicants had to fall within the age range, be single. men of good character, residents of Indiana, must have been unemployed for at least 90 days or more, and have adequate physical stamina to do strenuous labor and mental abilities to benefit from instruction and guidance. Enrollees were paid $75 per month. In addition, quarters, subsistence, and clothing valued at $150 per month were provided. The youth camp was given a great deal of free publicity by all media of communication-radio, newspapers, and television. Applications and brochures were available to interested young men at the 33 offices of the Indiana State Employment Service, Indiana Youth Council, department of conservation, and the division of labor. It was soon evident from the lack of response that the young men of Indiana were not too interested in this type of program. Approxi- mately 600 inquiries were received but only 240 boys submitted applications. Selection of 100 applicants was based on the special application form, health questionnaire, interviewer observation sheet, Otis quick-scoring mental ability test, references and State police check. No physical examinations were required for two reasons: The State board of health reported that there would be only a 2- percent loss due to physi~l disabilities and the cost of examinations on a state- wide basis would be prohibitive. All of the applicants and recommendations from local offices and other sources were directed to the employment service section of the administrative office for screening. Final selection was the responsibility of the overall directing committee representing the sponsoring agencies. The steering committee established a goal of 100 workers; however, with last- minute dropouts only 95 reported for transportation to the camp. Transporta- tion for the original group was furnished by the Indiana National Guard Trucks were used to bring the boys from the northern part of the State to Indianapolis where they boarded a bus for camp. Representatives of the Indiana Youth Council transported 21 replacements to the camp by automobile. PAGENO="0151" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 867 The work program ran for 60 days from September 3 through November 2, 1963. The enrollees recruited for the program were quartered at the Harrison State Forest at Corydon, md. The weekly work assignments consisted of 40 hours in the field plus a minimum of 8 hours of education and voc'a:tional train- ing. The recruits were uniter the direct supervision of two officers of the In- diana National Guard. Also, 1 conservation officer trainee was assigned to each 10 `boys. This was an accelerated program; therefore, except for emergencies, no home leave was allowed. All enrollees were offered guidance and counseling by the employment service covering a number of areas designed to help them to qualify for suitable employ- ment. Three permanent counselors and three supplementary counselors were assigned to the camp and worked with the `boys 1 full day each week. The general aptitude test battery and the Kuder interest inventory were given to 86 enrollees in order to determine aptitudes, achievements and interests. Employment service counselors conducted individually counseling interviews with the enrollees for the purpose of giving test interpretations and developing of vocational plans. Group counseling sessions were held `to instruct enrollees on "how to apply for a job." In addition to the instructions given on the "art" of filling out job applications, advice was given on answering advertise- ments, being interviewed for employment, and in the manner of grooming and attitudes expected `by prospective employers. Reading, basic arithmetic and other courses were given to the enrollees by high school teachers who donated their services. Skill Center, Inc., of Chicago provided a special reading program, since the reading handicap was the camp- ers' largest problem. Conser~ationwise the accomplishments were almost unbelievable. Enrollees, in their 2 months at camp, increased 2 picnic areas, cut 5,000 pos'ts and poles, thinned 15 `acres and clear-cut 20 acres of the forest, improved 8 miles of fire lanes, and completed improvement work on 20 acres of timber stand. They also painted the exteriors of all buildings in the forest and the interi'or's of all buildings used by campers. The program was very ambitious. Due to the vigorous physical and mental pace along with the strict camp discipline many of the recruits dropped out. On November 3, 70 of the recruits were graduated and returned to their homes. It was now the responsibility of `the 33 local offices of the employment service to assist the 70 graduates to find suitable employment. By mid-December the employment service found jobs for 54 of the 70 graduates. Employment was obtained in the following major occupational groups: 30 as laborers; 3 as tree trimmers; 5 as clerical workers; 8 as restaurant workers; 3 as construction workers learning a trade; 2 as bakery helpers in training for bakers; 3 as do- mestic workers in private homes, and the largest group of 30 as laborers in var- ious industries. Of the 16 graduates who indicated that they were not available for placement, 5 found jobs on their own, 2 were in military service, 1 was enrolled in college, 1 moved out of State, and 7 were not interested due to personal reasons. A post camp questionnaire sen't to over 100 of the boys who attend camp for all or part of the 60-day period indicated that 67 enjoyed the work at camp; 65 said they did not consider the work too hard; 52 felt they had learned some things to help them get jobs; 26 said the classes were dull, and 29 said they were too tired to s'tudy after working out of doors. The youth conservation work `camp, the first `of its kind in the Nation, was a successful experiment. `Governor Welsh now hopes to have two such camps op- erating this spring, one of which would be located at Camp Atterbury and would offer vocational `training. Statistical documentation and detailed followup information is available from the Indiana Youth Council, 706 State Office Building, Indianapolis. Governor WELSH. I became quite interested in the problem of young people in Indiana after I became Governor, when I found the prob- lems in our penal institutions, where we had more than 100 percent overcrowding, and in the institutions particularly designed for the 16 to 25 age group, the juvenile delinquents, so-called. This, of course, made rehabilitation impossible. PAGENO="0152" 868 ECONOMIC OPPORTU~TY ACT OF 1964 It also came to my attention that our State park system was desper- ately in need of attention. Our parks were being beaten to death by overuse and what they needed was work done on them. So, I conceived the idea of taking juvenile first offenders out from behind the institution walls and putting them in youth camps, our work camps, in our State parks and forests. We have been doing this now for 3 years. We have three such camps operating on a large scale and another one will be open very soon. The experience we had with these camps was extremely encouraging. The return rate in our penal institutions is one. out of every two. Th Indiana, the experience has been that one out. of every two will return as a convicted felon. But our experience with the boys who have gone through this work camp program. doing this useful work in outdoor surroundings, giving them a feeling of making a contribution to society while they paid their debt, has been that 9 out of 10 of the boys that go through this process have been rehabilitated. The contrast in the two systems was quite startling. I became quite interested then in ex- panding this concept. The boys, in addition to the statistics showing that return rate, were startlingly different. We know that the boys who went through this work camp program were materially improved physically as well as mentally. We had one boy who gained 40 pounds in 4 months, to give you an example. They returned to society in very much better condi- tion. So we arrived at the idea of camps for boys that are not yet in trouble but are raw material certainly for our penal institutions; namely, the out-of-school and out-of-work youngster. Last year at our Harrison State Forest in Indiana, we brought. 100 boys, roughly 10 from each of our congressional districts, to our Harri- son State Forest. The raw material was obtained from boys 16 to 21, I believe, who were interviewed by our employment security officers and were taken down to t.he Harrison State Forest where they were given the opportunity of, for 60 days, working in an outdoor camp of this type, building camping areas, camping facilities, improving the forest, cutting slash timber, painting and repairing the buildings. The boys responded beautifully, although for a while we t.hought we did have a bear by the tail because we had no means of disciplining them. This was a matter of real concern for a while. You must bear in mind that these boys were out of school and out of work. They were not from a. normal home environment. Most of them were from broken homes or were slow learners, or for some reason or another had not had a normal upbringing as we understand it. `When they got down there, some of them thought they were on a lark. One or two were found to be mental cases, disturbed children, and so on. Seventy finished the program of 60 days of extremely hard work. You must bear in mind we had no incentive or discipline. The only incentive we had to offer these boys is that if they stayed there 60 days, the employment service would find them a. job. Seventy of them did finish and jobs were found for all of the 70 who wanted employ- ment. We had no difficulty. Physically they were a much more pro- sentable specimen. The fact they had the stamina, and the. determina- tion to do this hard physical work for 60 days was proof PAGENO="0153" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 869 that there was good raw material here. Several of the 70 that didn't finish went back to school. Some of them dropped out for one reason or another. We paid these boys $75 a month and room and board. But the startling thing we discovered in this program was that when the boys were given an intelligence test, a screening test, we found that 50 percent of them could not read or write. In Indiana, in 1963, 50 percent of those boys could not read or write. No wonder they could not get a job. They could not fill out an employ- ment application. They could not follow instructions that they were given. Obviously, here was a need that was much greater in scope than we had believed and one that had to be met because, if we didn't meet it, all we would be doing was adding to our correctional problem and our welfare problem. Obviously, these boys were never going to be able to get a job. We got at this in this particular instance by calling in schoolteachers from the surrounding neighborhood, the counties surrounding the forest, who came in on a voluntary basis 2 hours a night and on Saturdays, and every boy there got some training of one kind or an- other. The boys who could not read or write were taught to read and write. Those who were a little more advanced were given a more advanced type of instruction. We found that the need for instruction is very great. We found that we were really combating what amounts, apparently, to a problem of sheer illiteracy. This was amazing to us. So we determined that that this program should be expanded. Presently we are negotiating with the Army to convert Camp Atter- bury. The camp is a dormant Army camp 40 miles or so south of In- dianapolis covering about 41,000 acres, with a number of buildings in reasonably good shape. We plan to institute there a vocational train- ing program and, if we can get the acreage, to combine this with an outdoor work program. We hope to have perhaps as many as 600 boys there in this program. The State highway department, which has the responsibility in our State of constructing roads for our conservation department, has agreed to build some roads, and we plan to offer the boys a training program in heavy equipment operation, heavy equip- ment maintenance, and some basic construction techniques while build- ing roads that will be necessary. The acreage will then become avail- able as public, under our conservation department, to the people of Indiana for park purposes. We plan through our State department of vocational education to offer a number of other courses, giving training in other areas where we know jobs exiSt. Mr. BRADEMAS. May I interrupt the Governor for questioning at that point? You are talking about what you are planning to do at Camp Atterbury. When do you think you are going to be in business with this Camp Atterbury project? It seems to me a fairly ambitious program. Do you see any particular hurdles that need to be overcome? Governor WELSI-I. Actually, our adjutant general has taken pos- session of some of the buildings and has a crew of carpenters rehabili- tating the 10 or 12 buildings that we need. This was the quickest way to begin. We hope to start the program by June 1. The only area that I see we might have a problem here is in con- nection with the additional real estate, aside from the buildings. We have a feeling that there is something of a vested interest in the status PAGENO="0154" 870 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 quo by a lot of people. Some of the farmers want to use this land for grazing, and the local people perhaps do not like to have their present exis~.ing arrangement-s changed too much. I am going to talk to the Army people this afternoon while I am in the city to cut as much redta-pe as possible, to get in possession of this real estate so that we can move forward. I think the burden of my remarks is really that we know from actual experience in Indiana that the boys respond beautifully to this type of outdoor work experience. We know from actual experience that there is a tremendous gap here, and thatunless it is filled, unless some agencies fill it, by taking these boys who are out of school and are out of work a-nd giving them sonie access to a skill or a vocation, we are facing serious trouble. It is really a much greater need than we be- lieved. This has been our experience. We know that the boys want to learn and desire an opportunity of this nature, and we are going to try to give it to them in Indiana. We are going to use Manpower Development and Training Act funds in vocational training of a limited nature, not necessarily as broad as we would like to be able to offer. Concerning this bill that is before this committee: I would like to urge upon you that this is a need which desperately must have your attention. I am confident it is a. problem in Indiana. I am sure the same problem. exists in other States to a greater or lessed extent. Without question, a number of these boys came to Indiana and had no education because they were from migrant parents, who had never settled in one area long enough to let these boys ever acquire an edu- -cation. They became 16 and hence didn't have to go to school, a.nd they had reached this age without acquiring an education. So it is not a problem t.hat is confined to our St-ate, it is national in scope and it is going to take a national effort to get afit. Mr. LANDRUM. Thank you, Governor. You described a most com- mendable program of your State to combat the problem of poverty and its associated conditions. Is-it your opinion that the problem is yet too large for the States and the localities to attempt to solve without the assistance of the Federal -Government? - Governor WTELSH. Certainly we are going to make every effort we can in Indiana to get at it. But, as I mentioned, this is a problem that exists because of the mobility of population a-nd no matter how hard we try, this is not- going to really solve the problem, it has to be solved all over the country. I mean, it has to be met all over the country. I a-m confident, of course, that if every St-ate would do this on their own motion. t-his would be fine, but I am not sure that every State would do this. Indiana had not done it before last year and the need existed for some time prior to this. Mr. LANDRUM. Let me ask you this in that connection- Governor WELSH. And we are going to use Federal funds to finance this. We are going to use Manpower Development and Training Act funds to a large extent. The program should be expanded substan- tially, which we could not do without Federal funds. Mr. LANDRU3I. Do you find it difficult to get the interest and co- operation-that is, f-he enthusiastic interest and cooperation-from your wealthier sec-tions in support of the problem that may come, does come, from less wealthy or less fortunate sections? PAGENO="0155" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 871 Governor WELSH. I think the people of all economic levels will support any program that is aimed at helping young people. It is in their own self-interest, as I view it. If we do not do this, the crime situation becomes more and more acute. After all, these young peo- ple represent the largest segment of our society today. This is true in Indiana certainly. In Indiana 40 percent of our total population is under the age of 19. This is a major segment of our society. Unless we give these young people a skill and a means of taking a place in society, they are either going to turn to crime or they will become welfare cases. The people of means are going to be the ones to pay this tariff. They are much better off to have these young people as taxpayers rather than dependents, as I view it. But the response of people to a program that helps young people is almost automatic. We find very little opposition. Mr. LANDRIJM. Mr. Roosevelt. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to be sure that we do not get crossed up a little bit because of one statement of the Governor. Your present program is being partially financed by an existing Federal program. I think that is what you just said. Governor WELSH. The program that we contemplate. Now the *program at Harrison State Forest, we did get surplus foods for a portion of it. But this was the only one. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Title I of part B of the proposed bill, of course, would enable you, as I read it, to fit it exactly into the program you are doing, but would enable you to do more of it. Governor WELSH. Greatly expand it. Mr. ROOSEVELT. You would not have to then depend on funds which might be very limited under the existing Federal program. Governor WELSH. That is right. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Therefore, it is not a duplication, it is merely an assist; is that correct? Governor WELSH. I believe so; yes. Mr. ROOSEVELT. The only other ques'tion I would ask you is: Title I, part A, creates the Job Corps which I assume is fairly similiar to the old Civilian Conservation Corps idea. Is there any conflict, as you see it, between your State plan and a CCC camp under Federal auspices? Governor WALSH. I don't see that there is any conflict. I would hope that any Federa~I program would contain language either in the act or in the regulations governing the administration of the act, encouraging the Federal agency to work with State agencies and through State agencies to the fullest extent possible. This will vary from State to State, I realize, because of local statutes and local conditions. Mr. ROOSEVELT. As you point out, there are many States which might not have such a j~rogram as you have. Governor WELSH. So far as we know, there are none. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Certainly in those areas the Job Corps would be almost an essential; would it not? Governor WELSH. That is right. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Secondly, would you have any objection., if you have in your State certain cities that might have potentials for a simi- lar idea of a Job Corps but run on a city level, you would have no feel- PAGENO="0156" 872 ECONOMIC OPPORTLNITY ACT OF 1964 ing that we had to necessarily have to do this through a State agency but it would be perfectly proper to do it through, let us say, some agency in Indianapolis, if there were such an agency; would that not be proper? Governor WELSH. Yes. I thmk the State agency should be kept advised as to what is going on and this sort of thing. If the city wa.nts to get into this on its own, a local recreation department, or have a youth department as many of our cities do, we would encourage them to do this, certainly. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Thank you. Mr. LANDRUM. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEX. I have been very much interested in the Gov- ernor's testimony about his State's job corps. I should like to com- mend him for the progress which has been made in this area. I have a couple of questions, Governor. You suggested that a substantial amount of the financial assistance which makes your State job corps program possible comes from Federal funds, through the Manpower Development and Training Act. Do you have any figures as to costs? What percentage of those costs is being paid for presently from Fed- eral funds? Governor WELSH. The Federal money will be used in this program that we contemplate. The Manpower Development and Training Act money will be used in conjunction with the projected program at Camp Atterbury. Under the Manpower Act each trainee would receive an allowance of $20 a week and, in addition t.o that, $5 a day subsistence. Our pro- gram contemplates that of this $5 the camp fiscal officer would, by eon- tra.ct with t.he individual boys, use $4 a day to defray the expense of keeping them at the camp, for food, housing, clothing, rnedica.l expenses, and so forth. The $1 the Manpower Development and Training Act apparently also requires be paid to the trainee for inci- dental expenses. With this $4 per youngster, we believe we can finance not only his food and this sort of thing but also pay a. major share of the admin- istrative expense so far as this program is concerned. Mr. FRELINGHrTSEX. How much per enrollee do you think this program will cost you for a year~ Governor WELSH. We don't have any firm figures. We estimate tha.t this would be in the neighborhood of perhaps $2,500. Mr. FRELINGHtTSEX. How much of that would be Federal money? Governor WELSH. Substantially all of it. For the first year, sub- stantially all of it. Mr. FRELINGHUTSEN. The reason I ask you the quest.ion is that the proposed National Job Corps would cost $4,700 per enrollee for the first year. So there is a very sizable discrepancy between what. appar- ently is a realistic program. already set up and projected in realistic terms, and what is proj ectecl on paper at the national level. I am wondering about. two things. If you have been able to get this far and plan to go further with Federal assistance, why do you not advocate utilizing the. Manpower Development and Training Act, perhaps stepping up the amount of money made available under that program. instead of coming in here advocat.ing a new program ? Why not use the existing program rather than turn to another which might be competitive, or at best only an additional source of funds for your State? PAGENO="0157" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 873 Governor WELSH. We feel that the Manpower Development and Training Act is fine. It is designed for a specific purpose that is not as broad in scope as I think the need really is. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I am not sure in what way it might be broad- ened. Why would it not be better to broaden something that you are planning to utilize than to set up a new program which may overlap or duplicate or simply broaden what is already availabe under the Manpower Development and Training Act? Governor WELsh. I would see no objection so long as we get the job done. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I am not trying to trap you. Governor WELSH. I understand. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I do think it might be at least as feasible to use this approach. I am sure you realize that the proposal in this poverty bill proposes federalizing these Job Corps. This would no longer be a State corps. There would be national standards established. The provision for State participation, and I refer to section 103 of the bill, is that the State may enter into an agreement with the Director for the provision of such facilties and services as the Director, in his judgment may feel are needed. In other words, you would lose control or might well lose control within a new Federal program, in the sense that you would no longer select, or decide what the standard should be. You would become part of a much larger Federal effort. Yours would no longer be an individual State effort. Is this something you would approve? Would you like to retain control and suggest, if necessary, that 50 State Job Corps be set up rather than 1 national one? Governor WELSH. This is a national problem and I think the effort has to be looked at on a national basis. Certainly I would hope that in attacking the problem, the national Administrator or the national orga- nization in charge of this program would use the facilities of the States. As a Governor, I am very proud of the job we have done in Indiana and I am sure the other Governors feel this same way, and welcome the opportunity to show that we as States can discharge responsibilities that are before us. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Governor, you are proud of your achieve- ment, not just the fact that you have facilities that can be used. Governor WELSH. That is correct. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Would you want to have a continuing respon- sibility for the operation and maintenance and the discipline and all the rest of this camp? Governor WELSH. Of course. b*l FRELINGHUYSEN. None of that is guaranteed to you under this Governor WELSH. I would hope and I would assume, certainly, that the Federal agency in charge would do it through and with the help of the States and that wherever there is a State willing, ready, and able to meet this responsibility, the Federal agency would use this addi- tional assistance at its disposal. Mr. FRELINGHUTSEN. I am not saying they would not; but there is no provision saying you could retain it. You might be granted it. Mr. LANDRtTM. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Holland. Mr. Holland, would you yield to me for a moment? PAGENO="0158" 874 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Mr. HOLLAND. I will. Mr. LANDRUM. Is it not true, Governor, that most of the States would not have ~vailable to them the facilities of which you are flow availing yourself with regard to a place to accumulate or assimilate and train these Job Corps people you are talking about? Governor WELSH. I am sure this is true, that many States would not have access to a dormant Army camp so well situated and equipped for this purpose. Mr. LANDRU3I. So that, where that facility does not exist withm a State, there is a necessity to provide for the Federal management of it along with and cooperating with the State and the local government. Governor WELsH. This is true and also, quite properly, funds for a facility. Mr. LANDRUM. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding. Mr. BRADEMAS. Would the gentleman from Pennsylvama yield to me? Mr. HOLLAND. I will be glad to yield to you. Mr. BRADEMAS. I recall your saying Indiana is the only State carry- ing out a program along the lines you suggested. Governor WELSH. Yes; so far as we know, Indiana is the only State which has a program being carried on contemplating instruction of this nature. Mr. BRADEMAS. The reason I make that point is that it is all very well for us to be critical of any Federal support for activities of this sort and to say that this is something that the States ought to be doing. I would agree that this is something that the States ought to be doing. But there are 50 States in the. Union. That means that there are 49 other States which do not seem to have given the kind of leadership you have given in our State of Indiana. It seems to me tha.t this problem is a splendid example of one of the reasons that people are increasingly turning to the Federal Government for assistance in coping with these extraordinary different problems, both because of a lack of interest, a lack of will on the part of many of t.he State governments, and, also, to be candid about it, a lack of the resources, lack of money. In many cases, Governors, I am sure, would like to undertake: this kind of program but they do not have the money to do it. I think we can all run the flag of states rights up, but if nobody is around to salute it and pay the bill, then we are still going to have the ~rime and juvenile delinquency and the illiterate. 16-year-old young men in the northern part of the country as well as in the South. So, I have been very much encouraged by what you have had to say here with respect to our program, our State Job Corps, as it were, and the fact that it does pay off in terms of training young men even in a very limited program such as the one you have already described we have had at the Harrison State Forest, pay off in terms of providing jobs. I think our State has shown that it is pioneering in this field under your leadership. I want to ask if it would be possible, with unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to include in the record the text of a short pamphlet pre- pared by the Indiana Employment Security Division on Indiana's low-income families, if that could be provided for the record. Mr. LANDRUM. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. PAGENO="0159" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 875 (The material referred to follows:) INDIANA'S Low-INCOME FA~rILaEs WHERE ARE THE POOR IN INDIANA? President Johnson has set $3,000 annual income as the measure of poverty. In 1960, there were 214,792 families in Indiana who had incomes of less than $3,000 during the previous year. This release tells where the low-income families are concentrated and summarizes information about these concentrations. Statewide, 18 out of every 100 families in Indiana had incomes below $3,000. In several counties more than one out of every three families had an annual in- come of less than $3,000. In other counties the rate was as low as one out of eight. In Marion County, 13 out of every 100 families had annual incomes of less than $3,000. Counties with the highest rates of low-income families are predominantly rural and are concentrated in the southern part of the State and along the west- ern border. Thirteen out of the fifteen counties with more than 30 percent of their families in the low-income bracket are south of Star Route 40. The counties with the greatest numbers of low-income families are urban cen- ters. Marion County bad 22,850 low-income families, Lake County 13,939, and Vanderburgh County 8,898. Thirty percent of the low-income families are lo- cated in six metropolitan counties. Poverty has become a prominent topic lately as a result of recent proposals to alleviate this condition. Estimates of the extent of poverty in the Nation have included from one-tenth to one-third of the population. The estimates differ because of the definitions and criteria which are used. For example, use of a criterion such as family income of $2,000 results in a lower estimate than one where a criterion of $3,000 family income is used. In either case, some families who might be living adequately at that income level would be in- cluded, while some impoverished families would be omitted. For national estimates, the President's Council of Economic Advisers have used criteria of $3,000 income for families and $1,500 income for unrelated in- dividuals. The same criteria have been used for the 1960 census data presented here for Indiana. The data probably overstate the number who might be con- sidered very poor because it includes farm families whose home grown food may be an important contribution, the value of which is not reflected in the re- ported income. On the other hand, large families with income just over $3,000 are omitted even though they might be regarded as very poor. Poverty among unrelated individuals is probably also overstated because those living in group quarters are included. In 1960, there were 214,792 families in Indiana who had incomes of less than $3,000 during the previous year. This was 17.9 percent of all the families in the State. About 50 percent of the low-income families lived in urban areas while the other half were in rural areas. Ninety-two percent of the low-income families were white and 8 percent were nonwhite. Practically all of the 17,770 nonwhite, low-income families lived in urban areas. About one-third of all rural farm families had low income while one-seventh of the urban and one-fifth of the rural nonfarm families had low incomes. About 17 percent of white families and 30 percent of nonwhite families had low incomes. The maps show the number and percentage of families in each county who had incomes under $3,000 in 1959. Those counties which have a large percentage of low-income families are mostly rural. The counties with the largest number of low-income families are mostly urban. More than one-half of the heads of low-income families w-ere in the experienced labor force. By occupation, the largest number of low-income families were headed by farmers, operatives, craftsmen, laborers, and service workers, while othe occupations were represented with smaller numbers. The industries in which the largest number of heads worked were agriculture, manufacturing, retail trade, and construction. Forty-four percent of the heads of low-income families were not in the experienced labor force. Of the nearly 300,000 unrelated individuals in the State in 1960, 52 percent had incomes of less than $1,500 during the previous year. About 70 percent lived in urban areas. Ninety-three percent of these individuals were white. The 7 percent who were nonwhite were located mostly in urban areas. About 49 percent of the urban and about 62 percent of the rural unrelated individuals had low incomes. PAGENO="0160" 876 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Industry of head of families with income under $3,000 in 1959, for Indiana, 1960 Industry of head Number of families in the State . Number of families with income under $3,000 ~ Percent of number of families in the State Percent of total number of families with income under $3,000 Total 1,198,152 Head in experienced labor force 1,029,629 Agriculture, forestry and fisheries 80,848 Mining.. 7,932 Construction 77,268 Manufacturing 427,880 Durable goods 327,476 Nondurable goods 100,404 Transportation, communication, and other public utilities 81,83.3 Transportation 56,500 Other . 25,333 Wiholesale trade - 35,894 Retailtrade 112,594 Finance, insurance and real estate 28,084 Business and repair services 21,811 Personal services 22,039 Entertainment and recreation services 3,492 Professional and related services 65,734 Public administration . 37,374 Industry not reported 26,846 HeadinArmed Forces 5,002 Head not in experienced labor force 163,521 214,792 17.9 1100.0 119, 190 11.6 55.5 33,094 700 10,137 40.9 8.8 13.1 15. 4 .3 4.7 24,503 5.7 11.4 18,607 5,896 5.7 5.9 8.7 2.7 5,119 6.3 2.4 3,902 1,217 6.9 4.8 1.8 .6 2,504 16,371 1,932 3,189 6,937 676 6,626 2, 166 5,256 7.0 14.5 6.9 14.6 31.5 19.4 10.1 5.8 19.5 1.2 7.6 .9 1.5 3.2 .3 3. 1 1.0 2.4 964 94,838 19.3 57.9 .4 44.1 1 Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding. Familws with income under $3,000 in 1959, by color, for Indiana, urbam and rural: 1960 Families Percent of number in Number in Number with the StatQ Percent of the total number with income under the State income under $3 000 $3,000 1, 198, 152 214,792 Total, the State Urban Rural nonfarm Rural farm White, the State Urban Rural nonfarm Rural farm Nonwhite, the State - Urban Rural nonfarm Rural farm 17.9 747,551 319,329 131,262 111,198 58,858 44,736 14.9 18.4 34.1 1 100.0 51.8 27.4 20.8 1,138,806 197,022 17. 3 91. 7 689568 318,172 131,066 93983 58,385 44,654 13.6 18.4 34. 1 43.8 27.2 20.8 59,346 17, 770 29.9 8.3 57,993 1,157 196 17,215 473 82 29.7 40. 9 1 Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding. Source: U.S. Census of Population, 1960; "General Social and Economic Characteristics, Indiana," final report PC (1)-16C, table 65. 8.0 Source: U.S. Census of Population, 1960: "Detailed Characteristics, Indiana," final report PC(1)-16D, table 146. PAGENO="0161" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 877 Occupation of head of families with income under $3,000 in 1959, for Indiana, 1960 Occupation of head of family Number of families in the State Number of families witb income under $3,000 Percent of number of families in the State Percent of total number of families with income under $3,000 Total 1, 198,152 214,792 17. 9 1 100.0 Total in experienced labor force Professional, technical and kindred workers Farmers and farm managers Managers, officials and proprietors Clerical and kindred Sales workers Craftsmen, foreman Operatives and kindred Private household workers Service workers Farm labor, unpaid family workers Farm laborers, except unpaid, and foreman Laborers, except farm and mine Occupation not reported Heath n Armed Forces Head not in experienced labor force 1,029,629 119,190 11.6 55.5 93,747 69,281 101, 763 68, 745 57,425 228,426 252, 108 4,404 52,452 134 8,395 57,655 35,094 .5,002 163,521 3,123 27,859 6,394 4,837 4,653 13,805 22,278 2,882 11,763 85 4,414 11,398 5,699 964 94,638 3.3 40.2 6.3 7.0 8. 1 6.0 8.8 65.4 22.4 1.5 13.0 3.0 2.3 2.2 6.4 10.4 1.3 5.5 52.6 19.8 19.3 57.9 .____ 2.1 5.3 2.7 .4 44.1 1 Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding. Source: U.S. Census of PopulatIon, 1960; "Detailed Characteristics, Indiana," final report PC(1)-16D ables 145 and 146. Unrelated individuals with income under $1,500 in 1959, bli color, for Indiana, urban and rural: 1960 Unrelated individuals Percent of number in the State Percent of the total number with income under $1,500 Number in the State Number with income under $1,500 I Total, the State Urban 299, 659 2.156, 542 52.2 2 100.0 225,046 60, 764 13, 849 110, 253 37, 633 8, 655 49.0 61.9 62.5 70.4 24.0 5.5 Rural noufarm Rural farm White, the State Urban 278, 159 145,486 52.3 92.9 204,784 59, 606 13, 769 99,883 37,005 8, 598 48.8 62. 1 62.4 63.8 23.6 5.5 Rural nonfarm Rural farm Nonwhite, the State 21,500 11, 056 51.4 7.1 Urban Rural nonfarm Ruralfarm 20,262 1,158 80 . 10,371 628 58 51.2 54.2 6.6 0.4 1 Estimates. 2 Items may not add to total because of rounding. Source: U.S. Census of Population, 1960; "General Social and Economic Characteristics, Indiana," final report PC(1)-16C, table 65. 31-847--64---pt. Z--i1 PAGENO="0162" 878 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 TNE ~ CF __________________ BY COUNTY IN 1959 F ~ 1,017 1,152 _________ ~ CLINTON - 1,611 1,966 POUR1AIR 1,960 1~592 CAMILTON RANDOLPH ~ :`f~1~~ __________ / ///1 506 2 10 1 47 1 ~ __ 1 3,2c-~ ~ J 2,455 1 ~ L,%.JJ~(F,(RSON1S~RLAN~)~ 2,020 746 L~~CNCC ~ 1,700 ~NO~ O*V((SS I I 1 1,625 ~ ~. 1,626 1,240 I ORAPICC ~ ~772.825/W ~Over 5,000 iaoilieo GIBSON ~ I 1,448 J L Ir'~'D11J/,~f VI) 2,500 - 5,000 2,365 I PIPIC I 1cR* 1 003 S \2~65s~//~i tJL.ss t~ 2,500 1,454 1 ~ FIF'IY ~ ~ OF 1F2 ~ 1,448 BURGH 1,763 S'CRCER ~ MARRI5CW Ff}aLIES APE LOCATED INNmETEEN 1,377 COJNTIES. PAGENO="0163" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 THE T'~ CENT OF LOW INCOME 879 30% or more famflfC~ ~ 25-30% familIes Under 25% Source: 1960 Ceneus of Population PAGENO="0164" 880 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Mr. Pucixsiu. Would the gentleman yield t.o me? Mr. HoLI~xD. I yield. Mr. PuoIxsKI. The statement has been made several times today that the States are being excluded from any authority in developing programs within the State. I think you have been asked whether you would yield that authority. Actually, this legislation does recommend that, where possible, actions flow through the States. Take the States of Illinois and Indiana. Take the Gary-South Chicago area where there is a great deal of poverty there. It is entirely possible that the Director, after consulting with you as a Governor of Indiana and with Governor Kerner of Illinois, may very well decide that the program may be more effective working through a bi-State agency in that area. I imagine there may be instances where we will have tn-State prob- lems. Is that not the purpose of this bill to give the Director that latitude without in any way taking away from you the chief executive's powers? Governor WELSH. I am sure. And I am sure there will be instances where boys from one State who desperately need this type of assist- ance will have to be taken to another State to be given this kind of training, either because of facilities or courses or for a number of reasons. Mr. PUCINSKI. Thank you very much. Mr. LANmtu~r. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania has expired. We will recognize him again in a minute. The gentleman from Michigan. Mr. GRIFFIN. Governor, I think your testimony is excellent. What you have done, and are trying to do, in the State of Indiana, is a good example of what State government can do in this field. I think that the main argument we are having about this legislation is how to do it; whether or not the Federal Government should provide some incentive for States to do the job where they are not doing it; helping perhaps to ffnance, to some extent, and to encourage this type of activity. Your testimony is excellent. You made the statement earlier that the people, the taxpayers, are generally wffling to support a program to help young people. I think that is right. I think the programs have to be well conceived, and I think it must be demonstrated to the people that they deserve support. Many times it is much easier to run to Washington rather than justify a program to the local people, and hope that you can get money down here without necessarily convincing the local people that it is a good program. I think we wind up, then, with a bill here which does not utilize the experience, at least as far as the administration of the program is concerned, of which your program is a good example; this bill speaks in terms of a National !Job Corps. The corps shall be composed of male individuals and so forth, "who meet the standards for enroll- ment prescribed by the Director" and so forth. "The Director is au- thorized in his discretion," if he wants to, "to enter into an agreement with a State or local agency for the provision of such facilities as in his judgment are needed," and so forth. If State administration is important at all, it seems to me that by endorsing this bill you put an awful lot of blind trust in the bureauc- PAGENO="0165" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 881 racy down here; trust that they are going to administer this program so as to take advantage of State administration and responsibility. While you might have this trust in one particular individual at a particular time, I wonder if this is good policy to assume that you can always have the same kind of trust?. That is a kind of speech. Maybe you have some comment on it. Governor WELSH. I would say, first, that I regard this as a na- tional problem, not a State problem. This is not only Indiana's prob- lem. Many of the youngsters we have on our hands are youngsters who really grew up in other States and are now in Indiana. This is true in many other States. As much as we do, we will never solve our problem unless it is attacked on a national scale. I think we must keep this in mind at all times. I have no fear of the Federal Government. We assume that the intentions and objectives of the agency that is going to administer this policy are going to be identi- cal with what we are trying to do. We don't think we have all the answers. I am sure there are able and intelligent people in other States as well as in Washington and we would welcome the oppor- tunity to benefit by their experience and perhaps the best way to do this is to have a national agency charged with this responsibility so that everyone who has an interest and information to contribute can do so. We will use every device and every bit of information that is helpful that we can. This matter of blind trust-we feel that we are part of this Govern- ment and that the Government is not going to pick on us. Mr. GRIFFIN. Under title II, the so-called community action pro- gram, the extent of State involvement is limited to submitting a pro- proposed program to the Governor "for his comment." Title II, of course, will involve aid to education. Are you satisfied that the State responsibility is sufficient and adequate under title II? Governor WELSH. You mean the requirement- Mr. GRIFFIN. The recognition of the State role. Governor WELSH. Frankly, I am not familiar with the precise language. Mr. GRIFFIN. The community action title involves some $390 million the first year. Apparently a lot of it is going to be used in various forms of aid to education and anything else, I guess, because there are no standards of criteria whatsoever. The bill completely bypasses State government, under title II, except that a project will be sub- mitted to you for your comment. If you have not examined title II from the standpoint of the State's role, I wish you would do that.. You will find it interesting. Governor WELSH. This gets back to the point I made a moment ago. My experience of 31/2 years as Governor is that when a Governor makes comments to a Federal agency, they usually listen. That has been my experience. Mr. GRIFFIN. I do not think that necessarily follows in every case. Governor WELSH. I would not expect them to do precisely what I asked them. Certainly, if a program is going to be successful, it has to be one, so far as my experience would indicate, that has the volun- tary support of the people and of other agencies. You can't force people to do things and you can't drive them. The Federal program PAGENO="0166" 882 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 would never be successful if they were flying in the face of what was good practice in Indiana. Mr. GurrFIN. Don't you think your Stat.e educational agency should have something to say about new educational programs going into Indiana? Governor WELSH. This is one of the people I would consult. Mr. LANDRUM. Would the Governor a.nd the gentleman from Mich- igan yield to me, without it coming out of his time, for a little dis- cussion off the record here? Mr. Gnn~rIN. In view of the limitation of time, Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. Once again, I think what Indiana is doing is a fine example for the rest of the Nation. I think this committee ought to benefit from this example of what State governments can do. Governor WELSH. Thank you very much, sir. We would be more than glad to make the benefits of whatever experience we have had available to anyone in Washington or any other State, for that mat- ter. It has been an interesting 2 or 3 years. Quite frankly, as I say, we didn't know whether we had the "bear by the tail" or not. For a while we thought we did, but it has worked out well. Mr. LANDRUM. The gentleman from Indiana. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make a couple of observations following what my colleague from Michigan has said. First of all, I was very pleased to see him commend you on your testimony. Lest I be misunderstood, with respect to what I said earlier about States rights, let me make clear my own feeling, as well as that of the Governor, that this is not a problem that ought to be solved simply by the Federal Government; rather, as President Johnson indicated in his speech accompanying this antipoverty bill to Congress, this is a problem which requires the cooperation of State, Federal, community, public, and private resources. I think one of the difficulties that we get into when we try to figure out what is the best way of meeting the challenge of poverty is that we have so little awareness of the dimensions of the problems. I was just reading an article in the March 26 issue of the Reporter by the dis- tinguished Washington Post writer, Bernard D. Nossiter, in which he cites a study made by Prof. Robert Lampman of the University of Wisconsin, who is one of the pioneer economists in this field of poverty. Mr. Lampman states that even if Congress passes the bill we are now discussing, the ent.ire $1 billion package, it will still require 30 years to solve the problem of poverty in this country. Professor Lampman draws this conclusion because, if we use as a rate of poverty the figure of $3,000 or less annual income per family, there will be 30 million Americans living under conditions of poverty. If you define the solution of the problem of poverty even as simply as withdrawing such families from the $3,000-a-year category, it will clearly take 30 years to do so even if, to repeat, we pass this $1 billion program. For Mr. Lampman projects that the passage of this program would mean a withdrawal rate of 1 million persons a year from the poverty category. He also points out that even this withdrawal rate would mean approximately double the recent rate of withdrawal from the category of $3,000 a. year per family. PAGENO="0167" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 883 Mr. QurE. What years did he use as recent years? Mr. BRADEMAS. Between 1947 and 1957. I am quoting from Mr. Nossiter's article.: Professor Lampman estimates about 800,000 a year rose from the poverty level. In the next 5 years the rate fell to about 500,000. This decline was the result of sluggish growth, high unemployment, and a slower gain in the pay- ments made directly to the poor from social security and other channels of transferring income. The economy's recent torpor, then, has left the Nation with a deficit of 1.5 million who might otherwise have escaped from poverty. Against this background, Lampman's suggested yearly target of a million with- drawals appears more ambitious; it is, in fact, approximately double the recent rate. I go into all this simply in response to what Congressman Griffin said and to make clear that we have to work at this problem at the Federal level, at the State level, at the local level; and, even if we work at it, even if we pass this bill, we are only getting started. Mr. PUCINSKI. Are those figures, the million there, are those bread- winners or are those total members of a family? Mr. BRADEMAS. These are families we are talking about. Mr. PucIN5KI. Entire families ? Mr. BRADEMAS. That is correct. The other point I wanted to make, with respect to your colloquy with Congressman Griffin, is that in section 208 in title II of this act, community action programs, there is a provision that: * * * the Director of these programs "shall establish procedures," and I am quoting- which will facilitate effective participation of the States in community action programs. Such procedures shall include provision for the referral of appli- cations for assistance under this title to the Governor of each State affected, or his designee, for such comments as he may deem appropriate. The Director is authorized to make grants to, or to contract with, appropriate State agencies for the payment of the expenses of such agencies in providing technical assistance to communities in developing, conducting, and administering community action programs. I think I have made two speeches. If you have any comment on what I have had to say, Governor, go ahead. Governor WELSH. One thought occurs to me as far as the Federal program is concerned: A Federal program would probably set stand- ards and there would be a certain uniformity, an effectiveness, that would not be possible unless there were a Federal program. This is really a very serious problem and some States may give it a "lick and a promise" and really not get at it. Mr. BRADEMAS. What about one problem we have not said very much about? I was not quite clear on your first point to which Mr. Griffin also referred; namely, that if it is a program to help young people you felt confident we could get adequate support. Is it not true that in many States of our country, not excluding Indiana, we have had difficulty in getting adequate tax revenues to support the schools of the State? Can one really be so optimistic, therefore, that there will be adequate State funds available for attacking the prob- lems of unemployed youth? Governor WELSH. I am sure in Indiana, if we were going to try to finance this type of thing with State funds, we could not do it; we simply could not do it. We have been compelled in Indiana to go to a PAGENO="0168" 884 ECONOMIC OPPORTU~ITY ACT OF 1964 new revenue program primarily because Of the cost of our program of education. We see that this is going to cost more money simply because there are more youngsters coming along. This is the most ëx~ pensive segment of society; namely, young people, and if we educate them properly in our public schools, that alone will consume all the money that the normal State can raise. Mr. BRADEMAS. You meet with Governors frequently in your posi- tion. Do you ~nd, in conversations on this problem with your guberna- torial colleagues, that the shortage of finances is the chief hurdle for them to overcome in meeting this problem at the State level? Governor WELsH. I would say this would be the normal problem which must be overcome in order to have a program that will be suc- cessful and do a job of training these young people to give them a skill. For, unless you can give them a skill so that they can go out and become a responsible taxpaying member of society, you have not ac- complished anything. This is going to be an investment. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you. Mr. PucINsKI (presiding). Mr. Quie. Mr. QUIE. Yes. Governor Welsh, you have on the first page of your statement here the number of families who have incomes of less than $3,000-88,000 according to the census of 4 years ago. How did that change in 10 years? Governor WELSH. I don't believe I can answer that question. You mean to what extent did it increase? Mr. QUIE. Yes. Now, the national figures indicate there has been a decrease. Your statement indicates, by saying they reached 88,000, that they must have increased in Indiana. I would like to know what caused them to increase in Indiana. Mr. BRADEMAS. Will the gentleman yield for a imanimous-consent request? I would like to ask unanimous consent to include in the record. the article of Mr. Nossiter, to which I made reference earlier. Mr. PUcIN5KI. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The article referred to follows:) IT WILL BE A Loxo WAR (By Bernard D. Nossiter) in what the President has called an unconditional war on poverty, the admin- istration is aiming at nothing less than the destruction of the cultural conditions that cause and perpetuate poverty in the United States. Because his is a vast and largely unexplored territory and because so~ many different disciplines will be called upon to penetrate it, an evaluation of the administration's program on economic grounds aloae is impossible. Precisely how long it will last and what it will cost is anybody's guess. Nevertheless, some educated estimates about the program's future are worth noting. For example, Robert Lamprnan, of the University of Wisconsin, thinks that 30 years is a feasible goal. Another economist. one of the principal architects of the administration's strategy, con- tends that at least two generations will be needed to eradicate poverty in East Harlem alone. In sum, the most informed guesses foresee a campaign lasting several decades. Lampman's views are entitled to special respect on several grounds. His paper in 1059 before the Joint Economic Committee was the first of the recent attempts to define and describe the dimensions of contemporary poverty. Lamp- than's unique contribution was to demonstrate that the percentage of the popula- tion defined as poverty stricken fell rapidly during the first postwar decade of reasonably high employment and relatively healthy growth, but much more PAGENO="0169" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 885 slowly in the next few years of a lackluster economy. This effectively rebutted the contention that modern poverty is unrelated to the economy s total health Last spun~ when Walter W Heller the President s Chief Economic Adviser fist determined to spur an attack on poverty he turned to Lampman-then on Heller S staff-for a broad design. To gage the progress of the campaign Lampman has de\ ised the concept of the withdrawal rate This is a measure of the number w ho each year climb above a ~et le~ ci defined as the poverty line The idea of a withdrawal iate is likely to become a fixture in the Government s planning Given the current defini tion of poverty as a family income under $3 000 1 ampman concludes that a withdrawal rate of a million a ycar is w ithin reach of the programs that a John son administration is likely to adopt. This rate assumes a high level of emplOy- ment and some acceleration of economic growth. Since more than 30 million Ameiicans are now below the poverty line ~in annual withdiawal rate of 1 million implies at le~tst a 30 year program This may look like a modest pace but it is w eli above the rtte sustained even duiing the buoyant decade after the Second World War Between 1947 and 19~ii Lampman estimates about 800 000 a year iose fiom the po~erty level In the next 5 years the rate fell to about 500,000. This decline was the result of sluggish growth, high unemployment, and a slower gain in the payments made directly to the poor from social security and other channels of transferring income The economy s recent toipoi then has left the Nation with a deficit of 1 5 million who might otherw ise have escaped from po~ erty Against this background, Lainpman's suggested yearly target of a million withdrawals appears more ambitious; it is in fact approximately double therecent rate. In a recent conversation with me, Lampman discussed other proposals to transfer income. If social security payments w~ere doubled, 5 million aged persons could be removed at once from the poverty rolls at a yearly cost of $6 billion. Lampman pointed out that in other countries, Canada and Great Britain, for example, for years Government allowances have been paid to. families with children. These payments have helped rescue some deserted,~ divQrced and widowed mothers and their children from poverty. Indeed, nothing short of such direct payments is likely to do much for the impoverished aged, the fully disabled, and the poverty-stricken female heads of families. If Johnson is elected in November, his next administration probably will press for higher social security benefits and perhaps other welfare payments. But under the constraints *of the current budget, direct payments of any significant size are simply not on this administration's agenda. A more limited program directed largely to rescuing some of those who can make a productive contribution is the most that the Government economists envision now. The long-range arithmetic of the economists follows these lines: $3 to $4 billion a year is now spent-or, perhaps more accurately, misspent-on scattered programs affecting the poor. The new programs which will add less than $1 billion to the total effort in fiscal 1965, wiii he augmented by $2 to $3 billion annually in the next few years. At the peak, the Federal Government will spend more than $6 billion a year on the poOr. In perhaps 10 years, these officials suggest, the. Federal share of the costs might decline and State and local governments could be expected to pick up more of the burden. ASSUMPTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS The administration's strategy for its drive against poverty draws on a wide variety of sources; indeed, nobody can assert with authority what will and won't work. . Even so, a set of common assumptions and conclusions underlies the whole project. Here are four essential points that guided the administration: Because of the current budget restraints and the commitment to hold down public spending, at present the Government can employ only limited resources for the huge problem it has chosen to deal with. A memorandum that Circulated among the Cabinet in early November made this point explicit. There are already a host of ill-defined programs to help the poor at the Federal, State, and local levels. They are scattered uncoordinated, and often duplicating. For example, in one small area of New York, 10 agencies are tackling the problems of children on probation. Poverty is found in two general settings, but only one is strongly resistant to advances in the economy as a whole. Poverty, when found in the midst of plenty is relatively easy to deal with For instance the children of the im poverished Negroes clustered on a few streets in the comfortable Geoi getown PAGENO="0170" 886 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 section of Washington are able to attend relatively good schools and live in an atmosphere that encourages them to look for a better life. Poverty in the midst of poverty, as in eastern Kentucky or Harlem, poses problems of a dif- ferent order. Here the whole environment fosters a circular process that traps whole generations. Some of the planners believe that the tax cut will provide job openings on a larger scale than has been officially forecast. This thesis is disputed both within and without the administration. In any event, it may never be fully tested. Next year, it is quite possible that the budget restraints will be lifted and welfare and public works spending will be permitted to rise. This prospect will be enhanced if the administration's promise of reducing mifitary expandi- tures is fulfilled. From this blend of fact and forecast the administration drew several con- clusions. Programs must rehabilitate impoverished human beings and prepare them for more productive lives. Although direct relief is necessary for some, it won't be granted because of the budget cuts. Thus public works and those measures designed for relief alone should be minimized, and a greater effort made in education and programs that increase the ability of the poor to improve their condition. Finally, it was agreed that direct attacks must be launched in the sectors where poverty is concentrated and institutionalized, such as the South Side slums of Chicago and the played-out mining communities of West Virginia. This attack must be launched on a broad front, against the whole environment. It cannot be limited to better housing or better schools or vocational training. The principal beneficiaries should be the young, and the principal strategem on this sector must be to bring the present scattered programs together in some coherent fashion. Also, community leaders must be drawn into the planning. Because of the limit on resources, the campaign may be pushed in only 75 com- munities this year and twice that number the next. But such an approach will yield more dividends than thinly financed programs on a national scale. So much for the underlying theory. In practice, of course, the administration program will take many forms. One important element consists of camps to teach basic reading and arithmetical skills to youths rejected by the draft. This is precisely the kind of program that supposedly was to be shunned, since it overrides the master plan of working through the community and applies a remedy nationally to one age group among the poverty-stricken. But tearing apart and rebuilding impoverished environments is a slow process. The camps were accepted largely because the newly appointed Director of the poverty program, Sargent Shriver, insisted on something that would bring quick and visible results. Indeed, Shriver was named in part to bring peace among the various departments and agencies with competing interests in the program, as well as to charm Congress. The Labor Department, for one, had to abandon much of its hope of contributing to the campaign by creating new jobs particu- larly suited to the limited skills of the poor. Labor Department officials wanted a large slice of the available resources spent on projects to clean up cities, service public buildings, and the like. In one heated session at the White House late in January, high officials from Labor and five other departments went at each other for several hours without coming close to an agreement. In the end, however, fragments of each agency's proposals will survive. THE SA?~GUINE APPROACH The public response to the President's declaration caught nearly everyone in Government by surprise except perhaps Mr. Johnson himself, who is largely responsible for designating the poverty program as an "unconditional war." Before President Kennedy's death, his aids were employing bloodless titles like "Human Conservation and Development" or "Access to Opportunity." They had tentatively settled on "Widening Participation in Prosperity-An Attack on Poverty." One day after President Johnson took office, he gave his blessing to Heller's project. By now the idea has won applause from virtually every sector but the extreme right. In Congress, the Republican members of the Joint Economic Committee did not follow Barry Goldwater, who had suggested that poverty is the fault of the poor themselves and that the Federal Government had no busi- ness worrying about it. Instead, the committee members outlined their own thoughtful seven-point program for conducting the war. For the most part, these points are incorporated in the administration's campaign. But they include PAGENO="0171" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 887 one-~research on the link between population control and poverty-on which the administration has so far remained conspicuously sileut. The whole enterprise is a natural for Democrats hungry to recreate some of the fervor of the New Deal days. Since the 3 Kennedy years were largely de- voted to programs long sought by businessmen, it was especially necessary that the White House produce an issue like this in 1964. The issue came ready to hand. The rising pressure of the Negroes for a full share in the benefits of American life, coupled with a wider recognition of the damage being done to our society by neglect of the underprivileged at large, created a massive demand that cannot be met without an attack on poverty at large. Governor WELSH. We have digested this down from original mate- rial an inch thick. We have left part of the explanatory text out for this committee so that we would not have an overlong statement. It has dropped. Mr. QtTIE. It has dropped. So when you say it reached 88,000 that means it reached down to it rather than up to it? Governor WELSH. Apparently so. Mr. Quru. In using those words "reached" and "swelled," it makes it sound as though it is an increasing rate rather than a decreasing rate. Governor WELSH. Not in percentage but in sheer numbers. The population has increased. Mr. QUIE. The same is true of dropouts. You say 23,000 dropped out of school. There has been even a more substantial decrease in the number of dropouts on the national level over the years percentagewise, but not as great in total numbers. Would that not be the case in Indiana, the number of dropouts is less in 1964 then they were 10 years previous to that? Governor WELsH. I am not familiar with the figures of 10 years ago. Mr. LnRoy. I think the point you are getting at is this, if I am catching the train of your thought, that as with the school dropout rate-where we have an average of approximately 40 percent school dropouts, if we were to go back to 1910, we would find in the com- parison of figures that our school dropout rate has improved im- measurably. Mr. Quiu. Or even 10 years ago? Mr. LuRoy. Or even 10 years ago. We would find our dropout rate has decreased approximately 5 percent. In other words, we are holding more young people in Indiana in school than ever before in the history of this country, this is true. But our rate of increase has been not so great. Our population has been increasing, and increas- ingly large numbers of people, because the population is increasing, are not completing school. The problem, as we see it, is this, that as the rate of technology is increasing, the demands made upon these young people are increasingly great. Their ability to fit into society today is certainly not at the same level as their ability was 10 years ago or 20 or 30 or 40. When we refer to figures and when we are talking about a given income rate, I probably don't have to tell you that things buy considerably less than they did then. Mr. Quir. You did not say that the total number of dropouts is higher than it was 10 years ago. Mr. LEROY. I believe you would find that the case in Indiana. Mr. QUIE. Then I would like to find out what makes Indiana so unique, because nationally there are a fewer number as well as a sub- stantially lower percentage of dropouts. PAGENO="0172" 888 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1e64 Mr.. LEROY. Our increase in the past years has not been dramatic. Mr. QUIE. If you would provide those figures for the record so that I could look o~ er them when the i ecord is complete in order to deter mine how Indi~na compares `md to find out why this incre'mse h'ms oc curredin indiana,I would appreciate it. Governor WELSH. I amsure we can obtain this information for you. Mr QUIB L'mstlv you indic'mted'm certain percent'ige of the young men in the camp were illiterates. What; percentage was that again? Governor WELSH. Fifty percent. Mi QuIE Wh'tt w'ms the gr'mde level of the students ~ Governor WELSH. You mean what grade had they progressed to in school? Mr.QuIE. Yes. Governor WELSH. Certainly below sixth; most of them below the fourth grade. Mr. Quii~. Your program begins at 17 years of age in Indiana. Do you have 17-year-old boys who dropped out at the fourth grade? Governor WELSH. This was their level of achievement. Mr. Qu~. This is different. How many grades had they corn- pleted in school? Governor WELSH. They put in on an average 8 to 10 years in school, according to the record, but not in the same school. This was just the record. We don't know how many days, or, for example, whether they had a hearing difficulty and got nothing out of it. Mr. Quii~. Here you are achieving results in teaching those boys how to read and write. There must be something basically wrong with the school system where they have gone to school 8 to 10 years and have not learned to read and write. If you have to establish a camp ~o ffimd this out and to teach them, what in the world is happening in the school? Why are they permitted to progress in the school system without learning to read and write? Governor WELSH. That is a. good question. Mr. GIBBONS. The same as in your State. Mr. QuiB. No; in my State only 2.7 percent are rejected because they cannot pass the preinductive examination of the selective service. If you include mental retardation this can be excused because the average incidence of mental retardation is about. 3 percent. And we have special classes for the mentally retarded. There is a compulsory law in Minnesota. that you must provide an education for the hancli- capped as well. I do not see how Federal money is going to help this without some Federal standards set up along with it, that you provide that kind of education. I think this is pretty deplorable when that large a percentage of students have not even learned how to read and write and have gone that far, especially when Indiana. is doing an excellent job compared to other States. Governor WELSH. That is right. We feel we have an excellent school system. You must bear in mind now that this 50 pe.rcent was drawn from a group that was unemployed and out of school and had been unemployed for 90 days or more. This percentage is representa- tive of boys who were not from normal family backgrounds or any- thing else. Misfits, I think is as good a word as you can use, in society, and they just haven't found themselves. The reason most of PAGENO="0173" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT~ OF 1964 889 them were misfits perhaps is because they could not read or write, or because of some personality trait or physical trait, or because of family circumstances, such as a migrant family. Mr. Qrnn. If they were misfits and for that reason could not learn to read and write, this could be true up through the third or, perhaps, the fourth grade at the most, but from those grades on, the fact that they could not read and write would surely make them misfits. I was wondering if you `are planning to do anything in Indiana to identify these people early and do something about them in the public school? Governor WELSH. We have a good counseling program which we are substantially expanding.. In the last session of the general assem- bly, we mandated the superintendent of public instruction to do a much more intensive job of counseling in our school systems. We feel this is an area which has been neglected. Mr. QUIE. Does your counseling follow the pattern of the National Defense Education Act where we have gone `through the secondary school and now have reached out to the seventh and eighth grades? Governor WELSH. I can't answer that question. Mr. QUIE. That is all,, Mr. Chairman. Mr. PUOINSKI (presiding). Mr. Gibbons? Mr. GIBBONs. I yield to Mr. Gill. Mr. GILL. Governor, it is a real pleasure to see you again. I had the opportunity to make your acquaintance some years ago at a legis- lative leaders' conference in Albany. It was said, at that time, that Matt Welsh was not only going to run for Governor, but he was going to be elected and be a good one. I `think that prophecy has `been borne out. I `have one question.. I gathei~ from `what `you said that your pro- gram of youth camps is successful as far as it' has gone, but you do not believe it has gone nearly far enough? Governor WELSH. That is correct. Mr. GILL. You feel it has gone about as far as your current resources and backing will allow it to go? Govenor WELSH. Without Federal funds, we could not move for- ward. All we have done is prove to ourselves that there is a desperate need. r Mr. GILL~ Right. Now, under the act that we are considering here under title I, the Federal Government could come to your State and set up a series of camps which would operate on roughly the same principles as those that you have operated' by yourself, is that correct? Governor WELSH. That is correct. Mr. GILL. You could go ahead under title II, could you not, as a community action program and with Federal asisstance expand the camp program you already have? Governor WELSH. This is what we would like to do. Mr. Gu~L. You could do this in conjunction with the' title I Federal program, could you not? ` ` ` Govenor WELSH. Yes. ` ` ` Mr. GILL. This would' tend to greatly expand the services that you feel are needed in this area?' ` " ` Governor WELSH. That is correct. ` ` " ` ` ` ` Mr.Gu~r~. So there is really no conflict with the Federal Government at all. There is no derogation of State authority or'no infringing on local initiative, is there? PAGENO="0174" 890 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Governor WELSH. We don't believe so. Mr. Gun. Thank you very much. Mr. Pucn~s~i. Mr. Bruce? Mr. BRUCE. Governor Welsh, how much do you estimate the Federal return for the first year into Indiana. will be under this program, if passed? Govenor WELSH. I have no knowledge of this. Mr. BRUCE. You have no idea how much wil come back to Indiana from this total program? Govenor WEr~sH. No. Mr. BRUCE. As I understand your position, you feel the State of Inthana financially is incapable of carrying on an adequate program, is that correct? Governor WELSH. I do not believe that our State has the funds, certainly not at the present time, to carry on a program of vocational training of the type that we know is desperately needed. It is always possible that the next legishtture will do this, but my experience with the legislature as Governor, does not indicate this is likely to happen. Mr. BRUCE. You did get a pretty massive tax bill through the legislation. Governor WELSH. Yes; but all this additional money is going to be funneled back to local communities to help pay the cost of local schools. Mr. BRUCE. For education? Governor WELSH. Yes. Mr. BRUcE. Where does Indiana stand on the per capita national income? Governor WELsii. I would imagine 20th, or 2lst-22d maybe. Mr. BRUCE. Twenty-first, as of the 1961 report. Earlier this morn- ing we had testimony from citizens of New York, Illinois, and Ohio which rate 4th, 8th, and 14th, respectively, that they did not have the funds. You used the term "Federal money." Will you define that? Governor WELSH. Money from the Federal Government paid by taxpayers all over the Nation. Mr. BRUCE. That is right. You believe, do you not, Governor, that there are several States which are in much more jeopardy on poverty than the State of Indiana? Governor WELSH. We regard ourselves as a very fortunate State economically. But if we have it in our State, certainly other States have it to a much more acute degree. Mr. BRUCE. One of the problems that I have heard testified to ear- lier this morning, and you touched on it again, is the mobility factor, that people are coming in from other States where they have a lesser affluence. Is that correct? Governor WELSH. Yes. Mr. BRUCE. Would you not believe that with Indiana ranking 21st and Ohio ranking 14th and illinois 8th and New York 4th that a crash program aimed at your basic poverty States which in effect are creating much of the problem in Illinois, and Chicago, would be of greater benefit in solving the problem than a massive 50-State pro- gram, to pinpoint it to the great areas of poverty that are creating situations in Indiana, to a degree, and in Illinois? PAGENO="0175" ECONOMIC. OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 891 Governor WELSH. No; I don't think you can isolate it geograph- ically. It is a national problem. Families are going to be where jobs exist, where opportunities, as they see them, exist. You can't compel them to stay in places in this society. Mr. BRUCE. Governor, it was stated a while ago that it would take 30 years under this program, as proposed, in order t.o even appreciably solve the problem. Does this sound reasonable? Governor WELSH. I am not familiar with these figures. Mr. BRUCE. Now, the poverty figure at the moment is pegged, by one way or another, at $3,000, is that correct? Governor WELSH. By the legal definitions, I gather, in the act. Mr. BRUCE. Now, this Federal money you are talking about is bor- rowed money, is it not? Now, the Federal Government is broke, let us face it, as far as balanced budget, as far as meeting our expendi- tures. Any new programs we go into will be borrowed money. Is that not sensible? Governor WELSH. I don't know that I would agree to that; no. Mr. BRUCE. Where is it coming from? `Governor WELSH. I am sure a major portion of it is coming from income paid by taxpayers. Mr. BRUOE. Yes; but the outgo exceeds the income. So any new money has to be from borrowed money. `Governor WELSH. This applies to any Federal disbursement. Mr. BRUcE. As the Federal `Government continues to spend more than it takes in, does this not have a direct impact on the cost of living? Governor WELSH. If over an extended period of time, the National Government would spend more than it took in, I presume, eventually, inflation would result. Mr. BRUCE. As the result of inflation, who is hit the hardest? Governor WELSH. People on fixed income. Mr. BRUCE. That is right. Particularly your low income-the widows on social security, the elderly retired-those in the $3,000 and under. So, as we continue with programs that are carried on on, bor- rowed money, are we not defeating, to a degree, the very things we are setting out to do? You constantly push it up for them. Governor WELSH. I think the theory behind this recent action by the Federal Congress in reducing the Federal income tax rate was that reduction of the tax rate would restore confidence and initiative in our economy and thereby generate more revenue. Mr. BRUCE. At the moment, this is theory, though, is it not? Governor WELSH. It has worked in England, I understand. Mr. BRUCE. Yes, several things are supposed to have worked in England, Sweden, Norway, and other States along that line. Are you familiar at all with the stay-in-school committee in Indi- anapolis? Governor WELSH. Yes. Mr. BRUCE. What do you think of their work? Governor WELSH. I think they are to be commended. I think every citizen's effort to encourage young people to stay in school should be supported and commended. Mr. BRUCE. What was the cost of your camp program in Indiana at Camp Harrison? Governor WELSH. Total cost in the neighborhood of $50,000. PAGENO="0176" 892 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Mr BRUCE That w'~s for 70 boys ~ Governor WELSH. We started out with 100. We felt that we got value received really from the work they did in forests. Mr. BRUcE. Let me ask you, Governor: Recognizing that according to the action and the statement of the school board of Indianapolis in their most recent meeting commending the stay-in-school committee~ of 50,000 volunteer women in Indianapolis-because their work resulted in the return of 131 children to the Indianapolis public school system that had dropped out, because of their personal interest-have you taken the example of these volunteer, dedicated women in Indianapolis and recommended it to the other areas of the State. of Indiana, as an example? Governor WELSH. I have called it to the attention of the superin- tendent of public instructions and asked that he call it to the attention of the school systems all over the State. J: believe this is being dbne~ Mr. BRUCE. Do you think this can work? Governor WELSH. Anything we can do to encourage citizens to par- ticipate in trying to solve this problem should be encouraged. This is a big problem, and the best way of solving it is to get as many people working on it as possible. Mr. BRUCE. How, Governor, if t.he States which are the most af~ fluent do not have the money-I come back to that same question- how is the Federal Government going to increase affluency at the same time that they are deficit-financing over a continued period of time? Governor WELSH. I think the objective is eventually to have the Federal Government's income exceed its expenses. Mr. BRUcE. This is a nice idea, but do you foresee that? Governor WELSH. Eventually, yes; I would say I foresee this.. Mr. BRUCE. Governor, I hope you are correct, but I would say that certainly the figures do not indicate that. Governor WELSH. I believe it is a reasonable expectation, in view of the President's economy program and the predictions that have been made for the national economy. Just yesterday, for example, 1 at- tended a meeting where the executive vice president of theRadio Corp. of America stated that his economists tell him there will be an economic boom continuing at least until 1970. Mr. BRUCE. From all the indications, is it not true that the Federal expenditure is going to be increasing too, because we are not talking about a balanced budget under the economy program; we are talking about a deficit budget. Governor WELSH. I would not be surprised if the Federal budget does increase, as our population increases. Mr. BRUCE. I am talking about the Federal budget. Mr. BRADEMAS. I would like, if I may, Mr. Chairman, to make a couple of observations about what my friend from Indiana across the way has said, because I think he is really talking economic nonsense on the basis of the facts. The facts are, as the economists will show, that we have had relatively little price inflation in this country in the last few years. The facts are that our gross national product at the end :. of:iast year hit over $600 billion. The facts are that only a few days ago one of the great power and electric companies in our country took a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal to announce that because of the great confidence that the business community had at the present PAGENO="0177" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 893 time, coupled with the spurt and encouragement given by the tax cut- the $11 billion tax cut-against which I think my colleague from Indiana voted, that because of these two factors, this American power and electric company was going to invest a very substantial sum of money in plant and equipment in the next several years. The facts are that General Motors recently announced a tremendous $2 billion program of investment in plant and equipment. The facts are that Chrysler has made a similar announcement of plans to make substan- tial new investments. So has Ford. The facts are that, in relation to our national income, it has been State and local debt which has been going up in our country and not the Federal debt. Walter Lippmann, the distinguished dean of American columnists, published a column in the Washington Post only this week, commenting upon an article by a well-known former public official of the Republican stripe, Mr. Eisenhower, and Mr. Lippmann pointed out some of the facts that I have just been pointing out here. It seems to me that if we are going to talk economic sense instead of economic bunk, we have to pay attention to the immense increase in the outpouring of goods and services, in real income, in our country. Otherwise we are just talking sound and fury, which is all right, I suppose, if you are a candidate for public office, but I do not think it is a real contribution to intelligent debate on what we all know is a very serious subject. Mr. BRUCE. I would say to the gentleman that he, being a candi- date for public office, is qualified to evaluate that from his viewpoint. He cited Mr. Nossiter as his authority. If he would read the most recent book by Mr. Nossiter, he would see the prediction by Mr. Nos- siter that between 50 and 100 years from now capitalism will dis- appear from the United States and be replaced by a form of socialism. Mr. BRADEMAS. The fact I am citing an article by Mr. Nossiter should not be taken to mean that I share either his predictions or the viewpoints he takes in all his writings. I read the Wall Street Journal but I do not necessarily agree with their editorials. I read the Washington Star, but I do not necessarily agree with their editorials. Mr. PUCINSKI. Could we go back to the bill? Mr. BRUCE. I think, basically, we are with the bill. I would sug- gest that those who have been hit by the increased cost of living throughout the years do not consider it economic nonsense. Mr. BRADEMAS. What are the years `the gentleman is referring to? Would you give the figures on the increase in the consumer price index in the last several years? Mr. BRUCE., I will be glad to put `them in the record. Mr. BRADEMAS. I am asking you for the facts. You are the one that made reference to the problem of inflation. I am `asking for the facts. You do not seem to have them. Mr. BRUCE. Everybody knows that inflationary pressure on the in- come of the widow, our low-section, society, is at the highest point. `Many of the programs of the Federal Government are a direct cause of poveity, such as t9riffs on C'in'~di'tn `~utornobile parts which caused an industry to move out of your town, lock, stock, and barrel One of the basic i e'tsons w'ts Government policy which m'tde it im ~dssible fOr thOmto compete. , ` ` ` 31-S47-~64--pt. 2-12 PAGENO="0178" 894 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Mr. Puoixsitr. Could I ask a couple of questions here? I would like to clear up one point. Perhaps the gentleman from Indiana was not aware of this. There is nothing in this bill that establishes $3,000 as the criteria for a poverty-stricken family. This is a policy established both by President Kennedy, President Johnson, and perhaps there were others before that. We, as Americans, hav- ing full confidence in the free enterprise and capitalistic system feel that a family that makes less than $3,000 a year within our concept of an economy is an impoverished family. Therefore, we have estab- lished this figure of $3,000 as the guideline but it is not a fluxed figure. As a matter of fact, if I may impose on your time for just one second, the Conmumists had really zeroed in on President Jolmson when he announced his program, and particularly Peiping and throughout Asia and Africa they tried to make a great issue of the fact that in America things are so bad that the President had to, himself, person- ally, declare war on poverty. Well, I am glad that we have a very efficient Director of the U.S. Information Agency, Mr. Rowan, who turned right around and went back and replied to the people of Asia and Africa and the rest of the people of the world, "That is true, in America we consider $3,000 a poverty wage." The Chinese, realizing that this was backfiring on them because, as the people of the world began wondering if America considers a person earning $3,000 im- poverished, as they looked at their own earnings they conci:uded things were pretty good in America. So the Communists abandoned their campaign against President Johnson. But the $3,000 figure is not a portion of the act. It is a national goal or standard set by our Presi- dent. Now the other part I was going to ask you about, section 208 of the bill, there has been some question here as to the protection of the State's voice in provisions of this act. Section 208 provides: The Director shall establish procedures which will facilitate effective par- ticipation of the States in community action programs. Such procedures shall include provision for the referral of applications for assistance under this title to the Governor of each State affected, or his designee, for such comments as he may deem appropriate. The Director is authorized to make grants to, or to contract with, appropriate State agencies for the payment of the expenses of such agencies in providing tecnical assistance to communities in developing, conducting, and administering community action programs. You can see in this language a strong desire by the administration to recognize, on the one hand, there may be overlapping jurisdictions where we are dealing in bistate or tristate areas trying to solve a problem of common interest to all of them. But still this act does pro- vide that all applicantions in a given State must be called to the at- tention of the executive of that State, the Govenor. So he knows at least what is contemplated in the State so that he can then take what- ever action he wishes. Now, do you feel that this language is sufficient or do you have any suggestions on how this language can be strengthened, keepmg in mind that this is an area program rather than a centralized program in respective areas? Would this language satisfy you as a &overnor that you, as a chief executive, still have sufficient protection agamst your authority being usurped in this program? Governor WELSH. I think generally yes, I would be satisfied with this language. My experience has been that the Federal agencies are PAGENO="0179" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 895 most anxious to work with the State government and when the Gov- ernor's office or any of the agencies of State government are asked for opinions, they are received sympathetically and every attempt is made to coordinate efforts and work in harmony. My experience in Indiana is, as long as we are assured we will be consulted, that we can work something out. Mr. PucINsKI. Now, the next question I have in mind is this. Fre- quently witnesses like yourself have been told, and we have had the same thing earlier today with the businessmen, an effort made to try to establish that Indiana, being 21st in terms of State contribution to the national effort, will not get back the same amount of money that will be expended. Is it not a fact, though, that because of the mobility of the American population, whatever efforts are expended to improve the capability of people to become participants in the stream of econ- omy, whether it is in your State or my State or any other State that we are making contribution, sooner or later it is possible that the per- son may wind up in your State and he will wind up prepared to take a job instead of a person ready to go on public assistance. Do you agree with that? Governor WELSH. I agree. Mr. PtrcINsKI. Finally, the question was asked, you are not going to get your pro rata share, would you comment on the basic philosophy of this bill? Most Federal aid programs are worked out where the Congress establishes a sum of money. Take a million dollars or $100 million. And then through various complicated formulas based on population and per capita earnings, the money is divided into 50 segments and each State gets its share. It has been the contention of the authors of this bill that frequently this is piecemeal assistance which gives an independent State a little money but often not enough money to deal with the whole of the prob- lem. So, this bill does not provide a fixed distribution among the 50 States but rather vests in the hands of the Director the authority to use his judgment on where is the help most urgently needed and where will it do the most good. So it is entirely possible that if the State of Indiana should come to the Director and show that this fine program that you have already started is indeed a program that holds out the greatest promise to help the greatest number of young people, you could conceivably get this assistance where the State of Illinois might be denied that assistance. The idea is to put the premium on the best and most imaginative pro- grams to get this job done. Do you see any violent objection or any objection to this concept? Governor WELSH. Not at all. I am sure that it would not be abused. If it were abused, I am sure Congress would take appropriate action. Mr. PuciNsul. I am certainly glad to hear you say that, Governor. You have now put your finger on it. Some of the opponents of this bill, critics of this bill, behave as if they thought this was going to be the last piece of legislation passed by Congress. I, as a Member of Congress, am willing to try to pass as good a bill as we can now and I believe as we move along we will improve this bill as we have experience with this legislation. We may very well PAGENO="0180" 896 ECoNoMIc OPPORTUNITT~ ACT OF 19 64 delete some of the programs as impractical. `We may: make basic changes. I think that the critics of this bill have little faith in their own Chamber here on the Hill. Governor WELSH. As I say, I am sure that Congress would take such action as is necessary. Mr. PvcINsKI. My final question. I am sure you did not mean when you gave your figures on page 2 of the selectees that have been rejected, indicating some 50 percent, that all of these youngsters were rejected because of some deficiency in Indiana's educational sys- tem. I presume that these youngsters have been rejected for a whole myriad of reasons-emotional, physical, various others-and un- doubtedly perhaps their educational handicap might have played a part. But the question was, If 50 percent of the young people in Indiana are being rejected, what has happened to your education system? I am sure that is an unfair question if it is intended to indicate that. your system is not teaching young people how to read or write. Is that fair assumption? Governor WELSH. I am sure that our educational system is quite good, one of the better ones in the country. The 50-percent figure to which you referred-this is the selective service rejection percentage? Mr. Pucncsi~i. If you recall the question- Governor WELSH. The rejections were based on mental, physical, and all causes. Mr. PucINsKI. Of course, the corollary to this question is that your public school system must keep a child in school through his 16th year, I believe. Governor WELSH. Yes. Mr. PucINsKI. Regardless of what his mental capabilities may be, whereas the Army, when it examines them, sets up a. very high, and properly so, criterion. So that there really is no correlation in trying to judge the effectiveness of an educational system necessarily because ~ number. of youngsters are rejected by the draft. That is the point I am trying to point out. Governor WELSH. I think there are different standards. Mr. BRADEMAS. I regret that my good friend from Indiana, Mr. Bruce, is not now with us, but I do want to read into the record the following facts because he expressed such great concern about the increase in the Federal debt and deficit. financing. I made reference to the article of Mr. Lippmann, published in the Washington Post a few days ago. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent it be printed following my remarks at this point. Here are the facts to which I earlier referred as cited by Mr. ,Lipp- man: The percentage of increase in private debt in the United States from 1947 to 1963 is 279 percent. The percentage of increase in State and local debt from 1947to 1963 is 382 percent.. . The percentage of increase in the Federal debt from 1.47 to 1963 is 26 percent. .. . . .. So, I would reiterate that I think the views of my good friend from Indiana are not well founded. PAGENO="0181" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 196.4 897 (The article referred to follows:) [Article in the Washington Post Apr 16 1964] Gn'\ EI'AL EISENHOWER S VIEWS (By Walter Lippmann) General Eisenhower has just published in the Saturday Evening Post a long statement of his present beliefs about the state of the Union. They can fairly be described as Goldwater minus the bo~ lers about the gradu'ited income tax, social security, TVA, and the like. That is to say,, General Eisnhower's position is that of the conseivative right not of the radical far right His basic thesis is that there has been for 30 yeais under the New Deal the Fair Deal, and `the New Frontier "a steady obvious drift of our Nation toward a centralization of power in the:Federal Government." We have "an-overbearing Federal bureaucracy that seems unchecked in both size and power." The net result of the easy money and inflationary policies of this Federal bureaucracy is that "the dollar you saved and earned 24 years ago is now worth just 45 cents." This is a strange interpretation of the history of the past 25 years, and one thing we may be certain of is that General Eisenhower will never be hailed as a reliable historian. He was the supreme commander in Europe during the Second World War, he was, the supreme commander of NATO in the cold war, and he was twice the President of the United States. Yet, incredible as it is, he has interpreted what has happened since 1940 without even' mentioning the fact that the country has grown by 50 million people, that during these 25 years the country has fought the Second World War, the Korean war, and the cold war. How is it possible to talk about the rise in prices which has cut the purchasing power of the dollar by rather more than half without mentioning the wars and the preparation for war? As a matter of fact, half of the rise in prices occurred during and immediately after the Second World War: another 15 percent of the rise occurred during the Korean war. From 1953 to 1963 the rise in prices has been a little over 1 percent a year. The rise was just about the same under President Eisenhower as it was under President Kennedy. If General Eisenhower is blind to the economic consequences of the wars in which be has played such a distinguished part, he exaggerates grossly the part played by the civilian sector in the growth of the Federal bureaucracy. There has not been,, as General Eisenhower says, an unchecked growth of the Fedral bureaucracy. While State and local government employment has doubled between 1947 and 1963, nondefense employment in Federal Government was the same percentage (1.9) of the total civilian labor force in 1963 as it was in 1948. In fact, `Federal civilian employment has not grown so fast as the population. There are now approximately 13 U.S. workers per thousand of population. Of these, five `are employed in Defense, three by the Post Office, one by the Veterans' Administration, and four by all the rest of the Federal Government. Nor is it true that there has been a "consolidation of power and revenue in the Federal Government." While the share of State and local government in `the `national product has doubled since 1948-from 5 to 10 percent-Federal revenue as a percentage of the national product has increased only slightly- from 12 to 14 percent-and has not risen for 5 years. And if we take debt as a measure of activity from 1947 to 1963, we see that State and local debt increased 382 percent; private debt increased 279 percent; Federal debt increased 26 per- cent. Thus, General Eisenhower has not painted a true picture of the state of the Union. It is not possible to paint a true picture of the state of the Union since 1940 by ignoring the three wars, by ignoring the growth of the population by as many people as live in Great Britain, by ignoring the preponderance of Fed- eral employment (71 percent) in the indispensible functions of defense, the postal service and veterans' care, by ignoring the relatively greater growth of State and local activity, and by professing to believe that all the troubles and dangers of our age are due to the handful of civilian welfare measures. It is just this refusal to recognize the facts of American life which accounts for the `condition of the Republican Party today. General Eisenhower meant to speak for the moderate, prudent,~ and, in the correct meaning of the word, the conservative mass of. o'ur people. But what be says is so greatly, out of touch with the realities-with what has happened, with what is happening, with what the people need to have happen in the future-that it lacks all credibility. PAGENO="0182" 898 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OP 1964 Mr. PrrcINsxl. Governor, I have one final question because this point gets lost along the line here. I do not know how often I have a chance to ask a Governor this question. We have been talking figures here in terms of people that we hope we can put hack to work with this pro- gram. Is it fair, in your judgment, to then automatically multiply that~ figure by four? Because when we take one man, when we put one man who is today on some form of public assistance, to work we really are taking four people off the relief roll and saving the State that amount of money. We have heard figures used here that we are only going to take care of 20,000 here, and 40,000 here, and 50,000 here. But we are talking about breadwinners or we are talking about pre- paring young people to become breadwinners. Governor WELSH. And to become taxpayers. Mr. PUCINSKI. Earlier today Mr. Martin said he had 160 jobs that went begging because he could not find people to take these jobs, qual- ified people. If we could train 160 people and take them off the relief roll and find those jobs, that alone would save the State of Illinois some $15 million a year just as one little example. Are we then correct in trying to demonstrate this legislation as a real economy move, in effect, because the most costly thing in this coun- try, so far as I am concerned, next to education is an unemployed American worker. Is that true in Indiana? Governor WELSH. It certainly is and I would agree. Mr. PucINsKI. Governor, we are certainly very grateful to you for your testimony today. I think as the Governor of a great State you have made a great contribution. If I may just wax facetious for just one second. It is nice to see Indiana come back in the TJnion. I recall not too long ago, I do not recall who the Governor was, but there was a Governor of Indiana wh& said he just did not believe in any kind of Federal aid programs and did not want any assistance at all from the Federal Government. I thmk you have put your finger on it. This is a great Republic. It is going to get greater when we work together, the Federal Govern- ment, the State government, the local communities. Thank you very much. Governor WELSH. It is a pleasure to be here. Mr. PUCINSKI. The committee will stand in recess until 2:15. We will hear Dr. Bishop, head of the department of agricultural economics at North Carolina State College. (Whereupon, at 1 p.m., the committee recessed until 2:15 p.m., this same day.) AFEERNOON SESSION Mr. LANDRUM. The committee will come to order. The first witness this afternoon is Dr. C. E. Bishop, executive di- rector, Agricultural Policy Institute. North Carolina State College. We are delighted to have Dr. Bishop from one of the outstandmg colleges of the United States which has one of the really top agricul- tural departments in the colleges of the United States. Dr. Bishop, we understand you have a prepared statement which you would like to have inserted in the record at the onset of your remarks and that you will talk in summary fashion on the statement. Is that correct? PAGENO="0183" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 89~ STATEMENT OP DR. C. E~ BISHOP, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AGRI- CULTURAL POLICY INSTITUTE, NORTH CAROLINA STATE COLLEGE Dr. BISHOP. That is correct, Mr. Landrum. Mr. LANDRtTM. The statement will be inserted and you are recog- nized to proceed as convenient to you. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF Dn. C. E. Bisuop, EXECuTIVE DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURAL PoLICY INSTITUTE, NORTH CAROLINA STATE COLLEGE Poverty has become the magic word of the day. With amazing speed the pendulum has swung from affluence to poverty. As America has discovered its. poor, it has begun an extensive examination of current policies and programs with reference to their failure to improve the levels of living of a large number of low-income families. Concurrently there have emerged demands for new programs designed specifically to improve the levels of living of low-income families. The purposes of this paper are to examine the nature of the low-income prob- lem in the United States, to identify some of the forces generating the problem and to indicate changes that must be made if the cycle of poverty is to be broken.. THE POVERTY CONCEPT Usage of the word "poverty" is very confusing. The term is applied to at least three situations. The policies relevant to solving the problem vary distinctly among the different situations. Therefore, recognition of the type of problem under consideration is essential to effective policy formation. Economists have long been preoccupied with low income as an indicator of inefficient use of resources. In an efficiency context, the low-income problem is one of adjustment in resource use-incomes from resources are increased by transferring resources to more productive uses-or of resource development. If resource owners are rational, the problem can arise and persist only (1) from. lack of information concerning the potential return from resources in alterna- tive uses, or (2) as a result of governmental or other restrictions which pre- vent profitable resource transfers. Given imperfect knowledge or institutional. restrictions on factor mobility, a large number of conditions can result in low incomes in one area relative to another. It should be emphasized, however, that inefficiency in resource use is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for low incomes. Certainly, inefficiency in resource use may exist among fami- lies which are defined above the poverty category. Also, relatively low re- turns do not necessarily indicate inefficient resource use. Secondly, some people have low income by choice. They are not motivated~ by money income. This condition, which is referred to as anomie, results when people choose to. employ their resources in certain uses even though their money incomes would be higher if they transferred their resources to other uses. To the extent that there is a low-income problem among these families, it results from differences of opinion with respect to bow income components should be valued. In a market economy, the market is the place where the preferences of re- source owners and those of consumers are reconciled. Through their pur- chases in the market, consumers express preferences for the production of goods: and services and indirectly for the use of resources. It is not possible, there- fore, for people to choose arbitrarily the use which they will make of their resources and at the same time to specify the income which they will receive.. Once the use of resources has been specified, income has been largely deter- mined. Certainly, society has no responsibility to individuals to provide them with minimum income levels if these individuals are not motivated by income- generating uses for their resources. If there is concern that resources are not being used most productively this- can be resolved by using the taxing and subsidizing powers of the Government to provide incentives for changes in resource use. Over the long run, people can be motivated to employ their resources productively through education.. Individual preferences are a product of their cultural heritage. Through edu-- PAGENO="0184" 900 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 cation and other informational media and through experiences gained in dif- ferent situations, the wants of people are changed and they are motivated to seek higher incomes Most of the recent discussion which has taken place over low incomes has been concerned with poverty. Poverty is a relative concept. It is most meaningful when defined with reference to a community norm of ability to purchase goods and services. Some families own so few resources that they' are unable to purchase the goods and services generally considered to constitute a soc!aily ac- ceptable minimum level of living even when their resources are employed in their most productive uses. This condition describes real poverty-the owner- ship of too few assets to yield an income high enough to sustain a level of living considered to be minimal in the society under consideration. The people of poverty are poor not by choice and not because they fail to employ their resources profitably, but by virtue of the fact that they have too few resources to generate the income needed to sustain a minimum level of living. The poverty problem generally is considered to be reflected in the consumption pattern of families. This accounts for the willingness of many people to use levels of living as an index of poverty. Implicit in this criterion of poverty, however, is the valuation that all persons should consume sOme minimum speci- fied bundle of goods and services. Many persons are not willing to subscribe to this view. Consequently, poverty has come to be defined in terms of the pos- session of sufficient assets to purchase those goods and services which are re- garded as constituting a socially acceptable minimum level of living. Therefore, it is sometimes difficult for people who own their homes to obtain welfare assistance. In our society there is a great deal of evidence of concern over the poverty problem. Although it may be difficult to define a minimum level of living, most persons readily identify those among theni who are considered poor and are sufficiently concerned to be willing to contribute to charitable organizations. Furthermore, this concern extends beyond the national boundaries. Private and public contributions in vast amounts are made to meet the needs of poverty- stricken groups throughout the world. DYNAMIC ASPECTS OF POVERTY The discussion to this point has treated poverty in a static context. Cer- tainly, there are those among us who are physically and mentally handicapped or who are disadvantaged in other respects and who are considered poor. Al- though there is a great deal of public concern for people who are classified in the poverty category at any point in time, there is an even greater concern that this condition shall not prevail through time. How does poverty develop and why does it tend to perpetuate itself through time? Our economy is highly dynamic. It is characterized by rapidly changing tech- nology, automation, creation of new occupations, destruction of old occupations, obsolescence in skills, changing education and skill requirements for jobs, rapid growth in some communities and stagnation and degeneration in other com- munities. The effects of these changes vary greatly among individuals and among communities. These changes are the source of poverty for some in- dividuals and communities and they give rise to the hope of overcoming poverty in other communities. As a result of changes in technological and economic con- ditions some skills and investments are rendered obsolete while the demand for other skills and forms of investment may be increased sharply. Some com- munities may be bypassed and may find their social institutions degenerating; others may experience increased demand for social services and increased ability to provide them. Several years ago, Schultz put forth the hypothesis that poverty in agricul- ture is largely the result of the manner in which the economy developed.' It was his thesis that some communities were favored by economic progress while others were bypassed. The bypassed communities failed to participate in the income growth associated with economic progress. Consequently, incomes in those com- munities lagged behind those of the favored communities. Economic and cul- tural impediments emerged to impede the flow of labor and other resources smong communities and enhanced the income differentials. 1 T. W. Schultz, "Reflections on Poverty in Agriculture," Journal of Political Economy, February 1950. PAGENO="0185" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 901 Under these conditions poverty is perpetuated. Beca~ise of the poverty there is relatively little investment in human resource development and in the develop- ment of other resources. Investment in social overhead capital falls behind in the low-income communities thereby perpetuating and magnifying income dif- ferences. As our economy has continued to grow and develop, the pace of technological change has quickened. The nature of this change also has been altered. Today, there is a great deal of specialization in plants and in equipment. Linkages have been developed among plants and agglomerations of industry have devel- oped in favored areas. These developments complicate attempts to induce growth in isolated communities. Consequently, we now find many communities that not only are bypassed by progress but are actually degenerating. There was a time when the term "ghost town" was reserved largely for gold mining and silver mining villages and more recently for coal mining villages. During the past decade, the term has acquired relevance in agricultural com- munities. This is particularly true of those rural communities which have served as supply centers for items purchased by farmers or which have depended heavily upon farm product processing. Modern transportation and communica- tion systems which have developed in conjunction with large changes in the structure of modern agriculture have made it possible, and in fact profitable, to bypass rural towns and villages. As a consequence, the current U.S. scene is char- acterized by many sick rural communities. The problems of poverty, therefore, are to a considerable degree, problems of sick communities. People in these communities find a decreasing demand for their services. Many of them now face a bleak prospect that their services* have been made largely obsolete by the rapid and impersonal march of technological and economic progress. At the same time that skills (i.e., previous investments in human assets) are rendered obsolete, many new jobs are created which require different skills. Consequently, a paradox has emerged in which many people are unemployed as a result of changes in the structure of the economy while there are many unfilled jobs because of a shortage of persons with the requisite training and skills, Clearly, this situation could not have existed if we had anticipated the struc- tural changes which are taking place in our economy and prepared people for the emerging jobs. The situation which exists has developed in part from the failure of our institutions to make people aware of the nature and extent of the changes which have taken place and which will come to pass in our society. Labor market institutions must share this guilt. The labor market has not and does not disseminate pertinent information to warn people of changes in labor market conditions. As individuals it is difficult, if not impossible, to anticipate effectively changes of the nature which have occurred and which continue to occur in the labor market. Typically, the individual gets the signals for a change only after the changes are an accomplished fact. A better early warning system is needed to help people to anticipate, prepare for, and adjust to change. Our educational institutions should devote more resources to study of the processes of growth and development. They have become unduly preoccupied with technology and technological change, with relatively little emphasis upon assisting people to adjust to these changes. This is especially true of the land- grant colleges and universities. These institutions were established to generate new knowledge and to work with innovators in the application of this knowl- edge. It was not surprising, therefore, that the measure of productivity adopted for the institutions was the extent to which they were able to increase the output of their clientele. Consequently, the effectiveness of the agricultural research and educational programs soon came to be measured by the extent of the increase in production of farm commodities. Under such a system, it is only natural to expect those who are employed in it to work with the innovator, the person who is going to make the greatest increases in productivity. But as income of those whose productivity increases rises in comparison with the income of others relative poverty is intensified. It is difficult for people to emerge from the culture of poverty. The capital- istic system is built upon a profit motive; it assumes that people will innovate. Furthermore, it is profitable to concentrate upon those who can and will inno- vate. Those who are unable to make the necessary adjustments because of capital restrictions, limited managerial ability and for other reasons are fre- quently forced into a lower income position. We see numerous examples of this in agriculture. For example, grade A dairymen who could not make the neces- PAGENO="0186" 902 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 sary adjustments to convert to bulk tank storage were forced to discontinue production of grade A milk. Emergence from the poverty category also is complicated by our inclination to discourage a free flow of human resources. Although the costs of migration should be viewed as an investment in increased productivity of the human resource, migration is not generally encouraged in our society. On the contrary, in many instances, the kinds of training which are provided for people and the job information which is disseminated to them through publicly supported in- stitutions are tempered by the fact that geographic mobillty of human resources is discouraged. In short, the uneveness with which the economy develops spins off broad seg- ments of poverty. The private enterprise system is based upon progress, growth, and development. There is incentive, therefore, to work with those who will innovate and develop. When, for various reasons, people find that they are unable to make the necessary adjustments they may become trapped in low- income positions. In like manner, in many of our social institutions we have developed incentives to work with people who are in a position to innovate and to expand production. Consequently, the poverty sector has been largely ignored. The culture of poverty which has emerged has become highly static in its orientation. Individuals frequently have failed to take cognizance of the signals which were transmitted to them. They resist socioeconomic change. Some scorn change, fight vainly to perpetuate the status quo, and maintain and impart false hopes to situations where there is no hope. In an effort to avoid change, many remain opportunely ignorant of developments taking place about them and their consequences. The pockets of poverty, therefore, tend to stagnate and to be perpetuated through time. BREAKING THE ~YOLE Now, the really important questions relative to the poverty problem concern what can be done to break through the cycle. The remainder of my comments :are focused upon six targets that should receive emphasis in an attack on rural poverty. These targets are (1) full employment, (2) agricultural reorganiza- tion, (3) area planning and development, (4) human resource development, (5) leadership development, and (6) income transfers. Fail ernpioym.en.t.-First and foremost, we know that it is easier to make adjustments and to improve conditions in all areas when the national economy is growing at a rapid rate. As the Nation grows, all regions tend to grow and per capita income in the low-income regions increases relative to that of other regions. In view of these facts many people subscribe to the view that the current high level of unemployment and the poverty which persists in society represent a deficiency in aggregate demand. It is argued that whether a person is disadvantaged or in the poverty category depends to a considerable extent upon the general level of economic activity and upon conditions in the labor ~market. Impediments to resource development and to labor transfer become stronger during periods of recession and heavy unemployment. This is true of racial barriers, educational levels, and other impediments. Many persons who would be quite employable in a tight labor market ftnd themselves disadvantaged in a labor market characterized by high unemployment. Even so, it has become obvious that there are differential rates of growth in the demand for labor in various occupations, and there is a premium upon acquiring the training and skills needed for employment in rapidly growing occupations. Thus, while a high rate of national economic growth may be a necessary condition for breaking the cycle of poverty and for achieving a full employment economy, the high rate of economic growth per se is not sufficient to achieve these goals. Agricvitural reorganization.-Extensive reorganization of agriculture is neces- :sary to break the cycle of rural poverty. The changes which will be required include the (1) changes of the kinds and amounts of farm products produced in low-income areas; (2) increasing the amounts of capital and changing the form *of capital invested per farm; (3) improving managerial skills; (4) coordi- nating marketing and farm adjustments; and (5) expediting migration of labor :from farm to nonfarm employment. Bold and imaginative steps must be taken if we are to insure that poverty is not perpetuated in rural areas. The cold, hard facts are that agriculture now has more land and more labor than can be profitably employed in the production PAGENO="0187" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 903 of food and fiber. It will be necessary to reduce the amount of labor on farms and the amount of land used in the production of food and fiber in order to solve the income problems of agriculture. These changes will not be accomplished easily. They will not be accomplished as long as policies and programs are car- ried out under the general assumption that all farmers are similar in that they face similar conditions and that they are affected in the same manner by public policies and programs. Certainly we cannot cope with the problems of rural poverty if we insist on try- ing to combat these problems with the same policies and programs which we have employed in the past. To date, the low-income problem of American agriculture has been largely subsumed under the umbrella of price and production control programs. These programs have been of little benefit to the low-income people in rural areas. The benefits are shared largely in proportion to the participation of farmers in commercial markets. In spite of this, agriculture has exhausted much of its political strength in the struggle to develop and maintain price and production control programs.2 The facts are that the best conceived price and production control programs will do little to improve the lot of those who control few resources. Geographic and occupational mobility of labor are essential elements of re- source adjustment in many rural areas. In areas characterized by heavy out- migration, where the economic base for agricultural production is very limited and where the costs of establishing and maintaining good schools and other forms of social capital are excessive, it may be desirable to purchase additional land for forests, recreation, and similar extensive uses. Area planning and development.-It was implied above that more area plan- ning will be necessary in order to break through the poverty cycle. Multicounty market areas and trade areas constitute a better base for economic development than most counties. Multiple counties also will constitute a more natural base for the planning of social overhead capital than single counties. The county boundaries which exist today are a product of history and have economic sigiiifi- cance largely in that context. If the opportunity were provided today to restruc- ture county lines in accordance with the potential for growth and development, it is obvious that many counties would be consolidated. In this age of specialization there are definite important economies in agglom- `eration of industrial plants. As centers of finance, research, design, invention, business leadership, and professional and managerial talent, metropolitan areas provide a setting which is especially favorable to future economic growth. The patterns of economic growth and development in metropolitan areas will have an important bearing upon the types of development programs which are likely to be successful in the surrounding areas and, therefore, should be considered in struc- turing geographic areas for planning purposes. One of the best ways to get rural adjustments is to stimulate growth and de- velopment in nearby urban areas. Multicounty planning commissions, develop- ment associations, and other organizations to induce economic growth and de- velopment should recognize that all counties do not have the same opportunities for growth and development. The forces of growth and development do not ap- pear in the form of a heavenly mist which falls evenly upon all counties. Rather, it is more typical for economic development to appear in the form of a pool which starts in a particular location and grows and develops and from which forces spill over into other areas. The extent to which surrounding counties participate in the growth and development of a particular county depends upon the organiza- tion of the factor and product markets and the willingness of people to take advantage of opportunities created by growth. The necessary changes can be brought about more effectively if planning is done on a multicounty basis. Human resource development.-A major facet of the problem in low-income areas sterns from the fact that education and training of the people in these areas are out of phase with economic opportunities. One of the greatest paradoxes of our day is the scarcity of highly trained efficient manpower while at the same time there is a paucity of jobs for large numbers of unskilled workers. Many of the persons caught in the cycle of poverty in rural areas have a bleak em- ployment future either in agriculture or in industry. To encourage them to stay on farms is to perpetuate poverty. Unless some means is found for training the youth for nonfarm occupations, to encourage them to move to urban areas is to impart hope where there is no hope. Unless the youth are trained for the 2 T. W. Schultz, "Our Welfare State and the Welfare of Farm People," address at the National Farm Institute, Des Moines, Iowa, Feb. 13, 1064. PAGENO="0188" 904 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 jobs which exist today and which will emerge tomorrow, they are destined to join the ranks of the unemployed. A greater commitment to education and to vocational training is an essential element in breaking the poverty cycle. Several studies have demonstrated that' the gap between the incomes of people in low-income regions and in other re- gions narrows as the amount of education attained increases. For example, a recent study demonstrates that college graduates in the South have incomes which are equivalent to those enjoyed by college graduates in other regions in the Nation.3 In general, there is a tendency for the gap in income between the South and other regions to vary inversely with the level of education. Although education, per se, is not likely to be sufficient to solve the problems of low-income people, it is doubtful whether the problems can be solved without a greater in- vestment in the education of these people. Leadership developmeizt.-The poverty cycle cannot be broken withOut effec- tive, forceful community leadership and concerted action to overcome the forces which perpetuate the poverty. Leadership must exert itself in the creation of an environment which is favorable to economic growth and development. People caught in the clutches of poverty must be motivated to want improve- ment. No development program will be successful unless a desire can be in- stilled in people to make adjustments-to develop and change the uses of their resources. Poverty cannot be obliterated if people are satisfied with their present circumstances. Community goals and social norms must be established and adopted which discourage perpetuation of the conditions of poverty. The motivation of people to aspire to higher values is a difficult process. Alteration of values is slow and painstaking at best. The extent to which this can be accomplished will denend upon the willingness of leadership to assert itself in thinking through ways of developing community programs which are determined to obliterate poverty and upon the assistance which local leadership can obtain from other areas. Income transfers.-Poverty, hunger, and disease bear heavily upon the image of our Nation. The onslaught which is being mobllized against poverty is most reassuring. Numerous income transfers have been proposed to cope with poverty. Within the context in which I have used the term, it is obvious that incOme trans- fers to the impoverished are a necessary condition for coping with poverty in the short run. In the use of income transfers, however, care should be taken that incentives are not provided to perpetuate poverty. Unfortunately, current pro- grams do provide such incentives. For example, in many programs the par- ticipant is penalized for obtaining higher incomes. If incentives are to be pro- vided for people to leave the poverty category, income transfers must be inde- pendent of effort, or must be positively related to effort rather than inversely related to it as at present. Costs are associated with becoming a participant in most welfare programs. The participants who find their benefits decreasing as their incomes increase may be discouraged from accepting part-time or even full-time employment. This can be prevented only if benefits are made independ- ent of income or if they are made an increasing function of income. Payments of this nature will require a rethinking of our `entire social welfare program. I am convinced, however, that this is a necessary condition for breaking through the cycle of poverty. Dr. Bisuop. Thank you, sir. My name is C. E. Bishop. I am from North Carolina State, the University of North Carolina at Raleigh. I have transmitted a. general statement for inclusion in the record. I would like to start my com.ments here by confessing that I find some of the dialog that we have about the word "poverty" to be rather confusing and to point, out what I think to be three different types of low-income problems that exist in our society. The reason I would like to do this is because I believe that the kinds of policies or programs that might be appropriate to solving our low-income problems differ with these different types of problems. Herman P. Miller, "Incomes of the American People," John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1955. PAGENO="0189" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT 013' 1964 905 I feel that a lot of people have low incomes simply because they don't use their resources as efficiently as they could. This means that if they change the use of their resources, they could have higher incomes. The kind of things that are appropriate here, of course, are to im- prove knowledge of income opportunities through better information services and things of this sort. Secondly, I believe that a lot of people in our society simply have low incomes by choice. That is, they do not choose to use their resources in ways that would give them high income because they simply enjoy doing other things. So that there is a category where we would say that people by virtue of choosing to do one thing rather than another, have lower incomes. I personally feel that once we decide what we are going to do in the way of work or how we are going to use our resources that we pretty largely decide what income we will have. I do not believe that society has a responsibility to provide people with minimum income levels if these people are not motivated to do work or if they are not motivated to use their resources in income- producing endeavors. But, the third category, I think, is of much greater concern. I have reference here to this term "poverty." We all ought to recog- nize that poverty is a relative concept. It is most meaningful, .1 think, when it is defined in terms of some community form, particu- larly a form of ability to purchase goods and services. What I have chosen to call "poverty," I think of as the situation where people own so little in the way of resources, that they are unable to get a reasonable income even though they made the best use they can of the resources that they have. So, here I think we are dealing with a situation which describes real poverty where people have so few assets that even though they made the best possible use of them, they could not generate an income high enough to sustain a level of living that we might consider minimum in our society. This is what I consider to be real poverty. I would like to empha- size that I am talking about people who really are not poor by choice and they are not poor because they make a poor use of their resources. They are poor simply because they own or control so few resources. Now, there is another point that I would like to make here and this is that unless some way is found to break into that kind of situatipn through resource development, that when a family gets trapped with low incomes because of ownership of few resources, that this situation is likely to be perpetuated through time. So, that the failure to develop our resources can lead to a perpetua- tion of real poverty. Now, quite frequently we are inclined to look upon poverty or low incomes as if `this were something that characterized individuals or families. I have a somewhat different view here. It seems to me as though we ought to recognize that in our society, changes take place which give rise to the hope of overcoming poverty for some individuals and in turn generate poverty for other individuals. In like manner, these changes can have profound effects upon com- munities because we find whole communities being bypassed by eco- PAGENO="0190" ~O6 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 nomic change, economic progress, and when these communities are bypassed, they are unable to afford the same kinds of social institu- tions as other communities. So, that schools do not keep up with schools in the high-income communities, hospitals and other kinds of social institutions tend to degenerate. So, that I believe that what we are witnessing today is a situation in which there are many sick rural communities in the United States, many communities that have been bypassed by the growth and progress that we have had and that, therefore, the problems of poverty not only are problems of the individuals, they are problems of communi- ties and must be attacked as problems of these communities. Now, I want to argue that it is difficult for people as individuals to emerge from this culture of poverty and I think there are a number of reasons why it is difficult. Consider for a moment our economic system and recognizing that we operate in a system which is charac- terized by the profit motive, which we all believe in, this motive assumes that people innovate, they will make change, that they will produce. Furthermore, it is profitable to work with people who will innovate and who will produce. But what we find is that once people get into this poverty category, if they are unable to make adjustments because of capital restrictions, because of limited managerial ability, or for various other reasons, they may be forced into lower inëome positions. We see numerous examples of this in agriculture. For example, grade A dairymen who could not afford to instnil pipeline milkers and bulk tanks were forced to go out of the grade A dairy business. People who had small broader operations, who could not afford or did not have the managerial ability to handle large units to adopt mechanical methods of production were forced out of the broiler business. This is the kind of system that we naturally expect; the kind of behavior we naturally expect in our system. It is the system which gives us such vast national production. The point is that some people because of limitations, perhaps even beyond their control, get spun off into poverty categories. I think that another aspect of our system that makes it difficult to emerge from the poverty category is our inclination to discourage the free flow of human resources. We ought to view the cost of migration as an investment in increased productivity of the human resource; but migration is not generally encouraged in our society. On the contrary, there are many instances where the kinds of training that are provided for people and the job information which is disseminated to them through publically sup- ported institutions are tempered by the fact that geographic mobility of human resources is discouraged. So, we find it is difficult to emerge from this poverty category, once people get trapped in it. Now, the remainder of my comments, I would like to direct more specifically to the poverty bill. Starting with title I, youth programs, I am convinced that the development of the human resources offers one of the best alternatives in coping with the poverty problem. Any major attack on low incomes must start with improved education PAGENO="0191" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 907 and training of the people in these areas because to a very large extent the training of people in low-income areas is out of face with modern economic opportunity. I think we have to have better training-training that is geared more to preparing people for the jobs that exist today and can exist tomorrow. What we witnessed, particularly among the youth in rural areas who are caught in this cycle of poverty, is that they have a rather bleak employment future either in agriculture or, unless they are given additional training, they will have very bleak futures in nonf arm em- ployment. In other words-and to put it rather succinctly-to encourage them to stay on the farms is to perpetuate poverty. To take them off the farms and send them to the cities without providing them with the requisite skills is to condemn them to a life of poverty and unemploy- ment in our cities. Mr. PuOINSKI. Would you permit an interruption at this point? Dr. BISHOP. Yes, sir. Mr. PUCINSKI. Do you believe that under title III, which provides two basic formulas-one to help the impoverished families get back on their feet without right grants, and the other provision to create family farms on very reasonable payment plans-do you think that these two proposals could help keep some of the people on the farm but in a much better economic and financial condition than they now are? Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt for a question here? Mr. PtTOINSKI. Yes. Mr. BELL. Are you about through with your statement, Mr. Bishop? Dr. BISHOP. I would like to speak especially to each one of the titles. Mr. BELL. I think he has about finished his statement and he will speak to each of the titles. I would suggest that the chairman wait until he has finished. Dr. BISHOP. I will come to that point anyway. Mr. PuCINSKI. Very good. Dr. BIsHOP. I think, in short, a greater commitment to vocational training and to education is an essential element in breaking the pov- erty cycle. We see this: Numerous studies, numerous pieces of re- search have been done that show us that, as we close the education gap, we also tend to close the income gap. In the South, where I come from, we find that people who have college education get incomes roughly comparable to college-educated people outside the South. So, to a certain extent, this income difference that we see in our society is a function of education. I would not, however, wish to convey the impression that education by and of itself would be suffi- cient to solve the low income problem. I do not happen to believe that. The point I do want to make here, however, is the fact that rural youth are disadvantaged in our society because their education is not comparable with that received by youth in other parts of our society. This fact is well known. If you take the rural youth as a whole with an average education they have a median of 8.8 years; whereas, urban people have a median of 11.1 years. That assumes that the quality of education is comparable between the rural schools and the urban schools. I don't happen to believe PAGENO="0192" 908 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 that. I work in a college where we have an opportunity to observe the performance of youth coming from various walks of life and we feel that our urban areas certainly do a~ better job of preparing stu- dents for working at the college level. Title I of this bill does provide for an expanded education and train- ing program; so, I assume, would title II, although it is not clear from title II just how much weight would be given to education. But, to suit my own taste, I would feel better if part A of title I placed greater emphasis upon education and training rather than upon practical work in the forest and in other areas. I am somewhat concerned that we should be specific in training youth here for jobs that will exist in the future and I am concerned that we may be inclined to take youth who are 16 to 22 years of age, put them in camps in rural areas, and find 2 years later that they are cOming out without the proper training for employment. So I would like to emphasize the need for specific job oriented training under this title. LTnder Title II-TJrban, Rural, and Com- munity Action Programs-I think we should recognize that more work on a multicounty basis is going to be necessary to break through this poverty cycle. My point would be essentially this.: That multicounty market areas and trade areas constitute a much sounder base for economic develop- ment and economic planning than is the case of single counties. If we just stop for a moment a.nd a.sk ivhen these county boundaries were drawn in the United States, how they were drawn, why they were drawn, and where they were drawn, we will see that they are not really well adapted to our economic situation of 1964. I would assert that if we were provided with. the opportunity to restructure counties today, that we would lay these county lines out distinctly differently from the way they are now drawn. We would consolidate many counties into a much sounder economic base. The point I would like to make, at this juncture, is that we do not get uniform growth throughout our society. We don't expect eco- nomic growth and development to come hi a uniform way like a rain would across the land. It comes more like a little pool or puddle that grows and spills over. So, that, what effects a coimty might experience from growth and development depends partly on where it is located. It seems to me that we ought to recognize that by joining together a group of counties to work on a concerted program for development that rural areas may benefit greatly from growth and development that takes place primarily in urban areas; in fact, I suspect that one of the best ways to get raral adjustments is to stimulate growth and development of nearby urban areas because., in this growth and devel- opment., we create new markets, new job opportunities, and new in- come opportunities. Title II of the present bill is a logical extension of the rural areas development program and it builds, as I see it, upon the local leader- ship which has been marshaled in that program. The poverty cycle, I don't believe, can be broken without effective and forceful commu- nity leadership. I would emphasize that point: We ne.ed conserted action at the local level. The reason I would hold this view is because I feel the PAGENO="0193" ECONOMIC OPPORTILNITY ACT OF 1964 909 local people must be motivated to want for more-to work for more- if they are going to have more and J believe this motivation can come and usually must come from local leadership. So, the establishment of community goals-the study and analysis of growth opportunities, of development opportunities, of develop- ment opportunities at the local level-is a very important partof any program designed to attack poverty. . If I could take you, for a moment, to our situation in North Carolina, I would like to just describe for you, very briefly, the kind of organi- zation that we have developed there to help us. undertake a. program in this area. . . We have, for example, 100 counties. These counties have been com- bined into 12 or 13, what we call, area development associations-a voluntary association of local people working together, thinking, studying, and analyzing opportunities for development. Within these 13 area development associations, and in 100 counties, there are over 1,200 organized communities, and people working with local leadership studying opportunities for growth and development. We think this is a very wholesome approach and one that is to be encouraged. It is to be my understanding that this type of organiza- tion would be encouraged under title II of this bill. If I can turn now, Congressman, to title III, I will deal more spe- cifically with the question that you raised. I am convinced that ex- tensive reorganization of agriculture also is necessary to break out of the cycle of poverty and I would like to enumerate five kinds of changes that I feel to be necessary in agriculture. First, I think we are going to have to have some rather drastic change in the kinds and amounts of farm products produced in these low-income areas. . We are going to have to have vastly increased amounts of capital per farm. There need .to be intensive efforts to develop the managerial skills of the farmers who are in the low-income categories. We need better coordination of our marketing and our farm adjust- ments. And fifth, we need to expedite. the migration of labor from farm to nonfarm employment. What I am saying is that the cold hard facts are that agriculture now has more land and more labor than can be profitably employed in the production of food and fiber. In other words, we are going to need to take land out of production. We are going to need to find some nonf arm jobs for a large number of farm people. Now, it is rather obvious, I think, that we cannot cope with the problems of poverty with the same policies and pro- grams which we have employed in the past for commercial agricul- ture. . .. . ,. - . . When we subsume these low-income problems under the umbrella of price and production control programs, we overlook the fact that the benefits of the . price and production control programs are shared largely in proportion to the resources that farmers have to the volume of products produced and sold in commercial markets I reached the conclusion that a great deal more geographic and oc- cupational mobility will be essential for social adjustment. ma great many rural areas. This means that we may need to think in terms of social capital investment such as the purchase of additional land for forests or recreation and for other uses. 3i_847_~64_pt. 2-13 PAGENO="0194" 910 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF I D64 Now, let me turn, for just a moment., to who these people are who~ are in rural America. who are in the poverty category. There are 1,570- 000 farm families with incomes of less than $3,000. This represents roughly 40 percent of our farmers. More than 1 million of those, about 68 percent, are over 45 years of age; 72 per- cent of these have had less than 9 years of schooling. The point is that they have very little adjustment potential. They will not and they cannot shift out of agriculture. I do not believe' that that offers a reasonable solution to the problems of these people. They are t.rapped where they are. They are going to stay there for' the rest of their lives to a very large extent. If we study the migra- tion data, we find that mOst of the migration comes from people who are less than 25 years of age. Once people have reached the age of 25 and they have committed themselves to an investment that may in- volve paying off debts, that has used a good deal of their savings or all of their savings, the migration rates fail off very sharply. We made some studies, for example, which give us some ideas con- cerning the amount of migration that we can expect during thia decade. I would like to share two of those figures with you to em- phasize my point. If we take the number of males, rural farm males, who were on farms in 1960, and look at what we would expect to happen to these people during this decade, I think we can see a picture that is rather striking. Let us look first at those people who were between the ages of 15 and 24. There were 895,000 of these on our farms in 1960. We would expect that in 1970, 259,000 of those would still be on farms so tha.t we would have an off-migration of about 726,000. Migration takes a heavy drain from these people in this age category~ 15 to 24. Mr. THoMPsoN. Are they from any particular areas, Doctor? Dr. Bisno~. They will come, very largely, from these low-income areas. The rate of outniigration is about 20 percent greater for your low-income counties than for other coirnties. Mr. THOMPSON. What is the situation in eastern North Carolinal Dr. BISHOP. In eastern North Carolina, you have very heavy out- migration. relative to North Carolina.. North Carolina's outmigration is not as large as that of some States. From eastern North Carolina., we had a. net. Toss in population, if you give allowance to the addition through births during the last decade in all but two or three of our counties. Mr. THOMPSON. That is pretty largely a tobacco economy. Dr. BISHOP. It is a tobacco economy. Mr. THOMPSON. On a. relative basis it is in good shape, at least, has been, up until recently, that is compared with the tobacco or peanut economy. Dr. BISHOP. Let us say it has been fairly stable'. It is not in good shape. We have our share of poverty in North Carolina. The State is doing a great deal trying to cope with it. We are quite' concerned about it. I expect we have more low-income farm people' than any other State. Mr. THOMPSON. You do? Dr. BISHOP. I think this is right. PAGENO="0195" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 911 Mr. THOMPSON. Governor Sanford has done a wOnderful job in in- itiating in his own State a poverty program. Dr. BISHOP. Let us contrast now the situation for these people who are between 45 and 65 years of age. I said that we have 895,000 of males between 15 and 24 years of age. We would expect 726,000 of those to leave during this decade. In contrast, there were 1,287,000 who were between the ages of 45 and 65, we would expect only 150,000 of those to leave agriculture during this decade. In other words, your migration of these people who are in the upper age categories cannot be expected to solve their low-income problem. In short, these people are trapped; they are there; they are going to spend their lives there. The question is: What kind of income, what kind of opportunity, will they have in the rural area? Now, just a word about title IV, particularly on part B. I notice in reading this part that the States that the Director may require, at his discretion, that people who are provided with loans under this part take certain types of managerial training to improve their man- agerial skills. It would suit my taste much better if this "may" at the discretion of the Director was changed to "will" because I believe we can learn from the program which has been conducted by the Farmers Home Adminis- tratiOn that supervised management can do a great deal, supervised managerial assistance can do a great deal to help people in low-income States who are trying to operate small businesses. In the agricultural sectOr when loans ai~e given by the Farmers Home Administration, we do give supervisory management assistance and we have found this to be very effective. I suspect you would find the same to be true in nonfarm indus- tries. Mr. Chairman, I am available for questions. Mr. RoosEv1~LT. Mr. Bishop, thank you very much for your testi- mony. Certainly I would agree that I think you have given us a most interestii~ discussion of the concept and background of poverty and applying it in specifics which I think will help us greatly as we study the bill itself. Mr. Bishop, price supports and, therefore, higher prices for agri- cultural goods have raised the cost of living especially for the very poor since they spend a higher portion of their income on food. What is the solution to this problem if you will elaborate a little on what you have said? Dr. Bisno~. I suspect that this is questionable. I do not believe I wish to permit myself the statement that price supports as they have operated in the American economy have raised the prices of foods to our society. We have one of the lowest cost budgets for food of any nation in terms of percentage of our disposable consumer income. If you assume that price supports in a relatively stable agriculture would induce increased output, I suspect it would be hard to reach the conclusion that price supports had raised the prices of foods be- cause most foods are not supported. Mr. PUcIN5KI. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful for that answer because I have supported some of that legislation. Mr. RooSEvELT. In a slightly different field, you have mentioned PAGENO="0196" 912 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. ACT OF 1964 that you think you can have incentives in the early part of your statement. What incentives do you offer to the very poor or from a practical point of view, can be offered if money incOme is not sufficient motiva- tion? You mentioned the taxing power as a way but that in itself is not enough. Could you give us a more concrete example of the type of incen- tives that you have in mind? Dr. Bisnop. Here you are referring to the passage where I indi- cated that some people may simply have low income by choice. They are not motivated by money income. Mr. ROOSEVELT. And we must, therefore, give them different kinds of incentives? Dr. Bisnop. Yes. I don't know how as a society we can appeal to those people to get more in gear with the market economy, let us say, but I do feel we can do this with their children. If we can keep their children in school, if we can provide them with some incentives to keep their children in school, I think in this way ive can begin to break out of this thing. The other way that I would think that we could begin to attack this particular problem is through community actions. Community actions are important in our society in setting other certain norms. We all live in accordance with certain norms of behavior and, I believe, through community action, we can develop a spirit of respon- sibility to help people to make a greater contribution in this way. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Tities I and II now are aimed at that specific thing. Dr. BISHOP. That is right. Mr. BELL. Will you yield? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I yield to the gentieman from California. Mr. BELL. Dr. Bishop, if you are speaking of these people who aren't motivated, as you say, for more income, what kind of people are you talking about? Are you* talking about people who just don't want-is that a nice way of saying that people just don't want towork? . Dr. BISHOP. Some people would rather fish and hunt. Mr. BELL. No matter what you do, you can lead them to water, but they won't drink. Dr. BISHOP. That is right. However, let me say this: I do not be- lieve that this particular problem is nearly so important as some people attach to it in our society. ~. - I Mr. BELl1. Don't you think there is a very small percentage of such people? Dr. BISHOP. It has been our experience, at. least in working with low-income people, especially in the mountain region, that once they see what kinds of opportunities exist, they are rather eager to take advantage of them. . It is hard tO separate out in behaviorial problems actions which are based on lack of information, where people didn't know what they could do, didn't know what they could produce, didn't knowwhere they could sell it, these kinds of things, from the desire just to go fishing. Mr. B~i1i1. This kind of goes to a very important part there, this philosophical thing. I have heardmany,..many. people say, "You give PAGENO="0197" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 913 them' opportunities' and many of `them' won't work ,and this sort of thing." I have never believed that, myself. I was wondering if you had any kind of percentage. Is there a fairly large percentage of people you can lead to water and'they won't drink? Dr. BISHOP. My view is that most of them will drink. Mr. BELL. What percentage are you talking about? Are you talk- ing about a very small percentage or a third? What kind of per- centage are you talking about of people who won't take an interest even if they have all the opportunities thrown at them? Dr. BISHoP. Any statement here would be purely a guess. My per-: sonal views are that we are not speaking about a very large part of our society. I think most of our people still live under the work ethic. Mr. BELL. Would you say it is 1 percent? Dr. BISHOP. Maybe a little larger than 1 percent. Certainly not 10. Mr. ROOSEVELT. In the long run, as you pointed out, the way to eliminate whatever percentage is in that group, is by working with their young people. Dr. BISHOP. Yes. Mr. THOMPSON. Isn't it so'to some extent, Dr. Bishop, that environ- mental situations create really great insecurities in rural areas and that to a very large extent these people who don't work are afraid to ven- ture forth and leave the environment which they are familiar with? Dr. BISHOP. I think there is a certain element of insecurity. There is also an element of just not feeling that they belonged to this par- ticular type of activity, not knowing about the opportumties and possibilities. Mr. THOMPSON. A combination of educational and environmental? Dr. BIsHoP. Yes. These particular types are not as distinct and clear cut as we might like to think of them. Mr. THOMPSON. I have not heard all your testimony. I have read it. As a fellow who went to Wake Forest, I hate to say anything very good about North Carolina State, but you are a wonderful product. Dr. BISHOP. If it will console you any, my daughter is going there this fall. Mr. THOMPSON. Fine. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Dr. Bishop, on page 7 of your prepared statement you say: A better early warning system is needed to help people anticipate, prepare for, and adjust to change. You don't think this is just wholly governmental matter do you? Is it not, also, something that business itself, the economy itself, has a responsibility to solve? Dr. BISHOP. That is right. I think, however, Government also has a responsibility in it. We have an early warning system, for example, against certain kinds of dangers that might come to us,from foreign lands. , ` ` I would hope that we could also develop early warning systems that might come to our people when their jobs are endangered, either through the private sector or the public sector. My point is simply this: When I am working and technology brings about changes which makes my schools obsolete, I learn of this ~when the new technology PAGENO="0198" ~914 EC~~OMIC OPPORTIJNITT ACT OF 1964 is adopted. At that point, it is pretty late to start retraining myself for another position. Mr. ROOSEVELT. I agree with you. It is a very delicate and difficult area to work with. If we can have an early warning system on weather and national defense, we could better apply such an early warning system to human beings. I would hope perhaps in this bill we might be more specific about that particular point. One last question: Applying what you have said to this bill, would you say that retraining farmers on the land, as title III, I think, aims at, is a misallocation of resources or would you feel it was a proper allocation of resources? Dr. BISHOP. My view is that title III will be most effectively ad- ministered with people who are beyond the age of 25 and perhaps beyond the age of 35, people who are trapped, who are not going to go into nonfarm vocations, who can't really go into nonfa.rm vocations, and who can eke out a living and a respectable kind of living, given a good opportunity in rural America. Mr. RoosEVELT. Thank you very much, Dr. Bishop. I think you have made an excellent statement and contribution. Mr. Thompson? Mr. THoMPsON. Thank you again, Doctor. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Bell? Mr. BELL. I assume, then, if you were doing this, Doctor, in answer to Mr. Roosevelt's question, that you would take a certain age group and maybe give them some grants and loans as the bill suggests in title III; is that right? In other words, you would make these grants and loans to increase their assets and take a chance that you would make their, life on the farm viable economically? Dr. Bisnop. Where there are opportunities for viable. economic units; yes. lYhere people are trapped this still may be an efficient. way to help them to live out their lives in rural areas. Mr. BELL. `IOU say it may not be? Dr. Bisnor. It may be. It may be, for example, a least-cost way of getting them up to the minimum level of living we are thinking about. Mr. BELL. Let us say that conceivably there could be many other economic factors involved in a farm area, markets and many other problems that it might not. be wise to try to expand their position on the farms. That might not be a wise thing to do because it may not be possible in many areas to make a living. I think this is true in many areas of many of the States. It is not. so nmuch the fault of the individua.l or the income that he could possibly-money or capital that he could have. Maybe it is not just. possible to make it in the economy; is that true? Dr. Bisuor. You are quite right. There may be areas in this coun- try where we should not try to settle people, let us say. Mr. BELL. That is right.. . . Dr. Bisiior. That we ought to provide some kinds of incentives to find other uses for the land. I agree with this wholeheartedly. I believe that the bill provides for this. Mr. BELL. Quite conceivably there could be a number of areas, a considerable amount of area or territory involved that would be in- volved in this kind of change. PAGENO="0199" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 915 Dr. BIsHoP. Yes. This is the reason I think the emphasis should be on the people, not upon the land as such, people and opportunities. Mr. BELL. What you are saying, in effect, is that title III should, by all means, be made much more flexible; in other words, there should ~be included, perhaps, migration training for urban jobs. Possibly move from one farm area to another in another State or another location? Dr. Bisuo~. Title III in and of itself will not solve the problems. It may help but it would not solve the problems. Mr. BELL. There is a question about the help. * Dr. BISHOP. You need the training programs, other kinds of pro- :grams as well. Mr. BELL. There may be a question about whether or not it would ~help, too. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Pucinski? Mr. PUCINSKI. I have just two questions, Doctor. One was the question I posed earlier. Do you think that the creation of the family farms under title III is going to keep these people on the farm in light of your statement here earlier, that we have got to find some ways to takethem off the farm? Dr. BISHOP. This* depends, of course, on how title III is adminis- `tered. Now, I can conceive of title III being administered in this way. Where you decide that youare going to provide grants and loans to people who are, trapped, who don't have much of `an adjustment p0- `tential, who do not possess skills that can be marketed in a nonfarm economy, and cannot be retrained for employment in nonf arm jobs. These people are trapped and with your loans and grants program, if you provide assistance to them, you are, obviously, not holding peo- `ple on the farms who would move anyway. Mr. PtTCIN5KI. Who makes that decision? Who identifies the trapped farmers? Dr. BISHOP. We can tell from interviews and from tests about the potential of a person for employment in various kinds of occupations. Mr. PUOINSKI. Would you suggest, then, that. under the rules and `regulations that will be promulgated to carry out title III that the Director should make these farms available and these loans available only to people who have been determined not to be retrainable for any urban occupation whereas, let the others who want to leave the farm continue their migration to the urban area. Dr. BISHOP. I think we have to let people migrate who want to migrate. This is an important part of the solution to the farm `problem. I believe, also, that it may be possible under title III to get together large enough tracts of land or a large enough quantity of resources `that we could develop economically viable units for some people who otherwise may migrate but who could not get an economically viable ~unit. Mr. BELL. As I understand, I believe Mr. Bishop said that he felt `there should be some educational features for the people who are going to migrate. There should be some attempt to educate them for urban jobs. Isn't that correct? Dr. BISHOP. That is correct. Mr. PuOINsKI. Where, on the farm? PAGENO="0200" 916 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Dr. BISHOP. For rural youth who will `migrate. Let us make one more point here. The income differential between farm and nonf arm vocations is so large for most people that we are going to continue to have a lot of migration from our farms. This is going to be very heavy durmg this decade, especially if we achieve a reduction in the level of unemployment which is a first and foremost planning in any attack on poverty or any attack on the farm problem as I see it, a move toward a more fully employed economy. If we achieve this we are going to provide new job opportunities and we are gomg to have a great deal of migration from our farms. But my point is that unless these people have some kind of marketable skills, they are going to be human tragedies in our cities because they are not going to be employable there. Mr. PuCIN5KI. That stifi does not answer my question, Doctor, as to who is gomg to decide. `What is the criterion for determining whether or not an individual should be given $1,500, whether an indi- vidual should be given access to the acquisition of one of these redevel- oped family farms or whether he should be permitted to leave for the city? `Where do you draw the line and how do you set up the criteria? Dr. Bisuop. I think the lines can be drawn in this way. If you are rnterested in developing economically viable units within agriculture, then we ought to ask the question, what size of farm, how much invest- ment, what form of investment does it take with this type of farming for this person to get a return that would be comparable to what can be earned in nonfarm endeavors? This would give us a handle on that one. On the migration ques- tion, the mobility question, there are various kinds of tests that can be rendered to people to determine the extent to which they are retrain- able, the extent to which they might be successful in nonf arm vocations. Mr. PUOINSKI. In other words, then, you are not suggesting that some third party is going to decide, let. us assume that we ha.ve a man here who has been on a farm all his life. Now, he may have well wanted to move into the city, he has had it. You are not suggesting that somebody along the line can come and sa.y, "No, you don't have a marketable product. You don't have a marketable trade. You have to stay on the farm." You are not suggesting that, are you? Dr. BISHOP. Indeed not. Mr. PrTcINSKI. Conversely, supposing that a man who has lived on a farm all his life and has lived in povertynow says, "If I had $1,500 to buy some seed and if I had a little plot of my own, I know that with my experience and the experience I gained from my father and grand- father, I could make a go on this farm." Are you suggesting that somebody in the Department of Agriculture is going to analyze this and they are going to decide whether he is right or wrong? Dr. Bisuop. I would say that there are people in the Department of Agriculture who can help him to decide whether this is possible or not. Mr. Pucn~sKI. That is exactly what worries me about title III. Mr. Freeman was here before the committee and we discussed title III at' great length and we agreed that the Department of Agriculture now has many things. They have the FRA over there for credit-risk farms, and assistance on loans. `What happens is that the people in Washington seem to get out of touch with reality and they set up criteria that very fre- PAGENO="0201" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 917 quently make these Government programs tougher to get to than conventional lending institutions. The question I have been asking of witnesses that come before this committee-I am not on the Agricultural Committee, I wish I was- I have been trying to find some sense out of these agricultural pro- grams. We have all these agencies and we have all these programs and about the best that Mr. Freeman could say is that we need a little goosing along. Would you share that view? Dr. BIsHOP. Let me say this: As I understand title III this would make loans available to people who cannot qualify for loans under the current FIE[A programs. This would enable the Department of Agriculture to provide capital where it is not now privileged to provide capital. Mr. PuCIN5KI. Wasn't the FHA program established for the very reason of providing insurance on these close loans? Isn't FHA really a risk program to provide insurance for loans where conventional institutions for various reasons, legal or otherwise, can't grant these loans? Now, we are suggesting a third program. Are we saying that FHA is playing it too close to the chest and we now have to have a third superrisk program. Is that what you are saying? Dr. BIsHoP. You are quite right; FRA was set up to provide credit where credit could not be obtained through our traditional financial institutions. But we have, and I am not sure where these limitations or F}IA's lending authority got established, but we have established limitations on FHA's lending authority which precluded the organiza- tion from granting loans to this particular type, this particular stratum of our society. Of course, FHA has no authority for grants, FHA's funds are all loans. They are loans with interest and are expected to be repaid. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. PUCINSKI. Certainly. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Dr. Bishop, would it be helpful in title III and, of course, in my book the same thing would be true of title IV, to give some discretion to the administrator to increase the amount of the loan? In other words, $1,500 is a relatively small amount. It seems to me that if $2,000- Mr. PUOINSKI. These are grants we are talking about. Mr. ROOSEVELT. I beg your pardon, grants. Increase the grant to a somewhat more substantial amount where it `would really do the job instead of putting him on the basis of a small grant and then have to supplement it with a loan, the loan, `however, being on a very question- able financial basis, would it not be better in both those titles to just make up your mind that whoever administers this-and you are going to guess wrong in sOme of them, but at least the need is there and that it was a wise investment to take the chance to think of it more in terms of grants than loans? Dr. BISHOP. I feel a little uncomfortable about the limits that we have on the lending authority, at least in title III. If we are going to look at this- Mr. PuCIN5KI. You are speaking of the $2,500? Dr. BISHOP. $2,500. That is not much money. If we think we are going to farm with $2,500 today, we are kidding ourselves and we are PAGENO="0202" 918 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 not going to operate any other kind of business with this limitation on capital. It would suit my taste better if we looked upon title III as a means of bridging the gap between the current circumstances of the people the title is designed to serve and the current lending authority of organizations like FHA. What is this gap? Let us close this gap. It may mean that we need to go beyond the $2,500 level to do it. Mr. ROOSEVELT. This is basically true with title IV because what you are trying to do is to close the gap for the fellow who can't get it and he can go to SBA to get the loan. Dr. Bisnop. That is right. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Pucinski? Mr. Pudn~sK1. What is your feeling about the $1,500 grant? We have a $1,500 grant, then we have a $2,500 loan on top of that and then we have a deal where a family may qualify for one of these rede-- veloped family farms. Now, these three things in unison, you feel that is still not enough? Dr. BISHOP. My figures are a little .rusty on the investment in agriculture but I `believe we will find if we look at figures that an investment per farm worker now runs something like $20,000 to $25,000 on a commercial farm. So, we are talking about real small amounts of money. If we are going to have economically viable units we have to pull together- enough resources for people to make a respectable living on our farms. Mr. Pucn~sxi. Would we be wiser then, as a committee here, to take" a look at the existing FHA program on the farm, in the Department of Agriculture, where they now have a program, for giving loans, and see what is the technique they are using now and see whether or not the criteria for awarding these loans is too rigid and make our changes' there rather than fool around with these $1,500 grants which you feel are really not very big, if I understand your testimony correctly, and also phase in this proposed $2,500 loan program into the existing FE[A program for the farmer? Would this be an area for this committee to explore in your judgment? Dr. BISHOP. As I indicated a moment ago, it wouJd suit my taste to look upon title III as bridging this gap, whatever it is. Maybe you should have a $3,500, $4,500 limit on it; maybe it should be $1,500. Maybe the current lending authority does not reach this group at all and can't reach it at all until they get-maybe grants are necessary to get enough assets to help these people qualify for loans under current authority. I think these ought to be geared together, yes, which I guess, is a way of saying yes to your question~ that you ought to look" at them in terms of whether these two programs, viewed simultane- ously, can serve the needs of the people. Mr. PUCINSKI. Would you also recommend that this committee give any consideration to putting some sort of age limit, minimum age limit' on the grant and loan program in view of your testimony that if they" stay on the farm until they are 25, the chances are pretty good they are going to stay on the farm? If I understood you correctly earlier, you said that those who leave the farm usually are in the younger- brackets. Dr. BISHOP. That is correct. PAGENO="0203" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 919 Mr. PucrNsKI. Would it be then perhaps wise for this committee to put some sort of age criteria so that we are not wasting the money? In other words, it does not make any sense to me, if your figures are correct and if I understand your testimony correctly, perhaps I don't, it does not make much sense to me to give a young fellow $1,500, $2,500 long-range loans if you feel he is not going to stay on the farm. On the other hand, if a man is beyond 25, he is now bedding down for a lifetime of some sort of breadwinning forhis family-if the prognosis that he is going to stay on the farm is correct. Then, perhaps that) is the fellow we ought to help because the chances are if we help him he will make good. Is there any merit to that? Dr. BISHOP. Yes. I think it has a great deal of merit. I think it has merit in that if we are looking at young people who are retrainable, who could prepare themselves for nonf arm jobs, or who could do a competent job as commercial farm operators, we ought to ask our- selves how we can get enough resources for this young person to make a success in commercial farming or we should not encourage him to stay there. Mr. PucIxsKI. Mr. Bishop, I want to thank you for your very fine testimony. You certainly have been frank in analyzing this bill. I think we are fortunate to have had your testimony. Thank you very much. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Dr. Bishop, I want to say to you that you may not have had the motion picture cameras and all the others around you, as have some of the high title officials, but you have given the com- mittee more information that will help us in judging titles II and III, possibly I also, than has probably anybody who has appeared before us. I want to tha.nk you very much for your cooperation. Dr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ROOSEVELT. The gentleman from Georgia has requested that a statement by the Honorable Harllee Branch, Jr., be inserted at this point in the record. Without objection it is sO ordered. (The statement referred to~ follows:) STATEMENT OF HARLLEE BRANCH, JR., ATLANTA, GA. My comments are limited tO titles II and III of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (H.R. 10443 and S. 2642). I have not had an opportunity to study the ~omplicäted and far-reaching provisions of the other titles. Insofar as my section of the country is concerned, the principal focus of poverty is in the rural areas. This explains my special interest in titles II and III. The problem of rural poverty varies in intensity and even in nature from county to county and from State to State. It is undoubtedly less acute in my native State of Georgia, and in neighboring Alabama, than in some other sections of the region known as Appalachia. But even in Alabama and Georgia, there are numerous persons residing in rural areas whose skills have been rendered obsolete and unsalable by technological changes. Others are illiterate. Still others, despite good character, native intelligence, basic competence, and a will to work, are being forced to lead static and sterile lives simply because they lack the capital resources required to translate their energy and ambition into gainful activities. Two quite contrary assumptions-both of them erroneous-have made us hesi- tate in this country to launch an all-out assault on poverty. One has been the assumption that somehow, someday, as national prosperity increases, poverty will either disappear or cease to be a problem of significant proportions. The other, and conflicting, assumption has been that no effective solution is possible. "The poor we have had with us always," it is said-the intended implication being PAGENO="0204" 920 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 that the problem is simply too big and too complicated for ordinary men and their governments to deal with. We must not forget that we have also had disease, mischief, and madness with us from the beginning of time; yet we have not hesi- tated to commit ourselves and our resources to the treatment and elimination of those ills, and the results have been most heartening. Surely, a nation like ours, which has contributed billions to the relief of poverty and the enhancement of economic opportunity in other lands, will not ignore its obligation to the poor and underprivileged among its own people~ Some will object to the proposed legislation on the basis that it may spawn another gigantic Federal activity. I sympathize with the concern of these people. I am a firm believer in the proposition that, wherever possible, the solution of personal and community problems should be left to individual effort and local and State initiative. However, there are some problems which cannot be effec- tively solved on an individual or local basis alone. In my opinion, the hard core of rural poverty which exists in this country constitutes such a problem, and I do not believe we will be able to either control or to make a lasting dent in it without the combined and cooperative efforts of our entire citizenry and every segment of government, local, State, and Federal. * The pending legislation seems to me to recognize the desirability of primary dependence upon local and State initiative. It provides that the Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity shall assist and cooperate with State and local agencies in developing and financing programs aimed at alleviating the plight of both unemployed and unemployable adults, and in providing their children with the basic educational training and work experience needed to assure that they will not become a permanently. lost generation. Some States, including Georgia, have established area vocational training programs to take care of the undereducation of rural inhabitants. These programs are excellent and should not be sacrificed to Federal effort. Therefore, the Congress should insist that programs, authorized by titles II and III be employed to supplement and strengthen, not to replace, the programs of private organizations and State and local governments; and appropriate safeguards should be written into the legislation to assure that this fundamental principle will not be nullified in the administration of the act. In the past, there have been instances when the specific and limited objectives of the Congress have been ignored, disregarded, and distorted by administrative personnel so as to convert soundly conceived programs into serious threats to our free enterprise economy and dual system of government. Every precaution should be taken in the pending legi5lation against the possibility of such administrative abuses. The final draft of this legislation should contain no language, or ambiguity, which might lead to boon- doggling or to the creation of instrumentalities of unwarranted federalization. The electric utility companies with which I am associated have long been convinced that no section of the Nation will achieve its full economic growth so long as pockets of persistent poverty continue to exist. Something must be done to encourage and assist the rural worker and his family, displaced by farm mechanization and farm consolidation, to find gainful employment in other places or in other lines of industrial and commercial activity. A dying com- munity spreads its virus to other communities, either through the migration of displaced workers or through the excessive burdens which, in their idleness, they impose upon the general economy. The elimination of poverty, therefore, chal- lenges not only our compassion but our enlightened self-interest as well. During the past 20 years, our companies have spent millions of dollars on area and community development programs designed to encourage new industry and to spread it into rural areas where economic opportunity has dried up. We have sought to cooperate with local groups (public and private) in upgrad- ing educational and vocational training, in improving health and recreational programs, and in enriching the cultural and spiritual climate of our rural areas and small towns. These programs have demonstrated that poverty and despair, like other human ills, will yield to preventive and corrective action. They have shown that, while no attack on poverty and economic dislocation can hope to succeed without local initiative and direction, nevertheless, since the root causes of poverty are rarely local, broader based programs are necessary in most cases. Above all, the programs have demonstrated that to be successful, an attack on poverty must be persistent and sustained. In my opinion, the supplemental Federal assistance envisioned by titles II and III, if properly administered, will avoid those shortcomings. * PAGENO="0205" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 921 The poverty problem in rural areas involves two classes of people. First, are adults who are so advanced in age, so physically incapacitated, or so limited in educational background and basic industrial aptitudes as to be beyond any realistic hope of rehabilitation. No one likes to admit that such unemployables exist, but their existence is an irrefutable fact of our times. And no poverty program, local or national, can hope to succeed unless it recognizes that, as respects these people, the emphasis must be on ministering to their basic human needs, not on rehabilitation or retraining. Theirs is a relief problem for which Federal, State and local programs already exist. These programs should be strengthened and improved rather than duplicated by new programs. The second group consists of boys and girls and those adults who are young enough to be trained, and basically competent enough to take their places in a competitive, industrialized society. These are the people on whose education, training and rehabilitation the resources and efforts of the poverty program should be concentrated. We must see that they are made literate and that they receive such additional academic and vocational training, and fundamental work experience, as will qualify them for useful and productive employment. While their education and training should be primarily attuned to the requirements of their local economy, nevertheless it should not be overlooked that mobility of workers and trainees must also be encouraged if they are to achieve maximum usefulness to themselves and the national economy. Since the training or retraining of people for nonexistent job opportunities will only increase their frustration and, in the long run, defeat the purposes of the proposed legislation, we must recognize that an enlargement of job oppor~ tunities is indispensable to any permanent solution. In my opinion, the creation of new job opportunities is and should continue to be the responsibility of the private sector of the economy. The role of the Government should be to provide suitable incentives for, and to eliminate unwarranted barriers to, such expan- sion. However, it may be necessary for the Federal Government to provide some financial assistance to individuals and local businesses in rural areas. For example a man who has the desire and ability to successfully farm, or to en- gage in farm-oriented activities, should not be precluded from doing so merely because he lacks capital and credit resources. The pending bill specifies that grants to low-income families shall not exceed $1,500 and that loans to such families shall not exceed $2,500 in the aggregate at any one time, and that such loans shall not be made if the family is qualified to obtain funds by loan under other Federal programs. These provisions should be strictly adhered to to avoid the creation of another perpetual welfare pro~ gram. It is noted that under the proposed bill, grants could be made to low-income farm families to enable them to "participate in cooperative associations, or to finance nonagricultural enterprises." In my opinion, it would be inequitable for the Federal Government, through such grants, to assist individuals or groups to set up nonagricultural or cooperative enterprises which would compete with existing businesses, offering the same services without governmental subsidy. Likewise, I question the necessity of direct loans from the Federal Government to individuals, families or cooperatives. In my opinion, if the loans are justified, they should be made through existing banking and financial institutions with Federal assistance limited to loan guarantees in necessary and appropriate situations. We have had experience with such Federal guarantees in the past, and there is no reason to suppose that they would not work in this instance, thereby obviating the possibility of the Federal Government becoming further involved in competition with the private sector of the economy. A bill aimed at eliminating poverty certainly should not become the vehicle for expanding the number and activities of tax exempt and governmentally sub- sidized cooperatives. A cooperative should have some justification for existence beyond the mere avoidance of taxes and the utilization of Government subsidies. Certainly, the Government should not be put in the posture of favoring one type of business organization over another; and the proposed legislation should be modified to eliminate such discrimination. Finally, I would question the wisdom and desirability of programs looking toward the acquisition of rural real estate which will be subdivided and resold, with the aid of Federal financing, to persons desiring such lands for occupancy as family-size farms. Post-Civil War history in the South showed that even the gift of "40 acres and a mule" provided no assurance of freedom from poverty and despair. Family-size farms are disappearing in this country because such PAGENO="0206" 922 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 units, under modern farming conditions, are simply not economic. If experi- enced and educated farmers are being forced to abandon such marginal farming operations, no useful purpose wifi be served by settling less competent persons on little farms. In my opinion, Federal fundS should be used to assist existing rural `landowners to acquire the machines, fertilizers, and other farming aids necessary to effectively utilize their lands, thereby perhaps providing farm jobs for members of their own families as well as their neighbors; and to educate `and train the already displaced farmer and his family for other kinds of employment. When modified in the respects mentioned above, I `believe that the objectives envisioned by titles II and III would be more effectively achieved, thereby combating the hard core of rural poverty now existing in many rural areas which, if not alleviated, could foredoom successive generations of our rural youth to lives `of failure and frustration. Mr. ROOSEVELT. The committee will stand adjourned until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 3 :`20 p.m., the committee was recessed, to reconvene itt 9 a.m., Friday. April 17, 1964.) PAGENO="0207" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 FRIDAY, APRIL 17, 1964 HousE or REPRESENTATIVES, AD Hoc Sui~coMMITn~E ON THE WAR ON POVERTY PROGRAM OF THE COMMITTEE ONEDUOAT[ON AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The ad hoc subcommittee met at 9 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 429, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Carl D. Perkins presiding. Present: Representatives Perkins, Landrum, and Goodell. Present also:. Representatives Brademas, Scott, Gibbons, Gill, and Bell. Staff members present: Dr. Deborah Wolfe, education chief; Leon Abramson, chief counsel for labor-management; Charles Radcliffe, minority counsel for education. Mr. PERKINS. The committee will come to order. A quorum is present. We are fortunate to have as our first witness this morning Governor Terry Sanford, a distinguished Governor from North Carolina and, to my way of thinking, one of the most progressive and aggressive Gov- ernors in the whole country. I noted last year when we were considering the vocational ecluca- tion program that North Carolina had made tremendous progress. The effort that North Carolina was making in the area of job training was amazing to me, especially as compared with some of the other southern States. To my way of thinking, Governor Sanford, that speaks well of you. I think your reputation in this respect is well known throughout the crnmtry. We are delighted to have you here testifying in behalf of such im- portant legislation. You may proceed in any way you prefer. STATEMENT OF HON TERRY SANFORD, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Governor SANFORD. Thank you very much. I might say that your former Governor, Bert Combs, said we were making progress in North Carolina because the first lady was from Kentucky. Mr. PERKINS. I am pleased that Kentucky has found a way to claim your success. Proceed. . Governor SANFORD. I suppose it has l)een suggested that I testify on the Economics Opportunity Act, not necessarily because I am in favor of it, which I am, but because we hitve had some experience in planning some of these programs over the past year and a half in 923 PAGENO="0208" 924 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 North Carolina. I think we have run into what we have run into nationally. I think some of the problems that we have faced-and we hope we have gotten around most of them by now-are the same problems that will be faced in any kind of national program. One of the first problems is that a great many people are simply unaware of the fact that there is any poverty problem in this affluent society. As the citizens ride to work on new bypasses and thruways, they fail to see just what is involved. In the Christmas of 1962 I was at my mother's home in Laurinburg preparing to write a document telling the people what a great job I had done during the past 2 years as a kind of New Year's statement. I changed my mind while I was there. The tenor of my New Year's statement was tha.t we had not nearly begun to fulfill the responsibilities of government. Because I happened to make it a point to see some people and visit some places that I had not been to for a long time and I reported to them a little girl who stopped by my mother's house, a little girl of about 10 or 11, to say that they were moving. Her father had recently been out of prison. He had not been able to get and keep a job; they could not pay the rent on the house. They were moving, but they did not know where they were moving to. Also, a little bit later that day I saw a little boy whose father had been somewhat of an alcoholic, had thopped out of school when he was in the second or third grade, who stopped by the house as he was going downtown to affairs that the Jaycees were holding for Christ- mas gifts, and he was hoping to get a pair of shoes, because on that freezing Christmas Eve day he was walking with shoes that left the soles of his feet on the ground. A little bit later that week, I had an opportunity to talk to a half dozen young men on the streets of Raleigh who had not finished school, and somehow in our school system-which is about the same as school systems across the country-had failed to get any kind of spark of ambition or any kind of insight on what life could be, a.nd had failad to grasp the opportunity and in fact, I thought, had failed to even understand from anybody why training, why education, why skills were important. I also attended the Christmas party at the women's prison, and I saw so many people who had strayed from the proper paths. I wondered why, and what things we might have done that would have prevented that, and I wondered what we might do to prevent their ever returning again. So I wrote to our State employees and our people a message that we had not begun to fulfill the compassionate side of government respon- sibility and that there were many, many things that needed to be done. Then I had an opportunity to visit and speak at most all of the schools in the State, because I promised to visit them all and talk to the children. I remembered seeing a little girl who was typical of a lot of little girls and little boys. Usually when a Goveriior goes to the school, the children flock around like he is a two-headed bear or some kind of freak; they are anxious to see. But this little girl was hanging back and timid and didn't seem to quite fit. After I left, I had one of my friends in that section of the State look into the matter, and here was a little girl who had come from a home where she had been a bright, singing, happy little girl, but from a home that had PAGENO="0209" ECONOMIC OPPORTITh~ITY ACT OF 1964 925 never seen a book. They had no idea, no comprehension at all of how you could take a piece of paper with some marks on it and get any- thing of value from it. In fact, they didn't even have any idea of why you should try to get anything of value. So, when she came to school, as some children coming from disadvantaged homes, she came into a totally strange world, a world she could not comprehend and a world she did not already know something about. I am satisfied, like so many coming from disadvantaged areas, that this little girl, unless she gets some kind of special attention, will simply go through two or three more grades of that strange world, failing to grasp the opportunities, failing to get anything out of it, and ultimately drop out, and ultimately because of dropping out and because of failing to understand, in her turn to become not a child of poverty but in her turn a parent of poverty. So it was in that cycle, of poverty, children caught up by these many disadvantages, that we wanted to try to break. We analyzed a couple of years ago what we called the dimensions of poverty in North Caro- lina. They are somewhat like the dimensions of poverty across the Nation, except they are worse. We took the figure-because I don't know how to measure poverty and I don't know whether poverty is 18 percent or 27 percent or 12 percent; but it does not make any dif- ference which percentage you use, there is far too much of it, and there is something there to be done~ In measuring poverty and trying to find out what we are talking about, we discovered-no new dis- covery; but as we attempted to define it, it came out this way-that these were multiproblems; there was no cycle problem, and therefore no single solution. And therefore anything we did would have to be done in a comprehensive way. These were the people of disad- vantage, deprivation, disability, and people who lacked education and lacked skills and therefore had unsteady employment or unemploy- ment, or low income. For the most part they were people who lived in crowded, dilap~ idated housing; their physical health, many times, was poor; and all together they were caught up in a web of interwoven disadvantage. Then we attempted to measure it by dollars, because this indicates one criteria, not necessarily the only and not necessarily always reli- able, but a pretty good indication. First, we took the $4,000 family income figure which was set by the Conference on Economic Progress as being the level below which you could consider a family living in conditions of disadvantage of poverty We found that 50 percent of the families of North Carolina fell in that category, which amounts to about $75 a week for a family, and we felt maybe that a more real- istic measure would be to reduce that to $3,000, because the costs were not all that they should be or are in other places. We took the $3,000 figure and found that 37 percent of our people were living on some $58 a week When you start trying to divide $58 among the needs of a family, of parents and the children, it does not go very far. Then, just to see what our problem was, we took the figure of $2,000 as an annual family income, and found that 24 percent of our people fell into this category, and I think that is about $39 a week. .` Then, to move it down one notch, we measured it at a~ thousand dol lars, and found that 11 percent of our people fell in this category, and 3i-847-~4---~pt.2~-----~14 PAGENO="0210" 926 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 we found that it did not make much difference whether you were look- ing at one of the cities where we measured high per capita income and things looked good, when you looked at the national statistics or when you looked at country sections that were obviously rural, moun- tain, backward, neglected, nevertheless you found the conditions of poverty measured by any of these things you wanted to use as a measure. In the three largest counties we found that 20 percent fell in our definition of poverty. That is not good, it is not bad; it is about what the national average is, but it amounted to 26,000 people in these 3 counties who were living in conditions of disadvantage and bringing their children up in conditions of severe disadvantage. Then, in some of our smaller counties, it measured as high as 70 percent. The smallest county with 70 percent had about 700 people who fell into this category. So, whether it is in a rich area, an afflu- ent area, a city booming with prosperity and new industry, as Char- lotte, WTinston~Salern, or whether it is back in the country, we still have the problem not only brought about by many reasons found in all places, but it was a statewide proposition and a statewide program. We started talking with the heads of our various departments and agencies and Federal agencies. We started talking with several foundations, and we adopted this philosophy that I expressed in set- ting up the North Carolina ftmd, which is a private agency sponsored by the State government, supported by private foundation funds, that I had come to believe that charity and relief are not the best answers to human suffering; that instead of providing for people, we ought to attempt to find ways to help them work out of their situations of poverty and become self-respecting and self-supporting, contributing something not only to themselves, but contributing something to soci- ety and to all of the people. We thought maybe the best way to do was to look at all the various services, all the programs, health and education and welfare and em- ployment; and we came to the conclusion that written into the Eco- nomic Opportunity Act, that the program was not enough; that we needed to look beyond the fragmented programs. We needed to look at the individual and the child and family and the breadwinner and what are his particular problems, because no one solution and no one agency had the resources to get at those problems. - We set up a private foundation. We invited the communities to join with us. We received $7 million from the Ford Foundation and an equal amount of money from the Reynolds-Babcock Foundation in North Carolina, and we started, at least we have started working, planning, and planning and organizing and designing the kind of program that will gear exactly into the President's program that is now before Congress. I would like to comment just briefly on the provisions of this bifi, becanse I think it is good and well designed, and I think it gets at the key to the problem and I think it has the answer wrapped up in it. And I think that answer is that we are going to concern ourselves with people more than programs, and we are going to look to people and then to how the programs might help them. As I read it, the key to this program before you is education. It is education through special schools, and education through corn- PAGENO="0211" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 927 munity efforts; and I think that is the best answer to doing something about the children of poverty. I like the Job Corps, and I think it will work. I like the work- training program for unemployed youth, and I think that will work. I like the work-study program, because all of these programs of train- ing, character building, we hope are tied in with education, with the `future, and with some motivation, because out here is some promise of what is available if they apply themselves. I think maybe one of the weaknesses in the CCC program was that this simply was a job, an occupation, something to take them off the streets and employ them usefully, but it didn't have much promise. The key here is that there is promise at the end. If you work and train you are going to have a chance. Now I have been asked, "Well, you have vocational training schools and you have good programs in most of your high schools. We have these programs, why do we need these?" Well, we need them, first of all, for whatever reason, because many young people simply have not taken advantage of what was there for them. Then, too, I think it goes back to the child in the mountain school who never quite understood why education was important; and maybe we failed back there several years ago as we failed to get that message across. But whatever the reasons, we have these young people who need the training and who are going to be a burden on society for the rest of their lives unless we provide a way to give them that training, where there is hope and where there is proper motivation. We have tried with the ABA an~I the Manpower Development Act, three pilot projects that we call "Operation Chance." One at Lincolnton, which now has graduated its first class, which we think has been very successful and marks the path of how we can use these programs. WTe have learned one thing that indicates again that it is not just enough to just have the, program, but you need a special effort, again a process of education, if you will. Because we found you could not just announce in the newspapers that. "Operation Second Chance" was in being and that if you wanted to apply and wanted training and wanted to catch up because you dropped out of school, you could come and sign up. We found that we had to go out and seek them and explain it to them, and lead them by the hand and bring them in for technical skill, but while they were doing it we the first. time in their lives, why education was important and why this had some promise for them. Of the first 60 we brought in in that manner, 56 have graduated in some degree of skill. We also found it was important not only to bring them in for technical skill, but while they were, doing it we needed t.o give them same basic educat.ion; education in reading and writing, education in arithmetic, education in various other funda- mental subjects. But I think that this is the answer. Here we are attacking it, not only on a single-county basis, not here and there, but through this bill we can make a massive attack on the problem of uneducated young men and young girls who need to be led by the hand, need to be shown how education can mean something to them, and need to be given t.he best opportunities of catching up and getting that educat.ion. PAGENO="0212" 928 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 I have looked very carefully at the Job Corps suggestions, the work- training, the work-study, and I believe all of these things frOm our limited experience will do the job in catching these people up and show why it is important in bringing them together. Then we have been very gratified in our community action programs. These community action programs that we are handling through the North Carolina fund are precisely the type of community actions sug- gested in the bill. What it does, it seems to me, is to take a look at all the programs, all the agencies, and all the resources for helping people to help themselves, and then sets up the kind of plan and machinery which will tie together, not at the top where they are already tied together, but tied together at the bottom-all of these programs, put- ting the emphasis again on the individual. We had $14 million, but that was not a lot of money when you thought about 41/2 million people across the State. But I want to show you just what the response was, because I think as we look beyond the Federal Government and to the State governments and `to the local governments, and as we call on the States to do their share and take the position of leadership in that program; and as we call on local leaders to look at the problems within their communities, I think it is a legitimate question: Will this work? Will they take part? Can we have something that is effective, if it is not a massive Federal program directed, controlled, carried out totally from here? Will the people cooperate and pick it up? We issued last fall a little red book that set up the guidelines of community action programs. We suggested that we, as a North Caro- lina' fund, could sponsor about 10; and we suggested that community leaders get together and that they look at their problems of poverty and that they define them. We felt that, even if they didn't get a project carried out through the fund, that this would be a helpful thing and a wholesome thing; that we would have local people' all across North Carolina say, "Well, why do we have this poverty, what are our shortcomings, and what do we need tO do?" We thought we would get a couple of dozen and we would have dif~ ficulty in explaining to some people, "Well, we simply can't take your project on, but you already have profited and there are things you can do without our `help," which, indeed, there are. We gave them until the first week in February to get their proposals in. To our surprise, and pleasant surprise at that, we received 51 proposals covering 66 of our 100 counties, far more than 85 percent of the total population. I think this is a good sign and a good indication that people across the country do see the problems of poverty and are concerned about them and do want to support them and define them and correct them. This has been the most rewarding single episode of our efforts, that so many people, literally thousands of leaders across the State, have un- derstood what we were tnlking about and `have joined it and are at- tempt to define it and get on and do something about it. Now we can help some of them. We cannot help nearly all of them. Some of them can do it by themselves; but most of them will need some kind of outside assistance. `Therefore, title II, which provides the urban- and rural-action programs, is designed to get at this need- this desire-and to get at the fulfillment of these efforts that I am sure are available, ready to go, all across the Nation. PAGENO="0213" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 929 Then I think the rural poverty section-title ITT-ties in with this, because many of these counties are rural counties. Many of them have suggested the kind of loans. None have suggested grants, but I am sat- isfied grants and loans working together would be very effective. We have in these proposals the improvement of cooperative farm efforts. We have in these proposals assistance in providing nonfarm ~tctivities on farming land. We have in these proposals suggested that ire sponsor or locally they sponsor cooperative associations for produc- tion and for marketing products of the farm. So, right here we have ideas already from all across our State- ideas I am sure similar to ideas available all across the Nation, as to what can be done with title III. Title IV is the development of jobs; development of small business; the development of new business and industries. We haven't had a great deal of experience in this except to realize that, through our vocational rehabilitation programs where such funds are available, ~that this is very effective, because sometimes a few thousand dollars can put a person in business and help him along. It is the kind of loan that the GI bill participated in; a loan that is not always so good that a bank will take it up, and a loan that requires a little more faith sometimes than a bank has. So I think that this could be used very effectively. There are ade- quato safeguards written into it, so that it would not be a giveaway program. It would tie in with the community overall planning con'- mittee projects. So, I think that would be very helpful to the total program. Then I am sure the HEW officials have commented on the experimen- tal pilot demonstrations under title V, I believe, and I am satisfied that that kind of program can be effective. I do not know what it in- eludes-I am sure they can tell you that-but I do know that we al- ready are using-just started, just proposed, under the experimental program-what we call community coordinators. I think of them as representing all the government, all the State government, all the Federal Goveimment, in attempting to tie together all of these agencies and all of these services so that they look not at their program and not nt their statistics and not whether or not they are taking care of so many people, so that they will get the habit of looking at this individ- iial. And if he comes into the employment office and if they look on the card and he does not fit the particular specifications, that they simply will not file it away, as they now do, but they will say, "Well, why does he not fill the bill for some job?" And if it is necessary for him to get some health service, who is going to tell him, unless we do? If he needs additional training, who is going to tell him about some vocational training, unless we do? So we hope we can tie together in that way, and this I think is one ~of the experimental projects anticipated under that part of the bill. In any event, we have found that people are concerned and that people are interested and that people are ready to go and do something about poverty. And I think this is so in every single section of our State, as evidenced by these proposals which come from every congressional listrict and every area of North Carolina. PAGENO="0214" 930 ECONOMIC OPPORTTTh~ITY ACT OF 1964 When we announced, last September, these grants and the establish- ment of this fund, I was asked by the newspaper to make a concise statement as to what the North Carolina Fund was. Another way: What is North Carolina's interest in doing something about poverty? So I wrote a few lines that I would like to read now, because I think they apply to what you are doing. I said: This is a time of plenty in North Carolina, and we are thankful. There are surpluses and profits and monetary gains. We have never known such pros- perity, and we have never enjoyed such leisure and recreation and the pleasures of the good life. Our schools have never been better supported and more effec- tive. But all is not well amid the pleasures, the plenty, and the progress. In North Carolina there remain tens of thousands whose family income is so low that daily subsistence is always in doubt. There are tens of thousands who go to bed hungry and get up hungry and go to school hungry. There are tens of thousands of young people who have no skills and no present likelihood to get a skill. There are tens of thousands who live in houses, a blight on the land- scape, and indecent for humanity. There are tens of thousands drawn into schools from homes where school is not understood and not encouraged. There are tens of thousands who will never find encouragement to finish schooL There are tens of thousands whose dreams will die. Some of their poverty is self- imposed and some of it is undeserved. All of it withers the spirit of children who neither imposed it nor deserve it. These are the children of poverty who. tomorrow, will become the parents of poverty. We hope to break this cycle of poverty. We will experiment and seek to draw together the forces of organi- zation, government, education; to find the causes and provide the new oppor- tunities and to make North Carolina the place where the strong help the weak and the weak grow strong. That is what the North Carolina Fund is about and that is what the President's poverty program is about. Thank you very much. Mr. PERKINS. Since you came in, Governor Sanford-and I intro- duced you-two distinguished representatives from your great State have come in. An individual who can get to the committee room at 8 :45, as you did this morning, likes to work, and I think that is an outstanding attribute. We have with us here. my good North Carolina friend on the. Sub- committee when last year we wrote the Vocational Education Act.. He made a significant contribution. I refer to Representative Ralph Scott from your great State. Another distinguished member of the North Carolina delegation is a chairman of a. committee, Congress- man Bonner, chairman of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. Governor, I know these gentlemen want to welcome you here. I first call on Mr. Scott. STATEMENT OF HON. RALPH L SCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS ThO1~ THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Mr. Scorr. Governor Sanford, I am sorry that I was unavoidably delayed to the extent that I could not get here at the beginning of your fine statement. I want to join other members of the committee and our entire delegation in welcoming you to Washington to testify before this committee. I want to congratulate and commend you, too, for your interest in this particular legislation and for the fine contributions you have made in ~orth Carolina to the beginning of such a program as is contemplated by part of this act. I believe you have probably made more progress-if I may brag a little on our State-than any C-over- PAGENO="0215" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 931 nor in the country. You have taken more interest in this type of legis- lation. I feel that you have made a wonderful contribution. Thank you. Governor SANFORD. I certainly appreciate those kmd words, Con- gressman Scott. 1 might say that we are certainly very proud of our Congressman and the many contributions that lie has made. I will have to say I don't deserve any credit for being here early. It is just that we had a tailwind coming up this morning. Mr. PERKINS. Congressman Bonner. STATEMENT OP HON. HERBERT C. BONNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP NORTH CAROLINA Mr. BONNER. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to sit here and hear the distinguished Governor from my State. I am ashamed of myself. I must congratulate your committee oii your early-to-work attitude that you have here. I took it for granted that your committee would meet at 10 o'clock. I want to apologize to my Governor. I am not an early bird. I am a late bird. I stay around here late in the afternoon, but I don't get down here so early in the morning, because that is the only time I have to be with my wife is in the morning. Mr. Chairman, we have been proud of the government in the State of North Carolina. We have been fortunate for now more than 60 years to have outstanding government in our State, to have chief ex- ecutives who have shown an iiiterest in the people, an interest iii the forward progress of the State. They have been all splendid, fine, ~.ble men. The present chief executive exemplifies it to the highest degree. He has brought progress to our State. He has shown a tremendous interest in the rank and file of the people. 1-lie has brought new thought, and lie is a progressive, able leader. The bill that you have before you and some other things that I have seen here in Congress were some of his brain children. I didn't hear all of his testimony, but I knew lie began to wrestle with this subject some years. ago, some time ago. I shall read his full statement with a great deal of interest and pride. I am honored and pleased, always, to be in his company. I am very proud of him. I have done everything I could to assist him as well as other Governors in my State in their administration. I wish it were so that we could keep him longer than the one more year or possibly one more year that he has. I am deli~lited to have this opportunity to be in your committee room, Mr. Chairman. Governor SANFORD. Thank you, Ralph Scott and Herbert Bonner. You have made my trip worth while. Mr. PERKINS, Governor Sanford, again I wish to join with your distmguished representatives from North Carolina in commending you for the terrific progress and leadership that you have given your great State. Briefly, since we have two Appalachian Governors who will appear here, one other besides yourself, just how this legislation will help in the eastern Kentucky mountain region? I know this is not a cureall, and in no way duplicates or obviates the necessity for the Appalachian program now being developed by the President. Governor SANFORD. I think the Appalachian program gets at an area that needs more intense attention than the rest of the Nation, and PAGENO="0216" 932 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OP 1964 I think it has some basic problems that aren't simply the problems of poverty that you find in normal rural areas and in the normal urban areas. I should think that the poverty program could be very effective and very helpful in the Appalachian region. In fact, we have proposals and community projects moving in the northwestern tier of Yancey, Mitchell, and Avery, which my Congressmen would be familiar with, and Buncombe and Macon and Polk, in these mountain counties. Now we have problems there of education. Mr. PruKINs. Right on that point-and I did not intend to inter- rupt you-but in attracting industry to your State haven't you found it most difficult, without training programs ~ Governor S~roim. Yes, I don't think there is any question about that. What we have been attempting to do and I think what the Ap- palachian program does, we need to open that country up. Now if you look historically, the people who settled the Appalachian were the most rugged of the first settlers. They were the people who had the pioneering courage and the determination, and they are the people who wanted to push forward. So they were of the finest of the early set- tlers. Why did they get caught up in this? They got caught up in it because that country is still too coiifined in an age when transporta- tion is so important.. I think the key to the Appalachian program-there are several, but the principal one is that it wifi help us open up the country. We won't be required to measure the need for a road simply on how many people use it, but we also can add another factor, how many people will it help, how will it help develop the country? Mr. PERKINS. Retraining and jobs, of course are essential but all of these provide only a part of the answer. We desperately need to provide a massive road program and public works program to make the area accessible to the mainstream of the national economy. Governor SANFORD. I think that is so. I think both of these things tie together very well. I think retraining is absolutely essential, which was one of the first considerations when we started talking about the Appalachian program several years ago. Retraining or training in the first instance although it might be called retraining, they missed out the first time. Moving technical schools in. It has been very difficult in the normal setup of education to get much support for tech- nical education in these counties that were so very poor and where the population was so scattered. All of these things will help us take education to these areas where people ca.n take advantage of it, and I think it will have a- lot to do with industrial development. Mr. PERKINS. We have wasted our human resources too long. We have the facilities available. We can enroll these young men who are now literally and figuratively "on the streets" in conservation camps. There are military installations that are not being utilized, that could be used. We are foolish and wasteful if we don't proceed in this direction. Governor SANFORD. I think so. I think particularly so far as con- servation is concerned that we will find in all States recreational areas, I know there are many things we can do on the outer banks. Mr. PEnxrns. That is an area where you have made terrific prog- *ress. PAGENO="0217" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF* 1964 933 Governor SANFORD. There are areas in the mountain areas, the worlç training, the second category, should fit very well in those areas help- ing to develop what is going to be more and more in demand, and that- is recreation, both public and private. Mr. PERKINS. There are thousands of youngsters that you could put to work in your State under work training programs and in posi- tions that will continue to go unfulifiled. Am I correct in that statement? Governor SANFORD. I think so. As a matter of fact, I think we will find that we have far more people than we can get around to under the present provisions, but I think we will not go lacking for people who need the training. Mr. PERKINS. I have one further question, Governor Sanford. Can you visualize the community actions program doing something in the way of repairing deteriorated housing, which is another great problem we have in Appalachia; poor education, poor housing, both of which contribute to a sense of hopelessness? Governor SANFORD. Yes, there have been two or three good ex- amples of that around the Nation, of how that has been done. We have our people looking at it. We have not done much about it our- selves, except these community projects, several of them put a great deal of emphasis on the cleanup and paintup and fixup programs of various neighborhoods. All of them contemplate the development of a more wholesome neighborhood, part of which is housing. I would like to see us do some other things in housing that we have not done, that this program does not envision; but I think in any event here is a start to developing more wholesome housing. Mr. PERKINS. Do something in the rural areas and improve com- munity facilities in rural areas? Governor SANFORD. Yes. Mr. PERKINS. I have taken too much time, but you have been a very interesting witness, Governor Sanford. Mr. Landrum. Mr. LANDRUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor, throughout these hearings, which have now been in proc- ess for about 3 weeks, we have had eloquent statements from Cabi- net officers, under Cabinet officers, from private businessmen, from elected officials, including other Governors, all of which has been tre- mendously helpful to me and to the committee. I believe, however, that yesterday the three gentlemen appearing from the business sec- tor-Mr. Nichols, from Olin Mathieson Co.; Mr. Martin, from Car- son-Pine-Scott Co.; and Mr. Ralph Besse, from Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.-and then this representation by you this morning probably are the highlights of the hearings insofar as the emphasis laid upon the need for the legislation isconcerned. Certainly that was true with the appearance of the three men from the business sector yesterday. This morning, however, I see in your magnificent demonstration here a sort of calm competence that derives from very thorough study of the problem and at least some effort to implement some remedies to meet the results of your study. As one who partièipated in the early drafting and the final drafting of this bilithat is now before the committee, I am aware of the experi- ence, advantages, and help we had from the study which you had con- PAGENO="0218" 934 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 ducted, you and your associates in North Carolina. It was of tremen- dous value to us to know something of your efforts and your findings when we drafted this. So, as one who has become really enthusiastic about this, I am glad tO pay my respects to you and your associates for the part you played in developing this bill to this point. I think your characterization of the child of povert.y today being a parent of poverty tomorrow probably strikes the most sensitive chord in this whole poverty picture. All of us know that never are we go- ing to elirninat.e this factor of poverty in our society. What we are going to try to do, and what we hope to do, as you previously said, is to break the cycle of it. And until we do break the cycle of it, we are permitting second, third, and fourth generations of poverty to pyramid the problems that. that disease creates throughout America. * One `of the businessmen told us yesterday-I believe it was Mr. Martin-that if a. business found itself in the condition that some of our communities and some of our areas in the country are in that it would immediately stop, take inventory, and devise some means of try- ing t.o remedy those problems and get them out of the way; for if it didn't, the business would die. And then he stated as trustees of the public interest, of the society that. we have, that we as Congressmen were responsible for doing likewise, or else we might. be charged with letting a nat.ioii, our form of government, die. While I am tremendously pleased, joyous a.lmost, over the opportu- nity to hear such magnificent presentations as you have presented here this morning, I am equally concerned that a great many Members of Congress have deprived themselves of hearing argument in favor of a program that probably no one who thoroughly understood the problem could oppose. I hope your statement will be read by every Membe:' of the House of Representatives. I believe it to be the most practic:~l approach from an elected official's standpoint that I have seen. I want to ask you one or two questions. Is it your feeling that, the community action section provides sufficient safeguards for the Gov- ernor of a State or for the local officials of a community to have a sufficient voice in the management of these community programs? Governor SANFORD. I would certainly hope that that would be the intent.ion of the Director. I t.hink as far as whet.her or not it is spelled out completely enough, I am not certain. I do think it would be the intention of the proposed Director to give the States a voice, and I think it. would be. a great mistake not to. This. simply cannot be done effectively, if it. is going to be done in a way that requires too much redta:pe and.too many devices of central control. I think it can be done very effectively with State leadership oper- ating within the proposed guidelines that are set up by Congress and by the administration of the act. But. I think we. would miss a tre- mendous resource, if we did not call the State leadership into an important role. I think the States can contribute and are anxious to contribute and have the capacity to contribute the leadership which would spell the difference between success and failure. Then, I think the States, in turn, would make a tremendous mistake if they did not call on local leadership. as we have demonstrated is readily available to State. leadership, because this involves enough people to see that t.he problems locally are defined and designed and carried out. And PAGENO="0219" ECONOMIC' OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 935 1 hope that as much emphasis as possible, even at the risk of some lossof apparent efficiency, I think as much emphasis as possible should be put on State leadership and local leadership, because they are with the problems, and I think they can help considerably in doing something a~bout it. As well as the bill is drawn, I do not have a competent opinion, but I think it is extremely important- Mr. PERKINS. Will you yield to me? Mr. LANDRUM. I gladly yield. Mr. PERKINS. Governor Sanford, your wide experience, your many accomplishments, and the sound judgment you have shown, qualifies you to answer this question in furtherance of what Mr. Landrum has ask. What types of initiative can be taken by your State or State governments to' induce increased investments by industries m the poorer States like North Carolina, Kentucky, and Georgia? `Governor SANFORD. I think this country grows and, therefore, in- dustry comes t.o join in that growth, as they see a resource that is of value to them. Whatever success we have had in North Carolina, if I understand the question properly, in industrial developmentr-and I think most of the figures indicate that we have been fairly suc- cessful when compared with other States-it is not that we have good salesmanship telling people about industry, which I think we have had; but no matter how good the salesman he has to have something *to' sell, and we have tried to sell people and trained people and com- petent., honest people. So, I think as we train people and add t.o their `skills, we are going -to create the necessary drawing power for industry. More impor- tant than having industry come from elsewhere, it is going to help us in our own State expand what industry we have. I think you will `find that i~ true in every State. Trained people find a way of putting `those skills and abilities to use, and industry finds a way and they :are joined together for profitmaking. I think the key is training and education and people. Mr. LANDRUM. Governor, would you say that this bill, as it is drafted, is directed more at the causes of poverty than it is to the consequences? Governor SANFORD. Well, I hope so. I would hope that this could be a temporary effort, when you take the long view of it; that we are iiot trying to provide some means of caring for people of poverty. We are trying to get rid of the causes, so that we remove the burden of carrying these people forever. Mr. LANDImM. Heretofore our efforts have been concerned princi- `pally with charity and relief. Governor SANFORD. I think that is so. Mr. LANDRtTM. Now we want to change our course and direct it at `the causes of it, in the hope that we can eliminate the necessity for a great amount of this charity and relief. Governor SANFORD. It would eliminate most of them. Mr. LANDRUM. Now in your study in North Carolina, which again I must say has been of tremendous benefit to us in the drafting of this legislation, all Of your wrestling with the problem, is it your opinion that State and local governments can cope with this problem success- fully without the assistance of the Federal Government ~ PAGENO="0220" 936 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Governor SANFORD. No, because the State and local governments will not have the neëessary funds that must be used. We thought we were doing a pretty good job when we talked Ford into giving us $7 million and two local foundations in matching that, and we will have some other funds from other sources so that we may have $20 million over a 5-year period. But that enables us to work on cOm- prehensive programs and in only 10 to 15 communities and do a partial job in maybe 8 or 10 more, and have maybe a single person helping do some of the job in some 25 communities. : So, we simply do not have the financial resources to do the job that we see. We do not have it because, as in so many things, we do not `have the tax resources that we can apply. I think certainly in our State we have done our share in providing new taxes in the last several years to meet our share of the responsi- bility. I don't see how you can get at the problems of poverty in all of the conimurnties and in all of the States without this kind of help from the Federal Government. So I think this is essential, and.'I must say in education or in this program or anything else we have attempted to say, "Now the Federal Government can do some things and may do some things, but we would like to get on in doing our part of the responsibility now without waiting," but with the coopera- tion of the Federal Government I think we could do a so much better job. Mr. LAi~rmnmr. Beyond the assistance that financial aid from the Federal Govermnent will provide, is this not true that the national interest, based on the great mobility of our population and the way these problems can move from community to community and State to State, isn't that an essential reason why the Federal Government must come into this picture? Governor SANFORD. I think so. I think you have that kind of mo- bility now. Furthermore, the Nation has as much concern with the total resources and the total edeucation, the total human development as any State. The State has its share of the responsibility, but the total responsibility is the Federal Government's. If we had a rocket that had a noticeable 20-percent loss in efficiency because 20 percent was not working, we would start designing that 20-percent deficiency out, so that we could bring it up to peak performance. That is what we have in the Nation in terms of human resources, at least 20 per- cent-in our State more-at least 20-percent handicap, because 20 per- cent of the people are not producing anything, are not adding any- thing to the welfare, are not adding anything to the wealth of the Nation or the productivity of the Nation; and, worse than not adding anything, are dragging down all the rest. I think the businessmen make a good point and a point that we have made, this is not oniy right because it is the humane and compas- sionate thing that we should do, but it is good business. These people now are not contributing and we are suggesting a small investment, relatively speaking, which will help them contribute to the free enter- prise and the total, economy. I think it is not only right and proper, but it is very good business. Mr. LANDRUM. Now one question, directing your attention back to the job corps which you discussed in your' former statement, some of the critics have suggested it would be better to provide or to leave this PAGENO="0221" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 937 job corps business to the States themselves, thereby keeping the prospective enrollee closer to his present environment or to his own environment, making it a State operation only. Can you envision a program such as is contemplated in the job corps phase of this as being conducthd by States only without Federal assistance? Governor SANFORD. I think the State. can be. very helpful.. I. think the State can help find the facilities. . I think in some cases the State can help find the facilities. I think in some cases the State can make the facilities available and I am not sure that is provided for. But we have some facilities right now. But I think the critics that make that point are making the same mistake which has been made too often in the past in all of these programs, they are looking too much at the~rogram and not enough at the individual. 1± we have a man who can go to the University of North Carolina, at Raleigh, and become an electrical engineer and fit into a program and make a contribution in California, it is our duty to train him. Now we wish we could keep him at home, and we are trying to do more of that. But our first responsibility is not to the program, not even to the economy of the State, but to the individual. We need to train him and then let him go where that skill and that training can be used to his advantage and the public's advantage. So, I do not think you can look at this as a regional thing or limited by the boundaries of a State. It must be a national program, I think. Mr. LANDRnM. I want to get a little more down to detail about this environment business, if I may, Governor. I apologize to the com- mittee members for indulging me this long. Isn't it true that a great many of these people that we hope to get into the job corps program are going to be better off if they are removed from their present environments? Governor SANFORD. I have heard that argument .. in many ways. I strongly believe that part of the problem is. the environment and that getting them out into the kind of residence schools that this job corps would provide would be the most wholesome..single feature of it; that we remove them from the things, the environment that held them down. I think it is extremely wise that we take them out and get them in a different kind of environment where there are di1~erent sets of values. Mr LANDRUM Providing that when we do so move, we do equip them with some employable skills that makes them go back to a more attrac tive environment ~ Governor SANFORD. Yes, with the hope that they can do better. As I said in the beginning, the half dozen or so boys I talked to, it was not that they didn't have any skill, but they didn't have any idea of how they could get one, why they should or what they could do with it. They had not only lost their opportunity, they had lost their hope. I think getting them out in a new environment would help restore the hope which is a basic part of . giving them the necessary motivation and `Lmbitlon I think that is a wise proposal Mr LANDRUM Did you discover in your study that the literacy level of many of these youngsters that we are concerned about with this progr'im is below that required for admission to and pursuing a sue cessful course m the average vocitional techrncal cchool of todiy2 Governor SANFORD Yes, nd I think we have a tie in basic educa- tion with most df the training and skills. . . . . PAGENO="0222" 938 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Mr. LANDRUM. Thank you so much, Governor. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Gibbons. Mr. GIBBONS. Governor, I am very sorry that our Republican col~ leagues other than Mr. Bell are not here this morning. I am sure they would have profited by what you~ have to say. I would like to compliment you for the fine way that you have conducted your State and conducted yourself here this morning. Your testimony has been very helpful and very informative. Governor SANFoIto. Thank you. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Bell. Mr. Bm~L. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Relative to the remarks that my very good friend made about the Republicans not being here, I want to point out that we do have a~ conflict, Governor, with the Fair Labor Standards Act, which some Republicans are on. There are other conflicts. I want to apologize for my delay in getting here, but I also had another meeting to at- tend to. Governor, I understand that you have discussed somewhat the Job' Corps and the problems under title I. As you well know, the Job Corps enlistments or, I should say asks for volunteers. It is quite likely that the ones that are most desirable to get into the Job Corps may not be the ones who will volunteer for it. So this, of course,. will itself become a problem. GOvernor SANroim. Yes. I touched On that just briefly. I think there is an answer to it. We have tried a program that we call "Op- eration Second Chance." We are talking about almost the same category of young people, men and women in this case, which we wanted to bring into one of our industrini education centers for spe- cialized training, basic education as well as some skill that they might have a particular aptitude for. We found that you simply could' not get them by advertising the program. The story in the news- paper did not bring them to the office. Mr. BELL. Right. Governor SANFORD. We had to use counselors to go out and literally' lead them by the hand, because quite likely they didn't read the news- papers. More important than that, they never had, because of the deficiencies of a number of years, which may be the same reasons they dropped out of school-they never understood of how and why they should, and they never had the competence to go. I know we had a youngboy who graduated from a high school in my hometown. My law partner had an interest in him, because he' knew the child's parent had worked for him. He said, "Why don't you go around to the employment office and sign up for a course ifl automobile mechanics work? That seems to be something you might like to do." Well, a month later he said "Have you gone?" He said, "No, sir, I didn't go." Well, he didn't go because that was a strange world for him, too. This big glass door on the main street was a world he was too timid to enter. So then he wrote him a letter that should have gotten proper attention, and several weeks later he found out that even that did not give him the courage. Finally, he took him by the hand and led him and counseled with him, and put him into the school. I take it he is doing all right now. PAGENO="0223" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 939 We found out also in the Operation Second Chance that we had to recruit these people, and I don't think it is an indictm~nt against them that they don't have the ambition; 1 think that is simply part of the problem. So you do need the counseling. As I see it, this pro- gram will not be successful unless we reach down and attempt to get every single individual who needs the training, and I think that is part of it; and I think our community action programs by the very nature of the way they will develop, will feed a great many people into the program, because they will furnish the neighborhood counseling service. But I think you are absolutely right, that we will not really get those who need it, unless we go out and seek them. Mr. BELL. The matter that concerns me in all of this, Governor, is the fact that we have today some ongoing programs, very good on- going programs, I think, such as your vocational education, manpower development and retraining. I am also concerned about a realistic ap- proach to such a war as this on poverty. I think you have to approach it and rifle in on some really good things, and not just throw a mish- mash of everything into it, hoping that one will work. I think it is more sensible to approach it from a really analytical standpoint. Now as far as the vocational education and manpower development and retraining, I think you will recall that basic educational features have been added to both of these programs. So it might be a great deal better, might it not, Governor, to approach this by using those ongoing programs plus perhaps a local or a State program of urban conservation in which the State would have direct control of the pro- gram, rather than trying to place $42 million worth of programs through the United States that may or may not be effective. Would you like to comment on that? Governor SANFORD. Yes. I think one of our reasons for having people still caught up in poverty in spite of these ongoing programs for the last 30 or 35 years has been that we have not understood and have not had the proper concept, and that we have had too many fragmented programs. I was saying earlier that I thought one of the purposes of the community projects would be to tie together at the bottom whereas there are now tied here in Raleigh and the other State capitals, at the top, wOuld be to tie together at the bottom all of these services. Because I think the attitude has. been, this is my program, this is my responsibility, I will get up the statistics of how many people I interviewed and what we did in this department, and we have lost sight of the fact that the programs were designed for people and that on one program is likely to correct the conditions that keep any particular person in poverty. So I would hope, and we hope in North Carolina, in the some 66 proposals that we have that all of the mObilization-we have in Shel- by, for example, an organization that was created, that has the name of Cleveland County Association of Govérmuerit Officials. This is the concept, that they are going to all attempt greater coordination and greater cooperation in trying together these services, so that a person caught up by these m'my, many retsoris c'tn be guided to the kind of help that will get him out of all of them. I think it is essential that we find a way of tying them together. I really think that is what this community service program is all about. So, it is necessary to do it. Whether or not we are doing unnecessary PAGENO="0224" 940 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 things, I don't know. I remember a situation in southern France when we had a lot of artillery fire and we had some tanks and we ordered some mortar ~flre thrown in there. Finally we took the hill with the Infantry My mortar sergeant said, "I don t think we needed that mortar lire." I don't know whether in this war on poverty we have one or two things in lere we don't need, but the important thing is the objective. * I would rather have too much than too little. Mr. BElL. We may have a realistic problem, too, in getting youths to volunteer to go to camps, maybe in Wyoming, Alaska, and Montana, and so on. Although I agree that. we should not have too little, I think a lot of theSe responsibilities can be handled by the States on a local level and with some added matching funds program. Governor SANFORD. Yes; I made a. strong case, I hope, or intended to, for the use of State government and local governnment and local citizens in any program. I think it would be a mistake to make this massive, centrally directed, centrally controlled, centrally tied up program. I think to the extent that we use the State governments, to the~extent that we use the local governments and the local leadership, that is the extent of the success that we will have. I certainly agree that as much of this as can, should be put out locally and through State government. I think it will be more successful, because I think ourproblems are different than the problems of Wyoming, and I think there needs to be a great deal of flexibility in it. Mr. LANDRTThI. Will you yield? Mr. BELL. Yes, I yield. Mr. LAXDRUM. However, Governor, that is not to say, is it, that the provision in this bill to tie together under one umbrella a great many existing or proposed Federal programs is not a good idea, so that they can be centrally directed from here in cooperation with the State programs? Governor SANFORD. . No; I said that, too. I said it must be put under one. umbrella. I think one of our problems in the past has been that ~ve have had too manyumbrellas.. I think the more we can draw. these things together and the thing I like about it is that it does talk about coordination and it does bring the various agencies together for a com- mon assault instead of saying to all the agencies and `ill the States, "You go out and fight the battle the way you see fit." This is a co- ordinated, planned attack that calls on the resources of the Federal Government, all of its agencies, all the States, `rnd brings into play all the localgovernments. . . . . . * I think that is the beauty of it, the fact that it does bring things together. .. . . Mr. BELL. As I understand, you are recommending wherever, pos- sible local control; are you not? . . :Governor S~FoRD. .1 think you have a good example in the Hill- Burton legishition, m the legislation for construction of f'ualities for higher educat~on, whereyou have required the. States to set up some kind of bro'idiy representative agency and within the general guide lines which Congress has set down, the State has planned its program in the case of Hill-Burtoii .of~ hospital development, and I think, it has worked very well I thmk local initiative, St'ite initiitive have both been called mto play I think that kind of local control is essen PAGENO="0225" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 941 tiaI : to~ the sucdess of any program involving Federal, State, and local cooperation. :1 dO not think it would be wise to simply say to the various States, "Pi~n a prOgram, and we will give you x dollars to do your share and help." I don't think you will get a good program and not a coordi- nated progTam. I think there should be enough flexibility so that we could try different things and new things, and we might learn some- thing that California would not have thought of, but after they saw how it worked they might. want it, or after we tried it we might want to throw it out. I think you need that degree of flexibility, but I do think we need a common program. Mr. BELL. I do not know whether you testified on title III at all or made any comment about the title III feature, about the farm grants and loans for these small farms, to make them viable. Governor SANFORD. Yes; I commented briefly on it. I pointed out that, in some of the community projects already started, we already had some proposals that would fit in, proposals for cooperative effort. Part of the trouble with the small farm, the family-size farm, is is that they cannot buy the necessary equipment to do the job efficiently. Therefore, we see more and more trend to large, consolidated, corpo- rate farms, a trend that I personally think is not very good, and I know it is not very good for our immediate human problems. This, for one thing, would provide for the kind of cooperative effort that we have seen tried successfully in two or three places in our State so that a number of farmers can have a cooperative equipment com- pany, for example. It also provides for funds that would enable a farmer to, let us say, in addition to his tobacco allotment, get in the broiler business, because a $1,500 grant and a $2,500 loan would just about enable one family-farm farmer to take on another item of that kind, and I think it would be profitable. It also would enable people, farmers, to get into some new crops in which there is a certain risk involved, which I think will provide one of the answers to the need for greater diversification in our State; food processing, food production, there is a considerable possibility if we could ever find the incentive or a way to move some of our people into it. Mr. BELL. You can understand in certain areas, certain particular area, you could have a situation where there are other economic fac- tors that play, which might mean that making a loan or a grant would do nothing except to worsen the situation. Actually, there may be lack of markets, there may be many problems that could not make these farms really viable and productive and the farmer able to go ahead. This is an economic factor that could come into play. `Governor SANFORD. Yes. If you are familiar with the Farmers Home Administration work and the way they work up a community plan or a family plan, I think there are some dangers. There are dangers in anything, but I think here, if we have that approach of the Farmers Home Administration of a careful plan before grants or loans are undertaken, anything is workable. Anything can be abused. I can see how this could be abused. But I would hope that `it could be administered in an intelligent way and, if it were, it would be valuable. 31-84L--64-pt. 2--15 PAGENO="0226" 942 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 It is somewhat nebulous because we have not been this way before. When I first read it, I went. back and read it again and I gave it con- siderable thought. It would enable them, a small farmer, to do some- thing about improving his farm operation and to reduce the mortgage or to acquire a little piece of land. Mr. BELL. Governor, my line of questioning here is because we had a line of testimony here from one of the leaders of North Carolina University, Dr. Bishop. He suggested the idea that maybe there ought to be some other factors that play in analyzing this title III, that perhaps we should consider even such matters as the age. He divided the people in this program, the elderly people who maybe may not have had the opportunity of education are pretty much dedi- cated to staying on the, farm and you could hardly pry them out of there. But on the other hand there may be some younger people whom it might be better to encourage to leave the farm and also set up a pro- gram of educating them, preparing them for jobs. Governor SANFoun. Yes; I agree with Dr. Bishop. In fact, I sent out several weeks ago, when it was first available, the Senate version, which has in it the President's message and analysis, to about 250 of ~our leaders, State and local, including Dr. Bishop, and I have had back his reply. I certainly don't. disagree basically with anything he said to me, though I did not hear the testimony. I think we are finding that about 8 out of every 10 farm children are not staying on the farm. That is the t.rend. Whether we like it or not, that is the trend. They don't want to stay on the farm and are not going to stay. They are looking for other opporhrnities. Some of them are leaving because there is no longer any opportunity there and they are going to some place or situation where there is no oppor- tunity, either. So we need this training. Here is where the Job Corps and the work training progra.ms come in, I think, especially in a State that is as rural as ours is, that we will find this very valuable. I would not think that we should use title III to keep people on the arm that ought. not to stay, but. I think where people can stay and, after all, we are going to have in this country a food-production prob- lem in a few more years and we are going to have it on the east coast; the west coast now supplies a great deal of food and will not be able to supply it a few years from now, according to all predictions. So, Dr. Bishop helped us design the kind of program which has now caused us to develop a school of food science at his college, at his uni- versity, and helped us design a program of the development of food proc.essing and, to back up food processing, we need food production. So I see this is a device that would be of some help to us. Obviously, I am speaking as t.he Governor of one State about our particular prob- lems. I do see, too, that this could be the kind of thing that could be very wasteful if it were administered in~ that way, but I should cer- tainly hope that it would not be, not every farmer is entitled to a $1.500 grant. You have four categories, to acquire land or to remove a mortgage or to acquire equipment or to get into some kind of nonfarm activity which, I take it, would be primarily recreation, which is something that is coming along, and then to do the various things cooperatively. PAGENO="0227" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 943 I think that is one of the answers because it takes too much invest- ment now.to run in a small farm. I don't know. I can see a lot of good in it. Mr. BELL. I think there would be a great deal of business, particu- larly when you have so many that are not going to want to stay on the farm. Yet, you are going to have the incentive perhaps, to make them stay on the farm by having the Government step in. Now, the crux of the question here is, who is going to determine whether this farm or whether tha.t person is the type of person who should be encouraged to get off or to stay there or just what position should he take on this particular farm or this particular individual ~ He may not be 65, but he may be 45 or he may be 35, maybe he is in a position where he could do better. These are the kinds of factors that come into play when you have a financial program of this kind and you have to analyze the factors that you and I are discussing right now. Governor SANFORD. I don't think that will be as much of a prac- tical problem as might appear when we think about it., because I think the farmer who does not want to stay and does not see any hope and does not have any hope is not going to stay for $1,500 or for a $2,500 loan. I think there the Farmers Home Administration has had such good experience in this kind of analysis and this kind of counseling that, I would think, that they would be in a pretty good position to give sound advice. Now, we have just had them working on a situation involving a lot of farms in one section of our State, Congressman Bonner, where the product, the traditional product has fallen on evil days and they are not making the grade, and it looks to me, from a distance, that we had a situation where a lot of people should get out of the farming business. Over the past few months, the Farmers Home Administration has been working with us to advise these people, and I am satisfied that if their advice is, "Let us quit farming in this section," or this partic- ular product, that they will quit farming, because it is too burdensome as it is. I think there is a great deal of experience behind us on how to advise farmers about future farming. We have the Extension Service, which has a great deal of experience behind it. I think we have to rely on the performance of the people charged with it but I do think that the people charged with this responsibility have much experience to draw on. That is the only way I can answer that question. Obviously, we should not set up artificial incentives to keep people farming if they should be doing something else. Mr. BELL. Governor, I see my time has run out. I want to thank, the chairman for his indulgence. I also wanted to commend you for the great things 1 have heard about the job you have done in North Carolina, one of the most prog- ressive States in the southern, area, I know. I have heard a great deal about it. I want to commend you for a good job. Governor SANFORD. Thank you. Mr. PERKINS. Since we have had only a few witnesses before the committee that have had your extensive knowledge of the way the Federal and State Governments and local governments are adminis- PAGENO="0228" 944 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 tering health, welfare, and education programs, I have two or three questions: First, in connection with Mr. Bell's inquiry, in your opinion can the field representatives of the Farmers Home Administration put their hands forthwith on the individuals who are most deserving of grants and loans? Governor SANFORD.. Yes; in North Carolina, they can. I have an extremely high regard for their ability and effectiveness. I don't know of any agency, State or local, that does any better job of know- ing its people and ge.tting on with problem. Mr. PF~xINs. I have had the same experience in the district I am privileged to represent, Governor; that is the reason I asked that question. Would you recommend that the employment offices, State employ- ment offices, do the selecting for the Job Corps in cooperation with the schools and other agencies-local agencies and eleemosynary insti- tutions? Governor SANFORD. I think there are various ways that that can work. In our State, we hope to do it that way. So far, to the extent that we have done anything of this kind, we have. I think it is going to involve a change of attitude, not so much a change of attitude as a change of purpose ~fl the minds of the people working in the employment security commissions, because I think we need to look not only at the filling of an order, so to speak, with a particular kind of product, a person with a particular kind of training, but we look at this individual as to how we can redeem him or rehabili- tate him. That has not been quite the job of employment security up to now. I think they do need to take a. fresh look at what their pur- pose will be in the overall program. I think they have begun to do it in the ARA and manpower retraining. Mr. PERKINS. In the last few years? Governor SANFORD. I think so. We are confident that they are competent to do this. In fact, we started before Christmas designing a pilot program to train in a residential school the rejectees from the draft. We had our employment security people in on that plaiming. It is already there. It is already available. They can do the job. Mr. PERKINS. Without extra expense from the Government? Governor SANFORD. Well, they might need a few more people. Mr. PERKINS. Well, Governor Sanford, I personally could discuss this program with you all morning. You have a. great. interest in, and knowledge of, this legislation. We have obtained a tremendous benefit from your testimony. Again let me compliment you for a wonderful appearance. I know the members of the full coiumittee will enjoy reading your testimony. Thank you very much. Governor SANFORD. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I enjoyed being here. Mr. PERKINS. We have some six or eight other witnesses who will appear here today. Our next witness is Monsignor Higgins of the National Catholic Welfare Conference. Come around, Monsignor Higgins. How do you wish to proceed, Monsignor? 1' PAGENO="0229" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 945 STATEMENT OP MSGR. GEORGE HIGGINS, DIRECTOR, SOCIAL ACTION DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL CATHOLIC WELPARE CONFERENCE Monsignor HIGGINS. I have a relatively brief prepared statement. Mr. PERKINS. Would you prefer to read it? Monsignor HIGGINS. I would. Mr. PERKINS. Proceed. Monsignor HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Msgr. George Higgins, director of the social action depart- ment of the National Catholic Welfare Conference. The National Catholic Welfare Conference is located at 1312 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington D.C. I appreciate this opportunity to address myself to H.R. 10440, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. I speak not only on behalf of the social action department, but also for the education department of the National Catholic Welfare Conference, the National Conference of Catholic Charities, the Bishop's Committee for Migrant Workers, the National Catholic Rural Life Conference, and the Bishop's Com- mittee for the Spanish Speaking, all of which have an intense concern for the welfare of all citizens and patricularly for those who are the victims of poverty and destitution. The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 sets as its objective the elimination of "the paradox of poverty in the midst of plenty." By means of mobilizing and energizing all resources, public and private, the act hopes to serve as a catalyst in providing opportunities for education, training and working experience for the economically and culturally deprived. Its spectrum of proposals is broad, directed to children, young adults, fathers and mothers of families; its range of projects extensive. One might fairly surmise, however, that there will be certain revisions and adaptations of H.R. 10440 as presently written. This committee has at its disposal highly qualified specialists in the various categories of activities included in H.R. 10440. I will not presume, therefore, to offer a critique of the different titles and sub- sections of this bill. Rather, I prefer to reemphasize some of the basic principles that should undergird any program assisting the poor, for sound programs will endure only to the extent that they are based upon principle. May I state first that organizations I represent today endorse the all-out war on poverty. The Catholic Church, as well as all other religious groups, has always ben intensely interested in the plight, of the poor. Its record speaks for itself. This endorsement is really the extension of the hand of welcome and encouragement to the Fed- eral Government as it makes additional greater efforts to foster in- telligent social action to counteract the causes of poverty. The dimen- sions of the problem of poverty far outstrip the resources of the churches and other private agencies and in some areas also outstrip the resources of local and State governments. The stimulus of the Fed- eral Government is welcome, and indeed necessary. The religious principles `underlying a comprehensive attack on l)OV- erty have been clearly set forth in a. statement issued by the social ac- tion department of the National Catholic Welf are Conference less than 2 months ago. With the permission of the Chair, I would submit this PAGENO="0230" 946 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 for the record. It distinguishes between the. voluntary poverty moti- vated by religious conviction that elevates the soul and the involuntary debasing poverty that shattei~ human dignity. It offers criteria for meeting this challenge with compassion and charity and, no less im- portantly, with genuine respect for the individual. The social action department's statement on poverty is concerned not only with remedial services for the unemployed and the unem- ployable, but also-and perhaps even more importantly-with the underlying economic causes of poverty. The statement points out, for example, that if we are to help the poor to help themselves, we must "above all be concerned about work. Avoiding job discrimina- tion is but one step. It is equally vital to be sure that work is avail- able and that the poor are educated and trained to do useful work." (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SocrAL AcTIoN, NATIONAL CATHoLIc WELFARE CONFERENCE A RElIGIOUs VIEW OF POVERTY While the problem of poverty is as old as mankind, citizens of the United States have special reasons to be concerned over its prevalence here. We are considered to be the wealthiest nation in the world, yet one-fifth of our citizens are in want. We are compelled to spend billions for armament, although slums and blight disfigure our cities and countryside alike. As a matter of conscience the American people offer aid to developing and impoverished nations around the world. Such generosity is good, but it should not blind us to needs here at home. From our abundance we are able to give generously, both in distant lands and within our borders. Our response should be from the heart, but it must not be purely emotional in nature. Sound programs will endure to the extent that they are based upon principle rather than feeling. To aid in forming lasting convictions, the social action department of the National Catholic Welfare Conference offers the fol- lowing considerations on the Christian view of poverty, our personal response to this challenge, and the function of society as it confronts the problem of want in the midst of plenty. I. THE CHURCH AND POVERTY There is paradox in the Christian teaching on poverty. The holy gospels teach us to respect poverty, but they also oblige us to help the poor in their misery. Our Lord called the poor biessed. He asked His followers to sell what they had and follow Him, advice that was followed literally by the first Christians. Jesus Christ could say that He had not whereon to lay His head, and He was buried in another man's tomb. St. Paul described the followers of Christ as the poor and the powerless. "Consider your own call, brethren; that there were not many wise according to the flesh. not many mighty. not many noble. But the foolish things of the world has God chosen to put to shame the wise, and the weak things of the world has God chosen to put to shame the strong, and the base things of the world and the despised has God chosen, and the things that are not, to bring to naught the things that are; lest any flesh should pride itself before him." (I Corinthians 1: 26-29.) St. James could say: "Has not God chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which God has promised to those who love him." (James 2: ~) The ministers of God were described as "poor, yet en- riching many, as having nothing, yet possessing all things." (II Corinthians 6: 10.) This was but a reflection of the life of the Master, "being rich, he became poor for your sakes, that by his poverty you might become rich." (II Corin- tbians8: 9.) The church has been interested in the poor primarily because it sees every person as a child of God. While the world honors power, wealth, and achieve- ment, the follower of Christ insists upon the moral worth of those who are neglected and even despised. He does not use worldly standards in judging personal excellence. A St. Francis couicT cast aside his clothes as a symbol of PAGENO="0231" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 947 complete freedom from worldly attachment. A St. Vincent de Paul could devote his life to the destitute and the oppressed. A St. Camillus could wash the sores of the abandoned sick. All these have been honored because their love of God led them to cast their lot with the least of Christ's brethren. The church has endorsed poverty by demanding it from those who have entered the solemn religious life. These give up the right to use and dispose of worldly goods. They do this, not because the world that God made is evil, but in order to cut their ties to all that might turn their gaze from God and lead them to concentrate on the passing and corruptible. Yet, and herein lies the paradox of the Christian teaching on poverty, the church also speaks of a form of poverty that hurts the soul, something totally different from religious detachment from worldly goods. There is a destitution that binds men to this earth, since it forces them to use every waking moment to keep body and soul together. There is want that breeds bitterness and re- sentment, even hatred. Pope Pius XII, in his Christmas message of 1952, talked "of the consequences of poverty, still more of the consequences of utter destitution. For some families there is a dying daily, a dying hourly; a dying multiplied, especially for parents, by the number of dear ones they behold suffering and wasting away * sick- ness becomes more serious, because it is not properly treated; it strikes little ones in particiilar, because preventive measures are lacking." "Then there is the weakening and consequent physical deterioration of whole generations. Whole masses of the population are brought up as enemies of law and order, so many poor girls gone astray, pushed down into the bottom of the abyss; because they believed that that was the only way out of their shameful poverty. Moreover, not rare is the case where it is wretched misery that leads to crime. Those :who in their works of charity visit our prisons affirm con- stantly that not a few men, fundamentally decent, have gone to prison because extreme poverty has led them to commit some unpremeditated act." Pope Pius XII is but one of the great modern Popes who, particularly in the last 70 years, have shown deep concern for poverty in our industrial society. There is an: essential difference between the austerity of the Trappist monk who cultivates the fields and prays to God in his simple cell and the wretchedness of those who'iive in the slums of our large cities. The monk is poor, but he has sufficient to eat; he has adequate clothing and needed medical care. He is a re- spected member of society. But there are those in our slums who do not have enough to eat. Their cloth- ingis worn and threadbare. They are overcrowded in wretched housing. They have no privacy, not even the mercy of silence. And, the greatest hurt of all, they feel rejected and unwanted~ They could die, and no one would shed a tear. This poverty, in the words of Pope Pius XII, often leads to "social conditions which, whether one wills it or not, make difficult or practically impossible a Christian life" (Solennita, June 1, 1941). Again this same Pope states: "The Christian must be ever mindful that the establishment of God's kingdom in men's hearts and in social institutions often requires a minimum of human de- velopment. * * `~ For this reason, the Christian will always be ready to work for the relief of every material distress. * * * In a word, he will be diligent to achieve the betterment of the poor and the -disinherited" (address, -Apr. 25, 157). What precisely did the Pope -have in mind when he spoke of degrading social conditions? Let us listen to his description of slum living: "Dilapidated, ram- shackle houses without the most necessary hygienic installations sometimes yield a sizable income to their owners without costing them a penny. Inevitably, they neglect to make necessary repairs in them for years on end. "Enough can never be said about the -harm that these dwellings do to the families condemned to live in them. Deprived of air and light, living in filth and in unspeakable commingling, adults and, above all, children quickly become the prey of contagious diseases which find a favorable soil in their weakened bodies. But the moral injuries are still more serious: immorality, juvenile de- linquency, the loss of taste for living and working, interior rebellion against a society that tolerates such abuses ignores human beings and allows them to stagnate in this way, transformed gradually into wrecks. - - "Society itself must bear the consequences of this lack of foresight. Because it did not wish to prevent the evil and to provide a remedy in time, it will spend enormous sums to keep -up an appearance of curbing delinquency and to pay expenses for prolonged confinement in sanatoriums and clinics. How many millions are authorized for the cure of evils that it would b-e easier and less ex- pensive to prevent?" (nddress, May 3, 1957).- - - - - PAGENO="0232" 948 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 These words of Pope Pius XII make abundantly clear the vital distinction between t.he poverty blessed by the church and the wretched destitution that endangers soul and body alike. We must view abject poverty as we view physical sickness, as an evil that must be prevented when possible and certainly cured as soon as possible. Our Blessed Lord did not tell the sick that they were blind or deaf or crippled because of the unchanging laws of the universe. Rather He used His infinite power to heal, thus inspiring us to use both science and compassion in the service of the sick. In the same way. His Holy Church views poverty as a challenge, not merely to our compassion and charity, but also to intelligent social action aimed at eradicating the many causes of human failure. It is a tragic commentary upon the world today that nations are forced to spend bifflons for ghastly weapons of war, and yet cannot find the funds to eliminate slums. Our ingenuity can cope with the almost unbelievable difficulties of sending a rocket to the moon. But we seem unable to come up with workable plans to aid human beings created. in the image and likeness of Almighty God. To face this challenge intelligently, we must make some important .distinc- tions in regard to those who are poor. There are some persons whose poverty stems from personal conditions that cannot readily be changed. They are not able to earn a living today, nor is it likely that most of them can ever produce enough to secure a proper livelihood. In this class are many of our aged, some who are physically or mentafly handicapped, or mothers who are the sole sup- port of young children. Such persons need help given in a way that fully respects their human dignity. On the other hand, there are those who are poor largely because of external conditions that have prevented their earning a decent living. They have both the native ability to work and the desire for a good job, but they lack either the training or the opportunity to earn a fitting salary. Such persons include the uneducated and the unskilled, victims of racial discrimination, farmers with-~ out adequate resources and training, many unemployed persons over 40, and those who live in areas of declining industry. In these cases, we seek methods and techniques that will enable them to become productive members of our economic society. Another important distinction concerns the method of affording assistance for each of these groups. There is a form of aid that is intensely personal. Here the stress is upon contact between individuals. Such help does not preclude or~ ganization and planning, yet it is basically a person-to-person apostolate. There are other problems that must be met primarily by social action, whether this be private or governmental. Here the basic concern is the removal of social conditions that breed poverty and destitution. It is obvious, for ex-~ ample, that economic policies that stimulate the demand for workers will make it much easier to retrain and relocate the unemployed. Whatever distinctions might be made, however, in the Christian understanding of poverty, in practice any attack on poverty must be universal. The heart of the true Christian goes out to all in need. For charity knows no limits. Such has been the pattern, for example, of the Catholic Relief Services. Not only is- the entire world its area of operation, but all men, of all races and of all religions, are the beneficiaries of its programs of aid. The only criterion is their need. So, too, as we face this problem of poverty in our country, there must be no restriction of race, religion, or politics. Nor should there be any inhibiting- of those who seek to help the poor, whether they be individuals, or private agencies or offices of government. In the spirit of the Good Samaritan, who taught us that every man is our neighbor, we must seek the opportunity to serve the stranger wounded in the struggle of life. We wish to illustrate these principles by noting both the individual and the social responsibility of Americans confronted with poverty in an affluent society~ II. INDIVIDUAL RELIGIOUS COMMITMENT What, then, does the church ask of the concerned Christian, as it directs his- attention to this basic problem of poverty in this wealthy Nation? First, and above all, it asks that we make this a matter of personal concern and involve- ment. In older and simpler societies, it was fairly easy for any person who' wanted to help his neighbor to know what was needed. Today it is possible to live in our sanitary suburbs, rush to work without really ~eei~1g Q~Ir city sur- roundings, spend our days in an office or factory, and never even know what life is like for 35 million fellow Americans who live in poverty. We can discuss the PAGENO="0233" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 194 949 question in the abstract, as a political, social, or economic problem, and ignore the human tragedy involved. Pope Pius XII noted that many persons are misin- formed about poverty: "Persons of good faith who have only inadequate knowl- edge of the matter believe that the majority of those who live in slums or who must be satisfied with an income below the essential minimum are there through their own fault or negligence, and that welfare organizations are capable of help- ing anyone in need of it" (address, May 3, 1957). Secondly, the church asks us to form a Christian conscience about the dignity of each person and our own responsibility to do all within our power to help them. When our Saviour was asked to illustrate the law of love of neighbor, He gave the parable of the good samaritan as His answer. Compassion is the mark of the Christian.. Christ's description of the last judgment is clear and simple. The Lord confronts the just with these words: "I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger and you took me in."~ And the just asked in astonishment when they did these things to the Lord. He replied: "As long as you did it for one of these, the least of my brethren, you did it for me." (Matthews XXV, 34-40). On the day that all men as sinners shall ask mercy, they will receive it to the extent that they showed mercy toward their fellow man. Thirdly, we must realize that the best form of help, as was said over seven ~centuries ago by the great Jewish physician, Moses Maimonides, is to help people to help themselves. Giving food to the hungry, clothing to those who shiver in the cold, and shelter to families that lack decent housing is important, but it is only a first step. Much more necessary is intelligent concern over the causes of indigence and destitution. To cite one example, racial discrimination is widely considered as an important source of poverty. The Catholic bishops of the United States noted in their 158 `statement on discrimination: "It is a matter of historical fact that :segreg~ition' in our country has led to oppressive conditions and the denial of basic human rights for the Negro. This is evident in the fundamental fields of education,' job opportunity, and housing. Flowing from these areas of neglect und discrimination are problems of health and the sordid train of evils so often associated with the consequent slum conditions." Certainly no Catholic with an informed conscience will remain aloof from the struggle for civil rights which is today One `of our first domestic problems. Indeed, we Catholics must go be- yond elvil rights and be sensitive `to human rights, whether or not these fall in `the the province of civil law. While we give wholehearted support to civic projects for the relief of pov- erty, we do not feel that our Christian duties end with such endorsement. It is not enough to vote for sound policies, to pay taxes, and to contribute to ~chdrity. The dedicated' Christian must be always ready to give of himself. As Pope John XXIII noted: "Tragic situations and urgent problems of an intimate and personal nature are continually arising which the State with all its machinery is unable to remedy or assist. There will always remain, there- `fore, a vast field for the exercise of human sympathy and the Christian charity of individuals. We would observe, finally, that `the efforts `of individuals, or of groups `of iirivate citizens are definitely more effective in promoting spiritual values than is the activity of public `authority. (Mater et Magistra, No. 120) The list of possible personal projects to aid the poor `and the unfortuna'te is long. In many of our cities, college students have formed tutoring groups to ~id children in slums. Retired teachers have volunteered to give their evenings to help `the"illiterate `to acquire at least a minimum of reading and writing. There are settlement houses and neighborhood projec'ts to bring hope and incen- tive to those who seem to have no future. One can visit the bedridden poor, clean their rooms, and shop for them. Adults can act as substitute parents for children who `have no real home life. Such children can be invited into the'ir homes `to study and to have a warm evening meal. Many religious groups `have free' `summer camps for `deprived children. There are parish interracial irisitations programs, for the purpose of promoting better understanding among the races. Some Catholic groups have established halfway houses for former prisoners, to ease their transition into normal community life. Such program's are many and diverse, but they have one point in common. "Each calls for personal involvement. Each demands the m'ost exquisite form Of' Christian charity, since each requires that we respect and honor the human dignity of the person who is poor and unfortunate. Such charity is strong and healing. It does not demean or degrade', as sometimes happens with badly planned i;ifts of material goods alone. PAGENO="0234" 950 ECONOMIC OPPORTtTNITY ACT OF 1964 III. A SOCIAL CHALLENGE In discussing social measures to relieve or prevent poverty, we shall present objectives and programs from a religious and moral point of view~ It is not our concern as religious leaders to deal with problems that are purely economic, political, or technical. If we are to help the poor to help themselves, we must above all be concerned about work. Avoiding job discrimination is but one step. It is equally vital to be sure that work is available and that the pOor are educated and trained to do useful work. We are heartened at the concern of civil authorities, on every level of government, as they contemplate this problem. We pledge to them our full support in an unremitting war against poverty. But this struggle, to be fully successful, must adapt itself to the natural patterns of each community. It must use the schools, welfare agencies, and other community activities that are already doing good work in combatting ignorance, illiteracy, and demoralization. These local institutions should be assisted and supplemented, whether they be gov- ernmental or private in nature. In the area of housing, we ask for sensitivity for the rights of the poor. Slum clearance and urban renewal programs are good in themselves, both as civil projects and as aid in the rooting out of poverty. But let us not approach these needs merely as engineering blueprints, ignoring the human element involved. It is heartless to uproot hundreds of families in the name of slum clearance, if no suitable alternate housing is available. Indeed, many experts today counsel us to salvage and renovate an area, if at all possible, so as to keep intact the thou- sands of human contacts that make life more bearable. As religious leaders, we hesitate to discuss such technical problems, except that social scientists them- selves have warned of the moral factors involved in such planning. Our special concern should be for young persons who lack the training and opportunity to secure useful work. Unemployment is tragic at any age, but life- long damage can be inflicted when the young are unable to secure worthwhile jobs. Undoubtedly we must redouble our efforts to encourage such persons to secure at least a high-school diploma. We should seriously consider the worth of youth camps or special training projects directed to the need of young adults. Here we note the insight of Pope Pius XII, who observed that society spends millions because of crime and social demoralization, when timely measures of prevention would have prevented both the personal tragedy and the social waste. We also note with concern the fact that nearly 2 million farm families, and hun- dreds of thousands of farmworkers. are among the poorest of Americans. Great religious leaders, such as the late Pope John XXIII, have extolled the spiritual and moral value of farm living. But they also asserted that such values cannot compensate for grinding poverty. Our farming poor need different types of economic help. Some can be given the training and the finances which will enable them to become self-supporting in agriculture. Others may need at least part-time employment in industries located in poorer rural areas. Still others must seek urban industrial work, but they cannot secure this without adequate training. It is a commonplace among vocational advisers that good education pays its costs many times over in the average lifetime. Surely our society can afford such an investment. It is not difficult to persuade a homeowner to repair a leaking roof, even when he feels he can ill afford the cost. He knows that rain can damage his house and furnishings irreparably. costing him far more than any preventive repairs. In the same way, citizens must realize that urban blight and decay; the myriads of evils surrounding our slums; the effects of delinquency, vice, and crime; and the results of human demoralization constitute heavy financial losses to our society, as well as poignant personal tragedies. They demand heavy outlays from tax funds and lead to losses in deteriorating property, as well as the loss of goods and services that could have been produced by the unemployed. What our consciences dic- tate as morally right, our economic judgment reinforces as socially profitable. Yet it would be unfortunate. even in this area of social action, were we to confine our activity solely to approving legislation, paying taxes, and contributing to organized social-welfare programs. Many Americans have time and energy which they would willingly contribute to the needs of their fellow men, if they could see the chance to do this. There are retired persons who wish to be active and useful. Mothers of grown children may have time on their hands. Many of our teenagers wish to be challenged with something truly useful in their leisure time. The spirit and dedication that characterized our Peace Corps can PAGENO="0235" ECONOMIC OPPORTTJNITY ACT OF 1964 951 also be used in domestic service by those who may not be willing or able to serve abroad. In emphasizing the need for social action, we must at the same time pay deserved tribute to the many voluntary agencies, including especially our own Catholic charities, the Saint Vincent de Paul Society, and others which have devoted so much to the service of the unfortunate in our society. Their workers know from firsthand experience the tragic problems caused by destitution and de- moralization. Their wisdom and guidance will be invaluable in any campaign against poverty. New programs must supplement, not replace, what is being done so well by these dedicated groups. America has been hailed throughout the world for its generosity, its willingness to come to the aid of those in need. When there is famine or natural disaster, we rush to help, using both governmental and private agencies. Without narrowing our worldwide vision of generosity and sympathy, let us also turn our eyes to the problems here at borne. Of the early Christians it was said: "See how these Christians love one another." Can we think of a more fitting expression of the Christian renewal being worked out in Vatican Council II than a torrent of con- cern on our part for the poor in our midst? "As long as you have done it for one of these, the least of my brethren, you did it for me." (Mt. XXV, 40.) Monsignor HIGGINs. To make sure that work is available for all those who are able and willing to work is obviously a big challenge. Even today, 30 years after the great depression, our national rate of unemployment is still dangerously high-considerably higher, by the way, than that of almost any other major industrial country in the world. This is our No. 1 economic problem, at the present time, and unless and until it is faced up to realistically, there can be no real hope of our solving the problem of poverty, no matter what we do for the poor in terms of remedial services and no matter how hard we try to retrain the unemployed or to help them, in other ways, to help themselves. In summary, then, it is the position of the social action department that, as stated in its recent statement on poverty, in developing a com- prehensive antipoverty program, we ought to put major emphasis on basic economic reforms, not to the neglect or the exclusion of social reform and additional remedial services for the poor, but as the neces- sary prerequisites for their long-range effectiveness. Turning now to the question of education, we regret that H.R. 10440 does not provide for the full utilization of all of the educational resources of this Nation in the war against poverty. It specifically provides, for example: Any elementary or secondary school education program assisted under this section shall be administered by the public educational agency or agencies prin- cipally responsible for providing elementary and secondary education in the area involved. This is of the utmost concern to us, because religious schools enroll hundreds of thousands of children who come from economically de- prived homes and who are in need of special educational assistance. A spot check of some metropolitan cities produced the following statistics on parochial schoolchildren in economically depressed areas: Wash- ington, 17,000; Baltimore, 11,000; New Orleans, 11,000; Detroit, 10,- 000; New York, 21,000. I would add, parenthetically, in my judgment those figures are conservative. The parochial schools in these cities, as well as in other parts of the coi~mtry, are already providing special educational programs for some of these children. They could provide much more assistance to PAGENO="0236" 952 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 many more children if the opportunity is afforded. The intent of this bill is to mobilize all financial and human resources in eradicating poverty. Surely, then, it should be possible to devise some way of uti- lizing the facilities and personnel of parochial schools, not for the sake of the school-these programs are actually a burden to the schools- but for the sake of the children. We note that H.R.. 10440 does make a. partial attempt to assure the participation of all schoolchildren in whatever special educational programs are provided at elementary and secondary levels. Section 204 states: * No child shall be denied the benefit of such a program because he is not regularly enrolled in the public schools. The objective of this provision, we commend, for the basic criterion should be need, and this I think is the spirit of the bill, and that need, as already observed, is just as evident among the children in parochial schools as among those in public schools. We question, however, whether this provision, paragraph (b), section 204, will in practice be effective in assuring the special educational opportunities necessary for these disadvantaged children. As previously indica.ted, we recognize that H.R. 10440 is only one step in the direction of aiding the poor, but a very important step. It concerns itself about certain segments of the population, segments which need special attention. There are other groups of citizens, how- ever, who demand consideration. The needs of these groups are utilized in a special policy statement approved recently by the Catholic charities directors of the United States, representing all sections of the country. This statement, which pledges support to the Govern- ment in fighting poverty, I would like to submit as part of the record of this testimony when it becomes available next week. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF RT. REV. M5GR. RAYMOND J. GALLAGHER, SECRETARY, NATIoNAL CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC CHARITIEs The average citizen of the United States may well test his knowledge of the actual dimensions of poverty existing in his nation. It is probably true that each of us has read broad and generalized statements that have conveyed the fact that a large number of people are living below a minimum standard. It remains to be seen whether or not the average citizen has been moved to seek a great deal more factual material, and inspired to relate it to the poor around him. Forty mfflion people, we are told, live below the poverty line. This alarm- ing fact is followed by a long list of statistical citations, all of which underscores the degree of need being experienced by children, youth, the aging, families, and individuals. Indeed, even in their own income maintenance programs, public welfare services have provided for the needy at a less than sufficient material level. The average assistance grant received by those who are dependent upon the Government for their daily bread is well below the same Governm~nt's pov- erty line. Upon hearing the statistical analysis of poverty, most of us have a practice of relating these facts to Harlem or to Appalachia, but rarely to this city in which we live. It has not as yet become a personal thing with us. the result being that we are not truly involved in enunciating and defending the rights of the poor. These basic rights remain, regardless of the ability of the poor to pass an affluence test which our present-day society has set forth. Their rights remain, whether or not the poor are able to earn the status necessary to defend these rights against their critics. The poor retain an equal right with that of any other citizen to an adequate and regular means of livelihood. They retain their God-given right to the means necessary to make their lives secure, productive, satisfying, and fulfilled. They retain the right to make a contribution to society, PAGENO="0237" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 953 a right which demands the tools and the materials to accomplish it. Theirs is a right to be measured in terms of their inherent worth and their potential for progress and advancement. The fact that a complex of circumstances has made it impossible for them to exercise these rights and to exploit this potential does not detract one bit from the inviolability of the rights at stake. The church recognizes its traditional responsibility in behalf of the poor. Within the format of all major religious faiths is the stated responsibility, freely shouldered by communicants of those faiths, to seek out the poor and the neglected in order that the works of justice and charity might be multiplied in their behalf. In all creeds, the serving of the needs of the poor is not an optional program but rather one that pertains to the essence of the creed involved. While it may be true that the dimensions of the problem have developed beyond man's prudent estimates and the dollar volume required to meet these needs has exceeded their private treasuries, the obligation of religious faiths to serve the cause of the poor has not been decreased nor can it be totally delegated. It is our responsibility in this moment of great need to delineate the concepts of justice, charity, and equality of opportunity. Our consequent responsibility is to convert these concepts into workable programs and attainable goals, set forth before all mankind so that the privation, the misery, and the disconsolate experience of the poor may continue no longer. The church must maintain her affiliation with the poor so that they may be motivated and encouraged in their efforts to utilize the opportunities and the potentials which our new conscious- ness of poverty forces us to provide. Major social developments in this, the latest of social and industrial revolu- tions, necessitate the realinement of the resources. No longer can we depend upon the generosity of individuals, religious organizations, civic or patriotic groups, to meet the total needs of the poor. Three major processes identified with this modern era make this impossible. Many families and individuals have so increased their mobility since World War II that most of them live in a very marginal manner. The traditional resources available to stable families are nonexistent with this large segment of our people who are continuously on the move. The immigration of millions of people into the industrial centers of the North and West have multiplied the incidence of dependency. With each degree of increasing dependency, a lower level of living in an urban center has resulted. Many people crowded into little space, with reduced employment opportunities, have produced widespread need. Thirdly, the fact of automation has had a widespread effect upon the employability of willing workers who bring only their hands as their tools to do the job. The ever-decreasing need for this type of workman has added a depth and a continuation to dependency that social and economic planners could hardly have foreseen a generation or two ago. The proposal of our Federal Government to take a leadership role in dealing with the phenomenon of widespread poverty is therefore very much in order. We look to the governmental organizations, having the widest base of operation, to take an essential role in dealing with the circumstances which are themselves so widespread and so deep. Where the need for additional Federal programs is indicated, they have the support of the National Conference of Catholic Charities, with the traditional reminder that they shall succeed in proportion to the use they make of existing voluntary civic and religious programs in the total effort to solve the problem. The National Conference of Catholic Charities approves the objectives of the Economk Opportunity Act of 1964. Through its several titles it addresses itself to the problems of the very young and of the unsettled youth of our day and in so doing offers to them the promise of better days. In providing programs for deprived children in social and educational situations through community action projects, this bill strikes a solid blow at the present inability of children to make maximum use of existing educational opportunities. It is the expressed intent of many of these proposals to prepare the future student to enrich his educational product by reason of greater interest, a keener appetite for knowl- edge and perseverance in study to the end. In providing a job experience for presentiy unemployed youth and young adults, this bill proposes to eliminate what could be a disastrous attitude at the very threshold of their life's work experience. However, in analyzing the prospects of these programs for the unemployed youth and young adults, one is prompted to ask where these programs will lead. We are not able to conclude with any assurance that these job experiences will lead into a marketa.b1~ PAGENO="0238" 954 ECONOMIC OPPORTU~1TY ACT OF 1964 industrial skifi for the future. While we agree that the present proposal offers the possibility of a good attitude toward work and a receptivity of the discipline of regular employment, we do not feel that the program is realistically geared to provide a skill or even an interest in the skills required in the highly automated industry Of the future. We suggest therefore that greater detail be set forth in different versions of this proposal which would indicate how the traimng experience will, in reality, provide these young men with the ability to develop and improve their industrial skills for the future. The National Conference of Catholic Charities, as with all other religious social welfare organizations is interested in maintaining the fabric of family life for all, regardless of the emergent character of the circumstances. We therefore recommend, in addition, that a greater proportion of these youth work and training programs be so administered as to keep the trainee at home in. his own community where the family ties can be preserved and where the unforeseen social and moral casualties can be kept to a minimum. In approving the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, the National Conference of Catholic Charities feels compelled to identify it as only a beginning in the process of long-range and wide-gaged planning necessary to influence all fields which are deeply affected by the impoverishment which prevails. We urge therefore that early action be taken on the following matters: (a) Ecepanded job training for fathers, particularly fathers with dependent chiictren.-While we are aware of the progress being made in this area, we, none the less, feel that it is not of sufficient size to meet the challenge which is before our country to provide everyone who is willing to work with the training necessary to maintain a job in the highly technical industry of our day. Further, we believe that an adequate subsidy should be paid each month to a man while he is in training so that the dignity and sense of self-sufficiency may be preserved. (b) Increased on-the-job training for youth.-Closer relationship between our educational system and our industries must be developed so that a wider sense of responsibility will be exemplified by industry and education for the task of preparing young people, through on-the-job experience, for a vital role in our industrial society. It is our belief that a subsidy might well be paid by Gov- erriment to those young men who are training in industries that cannot support them. (a) Housing for imo-income an4 middIe-in'~ome farnilies.-Housing in the centers of our larger cities, for low-income and middle-income families is clearly necessary if the unity of the family is to be preserved and the joy of family living experienced to the fullest. Special attention must be given to public housing which provides apartments for large families at a rent they can afford to pay. (d) Housing for the eiderly.-Attention must be given to existing programs and to the provision of new programs that would enable the Government, or private, nonprofit groups, to provide adequate, safe. and sanitary housing for older people. also at a rate they can afford to pay. When one considers the highly minimal fixed incomes of older people, it becomes dramatically clear that the present programs limit the possibility of public or private housers to pro- vide adequate living quarters at a reasonable cost for our senior citizens. (e) Medical care for the indigent of all ages.-Without implying that the Government take over the field of medical service, it is our conviction that ade- quate preventive, as well as treatment oriented, medical care should be pro- vided for the mothers and the infants among the poor and those who are medi- cally in need among the aged. It is our conviction that the latter category should be based on a social insurance system rather than a means test. (f) Adequate budgets for those programs now administered by various levels of governnient.-This is essential so that the average budget, be it for individual or family, can be brought to such adequacy. as would place them over, rather than under, the poverty line. The National Conference of Catholic Charities offers a pledge of renewed activity on the part of its agencies institutional and volunteer programs, to reach out to the poor in the spirit of true religions concern. It is a responsi- bilitv to be faced by us to be ingenious in recruiting personnel and in finding re- sources to alleviate the conditions of the poor on a neighborhoodS parish basis. It is the responsibility of organizations like our own to support the kind of administrative and legislative activity on the part of Government that will lead to a greater degree of adequacy for all of our citizens. It will be our PAGENO="0239" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT. OF 1964 955 privilege to be the voice of the poor, to plead their cause in this or any other assembly available to us. It is for. us to be the hands of the poor, to imple- ment the spirit of self-help, wherever it is possible, in whatever area of serv- ice it may be launched. It is for religious organizations such as our own, to motivate and to inspire the poor, to convince them that inadequacy and in- equality will exist no longer, and that they, with us, and with the Government, can succeed in removing the blight of personal and familial impoverishment in this day of opportunity for all. Monsignor HIciINs. In a similar vein, the Executive Committee of the National Catholic Rural Life Conference adopted last January a resolution pledging vigorous cooperation in the war on poverty. That resolution, which, with your permission, I would like to submit as part of the permanent record of these hearings, calls attention to the peculiar plight of the over 12 million rural people who live in dire poverty. It states that one-fifth of the schoolchildren born in rural America each year are born into poverty-ridden families. (The resolution referred to follows:) WAR ON POVERTY (A resolution adopted by the Executive Committee of the National Catholic Rural Life Conference, Urbana, Ill., January 29, 1964) The National Catholic Rurai Life Conference pledges its vigorous cooperation in the "unconditional war on poverty" declared by President Lyndon B. Johnson in his first state of the Union message. Poverty affects very many persons in rural areas. The percentage of rural families with incomes below the poverty line is almost twice as large as that of urban families. Over 12 million rural people live in dire poverty. One- fifth of the million children born in rural America each year are born into poverty-ridden families. Three-quarters of the families and individuals em- ployed as farm laborers have total annual incomes below nationally accepted standards of adequacy. Rural America has almost three times the proportion of dilapidated and substandard houses as urban America. Rural children receive one-third less medical service than those in and near cities. We urge the Congress to seriously consider the legislative proposals for fight- ing poverty, suggested by President Johnson. These fall within the scope of the Federal C overriment's responsibility, particularly since poverty frequently is found in "pockets" making necessary outside help to break the vicious circle of ignorance, poverty, and despair. On the other hand, it would be rash to presume that poverty will be removed from rural America through the actions of the Government alone. Indispensable are the efforts of individuals and private organizations at the grassroots level. The National Catholic Rural Life Conference will join in the fight against poverty both at the Federal and the grassroots levels. At congressional hearings we shall reiterate our support of an expanded rural areas development and area redevelopment program; of the proposed National Service Corps, and laws to protect the rights of migrant workers. Meanwhile, at the grassroots level we shall collaborate with other local leaders in the following remedial programs: 1. Rural areas redevelopment programs are the best tool yet devised to im- prove education, create new industrial jobs, increase agricultural income and better living conditions in rural counties. The success of RAD programs depends primarily on local leadership and initiative. We shall continue to foster a better understanding of and support for RAD. 2, Vocational training is urgently needed by those rural youths who will not complete college. The rapid and far-reaching changes in secondary school cur- riculums needed will not occur unless parents and members of local school boards thoroughly understand the issues at stake. We shall persist in our cam- paign to inject this issue into discussions and publications which help form opinion in rural areas. 3. We shall continue and expand our programs for stabilizing migrant workers who are among the primary victims of poverty in rural areas. We shall en- courage large private organizations and agencies of government to build upon and greatly expand the successful but relatively small projects we have begun. PAGENO="0240" 956 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 4. We shall give new impetus to our efforts at fostering cooperative marketing associations on a commodity-wide basis. We are convinced that this is the chief instrument through which family-type farmers can gain a fair share of the na- tional income. 5. We shall continue steadfastly to promote recognition of the rights of mi- nority racial groups in conformity with Christian social teaching, which states that all men are equal by reason of their natural dignity; that all men are chil- dren of God and all are redeemed by the precious blood of Jesus. Monsignor HIGGINS. Because of this condition, and the many other substandard conditions of rural America, the Catholic Rural Life Conference not only supports the proposed efforts of the Federal Gov- ernment, but recommends even further activity by all segmeiits of society. Gentlemen, America has been hailed, and rightly so, for its generous aid to people in need in all parts of the world. The American people have provided this aid as a matter of consèience and religious con- viction. This same generosity and sensitivity to the demands of con- science must motivate all Americans to joint ranks in an all-out war against poverty at home. Our response to this problem of poverty amidst plenty must be from the heart; it must spring from conviction; it must be intelligent; it must be comprehensive. To aid in evoking this type of response from the American citizenry-at least in some small way-we are pleased to submit these observations to assist you in your deliberations. Thank you very much for the opportunity to present this testimony on the bill. Mr. LANDRUM (presiding). Thank you, Monsignor Higgins. With respect to your remarks directed to section 204, what assistance now is available under Federal law for parochial schools? Do the parochial schools receive assistance under the school lunch program? Monsignor HIGGINS. They are operating under the school lunch program. I must say in all frankness, Congressman, I am not a tech- nical expert in the educational field but I do know something about it from observation. That would be one of the major programs under which the parochial schools are included. Mr. LANDRUM. Is there assistance also provided to the parochial school children under the National Defense Education Act-are you aware of this-such as counseling, testing? Monsignor HmGINs. I cannot answer that in detail but we have people on the staff that could provide answers to any specific question. Our approach to this, Congressman, ties in with the line of ques- tioning which you are pursuing. We would not presume in these hearings to attempt to suggest to the committee in practical detail what forms the inclusion of parochial ~chools under this section of the act might take, but merely raise the question for future considera- tion by the committee in its deliberations. If existing Federal pro- grams are models which can be followed that might be one helpful approach. But our concern is that in many areas of the country (this I know from personal experience in traveling the èountry constantly in my own work in many areas of the country) some of the very poorest people are in parochial schools and very likely in the practical order would not benefit in any way from paragraph (b) of the same section which says that nothing shall exclude the participation of parochial school children even though they are not enrolled full time PAGENO="0241" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 957 in a public school. The very circumstances in which many of these people live would, in many cases, make that almost an impossible provision to apply. Mr. LANDRUM. I interpret your remarks to mean that you are not concerned here with the law providing any particular assistance to an organization of a religious nature or to an institution of a religious nature, but you are concerned about the section as directed at the child? Monsignor HIGGINS. At the child. We have no interest in getting additional funds which would accrue to the benefit of sectarian edu- cation or anything of that sort, but our concern, as I have tried to indicate in my entire testimony, is with helping to carry out the provisions or the spirit of the bill; which is, to help any child, or any adult for that matter, who is in need of the kind of special edu- cational training or other training that is offered or provided for in this bill. And there are many, in our judgment, who cannot be reached in practice unless, in some way, this training provision is provided under proper safeguards in the schools which they actually attend. That would be true; for example, in many of the areas where the Spanish-speaking children go to school, most of whom, or many of whom, are very poor and are in need of special training. It would be true of many Negro children in Catholic schools in some of the large cities, both in the North and in the South. It would be true of the migrants. Our concern is only with finding whatever way is feasible under law to help those children pull themselves up; which is, of course, the aim of the bill for all children who need this kind of help. Mr. LANDRUM. You do not mean to convey the impression that your organization; for example, or any parochial institution, or religious organization, seeks to have written in here provisions that would allow that institution or that organization to receive funds-public funds. What you are driving at is that you want the child to have the benefit of it. Monsignor HIGGINS. Yes. But our difficulty with the bill, as it is now written, Congressman, is that while there is the provision which I have alluded to in section (b) which elaborates upon section (a), which says that nothing shall preclude the participation of children even though they are not enrolled in public schools full time, our difficulty is that we do not see how, in practice, that is going to ac- complish the purpose of the bill. In other words, if you `have very deprived and very poor children in a neighborhood in which they normally would tend to go to a parochial school and you want to help them with remedial reading types of programs (which are already being offered in many Catholic schools), it seems to us that at least it is worthy of consideration by the committee to find~ some way in which that type of remedial reading-which would have nothing to do with sectarian education but would be within the spirit of this bill, the purposes of this bill-might be provided in the school which they attend. We fear that, otherwise, section (b) in many cases will simply not work; they will not go to the public school. They normally will get this kind of education in the institu- tion to which they are accustomed to go. For the very reason that the Governor stated so forcefully earlier in trying to explain why some ~1-847---64~--~pt. 2--16 PAGENO="0242" 958 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 youngsters have to be led by the hand (and these are older youngsters than we are talking about at the elementary and. secondary level) will have to be led by the hand in a. new world even to apply. for a job and for training. If that is true of older youngsters who have grad- uated from high school or who are of high school age, it is even more, I should think it would be even more true in many cases of younger children. Our concern is to think through or a.sk the committee to think through perhaps a little more carefully the. question of whether or not this provision will really meet the full purpose of the act which is to reach all of the children who need this kind of help. Mr. LAxmiu3r. We are going to give serious consideration and thought to that in the hope that we can devise some means of satisfy- ing your concern; at the same time., I am sure, you can appreciate the position we find ourselves in t.ha.t we must protect the constitutional provisions under which we have t.o work. Monsignor Hicoixs. I certainly do. Anybody who ha.s been at the National Catholic Welfare Conference. as long a.s I have been, some 20 years, is quite conscious of the constitutional problem and all of the emotion that surrounds that issue. But it seems to us that this is not a general education bill. This is a. bill designed for a very important purpose and to fill a very urgent need, aiid that is to help us lift these poor children up and give them an opportunity in the world. We feel that some consideration should be given to the possibility of emt.bling them to get t.he hind of training they need where they are rno~t likely to succeed. Mr. LAxDRu~r. Thank you, Monsignor. Mr. Bell of California. Mr. BELL. Monsignor, relative to the Federal funds as you spoke on page 5 of your statement, you made very clear your position of Federal aid to parochial schools as well as public schools. Monsignor HIGGINS. That is at the top of pages? Mr. BELL. Yes. If this permits the use of Federal funds in the great charitable and social activities of the church, would you not see some dangers in this? Monsi nor HIGGINS. I wonder if I c.ould draw a. parallel from the example raise.d by Congressman Landrum, Mr. Bell. He asked about the school lunch program. Now, this program was designed t.o help not only poor chi1dren, it extends, a.s I understand it., to all children in the schools. But in this context I think it. takes on even greater importance.. I wonder if basic remedial education is riot, more. impor- tant for the poor child toda.y than giving him a. free lunch, as im- portant as it is that. he eat. well aird ke.e.p his health. And if the Con- gress, in its wisdom, over the years has been able. to work out a formula within the Constitution, within the first amendment, which has made it possible for children in parochial schools t.o share in the school lunch program without., t.o my knowledge. any grect difficulty about it over the years-it is quite extensive, now-it seems to us that it. would be equally important and in my judgment. more important. within the purposes and the spirit of this law, to work out. some means within the Constitution and within the first amendment to enable the children, the deprived poor children in the types of schools I am referring to, to get the necessary education that they may need to lift themselves PAGENO="0243" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 959 up out of poverty in the next generation. Because to feed them, to give them milk and other health building foods is one thing but it is not going to do them much good to be healthy if they get out of school and are not able to find work-if, that is,they are not qualifiedto work. As I said to Congressman Landrum, I think it would not be proper f or me in this setting to try to advise the committee in technical con stitutional language as to the solution of this problem, but I do raise it seriously for the consideration of the committee and I honestly feel that it is not an insoluble problem in the light of the experience that we have had with the school lunch program and the other programs. Mr. BELL. Do you see any danger, Monsignor, in the encroachment that this would involve in Federal direct aid. In some cases in this particular bill there are phrases that would make you think there is even not the necessity for the Federal. Government to go through the procedure of giving the State the direct responsibility while the Federal Government is providing the funds. In some cases, it even implies that the Federal Government moves in and makes its own arrangements with local concerns. Then you get into the other fea- tures of the activities which involve religion in which there is direct aid. Don't you see some problems there of the Federal Government en- croachment in all of this? Monsignor HIGGINS. You mean danger to the autonomy and free- dora of the school? Mr. BELL. The parochial school, the religious organizations and State organizations andlocal organizations. Monsignor HIGGINS. I do not see it as a great problem. I think the spirit of this bill, and I admire the way in which it is drafted, is very reasonable. I do not think it is the intent :~f the bill, or its drafters, so far as I read the language of the bill, to build up some kind of collossal Federal bureaucracy which is going to be telling the States, the local communities, and local community groups how to run their affairs. I think the Federal Government is acting as a catalyst trying to do what it can through the coordination of programs to help the peo- ple who need help. To be quite specific, in direct answer to the question, I would not see that as a danger to the parochial schools or to other private groups. Mr. BELL. For example, this bill would permit the use of Federal funds for possibly even such activities as birth control carried out by public and private agencies. Monsignor HIGGINS. I am. not aware of that. If you tell me that is so, I would be glad to- Mr. BELL. It would imply that. Monsignor HIGGINS. That is a problem that can be discussed in its own context. Your specific question to me, 1 think, was, as I under- stood it, whether or not I felt that including under constitutionally sound ways, including parochial schools in some phases of the educa- tional program would be a danger in the autonomy of those schools, and I do not think it would be. Mr LANDPUM Would the gentleman yield ~ Mr. BELL. Yes. Mr. LANDRUM. Wherein do you find in this act such authority to conduct these programs? PAGENO="0244" 960 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OP 1964 Mr. BELL. The fact that it does not, it completely leaves it out, is a problem, too. Mr. LANDRUM. That is the most fantastic inference it has been my privilege to hear any intelligent gentleman like you or anyone else make. Monsignor Hioon~s. I must say I do not see that in the bill. Mr. CHAIRMAN. I wonder if I could add one word on another matter in the bill. I presume that others may have mentioned this before but it natu- rally would be our hope, representing religious groups, that due con- sideration will be given, if not in the language of the bill certainly by the Director, to the provision of proper spiritual care for the lads who are going to volunteer to go to camps. Mr. LANDRUM. I have seen some vivid imagination since I have been in this business but not quite so vivid as that. Mr. BELL. I am just saying it is a possibility of interpretation: "Such component programs shall be focused upon the needs of low- income individuals and families and shall provide, in particular areas or to particular groups in a community, expanded and improved serv- ices, assistance, and other ac.tivties, and facilities necessary in connec- tion therewith, in the fields of education, employment, job training and counseling, health, vocational rehabilitation2 housing, home man- agement, welfare, and other fields which fall within the purposes of this title." What would prohibit that? Mr. LANDRUM. I cannot even imagine an inference there to an invi- tation into the family desires. Mr. GOODELL. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. BELL. Yes. Mr. GOODELL. I think the question is, If a community action pro- gram determines that the needs of low-income individuals in a given community involve making birth control information available to them, is it prohibited under this provision here? Is the gentleman saying that it is, that he would want to make very clear at this point that no such services could be offered? Mr. LANDRUM. I am saying only that the two gentlemen now ad- dressing themselves to this point are exercising a most fantastic, im- proper imagination I have ever seen. Mr. GOODELL. Where do we get into this language this is fantastic? This is in many areas of the country. It is going on in North Carolina this afternoon. Mr. LANDRU~t It might rain today but right now it does not look like it. Mr. G00DELL. As one approach to the problems of poverty I asked a simple question. The gentleman is avoiding the question. Are you saying that such a program, if it were part of a. community action program, would be barred under the language of this bill? Mr. LANDRUM. I think there is no possibility of such a program ever being undertaken `by the community action provisions of this bill. Mr. GOODELL. Are you saying that the provisions of this bill would not accept such a program; it would bar such a program? PAGENO="0245" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 961 You are saying you do not think any community would ever come up with such an action program. That avoids the question. This is a question which is a legitimate one. There is broad language here. Mr. LANDRUM. I will not avoid answering it any further if that is what the gentleman says. I will say that the bill as written does not contemplate that there would be any such action ever imagined. Cer- tainly we are not going to have to go into the business of prohibiting taking a deep breath, are we? Mr. GOODELL. You are not imagining that it will happen. Are you going the next step that if it should happen that it is not authorized, that Federal funds be used for such a program? Mr. LANDRUM. I have never anticipated that Federal funds would be used and I do not think the bill as proposed contemplates it and I do not think it is possible under the bill. If you think it is, I will say you are exercising an imagination that is trying to scare the polar bears around. Mr. BELL. It does not prohibit this. Mr. GOODELL. If the gentleman will yield-- Mr. LANDRUM. If you have objections to the bill as written that are valid, let us advance them and talk about them constructively, but let us get out of the fairy land. Mr. GOODELL. Now, Mr. Chairman- Mr. LANDRUM. Regular order. Let us finish with the witness. Mr. GOODELL. He has yielded to me. If you want to start putting a muzzle on these hearings, go right ahead, but this is a legitimate ques- tion which the gentleman from Georgia has frequently raised in other pieces of legislation, that broad general authority can be used spe- cifically and we ought to try to anticipate how it will be used. Mr. LANDRUM. What word does the gentleman from New York desire from me? Mr. GOODELL. You are saying that we are raising a point that is fantastië. Mr. LANDRUM. I will not retract the statement. Mr. GOODELL. We are creating legislative history. If you say this won't be done and it is not authorized, that is sufficient for me. You hajve apparently said that as a matter of legislative history this is not authorized under the language here. Mr. LANDRUM. Are you through? Mr. GOODELL. I asked the question. Mr. LANDRUM. 1 have answered all the questions I am going to answer from the gentleman today. You stay away from the most con- structive hearing that we have and come in at the last minute and stir up a lot of fanfare. Mr. BELL. If the gentleman will yield, the point of the matter is that certainly it would be constructive to avoid any pitfalls that coald be misinterpreted or misused. I think that is a very constructive suggestion. Mr. LANDRUM. I do not care to pursue the question with you further. I see you have no concrete argument to pursue it with. Mi BELl I think the conci eteness of the ai gument is in the phi ase ology PAGENO="0246" 962 ECONO~UC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Mr. LAXDR1~3r. The gentleman from California may proceed. I have no desire to interrupt him further. Mr. BELL. Monsignor, relative to this youth program, title I, are you familiar with this particular feature.? Monsignor HIGGINS. Speaking of the: Job Corps? Mr. BELL. Of the Job Corps. Monsignor HIGGINS. I am familiar with the bill. Of course, the administration of it is another matter. Mr. BELL. ~1'ou have., I am certain you have had a considerable amount of experience with the youth throughout t.he Nation in your efforts. Monsignor HIGGINS. I have had some. We have a youth depart- ment which has had much more, that has a staff in that field, but I have had some, yes, sir. Mr. BELL. I am concerned about the possibility as far as the Youth Corps is concerned of duplicmion of effort. I know that we have pro- grams which the gentleman from New York and myse~Ef and I know the acting chairman have all supported. Programs such as manpower development, and retraining and vocational education a.nd many other programs that I think are also aimed ut fighting poverty. We have just recentiy'expanded these two programs adding to it basic educa.tion~ and so on. My question to you is this: Would it not. be a. better a.nd more direct approach to the solving of the employment, problem or helping to solve the unemployment problem as fa.r as t.he youth is concerned to go directly and educate them toward gaining new jobs rather than placing them in camps throughout the Nation t.ha.t may or may not adequately train them for fut.ure jobs and economic gain- ful employment? Monsignor HmoINs. Congressman, in answering t.his particular question. I am speaking in my own name because our organization has taken no position on this section of the bill, to the best of my knowl- edge. But I would answer in substantially the same way tha.t the Governor of North Carolina answered, that it has been my experience that useful as the ot.her programs are that you have mentioned. `and they will be better with the improvements that you have referred to, I can still see great merit personally in t.he Job Corps program for the reason that the Governor gave; namely, the need to, in many cases, give these youngsters t.he stimulation and the incentive tha.t they need and that may in some cases require giving them an environment which will make it possible for them to developthose incentives. I think the experience imder t.he manpower program, a.t least this is my impression, would demonstrate that very often we are training those who need it least, not that they don't need it. Any- one who is trained under that progra.m~ I am sure is benefiting from it. But the problem referred to by the Governor I think is a real one, of how to reach those who need it most and who normally would not apply even, as he said, if you ga.ve them all kinds of encouragement. You almost have to lead them in. Therefore, I can see, myself, from my own experience, some merit in the Job Corps program as one approach to this problem of building up in- centive. I do not say that it is the only way of doing it. I would be concerned, however, as I said earlier-and I think any clergy- man would be, and you would expect. them to be-I would be. con- PAGENO="0247" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 963 cerned about the conditions under which the camps are operated, with youngsters of that age. We have fortunately a good bit of experience to go back on from the CCC days which I am sure will be helpful to the administrator of the law, if the bill is enacted, in working that part of the pro- gram out. Mr. Bia~L. Monsignor, you were speaking of the CCC days. Many of the members of the committee have spoken of the CCC days. I would hate to think that the Members on the other side of the aisle are willing to grant today that the situation of the country is such where we have this sizable unemployment that the disastrous eco- nomic conditions of the country are such that we have to go into all-out program such as the CCC program that was done during the height of the greatest depression that we have known. Maybe the Members on the other side of the aisle are willing to grant that we are in that condition today. Monsignor HIGGINS. Not being on either side of the aisle- Mr. BELL. I would certainly question whether that situation does exist. I would rather take this problem in a more analytical, care- ful, planned-out program to try to develop a job training for youth so that they are prepared to make an economic livelihood and not send them all over the country in vast programs, recollecting days of the 1930's. Monsignor HIGGINS. Not being on either side of the aisle, I will refrain, properly, I think, from making comments on whatever dis- agreementS there may be between the gentlemen on either side. However, I think I must say in all fairness as a witness, since I have been asked the question, that it is not my impression that the Job Corps part of the bill is designed to be quite the same thing as the CCC. I think it is designed primarily to do what you are stating as your own objective; namely, to provide proper training. Now, I can readily imagine that Congressmen on either side of the aisle might have disagreements as to the wording or as to the wisdom of the provision, but I read it as being not the same as the CCC program but one which would put more emphasis on train- ing for- Mr. BELL. Monsignor, we have a problem on this, that you may or may not be aware of, the problem of securing teachers and adequate school facilities, and so forth, even under vocational education and manpower development and retraining. How are we going to get adequate teachers and adequate training for these yOuths all over the country and in camps when it might be better to expand and develop our teacher program for a going program that we have not even ade- quately developed yet? Yet we are taking on another program to find more teachers for this when we cannot even supply the vocational education and manpower development and retraining adequately. Further than that, the youth are training in camps and they are learning to cut down trees and things of this kind, and I am not sure that that is going to prepare them for a job in urban areas. Monsignor HIGGINS. As I indicated, Congressman, I do not wish to appear to be arguing in favor of this particular section of the. bill in the name of my organization; because, as I say, this is a matter on which we have not taken a policy decision or made a policy statement. Therefore, I think that perhaps it might even be improper for me to PAGENO="0248" 964 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 get involved in the argument or the disagreement over this issue within the committee or within the Congress except to say this, as I said earlier, that if this program is not the right answer, then I think we must think more deeply than we have thought up to now of find- ing some way to give an incentive to these children and to prepare them culturally, if you will, to want to take advantage of existing programs. Because I am quite convinced, from what I know of big- city life in various parts of the country, that most of the children, the young men, who need this hind of training that isprovided under the manpower bill, Manpower Retraining Act, are never going to hear of it or, if they do hear of it, are not going to have much of an incentive to take advantage of it for all kinds of cultural reasons. So, I would not want to appear to be taking a strong stand one way or the other on the Job Corps, but I would take a strong stand, as the Governor did, and I think very effectively and very correctly today, on the de- ficiencies of an admittedly very good program that we have followed up until now. My experience with priests who are working among deprived children and youth is that their main problem is a cultural problem, of trying to get an incentive built into these youngsters to want to take advantage of available programs. That would be where I would stand on the issue without getting involved in thc Mr. BELL. Then, Monsignor, you would agree, as I understand it, with the idea of recruiting these youngsters to begin with and, sec- ondly, recruiting the right kind? Monsignor HIGGINS. Well, now, I would not want to say that, Con~ gressman. I would rather, so far as my official testimony goes, remain out of that dispute because I do not know whether those difficulties which you contemplate can be adequately overcome or not. Mr. BELL. Thank you. Mr. LANDRUM. Mr. Goodell. Mr. GooDErL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Monsignor Higgins, it is a great pleasure to welcome you to this com- mittee and compliment you on a very fine statement. I wish to pay tribute to the very substantial role of the church in combating poverty. I have read your booklet that you attached tO your statement, "A Religious View of Poverty, Statement of the De- partment of Social Action." I think this also is a very impressive document. I am particularly intrigued and impressed with the state- ment on page 4 of that pamphlet which contrasts the self-imposed poverty from worldly goods of the church and the poverty, as the pamphlet calls it, that hurts the soul. I quote: There is a destitution that binds men to this earth, since it forces them to use every waking moment to keep body and soul together. There is want that breeds bitterness and resentment, even hatred. I think this is a healthy perspective for us, too. It is very difficult to define precisely the characteristics of poverty from a Government viewpoint so that we can focus in and really be helping those who are in need and are in the cycle of poverty. I do have one major question that I would like to pursue, Monsignor Higgins. On page 4, you discuss the problem of the language of the bill in utilizing religious organizations, and you say: Surely, then, it should be possible to devise some way of utilizing the facilities and personnel of parochial schools. PAGENO="0249" ECONOMIC OPPORTTJNITY ACT OF 1964 965 Then on page 5, after reciting the prohibition against aid to any schools but the public elementary and secondary and the additional sentence- No child shall be denied the benefit of such a program because he is not regularly enrolled in the public schools- you conclude with this sentence: We question, however, whether this provision of the bill will in practice be effec- tive in assuring the special educational opportunities necessary for these dis- advantaged children. Am I correct that you are fearful at least that there is something lacking in the bill with reference to this, that there is a cloudy area that you are not sure exactly what is intended? Whether we should clarify it? Monsignor }IIIGGIN5. No; it is not so much a cloudiness in the lan- guage of the bill, Congressman, as I see it, but rather the practicality of the matter. The language, I think, is quite clear, at least to me. As it is written, the bill says that if there are to be special educational programs for deprived children of whatever type, at the elementary or the secondary level, these must be conducted under public educa- tional auspices. Now, what section (b), paragraph (b) means, to me at least-I stand subject to correction-is that if a public school offers a remedial educational service for the deprived, the children from a parochial school or other private school may not be prohibited from taking ad- vantage of that service in the public school. Now, my difficulty, then, is not one of language but the one I re- ferred to in the discussion earlier with Congressman Landrum, and that is whether or not, in practice, this is going to make it possible for the average poor deprived child in the parochial school to get the proper remedial services or whether, if the purpose of the bill, as it is, is to make available to all the children who need this aid, whether it would not be more feasible to have the necessary remedial services provided in the school which he attends, with the proper safeguards under the Constitution against using any Federal money for purely sectarian purposes. I cited the case, in that connection, of the school lunch program which has been in operation for many years and, so far as I know, is operating quite successfully and without any difficulties. I consider, as I said earlier, that it may be more important at this stage of the game to make sure that these youngsters get the adequate remedial services they need educationally than it is even to provide them with good food, necessary as that may be. Mr. GOODELL. Then you are saying, in effect, that you believe that this type of program in many instances would be most effectively ad- ministered in the area where the need exists and this might be in the private school and it might be in the public school? Monsignor HIGGINS. Yes; let us take a hypothetical example. For the moment I don't want to specify any particular area or town, but I think I could do so easily enough if I had a map in front of me. Let us take a town in a mining area where the majority of the children, and perhaps all in some small conimunity, might be in a parochial school. These children are deprived. The purpose of the bill, the spirit of the bill, is to do what we can under the terms of this bill to PAGENO="0250" 966 ECO~OM1C OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 help these children lift themselves up. They need certain remedial services. Now, under my hypothetical case, these children would have to go, whatever the distance was, to a public school to receive this type of training. That, it seems to me, is an unnecessary restriction within the purposes of the bill. If we are interested, as I say, in feeding these children, and feeding them in their own school-they don't ha.ve to leave the school and go over to the public school to get the free lunch, they eat right where they are-then it seems to me, that in many cases it would be just. as feasible and just as necessary t.o provide whatever special remedial services a.re needed in the school which they attend, for psychological reasons as well as for purely practic.a.l reasons. Mr. GOODELL. What it comes down to. from our viewpoint., what you are recommending is that. we strike out 204 (b), is it not? Monsignor Hicuixs. No; perhaps I have not made my position clear yet, Congressman; 204(b) is ftne if the services are going to be limited exlusively to public education agencies. Then surely .the least the bill would want to say is that. since it is to aid all children, the chil-. dren of parochial schools, as well as other private schools, should not be excluded by the mere fact they do not go full time to a public school. What I am suggesting is something additional-the constitutional experts would have to work this out-and that is why I hesitate and refrain from making any specific proposal, but I am suggesting that some thought be given to changing, rather adding, something instead of subtracting so as to make it possible, under whatever conditions seem to be necessary t.o stay within the strict limits of the Constitu- tion, make it possible for special nonsectarian remedial services aimed at aiding poor children, make it possible for those services to be given in private schools. Mr. G-OODELL. Then t.he mechanics would be a grant to the organiza- tion that is running that school, would it not? Monsignor HIGGINS. I must say, I would be rather weak on the me- chanics because I am not an educationa.l administrator but I would assume that if the mechanics have been working out successfully, as they have in the case of the school lunch program, the mechanical problem is not an insuperable one. Mr. LANDR~M. Would the gentleman from New York yield? Mr. 000DELL. Yes; I will be delighted, to. Mr. LANDRUM. Back to the earlier colloquy that we had, Monsignor, I believe we stated that the principal, concern here is not with the receipt by the institution or the organization of the a.ssistance but the receipt by the child; I think we must not overlook that factor. The concern is with the child and not necessarily with the organization or institution. Monsignor HIGGINS. I think we would all agree that in a matter as tragically crucial as this is, that any school that would be thinking of aggrandizing itself as a school under a poverty bill would be a pretty poor kind of school. Taking on this kind of extraremedial services, whether in a public school or in a private school, is nothing but a' bur- den, tha.t the school ought gladly t.o accept.. PAGENO="0251" ECONOMIC OPPORTuNITY ACT OF 1964 967 Mr. GOODELL. If I may say so, Monsignor Higgins, I think 204(b), the language of it, is designed specifically to prevent the administra- tion of this program by a parochial or a private school. It has to be administered by the public school. That is the whole purpose. Monsignor HIGGINS. Under the language as it is written now. Mr. GOODELL. Yes. Monsignor HIGGINS. That would be my interpretation. Mr. GOODELL. When I say should we strike it, I agree we can leave it in and say but you could also permit private schools to administer these programs and then the section no longer has the intent that it did when they put it in here. There is no reason for saying that it must be administered by a public education agency or agency principally responsible for providing public elementary and secondary education in the area involved except to exclude private schools. Monsignor HIGGINS. You are suggesting striking the entire (b) ? Mr. GOODELL. Yes. Monsignor HIGGINs. I misunderstood you. I thought originally you were referring to the last sentence which says that "no child shall be denied." Mr GOODELL No, the entire 204(b) As far `i~s that is concerned, I would strike the first sentence and leave the sentence5 "No child shall be denied the benefit., of such a program because he is not regu- larly enrolled in the public schools." ..- ., . Monsignor HIGGINS That, it seems to me, would be `t better woi ding than the bill has now and I think more in dine with the purposes of the bill. However, my intent, in raising the question, as I. indicated earlier, was not to presume to suggest langu'tge to the committee Mr. GOODELL. I understand~ that. I am not presuming to suggest that this is what I think we should do. What I am trying to., do is clarify what you are urging us to do here. It seems to me you are urging us to make these funds available so that they can be adminis- tered in proper circumstances by the private, school, as well as the public school. . ` Monsignor HIGGINS. Yes; in the `wisdom of .the administrator, who would have to decide on the need~ I think need `is the matter which should be considered. ` ` . Mr. GOODELL. I agree with what the gentleman from- Georgia said and wh'Lt you have said, Monsignor, that what we are concerned with obviously is the child.. This we will.have to deal with very precisely or we will get mto some difficult problems We have seen it happen in other fields on other'legislation. . , Monsignor HIGGINS. I am currently reading' a new book on the history of this entire dispute in the last 15' years, so `I know. how complicated it is, but in. my judgment, if we were able .to solve the problem of feeding children, even when they weren't needy, then it seems to me that if we want to really `go all Out in the war against poverty and' make sure that we tackle this problem. effectively, there ought to be some way of solving what I consider to be an even ,more important problem at the moment, and that is providing the neces- sary remedial training for these children Mr. GOODELL. I think the monsignor will agree with me that with our concern for material poverty' we must remember that not only in the poor people of oui country but in many other sectors of our PAGENO="0252" 968 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 country our perhaps greatest concern is spiritual poverty. This is why I was so impressed. Monsignor Hmon~s. It would be rather difficult to write a bill on that. Mr. GOODELL. That is absolutely true. This is why I was so im- pressed with this part that I read from your pamphlet here because I agree so much that it is the material poverty which frequently breeds the bitterness and resentment and the hatred and the spiritual poverty is the breeding place for this also. Thank you. Mr. LANDRIThI. Mr. Brademas. Mr. BRADEMAS. I yield to Mr. Gill for a question. Mr. Gu~r~. Monsignor, I am not certain that we are reading section 204(b) in the same way. Of course I realize we are walking through a very delicate min~field here which can blow up and cripple the par- ticipants and the bill as well. What 204(b) says is that the elemen- tary and secondary education program assisted under this section shall be administered by the public education agency or agencies. Now, I am not sure that that prohibits a situation where a county school board, public agency, could set up a program where different sections of the training was done in the public schools and conceivably even in the parochial schools as long as the programs were administered by the county school board. Monsignor HiGGINS. Well, I would have to yield to the committee in interpreting this section. It is quite possible that that interpreta- tion is the one that was meant, but it is my impression from the line of questioning which has been followed in some of the previous meetings of the committee that that perhaps was not the intention, the one that you referred to is not the real intention of the language but, rather, it was meant to say that nonprivate schools may not participate in the program. I must yield to the committee in interpreting its own bill. Mr. Gu~L. My suggestion is that the language here does not say that the nonpublic school cannot participate insofar as their facilities, their personnel, whatever other training accouterments there are. It merely says the program in that area will be administered by the public agency. Monsignor HiGGINS. Yes, sir. Mr. GirL. In other words, in the town situation that you posed here, the public agency, if there was one, would have to have the money. They could not hand it over to your parochial school and say "you set up the program." Monsignor HIGGINs. But, you see, in many States, Congressman, the very constitution of the State would prohibit the State agency from doing that. That is why, in the case of the school lunch program, a formula had to be devised which would in those cases make it possible for the Federal administrator of the program to deal directly with another system. Again, I do not want to pretend or appear to be toothcombing this thing constitutionally, but I raise the question so that hopefully it will be given a complete hearing by the committee in its own session. Mr. Gu~L. I think we certainly will have to take a good look at the language to see what is really meant here. Frankly, I do not see any problem that cannot be surmounted here with proper administration. PAGENO="0253" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 969 Monsignor }imo~Ns. in many States, Congressman, if you provided Feder'iJ ~ssistance for this purpose and required that it be administered through the public education agency, the State constitution would pro- hibit you frOm doing that. Not in all States. Mr. GILL. That being a special problem-even in that ease, I do not see anything that would prevent, the public school agency from saying to the parochial school, if it was a good one in the area: "Can you send us over two remedial teachers in a~ certain . field for a certain length of time, we will take care of their expenses"? Monsignor HIGGINs. My question is where the students will ~et their t.raining. Presumably the public educational agency could hire anybody it wanted. Mr. Gu~L. Surely. . . Monsignor HIGGINS. And would hire the best people it could find. But I am concerned with the type of problem that the Governor raised earlier this morning, of whether it is psychologically and practically fea.sible to expect to implement the purposes of this act if it is restricted to one type of educational system-that is where the children would have to go over to this other, school. That is why I cited the case which I don't think is purely hypothetical, of children, the pre- dominant number of children, in some towns maybe all the children being in a parochial school. Would it not be possible to write the language in the bill in such a way that for the limited purpose of this bill, which has nothing to do with sectarian: education, it would be possible for those children to receive whatever remedial services the Federal Government was going to assist in providing in the school which they actually attend. I personally think, as a nonprofessional educator, that psychologi- cally it would be better for the children to be doing that, but that is another matter. Mr. GILL. You would have no objection to supplying personnel and facilities or training techniques and aids. for. training in an area which is not part of your sectarian school, would you? Monsignor HIGGINS. No. I am not arguing against the public school doing everything it can in every conceivable way. Mr. GILL. You would be willing to assist them, too, would you not? Monsignor HIGGINS. By all means. Mr. BRADEMAS. Monsignor Higgins, I have no questions to ask you but I might say we are very pleased to have our Chairman, Mr. Perk- ins, with us today, who had a little stomach' upset the other `day. We are glad to have him back hale and hearty. I might say to you, sir, how grateful we are for your testimony. J think there are few organizations that have shown a greater interest in the difficult social and economic problems than the Department of Social Action of the National Catholic Welfare COnference. I know you have long been identified with this work and that you have given great leadership to us `in Congress' and elsewhere in the country in facing up to some of these problems, so that I am not surprised to see you here today, nor am I surprised by the' intelligence `of your testimony. I appreciate yOur being here. ` ` Monsignor HIGGINS. Thank you very much, Congressman. Mr. LANDRUM. Thank you, Monsignor. PAGENO="0254" 970 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 The committee will stand in recess until 1:15 when we. will return, and Mr. George Hecht of the American Parents Committee will lead off. (Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the cOmmittee recessed until 1 :15 p.m., thesame day.) AFIERNOON SESSION Mr. PERKINS (presiding). The committee will come to order. A quorum is present. We have as our next witness, George J. Hecht, chairman of the American Parents Committee, Inc., and publisher of Parents' mag- azine. We are delighted to have you again with us, Mr. }iecht. You have appeared here on several occasions to urge the committee to enact a public elementary and secondary education bill which, to my way of thinking, would do a great deal to eliminate a substantial ca.use of poverty in the United States. You have done everything you could possibly do in that connection. In fact, you have championed the causes of education throughout your career to the credit of both you and the educational world. We are glad to see you here supporting this legislation. Perhaps I should observe that we have a distinguished lady with us. You have mentioned her husband to me on several occasions. Mrs. Barry Bingharn, who was a member of your action conimittee in trying to get the Congress to enact the Federal education bifi for the elementary and secondary schools .of the country. I see you have a prepared statement. Do you prefer to insert the statement in the record or follow the statement along? Which do you prefer? STATEMENT OP GEORGE I. HECHT, CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN PAR- ENTS COMMITTEE, INC., AND YITBMSHER, PARENTS' MAGAZINE Mr. HECHT. I leave that to you, Mr. Chairman. If you want me to read the statement, I will be glad to. Mr. PERKINS. Make your own election. Proceed any way you wish. Mr. I{ECHT. It is not a very long statement. Mr. PmuuNs. Go ahead. Mr. }IEOHT. First, I want to thank you for this very complimentary introduction. I am, as you said, publisher of Parents' magazine and chairman of the American Parents Committee, for which I am speaking today. The American Parents Committee, since it was founded in 1947, as a nonprofit, nonpartisan, public service organization, has worked ex- clusively for Federal legislation in behalf of children and youth. We have a board of directors and a national council of more than 100 out- standing leaders from across the Nation who serve as individuals. Their names appear on the first sheet of my statement. Through our national office in New York and our Washington staff we k~p in- formed on legislative proposals affecting children, and actively endorse such legislation which is approved by a preponderant majority of our board of directors. PAGENO="0255" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 971 The elimination of poverty in the United* States-probably the richest country in the world, but nevertheless with a huge poverty problem-requires first of all the sharp reduction in the number of our unemployed. Most poverty in the United States results from unem- ployment. To reduce unemployment a threefold program is needed: (1) The stimulation of industry and agriculture so that more people can be employed. This can be done partly by increasing defense and other governmental expenditures but I doubt whether such increase in Federal Government spending is advisable, particularly as the budget is not being balanced. The stimulation of family farms and small industry in poverty areas and among hard-core unemployed families, as provided in titles II and IV of the Economic~ Opportunity Act is useful, but will not anywhere near solve the huge and persisting problem of unemployment. (2) The children of our Nation must be given a better education. For several decades, there has been a tremendous shortage of class- rooms. The quality of schooling in many areas must be raised to give a chance for increased knowledge not only to the children of the poor but also to all children. While the Economic Opportunity Act does provide considerable funds for education, it is no substitute for a big program for Federal aid to public elementary and secondary schools. Bills providing for such Federal aid have languished in the House of Representatives for a shockingly long period. I urge the House Education and Labor Committee to report out this bill on which it has already held extensive hearings. And I hope the Rules Commit- tee will enable it to come for a vote on the floor well before the 88th Congress adjourns. (3) Some 5.4 percent of our employable population, about 5 mil- lion people, are now unemployed and automation is continually re- ducing the number of employees needed in many companies. The population of the United States now stands at 191 million. And if the population explosion continues at the present rate by the year 2000 (only 36 short years away) there will be 150 million more people in the United States and surely there will be proportionately fewer jobs and more unemployment and consequently more poverty. The American Parents Committee has taken no position on the following suggestion, but I cannot refrain from mentioning it here while legislation attempting to reduce poverty is being discussed. I personally feel that along with providing better schooling for our children, the Federal Government should start at once a long-range program to check the population explosion-and to make the two-child family popular and fashionable again. I urge that the United States should finance research in the problems of population control. This is a vital matter that should not be delayed. But to come back to the Economic Opportunity Act, I would say that it is a big step in the right direction. If I had to choose between the enactment of the bill for Federal aid for public elementary and secondary education and the Economic Opportunity Act, I would choose the former, because it will help many more more children and young people. I am glad to see in the Economic Opportunity Act the emphasis on providing better education for young people. I recog- nize the problems that the Federal aid for education bills have had PAGENO="0256" 972 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 and are having in the Congress and certainly the Economic Opportu- nity Act is a good way to make a start-perhaps it is a good compromise in some of the problems in providing some Federal aid to public schools, aid which is sorely needed. I would like to speak briefly to those provisions of titles I and II of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (H.R. 10440), which specif- ically affect children and young people. The American Parents Committee is particularly interested in the youth programs of title 1 and the community action programs of title II. President Johnson has wisely keyed his war on poverty to these two titles which relate to education and job opportunities for deprived youth and the devel- opment of community action programs. TIThE I. YOUTH PROGRAMS Three specific programs are proposed for youth, age 16 to 21. The first of these, the Job Corps, would consist of conservation camps and residential training centers. Like the Youth Employment Act of 1963, which the American Parents Committee believed was a con- structive step to aid unemployed youth, the Job Corps provided for in the act would provide job opportunities that will at the same time improve the educational level and skills of the young men to be en- rolled in the Job Corps. It differs from the Youth Employment Act in that half of the youth enrolled would be assigned to camps and facilities for work on conservation projects but with emphasis on basic education. The other half enrolled would be assinned to residential training centers, the major emphasis being on vocational training and educational improvement to prepare for permanent employment. The education program in the conservation camps will be designed to meet the needs of the young men who are not ready for vocational training because of their lack of basic education. Reading, writing, arith- metic, and speech will be taught. We urge emphasis on the education program which is basic to training youth for useful, productive work. It is also a much larger program. We approve of this because we felt the Youth Employment Act was much too modest in scope. We presented testimony to the House Committee on Education and Labor in 1961 and again in 1963 on youth employment and expressed our concern about the problem then, which threatened to become worse unless prompt and effective action was taken. It is worse and if left to itself the problem will multiply. It is estimated that there are almost 1 million young people in this country today who are in need of training and guidance. If the current trends continue, in 5 years we will have almost one and a half million unemployed youth-without adequate education or training, without jobs, and with- out a future. In our judgment there is no justification for further delay. We approve in principle the proposed work-training and work-study programs of title I. We know work experience is important to the development of youth regardless of whether financial returns are needed. We realize that youth gains self-reliance and often self-sup- port along wit.h skills through even a part-time job. We also recognize that the lack of opportunity to work constitutes a major problem of our society. Programs similar to those proposed in parts B and C PAGENO="0257" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 973 would be valuable to both young women and young men of the 16-to-21 age group. TITLE II. URBAN AND RURAL COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAMS The individual members of the American Parents Committee have varied interests in their States and communities which are reflected in the legislative goals adopted by the board. It is gratifying to us to find in title II new authority to mobilize Federal, State, and local resources to encourage a coordinated effort toward solving many social and economic problems. The wide discretionary powers allowed communities in planning, backed by financial assistance, offers great hope for the success of many of our objectives. The offer of the Federal Government to pay up to 90 percent of the costs for the first 2 years and up to 75 percent thereafter and the administration focus on poverty, with special emphasis on educational services, employment and health proj- ects, will undoubtedly spur activity in areas that have limited State and local resources. May I say, parenthetically, that the Federal Government, I tinder- stand, collects three-quarters of all the taxes collected in America and the States and local communities only collect about one-quarter. Our organization is deeply concerned about the education of children and youth. There are great opportunities under title II for strengthening existing educational programs and establishing new ones in this field. These could include (1) training for preschool children; (2) classes in remedial reading and intensive instruction in writing and arith- metic for those in elementary and secondary school age; (3) special projects for potential dropouts; (4) centers for day care, after-school study, after-school tutoring, and summer academic classes; and (5) the badly needed projects to extend educational services to migrant children. While we have emphasized the needs and our hope for action on educational services we also recognize the importance of expanded activity in fields of health, welfare, vocational education, and employ- ment included in this title. We foresee difficulties and delays in getting the proper leadership and coordination in some areas but believe the pattern of coordination established by the creation of the Office of Economic Opportunity may extend to the States and the communities. TITLE VI. ADMINISTRATION AND COORDINATION The American Parents Committee approves of the provision of title VI which establishes the Office of Economic Opportunity in the Executive Office of the President, headed by a Director appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. We support the approach which empowers the Director to coordinatethe existing Federal agency poverty-related programs and gives him authority to carry out new programs including the Job Corps, the community action program and the volunteers for America program. We have felt for some time that many programs designed to benefit youth have been hampered by the lack of coordination of the Federal agencies 3i-84T-64---pt. 2-17 PAGENO="0258" 974 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 administering them. It is important to stop any duplication of pro- grams among the various Federal agencies. The Economic Opportunity Act provides for a many-sided pro- gram administered by quite a number of different Federal agencies.. I have heard considerable criticisms of certain details of the act, but virtually everyone with whom I have talked about it applauds the fundamental purpose of the act and favors the act as a whole. I urge that the act be passed at this session of the Legislature even though it is not perfect. If the Congress in the early 1930's had delayed en- acting the Social Security Act until it was generally agreed to be~ perfect, it might never have become law. It was enacted and it has: been improved by amendments many times. I urge that the Economic Opportunity Act be voted upon favorably' at this session of Congress, and that as defects are discovered and im- provements suggested it be amended next session and, if necessary, in succeeding sessions. The important thing is to get started at once in this long-overdue effort to reduce poverty, and the at-least-as-vital effort to provide better education for our children. Gentlemen, thank you for giving me this opportunity to present the position of the American Parents Committee, Inc. Thank you very much. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Hecht, you have again distinguished yourself and the causes of education. As you know, from my previous remarks and sponsorship, I, too, share your concern about the lack of action at the elementary and secondary level in our school systems. I would like' to see such legislation enacted tomorrow. We are never going to be' able `to do this job of eliminating poverty until Congress takes action to get money into these areas that are critical from the standpoint of facilities and teachers at the elementary and secondary' level. I recognize Mr. Landrum at this time. `Mr. LANDRTJM. I have no questions. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Goodell. Mr. GooDErl1. It is'nice to have you with us. I appreciate your tes- timony. I am particularly interested and impressed with your refer- ence, after our last witness and colloquy, to population control. I tend to agree with you that this is one aspect of the war on poverty that has been considered, is being considered, and' may well be a por- tion of a well-coordinated attack on poverty, at least providing the education and information that is necessary. I appreciate your urging that approach in your testimony. As you know, Mr. Hecht, Mr. Frelinghuysen, and I have introduced identical bills to authorize $5 million grants for States surveys of their educational needs. I believe you are one of the outstanding proponents of this legislation. I wonder if you would like to' talk a little bit about this in connection with your other: comments on Federal aid to education. Mr. HEcm~. Thank you, Mr. Goodell. I hope very much the small bill of $5 million-that is pretty small in terms of what the Govern- ment spends-but I think the $5 million by the Federal Government could not be spent in any better way than to aid the States to put on paper their most pressing educational needs and develop a plan which would be put on paper on meeting the most pressing educational defi- ciencies in their States and outlining a long-range plan of their needs. PAGENO="0259" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 975 There has been a difference of opinion on both sides of the aisle in the past as to actually what is the need for more classrooms and money to pay for more teachers and better equipment. I think if we had long-range plans from each of the States, this would be a useful docu- ment to help Congress formulate a program for elementary and secondary education. As this bill has, fortunately, two eminent Re- publican members of this committee sponsoring it and as it is identical with, or virtually identical with, title I in the bigger Federal aid bill for public elementary and secondary schools, it has the support of the leading Democrats. So, you have the leaders on both sides of the aisle in agreement on this $5 million bill. Therefore, I hope very much that it will get passed. Mr. PERKINS. It is in the subcommittee, Mr. Goodell, in time we want to get together to report out this study. There is no earthly rea- son why we cannot. There is no reason why we cannot do it next week. Mr. GOODELL. I am sure we can. Mr. Hecht, if your appearance here has done no more than make possible the enactment of this bill, your appearance here has been well worth while. Mr. HEGHT. You have mentioned, Mr. Chairman, the religious dif- ficulties which all Federal aid for elementary and secondary school legislation has run into, and I am fully aware of it, and I think I understand all the complications and compromises that are em- bodied in this bill. While our committee has never taken a stand on the question of Fed- eral aid for parochial schools, it has only done one thing, it has en- dorsed Federal aid for public schools; I do think this bill is a good compromise. Things in life-as I am getting older I see the way to get action is to do a certain amount of compromising and I am for getting started with this job. We have been having excuses for a decade or nearly two decades. The religious problem has been the greatest problem but here is a sensible compromise that won't hurt, not only won't hurt anybody; it won't violate the Constitution. It does not establish any firm precedent and it will get money into the local communities to aid edu- cation. Let us make a start. With this compromise, even though it is not perfect, let us pass it, amend it next year if necessary, but let us make a start. Mr. PERKINS. I appreciate your approach, Mr. Hecht. We cannot climb all the fences at one time. If we can get over this one, maybe we can come back and pick up on elementary and secondary. Mr. G0ODELL. I have no further questions except I agree with you, Mr. Hecht, that this is a direct form of Federal aid to education. This is something that some of the other witnesses have skirted around. I think your testimony is very refreshing in facing directly the fact that it is and that the key to this problem is education. I am not sure that I agree that this is very much of a compromise, however, in its present form. Mr. HECIIT. I meant compromise on the parochial school issue. Mr. PERKINS. You are not giving up the idea we do need the ele- mentary and secondary? Mr. HEGHT. No. I just meant it was a compromise on the paro- chial school problem that has kept the bigger legislation from going through. PAGENO="0260" 976 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Mr. Goorn~ia~. To the degree that it is a compromise, it permits no aid directly to the parochial private schools, 1 guess you would call this a compromise; yes. Mr. HEGHT. Well, it permits education for every child. First of all, any child can go to a public school. They don't have to go to a private school or parochial school. Both of those kinds of schools cost money and if they are very poor they go to a public school because in private schools, you have to pay tuition, and even in most parochial schools you have to pay tuition, but this bill, as it is written, permits a shared time program so that children who need basic education and vocational training that they cannot get in the schools that they go to, can go to the public schools and get it. It gives something to all children, not necessarily in the private or parochial schools but it does a job by providing a certain amount of education to all children. My concern is with the children, not with the means of where they are going to get it. Mr. GOODELL. I might say that I think your comments with refer- once to what this does are particularly accurate. I would say, how- ever, that I think the aid to elementary and secondary school bill to which you referred has all the same qualities that you and Mr. Per- kins favor and others, which I oppose. But I do think that it does have the same qualities. It goes to the public schools. The private schools can share the time if they want to go and private school stu- dents have the option of going to public schools if they want to. In that respect, I see no difference, frankly. But I do not want to pur- sue the point. Mr. HEGHT. I think this bill spells out the form of cooperation be- tween public and children in parochial and private schools a little more definitely. I think in that it is somewhat of a compromise. Mr. GOODELL. Thank you, Mr. Hecht. Mr. PERXINS. Mr Gibbons? Mr. GmBONS. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. P]~xINs. Thank you very much, Mr. Hecht. Now, our next witness is Governor Breathitt, of Kentucky. Governor, I regret that we have had to put you on this Friday after- noon. Most of the eastern seaboard members, of course, have gone home. From the outset of these hearings they have been very lively but it may appear dull to you this afternoon inasmuch as we have only four Members of the Congress present. But I am delighted, to welcome my Governor here. We had another outstanding Appalachian Governor before the com- mittee this morning, Gov. Terry Sanford. He was on the stand until about 11 o'clock. He went over the legislation and reviewed the problems of mutual interests of Kentucky and North Carolina. This legislation, I may say at the outset, is certainly not a cure-all. Not by any means, or by any standard. This bill in no way is a sub- stitute for, or overlaps with the proposed Appalachian program to be submitted, hopefully, to Congress shortiy. But in this particular as- pect of legislation, we are trying to do something about the children who are living in circumstances of poverty wherever they are and often PAGENO="0261" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 977 this happens in the heart of a wealthy city or in highly developed areas. In the eastern Kentucky coalfields we are faced with poverty associated with an undeveloped region. Primarily, we are striking at the poverty cycle and trying to break it up so that at least the youngsters may have opportunities which their forebears did not have. We appreciate your appearance here and the many things that you have inaugurated in Kentucky, such as the jobless parent program on a work relief basis down there. The million dollar grant leading up to your permanent program has been cited already before this committee by different people. We are all interested in getting as many people off relief, and into constructive pursuits. The work relief program that you have set up in Kentucky is a beginning for many folks. I especially wish to compliment you as during the Easter holi- days, I saw some of the good works of that program in several eastern Kentucky counties. The people are proud of it. You have followed in the footsteps of a very progressive and ag- gressive Governor and you are one of the youngest Governors of the Nation. We are proud of you. You are making a good record, and I know that, as a representative of the people in the district, I want to do everything possible to work with you to see if we cannot do something to eliminate the poverty and its causes in eastern Ken- tucky. I am very hopeful that we will make great strides putting eastern Kentucky into the mainstream of the national economy. It would be difficult to single out any one particular activity as de- manding the highest priority for financial assistance in helping to rebuild the economy of the eastern Kentucky Appalachian area. The redevelopment of the Appalachian area requires energetic and concentrated effort in a number of different types of activity. Of urgent importance are: 1. Public works of all types. This includes roads-roads to make the area more accessible to our national economic mainstream, com- munity facilities including water systems, sewage, facilities, and other public works. 2. Elimination of threat of seasonal and periodic flooding by the construction of flood control reservoirs, local flood control projects, and the cleaning and dredging of streams and tributaries. 3. The initiation of conservation practices in mined-out areas, re- forestation, and the development of the recreational resources of the region. 4. Education-extensive financial assistance should be given to pub- lic educational systems, particularly on the elementary and secondary level so that adequate numbers of highly qualified teachers would be available to instruct in modern facilities with modern teaching aids to students who are provided convenient access to schools. Educa- tion to expand job training and higher educational opportunities including extensive student loan scholarship and fellowship assist- ance. I am delighted to welcome you here. I notice you have a prepared statement. You may proceed. PAGENO="0262" 978 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 STATEMENT OP HON. EDWARD T. BREATHITT, GOVERNOR OF KENTUCKY; A000MPAI't[ED BY MISS KATHERINE PEDEN, COMMISSIONER, KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OP COMMERCE; AND JOHN WHISMAN, ADMINISTRATOR, KENTUCKY AREA PROGRAM O:ETICE Governor BREATmTT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I would like to file this prepared state- ment. Mr. Join Whisman, who is my special assistant for the Kentucky Area Program Office, was to meet me at 3 o'clock but we had a tailwind and I am a little early. I brought with me today some information which shows sOme of the examples of poverty in Kentucky. There is no time to repeat these for you here. Rather, I will leave them here for later reference if you so choose. Simply stated, this information shows that 38 per- cent of Kentucky's families live on incomes of. less than $3,000 per year. The immediate cost of this poverty is enormous. A quick look at the State budget over the years will show this in the best manner. More importantly, the long-run costs are incalculable because there is no way to measure the accumulative waste of human resources. The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, which my testimony sup- ports today, relates to and enhances what we have been doing in Kentucky. Each title of this proposed legislation offers solutions to examples of poverty we find in our State. Governor Combs, my predecessor, established an area program office with Mr. John Whisman as its director and special assistant. He has been working with the Gov- ernor's Commission on Appalachia and is their executive director. We have a program specifically designed for that particular area. This bill-the poverty bill, or the "Economic Opportunity Act" as it is more properly entitled-will supplement greatly the efforts which the State of Kentucky has been doing for a number of years. First, with the creation of a Job Corps, we will begin to reach some of the young men of our State who experience one of our greatest prob- lems. I am talking of these men who are short. of the minimum re- quirements for drafting into the Armed Forces. In Kentucky, the magnitude of the rejection rate for our draft eligibles is great. Re- cently the Selective Service released data showing that 50.9 percent of all exarninees were turned down during 1963 and more significantly- Mr. PERKINS. Let me interrupt you. If you do not mind, the com- mittee will recess for a couple of minutes to get a picture. (Short recess.) Mr. PJn~xINs. Proceed. Governor BREATHITr. I would like to present, to the members of the committee, Miss Katherine Peden, our commissioner of commerce, formerly the national president of the B.P. & W. Club and on the Presi- dent's Commission on Equal. Status for Women. In her department, she is coordinating with my area program office head, special assist- ants, John Whisman, and Congressman Perkins and Our congres- sional delegation in the Federal agencies. Mr. PERKINS. We are delighted to have the gentlelady who is a distinguished member of your cabinet. PAGENO="0263" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 979 Governor BREATHITT. Gentlemen, we Kentuckians have come to ~know our State as a land of striking, and sometimes ironic, contrast. Mountain ridges and bluegrass plain; thoroughbred horse and stub- born mule; the greatest bourbon distilleries and strong adherence to temperance; the Nation's gold at Fort Knox; and startling cases of human beings in dire need exist together in Kentucky to proclaim that, here, great difference is the rule rather than the exception. And nowhere, more than in our State, is better demonstrated the ironic and intolerable contrast that concerns you here today-the per- sistence of poverty and underdeveloprnent in an America of pros- perity and unlimited progress. We know both of these situations in Kentucky. For each of the past 3 years, Kentucky has received an award recognizing our pro- grams of development as being one of the top 3 among all the 50 States and great industries are bringing new jobs to many areas of the State. Yet we must face some of the Nation's most difficult and unyielding development problems in other areas of Kentucky where many of our people-like the other Americans who concern you- have not had the opportunity to gain the productive job-holding, ;comfortable4evelof4iving positions which we think of as typifying today's American citizens. It is no secret that Kentucky is not now the Nation's most prosper- ous State. But we hope it. is just as well. known that Kentucky is becoming one of the Nation's most progressive States. It is a privilege for me to appear here before you today in my offi- cial capacity of Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. I am happy to have the opportunity to tell you how we believe the legisla- tion, which you are considering as part of President Johnson's "War on Poverty," is viewed in my State. Kentucky, like every other State in these United States, has the rather sharp contrast between the affluent society and those who must endure, in one degree or another, denial of the evidences of the good life. There is not a single community or political subdivision within Kentucky that does not exhibit this contrast. The significant fact to remember is that we have certain geographical areas which have greater concentrations of wealth or poverty than other regions within the State and, in relation to the several States, we are less well off economically than many of our sisters. With some of the Nation's most difficult economic problems facing ~ in Kentucky we have had to develop the most effective programs for their treatment. We have learned much in devising new approaches to meet our intense and unusual problems. But we have only begun :to apply the kind of action we must take. .. We in Kentucky endorse strongly, and knowledgeably, the economic opportunity program as the central weapon in the arsenal of new programs now recommended to you for use in the strategic war on poverty inaugurated by President Lyndon B. Johnson. Our Kentucky endorsement of this program is not lightly given. Our need for more extensive and effective action in Kentucky is so critical that we would be reluctant to settle for a program which was inadequate in strength or unsuited to our problem. We frankly believe we are qualified to judge the weaponry of a war for develop- ment because we have declared and waged our own war on poverty PAGENO="0264" 980 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 since 1960. We approve the economic opportunity program because it embodies for the first time on the Federal level a truly strategic attack on the total complex of problems which plague our people who seek the full development of their individual and community life. In building the Kentucky development program to its present level of action, we have learned that we must recognize that the problems of overcoming poverty, economic decline, and underdevelopment must be dealt with through the comprehensive use of all our programs and resources in government. They must be well coordinated and must depend, finally, upon the understanding, participation, and leader- ship of people in local areas throughout the State. We have learned that, only in such a comprehensive program, can we plan intelligently to combine programs for common strength in meeting carefully se- lected priority objectives. And only in a total framework for action can we justify the special actions in each separate program to meet unique problems effectively. We have found that it is not adequate to meet a problem of a lack of industrial jobs by simpiy enticing industry to create the jobs for us. Our problem lies deeper. Some of our communities must pre~ pare to sustain, not only industrial jobs, but those more numerous jobs to be gained through increased sales, service, and recreation ac- tivities as well. We must recognize the problems of individuals who have not adequately developed themselves to tnke advantage of job opportunities where they exist. We have learned that these prob- lems exist in combination; that the complex arrangement of these problems differs in differing areas in our State; and that the use of programs must be carefully geared to the different and particular set of circumstances in each area. If I make the problem seem difficult, I do so with the intention of being practical and realistic but, also, to assure you that we, in Kentucky, have come a long way in being able to deal with these complex problems and that we recognize much of the knowledge we have gained showing up in the concept of the economic opportunity program. While we appreciate the separate provisions of the Economic Op-~ portunity Act, and each will be especially useful, we are most im- pressed by the fact that the economic opportunity program provides' for the flexible use of its own special provisions, along with many other programs, in a total framework of action which can be sp&- ciflcally suited to meet each local problem situation. No feature of this act impresses us more strikingly than the capacity of the Office of Economic Opportunity to serve in marshaling the great complex of Federal programs in response to a community action plan conceived and designed at the local level to deal with the precise nature of realistic local problems. This is not a new concept to us in Ken- tucky, for it is one that we have implemented at the State level. We wifi be able to move quickly and effectively with this new program because we are already operating in this fashion to achieve our in- tensive and total development program in Kentucky. Development has been the keynote of both State government policy and community life in our Commonwealth. All of our State pro- grams-education, health, `highway building, water resource develop-~ ment, as well as industry, a~gricu1ture, and tourist development-have PAGENO="0265" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 981 been geared to these objectives which will help re-create in Kentucky the job opportunities and levels of living all our citizens need. We have taken many steps in formulating our current programs without waiting for Federal money or leadership. At the same time, we have come forward aggressively and repeatedly from Kentucky `to suggest and to advocate the Federal policies allow the use of Fed- eral programs in careful concert with our special area development ap- proach in Kentucky. We have been most pleased at the response of the Federal agencies operating in Kentucky in their willingness to work closely with us and in trying to play a realistic and effective role in our overall program. We have made special arrangements for close coordination to allow Federal, State, and local agencies to combine and focus their actions and to work directly with responsible local area leadership. Our en- tire program rests on a basis of citizen organizations which we think may be unique in the Nation. We have not achieved our overall development coordination by ac- cident. Concerned with the end for development as the keynote of policy for all our programs, we have established special mechanisms to facilitate the development emphasis and coordination. In anticipation of the need for coordination and `developmental programing, I have established the Kentucky Area Program Office as a special unit attached to my office. Its administrator is also my `special assistant for area development, Mr. John Whisman, and he is here with me today. This office will be designated to carry out the overall coordination of the economic opportunity program in Ken- tucky. The function of this office is to seek the best use of all pro- grams, State and Federal, to meet the particular needs of our differ- ing areas in Kentucky, with a special emphasis on the most severe problems of development in low-income and less-developed areas. The area program office is, in fact, similar to the Economic Oppor- tunity Office to be established in the Federal structure and it may be that Kentucky is the only State with such an office now established. Mr. Whisman has been working with Federal officials on the eco- nomic opportunity program and he has already begun briefing our State officials so that they may be prepared for the best use of the program. Also, for overall coordination, we have made great progress in the organization of the Kentucky Development Committee.' As you know, one of the real problems of our times' is the need for cooperation between many agencies. Now, in Kentucky, we have virtually every State and Federal as well as private agency, concerned with develop- ment, represented and working together through this committee. Where, in the past, new committees used to arise for each program, we now are able to consider all programs together in `this one unit. For instance, both the ARA and rural development programs, as well as the individual programs like manpower training or timber `development programs are given overall consideration through this committee. I am directly represented on the committee by Mr. Whis- `man, who is vice chairman. The State committee works directly with the local area and community organizations who will play the key `roles in preparing and carrying out the community action plans pro- wided for in'the economic opportunity program. PAGENO="0266" 982 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 In addition to special steps to make our overall program more effective, we are concerned with the action we must take in our indi- vidual programs. We have laid great stress on designing highways to meet the development needs of underdeveloped areas. We have placed. new emphasis more and more on the job training and basic education aspects of our overall education program. We have tried to gear our welfare programs in the direction of rehabilitation and personal development, rather than maintenance. But especially in our department of commerce program, we have' expanded our effort and designed its purposes to seek out the real needs of people and of communities to undergird a better life for those Kentuckians who have not had opportunities for jobs, for decent incomes in town or on farm, or for education and personal develop- ment. The department's program has been broadened to include special research effort directed at the basic causes of these problems; intensive technical assistance for overall community development as well as for pinpointed industrial or agricultural development. The department has already established, for instance, a special program to deal with `the arts and crafts industry, well known in eastern Kentucky, and one to deal with very small local business establishments. Both of these programs will fit very closely to the provisions of the economic opportumty bill under title IV aimed at providing aid to local business operations. And, of course, all of the broad-scale efforts will under- gird the department's continuing, award-winning efforts in its prime function to create new jobs. Our commissioner, heading this depart- ment, is Miss Katherine Peden, who is also with me today. We feel that the woman's point of view is not the least of her abilities which will give unusual sensitivity to the important role of her department in this program. Therefore, the economic opportunity program will not represent a `new or a strange program to be imposed upon State government or' upon community activity in Kentucky. It will come as a welcome rein- forcement to our program and pattern of development. It will allow us to seek out problems which have been previously beyond our capac-- ity for action in spite of a complete redoubling of all our programs in recent years. It will find an existing~ etsablishment of community development organization, broadly representative of all interest and geographical parts of town communities and their rural surroundings. Its use will be accelerated by the more rapid handling of program information and technical assistance through special area development organizations in which groups of communities and counties through- out Kentucky have banded together for greater strength and efficiency in focusing overall action and leadership on common problems. Its fullest use in combination with every existing Federal and State Gov- ernment will be enhanced by the close working relationship of agency leaders working together through established means of coordination. Perhaps one of the Nation's most dramatic examples of the great need for the special economic opportunity program is the intensive concentration of the' economic development problems which confront the people of the hard core of the Appalachian region, which includes Our own eastern Kentucky. While we recognize, unhappily, this great problem and the great need of the people in our beautiful eastern PAGENO="0267" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 983 Kentucky mountain region, we take no little pride in the fact that our greatest development effort; our most aggressive development leader- ship and, now, our most unusual and effective development action has had its, birth in this region. I refer to our eastern Kentucky portion of the practical and challenging Appalachian regional development program, which has been presented to President Johnson, and was the basis for creation of a special Appalachian effort as a companion measure to the nationwide economic opportunity program. In Appalachia, we have recognized that most comprehensive and accelerated development action is required to meet the emergency situa- tion of human need which exists here in more concentrated form than elsewhere. The Appalachian program will provide the means to build the underdeveloped structure' of a heavily populated region which has been bypassed by the normal progress of the Nation, while the eco- nomic opportunity program will operate within this basic regional framework to deal, as it does elsewhere in Kentucky and in the Nation, with the human resource development problems of individuals and communities. These two programs, while separate parts of the total attack on poverty in terms of legislation and subjective nature, will be fused together as one program in action within this region. For purposes of illustration, I have brought with me today some statistical data compilations which show some of the manifestations of poverty in Kentucky. There is not time to repeat these for you here; rather I will leave them `with you for later reference if you so choose. Simply stated,. these data reduce to the conclusion that 38 percent of Kentucky's families live on incomes of less than $3,000 per year. The immediate cost of this poverty is enormous; a quick look at the State budget over the years will show this in the most illustrative man- ner. Our State budget this year, a record for Kentucky, is an in- crease of $400 million. All of the increase money in this budget is designed principally for the area of education, the jobless parent program, and development programs in this particular area. More importantly, the long-run costs are incalculable for there is rio way to measure the cumulative waste of human resources. With the vocational bill passed by the Congress, we have imple- mented our education budget sponsored by our chairman, Mr. Perkins. We have implemented our program in Kentucky to have a vocational education program and manpower training program for those who have been replaced by automation. In addition, our jobless parent pro- gram, which has been in effect actually now for only 3 months, has proved to be of tremendous benefit in the nine counties in the pilot area. We have in our budget in Kentucky extended this to the 39 counties of Appalachia this next year beginning July 1 and state- wide the following year. `As we develop this program, we can see great benefit. I rode up here today with a county attorney from Floyd County, which is located in the heart of this distressed area, in the heart of the coalfields which have suffered chronic unemployment because of automation in the coalfields. He pointed out to me that the 200 Ken- tuckians who are employable who are now working and rendering val- uable public work in this area in return for the pay they are receiv- ing under the jobless parent program under this pilot project have PAGENO="0268" ~984 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 been working to paint schools, clearing streambeds, planting seedlings, and doing conservation work on the spoil banks created by a great problem in Kentucky, the strip mining, which is present in eastern Kentucky; that already with this number of people who are beghming to see great results in their own feeling of personal contribution and self-respect as well as the contribution they are making to the area. Mr. PEEXINS. Let me interrupt you to state that I am hopeful that the committee will be able to write the Job Corps legislation so that we will be able to use these youngsters to do something about re- habilitation of these strip mining areas. Governor BREATHITr. The creation of a Job Corps would begin to reach some of the young men of my State who experience one of our greatest problems. I am talking about those men who have been deemed short of the minimum requirements for drafting into the Armed Forces. In Kentucky the magnitude of the rejection rate for our draft eligibles is great. Recently the Selective Service released data which showed that 50.8 percent of all examinees were turned down during 1963 and more significantly, that about 21 percent of those re- jected were unfit because of poor educational attainment. In the same release it was shown that 66.7 percent of all Kentucky draft eligibles were rejected before examination because they had not received an eighth grade education and that 90 percent of the total preexam re- jectees had not graduated from high school. Here is indeed fertile ground for the kind of basic education and training goals set by this program. In Kentucky, 9.7 percent of all families are headed by a woman and of these, 65.3 percent have an income of less than $3,000 per year. We must do better by these women.' The providing of jobs on socially use- ful projects that give both men and women the chance to learn new skills and to earn money to continue theil' education will begin to do this. There is another aspect to this program which I find comple- mentary to Kentucky needs. It seems good that there is the potential here for keeping people in a work-training program in their own com- munities. In most Kentucky areas there is a great need for the kind of projects on which they would be working. In Kentucky we devote about 65 percent of the total resources avail- able at the State level to the education of our young people. A great portion of theremainder with the exception of our road program goes into a new concept of welfare programs which are designed to help develop the areas rather than merely give them relief or handout programs. It seems to me that, in the long run, every dollar invested in the education of a man tends to multiply itself over a longer period of time and achieve a greater magnitude than does a dollar spent for wages. This is, I think, because a developed intellect keeps giving and giving. The work-study program will help engender this process in some of our youths who would otherwise be lost to us PAGENO="0269" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 985 COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM A new concept of Federal legislation, is, I believe, the most flexible of the devices for waging the war on poverty. Kentucky is no novice to this concept, however, for we have already organized broad-based community structures to deal with the problems in the local area development councils which cover Kentucky, based on the representa- tion of all the groups and individuals I previously mentioned. Within these council areas a definite course has been charted for dealing with common ills. More recently we have inaugurated a program which aims to coordina~te the economic development and improvement of defined subregions of the State. The adoption of community actioi~ at the national level can and will widen the limits which presently exist. This will make it possible to do more without appreciably changing the character of the council structure or diminishing the internal cohesiveness which the people in the council areas feel. Programs to deal with low income farm families requested in the bill being considered here today are of special interest to me and to Kentuckians. Kentucky's greatest portion of its economy is based on agriculture. Kentucky's median income for men from farming in 1959 was $1,644 and $807 for women. Some 72.3 percent of the men and 88.2 percent of the women whose income was derived from farming made less than $3,000. I have pledged to begin, during my administra- tion, the journey down the road to*a specific billion dollar farm income as a Kentucky goal. The enormousness of this task is challenging and I appreciate the help which a program of this kind will make, to the overall effort in Kentucky. In Kentucky we have created an economic development commission and now this year an agricultural develop- ment commission whereby we are mobilizing all resources to stimulate our agricultural economy. We think that the provisions of this bill will be a great help in ad- vancing this program. The business incentive program is, in my view, an oblique, rather than a direct attack on an' element of poverty. It will not be as easy to see the results of this program since the individual businesses must subordinate the desire and intent of this program to the capability of these individual firms to expand. Loans to small businesses may bear fruit more readily, however, and I think have greater relevancy for Kentucky. We have recently activated small business effort at the State level which, while limited in scope, is giving technical and man- agerial assistance to those firms who request it. Our effort will be materially enhanced by the new program. Kentucky will soon complete a pilot project to demonstrate the value of putting unemployed fathers to work on socially useful projects. Without question, this approach has made it possible to restore dignity to men who would have otherwise been welfare recipients in the usual sense. More importantly, the willingness of unem~iloyed fathers to support their families grew with their material ability to do so. We PAGENO="0270" 986 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 are heartened by three factors of this program which have been im- mensely successful: There has been virtually no absenteeism among the worker-recipients: many of the workers are already obtaining per- manent jobs as a result of `their work experiences; and community reactions to the work programs have been enthusiastic. The pilot pro- gram is a success rn Kentucky and I welcome the broadened opportuni- ties for work, job training, and basic education which the bill aims to achieve. In addition to the specific comments I have made on the program elements of the bill itself, there are some general impressions I hold concerning this legislation as it relates to the total effort which Presi- ~dent Johnson enumerated in his poverty message. Some detractors have said that the bill you are considering does not go far enough to make any appreciable reduction in the size of the problem. I do not subscribe to this notion for I am aware that we are not prepared or equipped to attempt to correct all the glaring inequities in our eco- nomic fabric. President Johnson, in his poverty speech, named addi- tional bases of legislation which he required as essential to the suc- cessful waging of the war. Among these was (1)' the completely comprehensive Appalachian program of regional development in which Kentucky has a major interest and in which Governor Combs, my predecessor, served as the first Governor of the Appalachian Con- gress and (2) an expanding housing program, geared to specific and critical housing needs, the food stamp program, and numerous other programs will make up the total action required for the elimination of poverty in all its respects. These legislative proposals are neces- sary and I believe they will be enacted to establish the full foundation, for the first time, for the strategic and permanent campaign to con- tinue the development of real opportunity for all Americans to shars in the expectations our country and our age should hold. I am reminded of President Kennedy's admonishment to the Ameri- can people to bear with patience the burden of the long twilight struggle with the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war. The timetable for overcoming these ills was too distant even for his vision to contemplate; rather, he felt the important thing was to make a start. Therefore, "Let us begin." (The material referred to follows:) PAGENO="0271" PERCENT OF FAMILIES WITH INCOME BELOW $3, 000 L'~i 0 0 0 0 0 0 SOURCE: U. S. Census of Population 1960 - General Socal and Economic Characterstics - Kentucky PAGENO="0272" k 0 (b 0' 0 I 00 00 L~i C) C) 0 0 Ii t~ ~ t~ P~ ~ ~ I~3 b3 ~ t~3 ~D ~ ~ -~ C,~ ~ ~ ~ ~` ~ Co i-' on 00 coo coo a 0000000 ~0 ~ ~ ~ -` 0~ )-~ CO ~ 0 Co CoC~ Co000 ~ -100 0.0 .1000 -~ 00-40000 -4 0. CoO 000-C~ 00-10 C~ 000000- -4 o000o Co 0000 0- 000-1(0 0 OOO00~-*Coco0o~ 00000co00 ~ ~ ~ 0000000)0) 4 )-~ CoO 00o~-' 000 0,0 0-' 0-' 000 0-' 0-' CoO C) 0000 Coo 00 o0- 0000-0000 ),0 Co -4 CoO Co -10.0 CO -0 oo 00 -`)-` Coo -~1 -10 CoO 0-0 0-00000 Cjo -1 Coo 000000000000 PAGENO="0273" C C.C GO I~ CO I~ OQ~GO 000000CC CCC) CO CO CO C) ~C C) C) CO CO ~ C) CO CO C) CC CO CO CO C) COt- 000000 C) CO -4 ~ COCCO t- C) -4000000 ~ ~ ~4 ~-4 ~ 0000 CO CC) CO C)0)) t- 000000 0- 00 `C C 0) ~ `00~ ~E 0 ~` ~` ~` 0000000000000000000000 CCooCCC)cCC)C)C)C)C)C)C) C-CC-CC-C--C-- 0- 0-CC- 0- 000000000000CC 000000 C) C) ~ CO CO ~ 0000 C) C) CO C) CO CO 000000CCo000CCo000CCCCCC00CCCCCC0000000000000000000000000000CC OOCCCCOOCCOOCCCCCCCCOOCCCCCCGCOCCCCCO 0)000000000000000000 `-4 `~`~ ~ : ~-4 ~. C) ~l c~ C) ~4 0 ~) ~ ~-4~ C) ~1 k `~ ~ 0~ ~I C) 0 z 0 C) r~ d ~ 0 0) I C `o~ ~ ~ ~P~L UC~ ~ ~`d~c ~ 00-'~ oC~2 `~ C ~ 0)1-GO ~ ~ 0.~ CC Q'~ ~ ~ C,~ 0)000)0)0 `CGOC~Q 0 ~ ~O 0 C 0 000 C000 ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ GO ~ GO0,~ 0) 00 ~ ~l ~ 0-- 0)0)00 CO CO CO C') ~4 CC)C)C) C--C-- 00000000C)C)C)C)C)C)C)C)C) CO CO CO ~o CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 00000000000000000000 0130G5045103 ~ 0. C 44 4 )~ $44400 C 4$ ~) ~C ~`~I~' GO ~ ~ ~ ~o ~ C ~ ~C `~2~ ~1-C'SC ~ 4~ 0~0 ~ 0 ~0 ~ -~ ~ lol ~ ~P-~ -~ ~ ~ 0 ~ P-~0~ ~ ~ E-~ ~ 0 P~P~ ~ ~ ~ C 0 0) 0 00 00 CO CO 00 CC ~14 00 PAGENO="0274" 990 ECONO~UC OPP0RTU~1TY ACT OF 1964 Mr. Pi~iixINs. Thank you very much, Governor. Miss Peden, before Mr. Landrum conimences his questioning, do you care to make some comments? We are certainly delighted to have you here. We are glad that the Governor of Kentucky has recognized women to the extent that he has in placing you at the head of the de- partment. I regret Mrs. Green is not here because she certainly would have interrogated the Governor on the statistics he cited. She has been a real champion of equal opportunities and treatment of women upon all occasions. She has recommended that they make them equal part- ners in the Job Corps. Proceed. Miss PEDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the com- mittee. I regret, also, my close friend, Edith Green, is not here. I have appeared on other occasions before the committee and she is cer- tainly a line member of the committee, as you well know. Mr. GIBBONS. Mrs. Green is in Cleveland conducting a hearing there today. She is working, I can assure you of that. In fact, she will work you to death if you stick with her long enough. Miss Pi~rEN. The Department of Commerce of Kentucky, Mr. Chair- man and members of the committee, is certainly very much interested in this war on poverty. The Governor has given us quite an assign- ment, 70,000 new industrial jobs during his administration. One of the writers for our local Courier Journal analyzed it as ~0 new indus- trial jobs every day, that is quite an assignment, even Saturdays, Sun- days, and holidays. But in order to mamtain this quota and to bring new industries in Kentucky, as Congressman Perkins knows, we are having to look toward his home area and other areas of Kentucky for the ability of training our people. As Governor Breathitt has said, we feel so strongly the value of edu- cation. I believe the various titles of this bill will mean a great deal not only to our State in providing the educational training but the op- portunity for a job. The department of. commerce, certainly working closely with the Governor's office, is prepared to implement all the titles of the bill when it passes. We certainly speak strongly in favor of this. Thank you. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Landrum. Mr. LANDRUM. Thank you, Miss Peden. Governor Breathitt, I was impressed, as you detailed your state- ment there, with the tremendous job yOu are doing with your own State and local resources. Do you feel that you could accomplish the ~nal task in this job without Federal assistance? Governor BRiwirnrr. Mr. Landrum, we certainly cannot do the job that must be done without Federal assistance, withOut this prOgram. Of course, we are going to do all within our resources, whatever the Congress does, but we have taxed our State to the limit in many ways. Our whole revenue program has been designed to get the maxi- mum in the way of taxes for our program. Our total program is de- signed, the greatest portion of it, toward attacking these very problems. We are working, for example, in solving the problems in Appalachia and problem areas in Kentucky, we have a small lakes problem which is a State program, we are redesigning our highways so that our land fills will be dams for water storage, for community use, recreation use, PAGENO="0275" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 991 and industrial purposes, so that we can use water in our areas. We found that by the slightest redesigning of a dam or highway field you can raise the culvert and you have a dam requiring rights-of-way. We are assisting in the development of our arts and crafts program throughout Kentucky. We have a division in Miss Peden's department which is giving tech- nical assistance to the old crafts of the poverty areas of Kentucky and designing what is mere channelable and marketable and of good quality. We are promoting it. We are helping to establish the crafts interests to market it and we are preparing materials and catalogs that can be sent all over the world for people to buy their products. We are doing everything in the educational field that it is possible forustodo. The new dollars in our new budget we have put into this jobless parent program, and itis a $61/2 million dollar program next year and a $4½ million dollar program this year, and in education7 where we have tremendously increased our aid to education with particular emphasis this year on training for literacy. We have an illiteracy program and we have a program for vocational education in cooperation with the Federal Manpower Training Act. We are doing everything we know to do. We are pushing our tourist industry. We feel that since we have gone the limit in Kentucky, we know this is true in other areas of the country, and this is a nationwide program, that we must have the bill. Mr. LANDRUM. In your illiteracy program, as it relates to your vocational schools, do you find it necessary to teach basic education skills to a great many people before they are able to enter the vocational training program? Governor BREATHITT. Yes; we do. We had this problem. As I pointed out, so many of our younger people have no education or they still are below the literacy level, below the fourth- or sixth-grade level, and we have to teach them these basic skills before they can enter the vocational program. Mr. LANDRUM. Is it your feeling from the study of this act that the Job Corps phases of it will assist in accomplishing that objective? Governor BREATHITT. Yes; it is very important. It is very impor- tant to us. Mr. LANDRUM. Now, there have been some suggestions that possibly these Job Corps programs could better he operated by the State with- out the assistance of the Federal Government. Do you thmk that would be possible in all the States? Governor BREATHITT. I will say this from the Kentucky standpoint: I think it would tax us beyond our ability to do so. I think we need Federal help. We find that we have had a very fine relationship. There has been no violation of our responsibilities in the State or our rights to solve these problems. We have a fine working relationship with the Federal Government. We welcome and must have their help. .. Mr. LANDRUM. You realize that, under the provisions of .the bill, a great many of these enrollees coming into the Job Corps. will be removed from their present environment and into another one. Do you see qnv real objection to that ~ PAGENO="0276" 992 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Governor Bns-a~rnrrr. Probably it would be very helpful. I think that many of our people in Kentucky live in isolated areas and they will remain isolated until we get our highway program and our de- velopmental programs. I think it is good for them to move into~ other areas. I think it will be helpful to them. We found surpris- ingly enough in the 4 months or our pilot program, on our jobless. training program, which, of course, cannot be as comprehensive and.~ does not affect the youth like this title of the act does, that many peo- ple who had not been able to get a job are working in these jobs and. getting a new environment, they see opportunities that they did not see before. Mr. LANDRtTM. Have you found any grounds for apprehension that the bill is drafted in such a way as to circumvent the State govern- ment? Governor BREATHITT. None whatsoever. Mr. LANDRUM. Do you think there are ample safeguards for the Governor of a State and for local governments to be appropriately consulted? Governor Biu~ATinir. I think so. I think the provisions of the law~ have ample safeguards. Our experience in working with Federal agencies has been very fine. We have had a fine relationship in work- ing with them. We have had no problem at all. Our office is set up and designed to work with these agencies and with our own State agencies. Mr. LANDRUM. I think it is commendable that you have moved as effectively as your satement indicates you have in establishing an or- ganization that will be able to immediately take advantage of the~ benefits from this bill if and when it becomes law. With the organi- zation which you have constructed, do you see any possibility that you will have to reorganize that in order to comply with the terms of the bill? Governor Bun~rnirr. No, Congressman. We have done some re- organization now since the first of the year in the Governor's office headed by Mr. Whisman, so that it will be ready and available to im- plement this act in Kentucky. Mr. LANDRtTM. That is for your own cOnvenience and not because we are circumventing that State authority. Governor Biin~rnrr'r. No. Mr. LANDRUM. With regard to title Ill of the bifi and the proposed assistance there for small family-type farmers, do you see that there can be any real values made available to the Kentucky family-type- farmers under this provision? Governor BREATUiTT. Particularly I think this is important because we find that other than in the bluegrass and in the larger farm areas of western Kentucky down near the Mississippi and in the Ohio River valleys, our farms are subsistence farms. In the nob area of Kentuc- ky and in the south-central area and in the eastern areas of Kentucky,. Congressman Perkins' district, and in southeast Kentucky, the farm- ers there are in this substandard group that I mentioned in my pre- pared testimony, have income which is actually submarginal. These are the people who need the help. These are the peo~Ie whose chil- dren do not seem to have the chance to see the opportumties they have. I think this provision, title III of the bill, will be particularly help- PAGENO="0277" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 993 ful in this area and will do things that we just do not have the ability to do in Kentucky. Mr. LANDRtTM. Is it your feeling, then, that a $1,500 grant with the possibility of a $2,500 loan might elevate these farmers into a higher subsistence level? Governor BREATHITT. Yes, I do, because with our Agricultural De- velopment Commission, with their local county councils which can give guidance and working with the extension department of the university, these loans and grants will give the ability to these mar- ginal farmers to get their operation at a level where they can increase their income, in our judgment, substantially. Mr. LANDRUM. Did I understand you to say in your formal state- `ment that the farms headed by women in Kentucky, and I assume widowed women, have an annual income of less than $1,000? Governor BREATHITT. $807 per year; for the men the median is $1,644. Mr. LANDRUM. Is that gross or net? Governor BREATHITT. That is their median net income; yes, sir. Mr. LANDRUM. I want to thank you for coming and giving the com- mittee the benefit of your views and especially thank you for describing the actions which you have already taken to alleviate some of the problems associated with poverty. I want to ask you one other question. Is it your feeling that this problem of poverty is of sufficient national interest to justify putting all of the Federal programs that we have drawn together under one um- brella here, under the director of one office, so that the information and assistance from all the agencies can be made available at one time to all the States? Governor Bnn&~mrrr. I think that would be helpful just, as we have done in Kentucky. Of course, I do think that it is important that all the other programs, when we do this, be given the emphasis that they are now being given, such as Appalachia, the housing programs and other programs. I think it is very helpful to bring them under one umbrella and we have done that in Kentucky. I might say this: This week, groups in Kentucky throughout the State have been supporting this program including our State chamber of commerce which passed a resolution strongly supporting the poverty program in our more re- gional problem of Appalachia, which, `of course, fits more closely together. Every group that I found in Kentucky in our State where we see these problems so acutely, regardless of their political affiliation or general economic outlook, feel that this is a sound program and one that the Congress should pass to help solve this problem. Mr. LANDRUM. So, you agree that with this program and the pro- gram such as your own State is inaugurating, that we are beginning a movement away from the relief and charity phases of our treat- ment of this disease and moving more intensely and directly against the causes with remedies to rid ourselves of the blight? Governor BREATHITT. Yes, sir. I have been speaking in the last 2 weeks to a number of local annual chamber meetings as well as the State annual chamber meetings. This is a group of people in Ken- tucky-of course, they are greatly interested in welfare programs. This direction of Federal legislation and Federal programs and this particular piece of legislation has their strong approval. , PAGENO="0278" 994 ECONOMIC OPP0RTU~ITy ACT OF 1964 I have been speaking to these groups and discussing it with them. I am very much encouraged because I, myself, feel that the programs in eastern Kentucky, and in the poverty areas of eastern Kentucky, where we need economic opportunity, should be directed to.the area of helping these areas help themselves so that they can make their con- tributions not only to the economy of tieir communities and the State of Kentucky. but to the Nation, and not have to be developing gen- eration after generation of welfare recipients. We are in the right direction and this bill is in the right direction. I certainly give it all the support I can. Mr. LANDRtTM. Your colleague, Governor Sanford from North Caro- lina, this morning made the same statement. Governor BREATHITI'. He married a girl from my hometown, Mr. Landrum. Mr. LANDRUM. You spoke of the chamber of commerce meetings that you attended. Do your State chamber of commerce and your lo- cal chambers of commerce support this program? Governor Bim~rmrr. Yes, sir. By resolution they have done so. Mr. LANDRUM. Do you have a State Farm Bureau in Chicago? Governor Biir~n~mTr. Yes. Mr. LANDRUM. Does your State Farm Bureau support this pro- gram? Governor BREATHITr. In fact, all State groups that I know of are supporting it. I know of no group in Kentucky which has not come out with a resolution supporting it. Mr. LANDRU3I. Is it not somewhat of a mystery to you that our State farm organizations and our State chamber organizations would support these programs and yet our National Farm Bureau and our National Chamber of Commerce would oppose it? Governor Biu~uirrr. In my judgment, I think, Mr. Landrum, the National Chamber of Commerce and the National Farm Bureau should get in tune with the times and recognize the needs of the peo- ple beca.use these programs do just exactly what they have been ask- ing for for years and that is developmental programs rather than mere welfare programs. Mr. LANDRUM. Thank you so mucJi, Governor. I have enjoyed your appearance here. Thank you, also, Miss Peden. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Bell. Mr. BELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Governor, it is a real pleasure to welcome you to the committee. One Federal Department, REW, will spend $4 billion next year on grants to the States for education, for health, welfare, and vocational rehabilitation. Now, Governor, you keep referring to the fact that these programs must be coordinated. Are these programs today that I just mentioned being well coordinated in Kentucky? Governor BREATHITr. Yes; they are being coordinated, but I thmk that we can, under this approach and under this program. do a~ better job in Kentucky. Mr. BELL. Why do you believe that? How could we do a better job? Governor BREATHITT. Because if we have one agency worldng under the President with the authority of the President, coordinating PAGENO="0279" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 995 the program, the specialized programs of all the Federal agencies, working with a similar setup in the States, the commirnication and coordination efforts will be simplified in our judgment based on our experience. You see, we in Kentucky have done identically what the Federal Government is proposing in this bill under the appointment of Mr. Shriver. We have found it to be extremely successful rather than having the local communities work with the various State agencies in trying to coordinate. States agencies work together well just as the Federal agencies are doing. We found that in our office, this is the man who fits the role of Mr. Shriver, Mr. Whisman, who is in my office. Our area program office is doing identically the same as the office that is being established by Mr. Shriver as the President's Special Assistant. We have found it to be very successful in coordinating our efforts and implementing our programs. Mr. BEu~. That is fine. I assume from this that you have no problem then, as the gentle- man from Georgia indicated in his questioning, in the attempt to by- pass your State organizations, you don't think you would get into that problem at all in many of the programs? Governor BREATHITT. Our experience has shown that we have no problem. Our office, our area program office, and Mr. Whisman have worked closely with the Congress and with the agencies. I see no problem with that. Mr. BELL. The only problem that concerns me a bit on this point is that the poverty head, in this case it would be Mr. Shriver, could approve community action programs without actually going through the State government. As a practical matter perhaps he would not, but the wording of this proposal would give him such authority. Under this bill all you could do as a State is to comment about it. This is conceivably what lie could do. I don't say as a practical mat- ter it would work this way, but he could do this according to the writing of the bill. Governor BREATHITT. Let me say this. We believe in the bill so much that even with the situation that I do not think would ever happen, but supposing it did. I think it would be a great step forward and a great help to us in Kentucky, although we do not anticipate any difficulty at all in coordination and complete iexpression of. views on how to carry it out between Mr. Siirh~er's ~ffice and the office of the State government. Mr. BELL. Governor, how many unemployed do you have in the State of Kentucky now? Do you have those figures in your mind? Governor BREATHITr. I do not have those final exact figures as of today. It is about 6 percent statewide. Mr. BELL. What percentage of that could you hazard a guess would be the age, say, from 16 to 21 or 24, thereabouts, the age of the Youth Corps? Mr. PERKINS. About 16 percent. `Mr. BELL. In other words, the percentage is rather high. Governor BREATHIrT. Yes. It is much more than the proportionate amount. As you will see from these figures which I gave~you on draft turndowns here, they are higher than the national average in Ken- PAGENO="0280" 996 ECONOMIC OPPORTD1~ITY ACT OF 1964 ..tucky. You see that 50.9 percent of all examinees were turned down, 21 percent of those were rejected as unfit because of poor education. Of these draft eligibles (36.7 percent were rejected before exarnina- tion because they had not received an eighth grade education. If you take 66.7 plus 50.9 percent of the others, you have a Youth Conservation Corps or Job Corps. Mr. BELL. Governor, would you say that the prime objective of these young men is to make an economic livelihood and to find jobs for themselves and to be trained to achieve a satisfactory living? Isn't that what they are after? Governor BREATHITr. Yes. Mr. BELL. The sooner they can get at a vocational program or pro- grams that would apply to the job they want to get, the quicker they will be satisfied and the slack of 16-percent unemployment could be taken up; is that right? Governor BIn~rinTr. Our experience in Kentucky has been with our jobless parent program, which in a sense is a guide to what this program would be to a more restricted age group. In Floyd County- .1 have been talking to our county attorney, he says the dropout rate in Floyd County schools has gone down since the 4 months we have had this jobless training program in that particular area. * Once they have the feeling that they have an opportunity for edu- cation and for work, then they have hope and they have guidance, and they can direct them. These are people who are not going to school. These are the dropouts. These are the people who are not even eligible to serve in the Armed Forces. They are the ones who are a tre- mendously large part of our population. Mr. BELL. What is your job training program? Governor Bur~&~rniTr. It is part of the Federal aid to dependent chil- dren of unemployed parents. We have gone with a pilot program in Kentucky this year into nine counties. Next year, starting July 1, we are going to the 39 counties in Appalachia. The following year to the entire State. We enacted it into our budget this year. Mr. Biai,. These youngsters are not in residential homes, are they? You are giving them regular vocational job training, aren't you, in a local area? Governor BI~ATmTr. We have a work relief crew. These are fathers, but many of them fall within this same age group. Many of them are fathers. They are unemployed parents. Mr. BELL. I understand. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Bell, we adopted an amendment to the Social Security Act temporarily in 1961, and then in 1962 we made it per- manent, for extending the aid to dependent children to aid to depend- ent children and unemployed parents. It was set up provided the States wanted to take advantage of it on a work relief basis. Very few States have taken advantage of it on a work relief basis, but about 18 or 19 have. What we have done in Kentucky under a pilot project under a mil- lion dollar grant, they have done wonders down there in setting up a work relief prOgram with these jobless parent people. Mr. BrLL. I see. I would like to commend you for that. That sounds to me like a very wise approach to a very difficult problem which PAGENO="0281" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 997 I understand you have in Kentucky. As far as the program for your youth in the way of training, don't you think, Governor, that you might get at this problem a little quicker and more directly through using the basic facilities that we already have, such as vocational education and manpower development and retraining and pushing toward ac- tually getting these youngsters trained for jobs right now. In addi- tion to this having an urban or rural organization of your own State of Kentucky in which the youth could be placed in camps .for work in the immediate area of your State doing such work as the develop- ment of parks and other problems along with their vocational education and their manpower development and retraining. A program. in which you as Governor would have complete and direct control on a matching basis with the Federal Government, rather than having the youth taken out of your State voluntarily, but sent maybe to Wyomrng, Alaska, or some place? Don't you think this would be more appealing to them to get right down to the basic program which you in Kentucky and the local people there could direct. Don't you think this would have more appeal to your youth and more appeal to your people? Governor BREATHITT. I think both programs are important. We have the other program, because we have taken advantage of the job- less training program, this category of aid. We are finding that many who h'tve gone into this particular pi ogr'Lm, now after they are received there, and we don't have the educational program in the work relief program, but many of them are now going into vocational and. manpower training, and we are getting 100 percent of our Kentucky vocational trainees getting jobs. We had our first report, an analysis and survey of results on this pilot program, after 4 months, which was just published over the weekend and carried by all of our dailies, which showed that a great percentage of these in this training program are now finding jobs. But we also find, and we conducted a survey, that there are many wh~ are not parents who are in this category that we can't help, who need this particular program of the Job Corps. We are only helping those who are parents in our program, because that is the only program we have. This will do the same thing, plus an educational program. They have found that our program for the parents has been a tre- mendous help to us. I would like to furnish to this committee, with the permission of the committee, a survey of this program. Mr. PERKINS. Without objection, it is so Ordeind, and all the ~tatis~ tics you have referred to will be inserted in the record. Governor BREATHITr. This program will supplement it because we don't have this type of program for those, who are not parents. We find that there are many that this has an appeal to, that the regular vocational program and manpower training programs do not. Mr. Bri1L. You do recognize, don't you, that the vocational educa- tion program has a work study program with it and a residential school type of study program, too? So I think it could be dovetailed as far as that is concerned. Governor BREATHITr. We agree with that program very much. We agree with our jobless parent program. We also agree with the. Job Corps. We think they complete the picture of opportunity' to our jobless youth and our underprivileged youth, the ones that fit in this particular category. We need this other category to complete it in' our judgment. PAGENO="0282" 998 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Mr. BELL. Thank you very much, Governor. I want to again con- gratulate you on the excellent job you are doing in Kentucky and also commend Kentucky in being fortunate to have a very fine person like Carl Perkins here who has shown very much leadership in the voca- tional education program. Governor BREATHITr. Thank you so much. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Gibbons. Mr. GIBBONS. I have no questions. Mr. PERKINS. Governor, I have several questions. I will keep you only a moment. I again wish to compliment you on your statement. But getting back to the community action provision of the bill, it is contemplated, as I read the legislation and listen to witnesses, that the greatest community action will be in the field of health and educa- tion, primarily basic education for adults or teenagers likewise, com- munity action programs of that type, and community action work relief programs such as you have inaugurated in Kentucky. Now one of the greatest needs still remaining undoubtedly will be community facilities, the lack of rural community facilities which you referred to. Am I correct~ Governor BREATHITT. Yes, sir, I agree. Mr. PERKINS. I would like to ask you from your observation under the vocational education program if that does not only take care of the youngster, who in most instances has already completed his high school education? Am I correct? Governor BREATHITT. That is correct. Mr. PERKINS. Of course, we contemplate taking care of dropouts. The manpower program thus far has taken care of the cream of the crop, the better educated youngster, and we have not still reached that unemployed, that uneducated youngster up and down those hollows and creeks, in the cities. Am I correct in that statement? Governor BREATHITT. You are just as correct as you can be. Mr. PERKINS. I think it is a pretty accurate statement that voca- tional education at the present time reaches very few people, if any, below the sixth or seventh grade level. Inasmuch as we have three- quarters of a million youngsters on the streets of this country, do. you feel as I do that we should enact this Job Corps, accept these Job Corps recommendations, establish a Youth Conservation Corps to do immediate conservation work and get them off the streets, give these youngsters at the same time some basic education? Governor BREATHITr. I do, sir. Mr. PERKINS. And where they are able to take it, to give them voca- tional education? Governor BREATHrrr. I do. Mr. PERKINS. It is going to be some few years before the present vocational education program in Kentucky. the expanded program, gets underway. Am I correct? Governor BREATBTTT. Yes. Mr. PERKINS. As to the schools that Mr. Bell referred to, the resi- ~1ential schools, in conferences we had I may say we had a devil of a time getting even four residential schools in flue bill. One of those it was specifically agreed by everybody in conference would be placed in the District of Columbia here. So it is very apparent that vocational education facilities are inadequate, to reach this hard core, the out-of- school youngsters that we should be do something for at this time. PAGENO="0283" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 999 It makes good sense to me to put those youngsters under forest rangers and park rangers for conservation work and training. Get them off the streets. Give them some basic education. Give them some good training habits. At the same time we would be making greater progress in developing and conserving our natural resources-our timber, our water, our soil, and our mineral stripped waste land. Am I correct? Governor BREATHTTT. You are correct. Mr. BELL. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. PERKINS. Yes. Mr. BELL. I think the gentleman will find a great timelag in get- ting the Conservation Corps nationally organized and put together and materialized; probably it will take much longer than it will to use the expanded vocational education programs. The suggestion that I was making to the Governor here is that we might use a State program of matching funds which would be just as effective in which you would use the vocational education manpower and training. Mr. PERKINS. The testimony in 1961, 1963, again this year from Agriculture, states that they can have thousands of them in camps within 30 days with very little renovating. And within 60 days I think they can have 6,000 or 8,000-each department. And withm t~0 days maybe 16,000. So there is no holdup there at all. Then on top of that, we have the Army camps that are not being utilized, such as Camp Atterbury in Indiana. Mr. BELL. Are they going to have teachers in all these camps m 30 days, too? Mr. PERKINS. They can be recruited. Mr. BELL. Are you going to have teacher programs and all those things? Mr. PERKINS. Certainly. Mr. BELL. Teachers are already hired and ready to go in? Mr. PERKINS. The plans have been made. The plans have been on the shelf for 2 or 3 years. We can get this thing in operation in just a few months and do something for the youngsters. Governor BREATHITT. May this witness make a statement, please? Mr. PERKINS. Yes; go ahead. Governor BREATHITT. We did not make a decision in Kentucky to go to our jobless-parent program until last December, and we imple- mented it immediately. We now have a 4-month record of accomplish- ment behind us in this program, which is very similar to this program of the Job Corps-Youth Corps. Mr. PERKINS. That is the type of community-action program that can be inaugurated immediately throughout the country; just what he is talking about. Governor BREATHITT. In our adult education program we find a fine, untapped reservoir-our teachers that have gone in retirement. There are a great number of them who have been fussing about going into retirement; some of our best teachers. It is easy. They are ready to go to work the next day. Mr. BELl4. I don't see why we can't step up our vocational educa- tion and manpower and retraining. I can't see why we can't have those programs expanded in 30 days. PAGENO="0284" 1000 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Governor Bir..a~rnirr. Most of these types of boys, we have found in Kentucky, are unacceptable for vocational training programs. They are the types that have been turned down. They are dropouts. Mr. BElL. You say they are not prepared for vocational education. Are you aware that they have a basic education program in the voca- tional education and the manpower development and retraining; that all we have to do is set up the teachers and training program to teach them these things? Governor BREATHITT. We find that through the efforts of this type of program we take the ones who drop out of the regular vocational education program, we put them in camps, under good leadership we stimulate them; we take them off the streets at home; take them from a bad home environment. If we give them leadership and training and an attractive program and atmosphere, they wifi go to school and they will make a productive day's work. We find that it is important to take them out of the environment and put them in these type groups. Mr. BEr~r2. You are on my side in that argument. That is what I am saying; under vocational education, get them out. Governor BREATHITT. You are not going to get them away from their home environment or get them away from their nighttime pur- suits on the streets. Mr. BELL. Well, your residential school feature could possibly take care of that as it develops. Governor Biu~Tmrr. If our three schools can take care of all the needs in Kentucky, it might go somewhere, but I am afraid we don't have enough schools. Mr. BELL. Of course, with your urban camps in some of the States this would be the plan. For example, the gentleman-I believe it was Governor Welsh-indicated he had plans for camps which would be a work and vocational education program, too, in a State program.. This could be done on a State matching basis just as well as the camps,. I would think. Governor B1u~THrrr. May I say this as one last statement: We have squeezed the lemon dry in Kentucky on a matching baths. We have cut mental health funds. There is a lady back of me now that has been scorching me with editorials because we have done so- because we have not done enough that we should have done in other programs-and we intend ultimately to get into those programs. But we had to squeeze our budget and our taxes to meet these programs;: these developmental programs, for Kentucky. No State in the Nation with their ability can say they have done any more and, based on the record, say so any more justifiably than Kentucky has done, because we have gone into this unemployed parent program. As a result we have to cut our ability to go into these other areas. We can't go into these other areas. We must have this sort of help to take care of the category of young people that we can't take care of with the present programs. That is our experience; honestly. Mr. BEr~L. Of course, on the matching basis there are various kinds- of matching programs. Arrangements can be made. GovernOr BREATHITT. We have matched them all, I think. . Mr. Bii~ri~. As you well know. ~. . . . PAGENO="0285" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1001 Governor BREATHITT. Yes, sir; and they are very fine programs. Please don't misunderstand. I believe in those programs and they are helping, substantially, to meet this problem. We have found that there is a great gap and a great area that needs additional sup- port. We think this program and this bill meet that area. Mr. BELL. The basic problem in Kentucky is basically an economic one. It is the result of industry, the coal mining problem. Governor BREATHITT. Well, our unemployment problem is eco- nomic; yes. Mr. BELL. Partially the result of the coal mining industry. Governor BREATHITT. We have an educational lag that we are mak- ing up. We have a highway problem. We have a flood problem. We have a great problem brought about by strip mining in Kentucky. We are now engaged in these programs. When we get one of these camps, in Kentucky, we are going to use them if we can to help us work with our jobless-parent program in working in these strip mine areas to have the conservation programs that we need. Mr. BELL. Kentucky, as I understand it, is one of the States that has a peculiar problem of its own that many States don't have. Governor BREATHITT. There are 11 States that have this problem to a degree. Governor Sanford's State, West Virginia, particularly, I expect, more closely parallels the situation-areas of Virginia, areas of South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, all the Appalachian counties that are in our Appalachian Governor's conference that are represented there-and we are working on this together with a State program, also a program of matching programs with the Federal Government. We are supporting all of these programs. We are doing all that we know how to do to meet it. Mr. BELL. I want to compliment you. You are making a very good. case for your situation. Governor BREATHITT. Thank you, sir. Mr. PERKINS. Governor, has there been any noticeable change in the State employment offices in the past 3 years from the standpoint of doing a better screening job on these youngsters? Governor BREATHITT. Yes. Our department of economic security- that is one of the areas where they place great emphasis-is in this screening job. I think there has been and the facts show there has been. Mr. PERKINS. You cannot visualize the situation where your em- ployment offices, in carefully screening these youngsters, would place a youngster in the Conservation Corps camp when he would be more suited for vocational education under the Manpower Development and Training Act? It is your view and study of the legislation that these youngsters will be carefully screened by experts? Governor BREATHITT. They not only will be but they are carefully screened. The need of this program is because we have a category of youngsters that we have no program to meet. That is our problem. For example, we are increasing our staff and our size. We have just let two contracts in the heart of this-Pike County and Floyd County and their economic security offices-to set up increased staff and secu- rity offices, to set up increased staff and facilities to handle this screen- ing problem because we now are beginning t.o have programs to meet this problem but we can't say to one whole category of young people, PAGENO="0286" 1002 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 "We have nothing for you, you are unacceptable to the Army, you are unacceptable to our vocational training programs, you are unaccepta- ble to the job opportunities that we have coming into this area and you are not apparent, so you can't fit into this other program we have." So we honestly feel that this is a very important program. The States that have the grea.test problem, of course, will avail themselves of this program. Mr. PERKINS. There is usually someone in these employment offices who knows who the dropouts are, who the unemployed are, what fami- lies they come from, and you have someone that consults with the schools and other interested people and institutions. As a usual rule a good job is being done by the employment service in Kentucky. Governor BREATHITT. Yes; I ~nd that there is a new caliber of school superintendents, a younger group all over eastern Kentucky~ in this area working closely with these officers and the community leaders. But we still have this large category as demonstrated by the' fact that Kentucky has one of the higher percentages of rejections of any State in the Nation by our Armed Forces. It is an alarming situation. We are doing all we know to meet it. We think this program will take care of that other category. Mr. BELL. Do you think that is primarily due to the longer period of time in which families have been struggling in poverty? Governor BREATHITT. Certainly, that is a major contributing fac- tor. The whole economic distress problem of Appalachia has con- tributed to it. This has brought about many things. We first had the timber industry, then we had the coal industry in this area. Now coal is being automated. They have switched now to stripping, which is creating a byproduct of problems as well as the problem of putting people out of jobs. They have automated deep mines. It is also laying waste to our lands and clogging our streams and we are having to deal with those problems in the area.. That is what these corps are going to do, our jobless parents corps, probably one of the first assignments. We are going to have them go in the old strip areas to recontour, plan, rehabilitate, and conserve that area. Then' with the new law and new regulations we are going to try to control the operation that goes on now. If it does not work, we will pass more laws, more regulations. But we are really attacking the routes and bases of the problem rather than merely responding to the problem with relief programs. That is where Congressman Perkins is doing such an effective job as our Congressman in the heart of that area, for this area. With all due respect to every other Congressman here, I don't think there is any Congressman who is more sensitive to the needs of an area and is going about it, in my judgment, in his support of pro- grams any better than Congressman Perkins is doing. Mr. BELL. I certainly concur. Governor BREATHITr. Thank you, sir. Mr. PERKINS. I would like to see this bill cover many other areas that are necessary to do this job. This bill is no more than a skirmish, in my opinion, but it is an important one to start with. Governor BREATHITT. You are also supporting the Appalachian bill, the housing, a.nd all the other bills. PAGENO="0287" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1003 Mr. PERKINS. I have advocated programs directed specifically to Appalachia for years and I am delighted that more people are coming now to share that view. I hope that we certainly will get the program through and you get your bond issue through so that we can make some progress down there and open up the whole area. I hope somewhere along the line we can get some public works programs to furnish some jobs for a lot of these people. Governor BREATHITT. Gentlemen, let me say this: If we are success- ful in these programs, and I have every reason to believe we will be, the Congress will be called on less and less for welfare programs and relief programs in Appalachia and the poverty areas of the Nation. That is the beauty of this program. It offers a relief to every section of the country where we have problems, certainly to ourselves as an integral part of the total program in Appalachia. Mr. PERKINS. I would like to have seen it cover the public elemen- tary and secondary schools but at the same time I know we have a problem. We hope we have the votes the way the bill is now written and we are certainly hopeful to cover some of the other areas at some future date. Governor, just how do you visualize briefly the legislation as writ- ten which will be beneficial to eastern Kentucky and areas of that type, slum areas in Kentucky? Governor BREATHITT. You are talking about this particular bill? Mr. PERKINS. Yes. Governor BREATHITT. There is so much we need to do as well as handling the human resources. We have so much work to be done. Mr. PERKINS. You agree with me that we only stress human re- sources in this legislation? Governor BREATHITT. Yes. But we have highways, we have flood control, highways, reforestation, plus our whole area of manpower training, all the developmental programs, our Corps of Engineer projects. This total attack on the economic problems of the area is necessary. Mr. PERKINS. In your pilot program-I am anxious to know be- cause I know you are doing it maybe on a limited scale-can you now go on private property and do work? Governor BREATHITT. Yes, we are doing it. We are doing these sorts of jobs. We are painting schoolhouses. We are clearing steam- beds we hope in two ways. It helps with the flooding situation to a slight degree and it helps the appearance very much in the area. We are improving the appearance of our communities. I think prob- ably the most important thing is working in the strip mine areas, reforestation, conservation work. We are helping on roads damaged by the winter floods. Our problem in eastern Kentucky is being a hilly land. We have 200 employed county workers working on the roads. I know that is true of the other nine counties. They are being very ingenious. They think up new public works projects for these crews all the time that are helpful to us. They keep them busy. We find all the supervisory help we need and people pitching in and lending equipment. It encourages private groups and others to pitch in on these projects, too. If we need a bulldozer, we need a grader, some contractor who has not been busy this winter, this spring, is contributing. The important thing is just attitude and the feeling of PAGENO="0288" 1004 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 self-respect that these people get by doing something constructive. They know what they are getting, they know what they are being paid for. They are choosing this, even those who might be eligible for some other type of aid. They are choosing this. We are making it a condition although it is not required by the public law, it is authorized by public law. We in Kentucky are making it a condition. There are so many of them. That was the most interesting thing. I came up with the Floyd County attorney and talked to him to see how this program was working. We are finding that the dropout rate has been significantly reduced. These parents are back working. These children sort of lose hope when they know their parents are not working, when they have no income coming in except food stamps and commodities. Mr. BJnL. How many people do you have working under those projects? _____ Governor Biu~rnrrr. About 1,800. We have nine counties and about 200 people working in each country on the average. That, of course will go to 120 counties under our total program. Mr. ~ It is in just the early stages yet? Governor Biu~rnrrr. Yes. We are now on a pilot program in nine counties. We started with that so that we could gain experience with the program. We have been real successful. For example, we have a, timekeeper assigned to the job. He checks it off just as carefully as if they were working for $2.85 an hour on a highly qualified con- struction job. They are working and we are really getting results from it. Mr. B~a1L. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Governor BREATHITT. And when they are back to work it is a working pooi where employers can go to and they can go and ask the fellow on the job, he picks out the best people on the job, he can go right to it. Here is a pool of available employable people and they don't do it on the individual basis. They can go and pick up what they need. That has been another benefit. It is a manpower pool that people go to. And they are beginning to learn some skills. You would be surprised how many skills we have found these people have. Mr. BELL. You mentioned the automation in the mines. Is that going to make a particular dent in the economy there, do you think? Governor BREATHIrP. It already has. The mines are automated. That is what has caused the real problem in eastern Kentucky in two areas. The deep mines which were the original coal mines were auto- mated. That threw them out of work. Then the strip mines are almost totally automated. You have~a big shovel that strips the dirt aside. Then the big auger that goes in the side or big shovel that scoops the coal up. The railroads have built spurs right to the mine and they have loaded right at the mine and they ship it to the system plants. The people who work are highly paid technicians but- Mr. BELL. The market is sizable enough to help the economy I assume. Governor BasATnIrr. Well, the coal market does help the economy on the contract sales but the base is very narrow now. Instead of being paid to a large number of miners it is coming to the operator and PAGENO="0289" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1005 a few techiiicians. Of course, that is good that we have that but we are also getting resultant problems through the strip mining, the spoil banks that are left and Kentucky is the major problem in this area along with all Appalachia because we are trying to develop a tourist industry. `We find industrial prospects want to go to an area where you have good schools, good roads, and a pleasant place to live. We are attacking those problems and we are beginning to make head- way on the investment capital in the area. Mr. BELL. I understand there is some talk of an Appalachia bill in the House which is coining up which would strike at the whole Appalachia area. I don't know what the wording of the bill will be yet but it seems to me it will probably place the whole Appalachia in a kind of lump. This might involve some bypassing of States and so on and there might be some problems there. Do you see any prob- lems there with such a program as that? Governor BREATHITT. The two programs complement each other. Human resources is a part of Appalachia. That part of the Ap- palachian program will be taken out. It will be right in poverty which will be nationwide. It will dovetail together. In fact, they do. The nine-State area which is made up, of course, of Pennsylvania, which has many problems as we do in Kentucky because of the coal- fields, all the coal-producing States; West Virginia, which I guess more closely parallels the situation in Kentucky because it has had great problems of lack of communication, highways, lack of develop- ment. Alabama has a small area, Georgia has, Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia, these are the areas. We sup- port very strongly both programs. What you would save out of the total recommendation in Appalachia would go into this program, the economic opportunity program. They dovetail, they do not conflict or overlap because the poverty program as such deals purely with human resources; Appalachia deals with highways, development of highways in the area which, of course, would be on a matching basis as is the rest of our highway program. It just `gives us an additional allocation. We have the report from the Commission here which is the basis for. the recom- mended legislation which is based on the work of our general State commission and the President's Appalachian Regional Commission which was appointed. ~Te thoroughly indorse the report of this Com- mission and recommend the program that they do, but legislation should be drawn in such a way that there not be any overlap so that we would not have in Appalachia anything that is in this particular piece of the bill but that would be worked together. Mr. BELL. Governor, I assume you also endorse the title III feature of this bill, too. 1?\Te had yesterday a gentleman from North Carolina State University who pointed out, that in some cases you could get into a program of augme.nting and helping these farms to a point where it actually could be difficult. You might, for example, take farms in certain areas and give them grants and loans and encourage them, but actually these farms aren't really economically viable. They really can't go ahead and make progress. So, conceivably you could be getting into a problem where you could be helping these farm areas and you could be getting into some kmd of multiple problem. 3i-847-64--pt. Z-19 PAGENO="0290" 1006 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 He did suggest that there is a certain group of people who were elderly and perhaps are pretty hard core, they are hard to get out, to move. But he felt in certain cases, particularly the younger peo- ple, maybe there should be some encouagement to move them off the farms and to give them some training through this Job Corps or through vocational education, manpower development, and so on, to go to the cities and to be encouraged actually to leave. Do you see a problem in this area? Then you get to the question, the last question, who is going to decide who leaves and who stays, and so on, and it gets into quite a problem if you start analyzing it under title III. Governor BREATUITP. Of course, this is a much broader problem that you are talking about now, getting into the whole question of the large corps, rather farm, versus the small family farm. In Kentucky there is hound to be a line that you will have to draw where the farm should not be continued perhaps, but I don't think that we should make that determination arbitrarily in Government. I think economic conditions will do so. But there is a broad gap, a marginal area, where I think we should maintain the family farm because that family farm and that income is the basis for the economy of that whole area and that region~ We have ares of Kentucky where we don't have the large bluegrass farm or the large western Kentucky farm in tobacco, corn, and live- stock, where by modern programs with sufficient help, that this pro- gram will give in capital they can become not only submarginal farms, but they can make a decent living for themselves and family. .Tha.t category of farms; I: think, must be preserved. I think we shOuld have this type of program to help them. I rec- ognize that at the bottom end of the economic scale there are some economic situations, the movement in the whole área of agriculture, they just are going to fall out of the picture. Mr. BELL. No matter what you do. Governor Bur~TmTr. That is right. But there is another category that fits between that and the large highly mechanized farm. Mr. BELL. I would not consider them. Governor BREATHrrT. In that category this program will be helpful. Our agricultural development commission is taking this on as an area of study in Kentucky. Preliminarily, the members of our commission in considering this title of the act feel it would be helpful. We know an area of Kentucky, not so much in Congressman Perkins' district, but in Congressman Chelf's district and other districts of Kentucky, although there are areas in his, in the outer bluegrass, in the foothills of Kentucky, that he has this problem. But we get out of his area where this particular title will probably help some of our areas of Kentucky that are real bad. I think it is a good program, properly administered, and then I think it comes to the job of proper administration as to how effective it will be, but I think it wifi be effective. We are going to help in Kentucky, and I am sure the other States will, too, avail themselves of these pro- grams in seeing that we give them the direction and help in working at the local level through our local council, the council that Mr. Whis- man has, and the specialized council in. agriculture Mr. BELL. That is all, Mr. Chairman. PAGENO="0291" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1007 Mr. PERKINS. Governor, I have one other question following up Mr. Bell's inquiry. The Farmers Home Administration, it is contem- plated, of course, will be consulted and asked to make recommenda- tions in connection with the provisions in the bill to assist farmers insofar as the grant up to $1,500 and loan up to $2,500 is concerned. Do you feel that the Farmers Home Administration in Kentucky has been doing a wonderful job in administering programs of assist- ance to the small family farm? Governor BREATHITT. Oh, yes. Mr. PERKINS. And are they `able to identify this marginal farmer that needs this assistance? Governor BREATHITr. Yes, sir. In fact, in our agricultural devel- opment commission we are having study committees or subcommittees, just as you have, we are following the.congressional pattern. We are conducting hearings and studies and we are utilizing these Farm Home Administration people in Kentucky to help us develop the plan of State aid. We are asking their advice and help because they are the best in the business and they have done a fine job in Kentucky. They can ad- minister it. I have no doubt in my mind about their ability to administer. Mr. PERKINS. They can readily put their fingers on those marginal farmers who need the assistance more? GovernorB1i~ATHrrT. That is right. Mr. PERKINS. Which will enable those farmers to stay on the farm, is that correct? Governor BREATHITT. Yes, sir. Mr. PERKINS. Thank you very much, Governor. I again wish to express my regrets that it is late Friday afternoon, when many mem- bers of the committee were unable to be present to hear you. I know the members would have been here if you had testified earlier in the week or this morning and those of us who were privileged to hear you have been impressed. Governor BREATHITT. I am sorry I could not be here earlier. Mr. PERKINS. Your testimony has been very helpful to the commit- tee. I think I can speak for all the committee that we appreciate your being here. I know I appreciate your being here. Governor BREATHITT. Thank you, sir. Mr. PERKINS. When we adjourn today, we will reconvene on Mon- day morning, April 20, at 9 a.m. Our first witness will be Reuben Johnson, of the National Farmers Union, followed by Hershel New- som, master of the National Grange, and Lou Schneider, American Friends Service, and Mrs. Dexter Arnold, president of the American Federation of Women's Clubs, and Mr. Richard Schifter, Association on American Indian Affairs, and Mr. E. B. Whitten, executive secre- tary, National Rehabilitation Association. The committee will adjourn until Monday at 9 a.m. (Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the subcommittee recessed until Monday, April 20, 1964, at 9 a.m.) PAGENO="0292" PAGENO="0293" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 MONDAY, APRIL 20, 1964 Housi oi' REPRESENTATIVES, AD Hoc SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WAR ON POVERTY PROGRAM OF THE CoMMrriEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D C The ad hoc subcommittee met at 9 :30 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 429, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Carl D. Perkins presiding. Present: Representatives Perkins, Green, Holland, Dent, Griffin, Quie, and Goodell Also present: Representatives Hawkins, Gibbons, and Bell. Staff members present: Dr. Deborah `Wolfe,, education chief; Leon Abramson, chief for labor-management; Charles Radcliffe, minority counsel for education. Mr. PERKINS. The committee will come to order. A quorum is present. Come around, Mr. Johnson. We have with us this morning Mr. Reuben Johnson, the director of legislative service of the National Farmers Union. We are delighted to have you with us, Mr. Johnson. I know that you have appeared before this committee on several occasions in the past, particularly in behalf of Federal aid to education I notice you have a prepared statement. Now do you wish to file your statement and summarize it, Mr. Johnson? STATEMENT OP REUBEN ~O}INSON, DIRECTOR OP LE(IISLATIVE SERVICE, NATIONAL FARMERS UNION Mr JOHNSON Mr Chairman, last Monday, April 13, I filed Mr Patton's statement with the committee It is in the record, but I would like this morning, with your permission, very briefly to augment that statement with a further statement directly related to title III of the bill Mr. PERKINS. Proceed. Mr. JOHNSON. As far as we who represent farm families are con- cerned, we look upon the entire program as would be authorized under and administered under this bill as being of benefit to farm families. Children from farm areas, young people, will benefit as well as urban youth from programs of work-training and work-study, and possibly even under the Job Corps section of title I. The group I would like to direct my comment to for just a minute this morning is the so-called group that is not going anywhere. They are stagnant; most of them are aged people. They own small farms. 1009 PAGENO="0294" 1010 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 They do not have skills which enable them to get jobs in cities and, further, would be very difficult to train; to get them to move from the point where they are now, both in the context of geography as well as society. This is the group that title III would attempt to aid through a direct grant program. Mr. Chairman, I think this program is probably one of the most vital in the entire bill, because the people it will help are the most difficult to reach. About a million and a half of these farm families presently live at the poverty level in rural America. Of this number, some of the younger and better educated have found an opportunity away from these areas, but there are still about 1.3 million young people who are caught in this situation. If these families can raise their income by just merely a modest amount, they can increase their level of living standards significantly, we believe. If a family, for example, with an income of $700 a year can increase its income to $1,500 a year-you can see just what a dramatic impact this would have in terms of living standards. Of course, Mr. Chairman, in rural America we believe that we have been subjected to an outflow of capital for generations. We not only have moved raw materials to the cities to help build cities, but we have moved our most valuable resource in this country, our human resource. If you add up all of the dollars represented by this move- ment of human resource, it would be a fantastic figure. In fact, the NEA did put together figures showing that the drain on rural areas- and this seems really preposterous-is about $500 billion over about a 30-year period in the history of this country. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, to get some capital back in rural America seems to be one of the things we need most. All farm families need capital. Modern farming requires capital. But the group that is poverty stricken could certainly be helped if capital is put where they are-particularly if we could call on an agency like the Farmers Home Administration to supervise the use of that capital. Somewhere along the way the Farmers Home Administration started making harder loans.. Back in the old farm security days, they made some loans they figured Out would be repayable, although there were some thin lines of determination. Today, the Farmers Home Administration is recovering about 99 percent of the money that it lends. I would call this, by any measurement, a hard-loan pro- gram. Therefore, what does an FHA county supervisor do when he meets a family that wants to borrow $500 to try to get into the farming business; to buy seed, fertilizers, and so forth, when he clis- covers that not by the wildest stretch of imagination is this a family that can repay the loan? Here is a program that can augment a Farmers Home Administration program already in effect, and provide some help to these people who, as I have said, are not going anywhere. I should like, also, to say that I look upon this grant program as providing the basis for further progress in farming for these families. If it was apparent, for example, that a young member of a family could help in the farming operations, the Farmers Home Administration could augment a grant by a so-called hard loan, such as they are making now, as the family progressed. So here is the beginning of an operation that wifi help rural families faced with PAGENO="0295" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OP 1964 1011 despair and defeat to move out and develop a farming operation that would enable them to live on the farm in decency. Mr. Chairman, a lot of people like the Committee for Economic Development apparently believe that the solution of this problem is to get people off the farm. I would like to point out here that, while this may appear to afford a simple solution to this problem of poverty in rural America, it is not a simple solution, for this reason. The costs of programs to maintain these families in the city are far greater than if they remain on the farm. They will be able to' live decently under a good farm program with adequate loans, and grants such as title III would provide. If the family moves to town and can't earn' a living they are on welfare; and, as we `all know, welfare costs have been increasing about a billion dollars every 3 years. The total cost is up over $4 billion total now. If the family is on welfare, they more than likely are going to live in a federally subsidized housing project. The money that goes to help build sewage facilities is a part of this cost. Furthermore, as these people leave rural America you are drying up the opportunity for main street business in rural America. Therefore, it seems to me to be the most prudent course of action to try to develop programs that will give people an opportu- nity to develop themselves, to maintain themselves under decent stand- ards in rural America. We believe that title III would be a big asset in this effort. Title III `would authorize a corporation through which large tracts of land could be bought. In many areas there are large land holdings that could be broken up. The Government does not break it up under this provision-that ought to be made clear, farm families who want to farm additional land are enabled to establish a' corporation to buy and hold available land until it can be broken up. We think this section 303 of title I is also a. very important part of this bill. Mr. Chairman, that is all I have to say. I will be happy to re- spond to questions. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Johnson, I appreciate your statement this morn- ing. I share your view all the way. In fact, I have personally wit- nessed the operation of the Farmers Home Administration under the Department of Agriculture down in east Kentucky, which borders right on the point you have testified about here this morning. Many grants were made in eastern Kentucky during the past year to needy farmers much in the same manner as title III would operate. We should do something to assist these people who cannot for a number of reasons leave the farm. If we can give some assistance to enable those people on the farm where retraming is not appropriate, to make a decent living, it cer tainly would be the least that should be done. I agree with your view- point. Mr. Holland, do you have any questions? Mr. HOLLAND. I'was much interested in your statement about' keep- ing people on the farm, because the conditions t'hat exist, as you point out to us, are exactly the same in Pittsburgh. We have that trouble there. Some have been taken away from the farm. Eventually, they go on relief `~nd there they stay I think your ideas coincide with mine; that we should let them stay on the farm and help prepare them to secure an income, to create an income. Today it is just a case of PAGENO="0296" 1012 ECONOMIC OPPORTTJNITY ACT OF 1964 moving one person from the farm to the city and he is just moving from one depressed area to `similar conditions in other surroundings. Mr. JoHNsoN. I would like to say, further, that these rural families are not as far beyond help as you might imagine. If we use super- vised credit of the Farmers Home Administration, if the county supervisors will work together with the teachers of vo~ational educa- tion, to set up special classes for these people, involving all the agen- cies, here is where the community cooperation of this program can be effectively used. These people can become skilled in agricultural pursuits. It;is just a matter of being capitalized, and with a little assistance in bookkeep- ing and planning that the Farmers Home Administration has been doing very effectively all these years in connection with its lending program.' Mr. HOLLAND. I agree with you 100 percent. I think you have made a very fine presentation. Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you very much.' "Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Gmeoxs. Mr. Johnson, do you envision this program in title III as just affecting the older farmer, the one who is perhaps on a sub- sistence level but yet not quite' too old to work; too old to retrain, to move off into some other area? Mr. JoHNsoN. No; I think if I were administering the prOgram I would give priority to this type of operator under the program. But in many areas we have young families struggling to try to get started in the farming business, who have young families. It has always been a kind of strange thing to me to see these young families on farms-during the period when they needed a dishwasher or a washing machine most they didn't have them. They rear all their children, and most of them raised big families, then you begin to see a washing machine once in a while. These young families in many areas also have the same problem of not having sufficient capital. I don't know whether you could say that the needs of one of these groups is more important than the needs of the other. They have the same basic problem, regardless of age.' I don't think it is a matter of just aged people in rural America in the context of the need for this program, there are many young people and there may be some in between these groups that need help. I think they can be identified rather easily. In other words, you `don't have to go through a lot of rigmarole to try to find out' where and who they are. You ride through the country or walk in the yard and see where and who they are. You know where they are and who they are when you see them and the conditions under which they live. So I don't visualize that~ administering the program and identifying the families that have needs for these grants and loans is difficult ~to work out. On the other hand, it is a very simple matter. Mr. GIBBONS. Would these people be farming primarily to keep themselves off relief; in other words, to provide the food that they need there on the farm, or would they be farming primarily to pro- duce cash crops to go into commercial channels? Mr. JOHNSON. I happen to come out of the "hill country" myself. The people who live in these communities are the proudest people in PAGENO="0297" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1013 the world. Their word is as good as a written piece of paper. They do not want to accept relief if they can help it. They would like to have a little money and most of them, when they go out to plant in the spring, visualize having a little cash left over after expenses are paid. They are indeed fortunate if they produce the food needed to stay off relief. I often wondered why there could not be developed a different kind of psychology among these people. Needy families in town have to fake relief, if they are to breath and live. But if they have a piece of land, a hoe and a seed, and they live on the farm, they will work. This is one main fact about people who will benefit from title III that justifies the kind of program envisioned. When we have these kind of l)eople in rural areas, the sensible thing to do is to give them some seed, some fertilizer, and give them the capital they need to make a decent living. If you have to augment this with a grant, let us do it right there and keep these people, keep rural America strong. This group has been the backbone in our country in an earlier day. They have sent some of the best people to town to work. Not all that left these areas are on relief, by any stretch of the imagination. They are worthy of our help; they are worthy of the help of this Nation. Mr. GIBBONS. Isn't there a possibility, then, that this program may prevent an early solution to a long-term problem that we have here in America; some land that is not fit to farm because of its terrain and because of its physical makeup? Mr. JOHNSON. In past years we have seen people leave this kind of area. Actually, you know, we have had to give them some type of help to move them out of these areas. When the~ area west of here that makes up what they call the Skyline Drive area, when it was developed into a park area, you almost had to bulldoze some of those people out of the mountain homes and communities in that area. The.y did not want to leave, but they had to leave because it was just impossible. to make a living there. I think for the most part people have moved from this type of farming community. It may be that under the provision of this bill to provide some incentive for industry to move into any areas re- maining, a further solution to the problem can be found. In other words, you don't try to make a family wholly dependent on income from a farm operatiOn, but provide him with some assistance to do a subsistence-type farming and a job. In fact, that is the way many of these people in these areas today survive. They farm part time and they work off the farm part time. Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you, sir. Mr. PERKINS. And further questions, Mr. Gibbons? Thank you very much. Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Herschel Newsom is the next witness. Is Mr. Graham representing Mr. Newsom of the National Grange? We are delighted to have you with us this morning, Mr. Graham. Proceed. PAGENO="0298" 1014 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 STATEMENT OP RARItY L. (IItAKAM, LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT TO ThE MASTER OP TEE NATIONAL GEANGE Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, may I ex- press the appreciation of the National Grange for the opportunity of discussing with you for a little while this morning this extremely important and far-reaching legislation which has been proposed to meet the needs of one of the most pressing problems that faces America today, not only in terms of her inward problems but in terms, also, of her relationships to the peoples around the world. May I express the regrets of the national master that he could not be here? It is just one of those situations where on man can't be in two places at the same time. It is not because of a lack of interest in this program that he sent me. He asked me to assure you that one of the reasons he sent me is because he was interested in the program and you can judge his decision when I am done with the testimony. We, like Mr. Joimson, distributed copies of our testimony a week ago and copies again are placed at the desks of all of the menThers of the committee. I do not think it would be the wisest use of your time for me to try to read this whole statement. Mr. PERKINS. Without objection, your statement as prepared will be inserted in the record at this point. You go ahead and summarize it. Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT BY Hrnscnri~ D. NEwsoM, MASTER OF THE NATIONAL GRANGE On December 4, 1867, the National Grange was formed here in the Nation's Capital. In 1967 we shall return to the Nation's Capital for our 100th anni- versary celebration and convention. During these intervening years, the Na- tional Grange has written a record of which we are proud. Most of that record has been in direct relationship to the problems which this distinguished com- mittee is considering today. Our founders recognized that if they were to carry out their stated objectives of "educating and elevating the American farmer," it was necessary to improve his income and to sustain his purchasing power if the citizens of rural America, who were proportionately greater in number then than now, were to have a reasonable share of the fruits of their labors and the abundance of the American way of life. We have been coining to this Congress now for almost a century, asking for laws toprovide the basis for improving the income of farm people. For many years the Granger laws took. the form of Government regulation and restraint upon those who would concentrate the monopolies of their wealth in order to control markets-who would reduce or eliminate competition-and thus deny to the farmer, in his wide and diverse private enterprise structure, a reasonable return for his production of new wealth, a return that would give him purchas- ing power sufficient to eliminate the poverty which had reduced, or sometimes destroyed, his opportunity for improvement in accord with his productive out- put-his contribution to the general welfare. When our cause was just, and we think it usually was; when our suggestions were reasonable, and we have tried to keep them so; when our interest rose above sectionalism, and we. have tried to keep national welfare paranioimt in our thinking; the Congress has heard our cry and often has taken action to expand opportunity and extend the individual enterprise structure and its benefits to increasing numbers of people and of families; History clearly records that it was the Granger movement that induced the Congress of the United States to rescue our rural areas from a direction that was clearly establishing itself prior to the influence of the Granger move- ment itself. That direction was one of complete dependence or materialistic concepts that had, in other parts of the world, generated a type of capitalism which, during the past century, has proven to be so vulnerable to socialism PAGENO="0299" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1015 or Communist concepts. We take great pride, therefore, in the influence of the Grange in avoiding the extreme socialistic concept that in that period threat- ened the very foundations upon which American agriculture and rural society has been built. It seems no exaggeration, even for us to say today that the so-called Granger laws charted the course and established the direction of our own American- type modified capitalism, embracing reasonable regulation under law; but result- ing in a system which has afforded opportunities under a widely diverse indi- vidual enterprise structure whch, in turn, has made the United States the envy of the world. It seems appropriate to consider this chapter in American history as we come before this committee in support of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. Our American system has clearly been a land in which there is `not only the highest per capital income in the world but we have the widest distribution of wealth because of the very wide provision for opportunities. Even though, however, most of our people today have standards of education, nutrition, health, recreation, and so forth, greater than those that could have been enjoyed `by the privileged few no more than a century ago; and even though we have the highest standard of living-the greatest abundance of high-quality food, and at very low cost, the world has ever seen; `and a relatively high level of pros- perity `and well-being for the vast majority of Americans, there are a great many people to whom opportunity has not effectively come, and for whom destitution and poverty seem inescapable from their own point of view. We shall leave the matter of urban problems to other witnesses before this committee. Since the `beginning of World War I, American `farmers have not h'ad an income' level which meets the `definition of "parity" or "equity" a single time except' during periods when the United States was at war. Even today, the general income level of American farmers is considerably lower than that of nonrural Americans. This insufficient farmer-purchasing power, in terms of a `direct re- l'ationship to the costs of production and cost of living of the American farmers, continues to be a basic cause of rural poverty. We are very grateful to this Congress and `to all its Members who have intelligently come to grips with some portions of this problem.' We hasten, however,' to point out that more needs to `be d'one with `direct relation to farm income. Quite `beyond and in addition to the problems. dealing strictly with farm income, however, we must clearly define the additional problems demanding a reasonable solution if we are to avoid seeing these rural areas become increas- ingly a spawning ground, not only for social and economic problems of agricul- ture, but also for our urban centers to which the economically depressed and~ dispossessed of our agricultural and rural `areas have been forced to turn as they seek refuge from their unfortunate circumstances. It is no secret that much of the unrest and need in our urban centers is simply a result of our having transferred victims of rural poverty to the cities without consideration as to the skills, education, and ability to make a living in an economic and social situation that is vastly different from that which they have known most of their lives. It seems clear to us that we have both a moral and social responsibility to consider any reasonable program that increases or improves the prospect of providing reasonable opportunity for vast numbers of these Amerjcans-op- portunities which might readily be developed under some such program as the President has obviously envisioi~ed in his message as to a war on poverty. In fact, the grange has been concerned with this sort of community service program for many years under a nationwide effort of our subordinate granges. In the past decade and a half we have enjoyed the cooperation and financial sup- port in this nationwide community service program as on the the great benev- olent foundations which' are a product of our American corporate structure; namely, the Sears, Roebuck Foundation-which program we have recently re- christened as the community progress program for service, improvement, and de- velopment in grange communities across America. We have been much concerned with many great areas-especially those in Appalachia, as well as those in smaller concentrations in other parts of the country-where the victims do not often migrate; but where, in fact, it seems more accurate to say they tend to stagnate. Poverty, self-denial, illiteracy, hunger, poor health, early marriage, early death, and despair have become .a w ay of life in far too many of these areas PAGENO="0300" 1016 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 I would be much more proud of the grange and of our whole American net- work of voluntary organizations if I were able to come before this committee with any measure of assurance that Americans and their own organizational structure are both willing and prepared to meet this problem without Govern- ment help of interference. Unfortunately, the record clearly establishes the fact that these problems are beyond the current capacity of relief agencies and service organizations, commendable as we think our own and many other efforts in this direction have been. The resources required to meet this problem in terms of the amazing increase in agricultural efficiency-which obviously tends to add to the unemployment figure and increase the number of victims of such increased efficiency, added, of course, to the technological revolution in the nonagricultural segments of so- ciety-appear to be beyond the available resources of either the areas in which these problems are located, or of the organizational and voluntary private agencies there. Because, however, the existence of these problems is so real, it seems that all must agree that neither Americans. nor America collectively, have any moral right to close their eyes and pretend that they are not there, nor will any rea- sonable social conscience permit us to ignore these problems by reason of some real or presumed danger in calling upon Government to design a comprehensive and well-organized program to deal with these problems. We must, on the contrary, recognize that in these circumstances we must turn to Government, not with fear and reservation, but rather with confidence and determination that we will not willingly permit abdication of our own responsibilities as individ- ual Americans, and that we will likewise avoid neglect of our organizational responsibilities in connection with this problem. To turn to Government with the erroneous conclusion that we are relieved of all responsibility for this problem is the real danger. On the contrary, we must make up our mind that we will welcome a partner- ship program with our Government to meet these problems. Any other course will invite danger-not by reason of government itself, but by reason of our own failure to accept responsibility not alone for the problems, but for Government action, influence, and guidance of such action~ Having thus reached the deter- mination to accept our responsibility, work with and influence our own Govern- ment in this field, we will be able to make certain that Government continues to be an arm of the people to enable us collectively to accomplish that which we cannot do individually. The grange accepts this responsibility. We heartily agree with the finding and endorse the declaration of purpose of H.R. 104440. "Although the economic well-being and prosperity of the United States have progressed to a level surpassing any achieved in world. history, and although these benefits are widely shared throughout the Nation, poverty continues to be the lot of a substantial number of our people. The United States can achieve its full economic and social potential as a nation only if every individual has the opportunity to contribute to the full extent of his capabilities and to par- ticipate in the working of our society. It is therefore the policy of the United States to eliminate the paradox of poverty in the midst of plenty in this Nation by opening to everyone the opportunity for education and training; the oppor- tunity to work; and the opportunity to live in decency and dignity. It is the purpose of this act to strengthen, supplement, and coordinate efforts in further- ance of that policy." The grange, therefore, supports the objectives of this bill as being well within our purposes and ideals for the United States and for American people. We recognize the need for jobs for those who are no longer interested in school and are too young to enter into the full-time labor force. The Job Corps proposal meets with our qualified approval. We wish we were able to suggest a better approach to the problem of youth programs for those who need such programs but being unable to offer a better answer to this problem at the moment, we sup- port the provisions of title I as being reasonable in their attempt to deal with a problem which America must confront and, which, unfortunately, is not being adequately dealt with at the moment. The value of work-training programs and work-study programs has been demonstrated by similar programs in the past and is worthy of support. We would like to distribute to the members of this committee a booklet en- titled "Success Unlimited," which describes our community service program since 1947, to which we referred above. This is by way of saying that we have PAGENO="0301" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1017 long and continuing interest in this area of better communities and improved opportunities for rural Americans. We believe the provisions of this bill are not only consistent with, but are reasonable and proper expansion of the more desirable aspects of the area redevelopment program and the rural areas devel~ opment programs of the past few years; which programs we have supported and will continue to support. Under title III, providing special programs to combat poverty in rural areas, we have no substantive change to offer to the committee, but would like to record the opinion that the grant program invites or magnifies the dangers and oppor- tunities for the sort of abuse that may decrease individual responsibility ac- ceptance rather than stimulate incentive and initiative, and this grant program should, therefore, be provided only in very extreme cases, if at all. In making this statement, we recognize that there are instances where grants are the only practical way of relieving some situations and are, therefore, much less expen- sive than extraordinarily liberal credit. The language of section 302 seems reasonably adequate. However, to insure initial and substantial reliance on loans of a very liberal sort rather than to resort to grants except in extreme cases, we would suggest that the committee might consider a way of reporting this measure to the House which would add increased emphasis on the importance of having such a program administered with extreme caution or reluctance, to use grants only "if the family is not qualified to obtain such funds by loan under other Federal programs"-which, in turn, implies that credits not available on one hand, but that the require- ments under this act are such that the grant may be appropriate in combination with, or as a supplement to, other available funds. Clearly, the constant and continuing purpose of administration of this act is to develop responsibility along with opportunity. Without the development of such responsibility and without continuing and adequate regard for the maintenance and improvement of self-respect and individual dignity on the part of the participant, the program cannot serve the purposes outlined in the declaration. Section 303 of title III appears simply to make available to rural people some of the facilities of Government that have already been available to urban people in meeting the economic problems of similar nature. We would approve this section in general-certainly of its apparent purpose. It appears that the safe- guards provided against abuse are adequate. We hope, however, to be able to give further study to the possibility that these provisions might be improved without destroying the intent and purpose for which they were obviously drawn. We offer to hold ourselves in readiness for further consultation with the com- mittee or staff, and we would hope that for a reasonable period of time, we might reserve the opportunity of making further recommendations, as the committee considers this measure. - Thq program seems clearly to us to offer both practical and effective possi- bilities of coordinating public agencies in the service of well-designed private programs, such as our own mentioned above. It likewise seems clear that there is a possibility of utilization of public agencies in support of private and non- Government organization programs and efforts to improve communities and broaden opportunities. We wholeheartedly support this philosophy of seeking to intelligently bring rt'~ources of Government, local communities, individuals, and organizations into effective and mutually beneficial relationships for the purposes embraced within the declaration of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, and we pledge the best efforts of the Grange to a continuing effort in com- munity progress through service, improvement, and development, toward improved opportunities, and a better and fuller way of life. It is our hope and belief that the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 can and must be made to enhance and increase the value of our efforts and all similarly motivated organizations and individuals. Mr. GRAHAM. I would just like to point out what, in our judgment, are some of the more pertinent problems and the answers which this legislation suggests. I would tell you, first of all, that we have no fear of Government at this point. The National Grange probably did more than any other organization in the history of the Nation to put Government in its proper relationship with business in our Nation and in the Grange legislation many years ago. Because we have been in business almost PAGENO="0302" 1018 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 ~a hundred years, we properly identify, I think, the relationship of the Government to the economic life of America. And we believe that it has been due to this relationship more than anything else that America has avoided the extremes of capitalism which has made it vulnerable to communism in other sections of the world. Although we do not believe that all the answers to all of our problems must necessarily come from Government, we believe there are some answers to some problems that cannot come from anywhere else. We try to distinguish between the two. It is the feeling of the Grange that this Economic Opportunity Act is probably the first time when we have taken a broad enough look at the whole problem of American poverty. This is a seamy side of our life that we have been reluctant to discuss. We have not been very happy about having to wash what appears to be a kind of dirty linen in public, yet we cannot avoid the responsibility of looking at the prob- lems of our American life, and looking at them as objectively as possible. We have supported the legislation such as area development, rural areas development, and all this other legislation in this general area to try to help solve some of these problems. But the problems cannot be solved quite this easily. I would point out for you that there are three types of poverty, in our judgment, which we have to deal with in our American life. One of them is that which is incurable, the result of illness, disease, mental and physical, the problem of relief recipients of any country. We have made provision for those in our relief rolls. The others are the unfortunate. If you will pardon the personal reference, I remem- ber this in my youth, when my own father was caught in the depres- sion and lost his farm. We were impoverished, but we did not belong to the poverty group, and it wasn't too long before we began to work ourselves out of it. This group, I think, today could be helped by both title III and to some extent `by the programs that would help in retraining and relocation with new job opportunities. There is another group which I would call those who are unneces- sarily impoverished, who have been denied by circumstances far be- yond their control the opportunity to get education, the opportunity to have capital background, the opportunity `to take advantage of the general blessings of our American life. I think this legislation moves toward the answering of some of. these problems. As it moves in those directions, it certainly has the unqualified support of the National Grange. We think these problems are partly historical, in that this poverty to some extent is always with us, as our Lord said. But by the same token we do not believe that He intended that, because they are al- ways with us, that we should sit complacently `by and watch them suffer. We believe that this is probably the first time in history that a major nation, with the exception of t;he Socialists who have their own approaches to this-but certainly within a free society, when a great nation has made a studied attempt to come to grips with the pressing, eternal, historical problem of poverty. The American people, I think, should be grateful to the leadership which has been given to bring this legislation properly before us. PAGENO="0303" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1019 This is partly sociological in terms of' the problems that evolve from it. Many things happen as a result of poverty. And they are a blight on our Nati~n and hang like a heavy cross on our consciences. When people are not given the opportunity to make a living and they resort to some of the things that they do in order to subsist, this is inexcusable to us. Many times the social problems cause a mass mi- gration, a dislocation of relationships that make it much easier for a person away from home to violate the accepted codes of conduct than it would be if they were at home. As Mr. Johnson pointed out, these proud mountain people don't like relief. In the city, they are more ready to accept it because they do not have to carry the burden of disapproval of their mores through all these years that is present when they move from being self-suffi- cient over into relief rolls. This is a terrible experience for them. I am glad it is. I think this is a hopeful sign that people don't want to go this route any more than possible. The thing that worries us, also, is the depressing effect that this kind of situation has on our total economy. People with productive capacity that are denied, through lack of training or various other causes, the right to make their contribution to American life certainly are no asset to us, and in many instances t~lIey are a liability. They are the ones who hang like a millstone abbut~Otir wiiole ,ecoiion~ic life. This is true, not only of agriculture, but it is true of the rural nonf arm population where there is poverty. In our judgment, nothing would contribute more to the economic stability of American life than to give these people an opportunity to develop a purchasing power that wOuld enable them to share the good things of American life. Last of all, let me say that I thin1~ that the political implications of `this bill are much more far ieach~ng' than they `have been given credit for. It is a historical fact that communism has never developed in an area that does not haye a great deal of poverty.. It develops around the shirtless ones or the unwashed ones, or whatever you want to call them, whether in Cuba or wherever it is. I think it is a tribute to the American people that many of these people who have :been im- poverished have not turned to . communism. But by the same token the Communists have made this a point of reproach for us, and they do not, in their propaganda concerning America, talk about the wide- spread benefits of our society where we have the highest standards of living for most of our people of any nation in the history of the world. They point to the people, rather, who are living at subsistence levels or lower and these people then in turn, their whole situation be- comes a millstone, hanging around the political neck of America. We must, I think, in order not only to survive as this kind of gov- ernment, but in order to survive as a, government of respectability in terms of the nations Qf th~ world, be able to point to our impoverished people' and say we have, to the, best of the ability of the American people, relieved our people of need. , This `bill points us in that general direction. I would make two comments about the secti'on's of t'he bill: One is about title II. Let me go back to title II and say that in our con- cept this community development concept must he developed even fur- ther than it is in ARD and Area Redevelopment Act. We have had PAGENO="0304" `1020 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 some experience with this in the National Grange, and we have dis- tributed copies of this book "Success Unlimited" for the members of the committee. During the last 10 years, the National Grange, in cooperation with the Sears-Roebuck Foundation has distributed prize money for com- munity service projects to the amount of one million and a half dol- lars. The best of our information is that we have generated in rural communities a capital investment of 10 times that amount, a billion and a half dollars. We are proud of this. But we do not believe we can solve this problem this way. We can solve part of it, but the problem is too big for us or any other private charity or philanthropic group to solve. In terms of title III in the grants, it was the feeling of the Executive Committee of the National Grange that. as far as possible this type of assistance should be given in a loan instead of a grant, recognizing that there are times when grants are the only way, the only practical way out; but in general we believe that the interests of the recipient would be better served if long-term, nonrecourse loans that could be written off, but which at the time they were made and as long as possible would give the person who received them an opportunity to repay them, maintaining this self-respect. We `believe this would be a better way when possible. That means that the Farmers Home Administration lending pro- grams would have to be broadened. It would mean that, in our judg- ment, Congress would have to approve funds, to appropriate funds for the writeoff of some of this type of loan. But as far as possible.. we would prefer going tha.t direction without at t.he same time, as I mentioned, objecting in toto to the grants part of this bill. Over in the last section, section 303, which deals with the land re- form, we recognize that probably this is the only way that we are going to get some of this land out of the large land holdings back into the family owner-operator farm situation. It is unfortunate that sometimes this extra outside money that is involved in agriculture ex- pansion or in the concentration of agricultural production in large units and is done through the capital gains advantages of our tax laws, have simply built up economic units that are so large that no family farmer, no owner-operator could, under any stretch of the imagina- tion, ever be able to buy that unit. There is not that much credit available anywhere from any source to purchase that kind of land. Now our hesitancy at this point is, we think we should take a good long, hard look at this one, that this does not become a land reform program in disguise. By that I mean that we do not yet, it seems to us, have sufficiently established .a policy con- cerning land reform to embark too far on this without establishing policy. Now the example that I want to use is this. If there is a. large hold- ing of land under corporate ownership, who is to judge whether or not the Federal Government should acquire that land and redistribute it? This is a very serious question. Now if the land comes on the market, this becomes an entirely different thing. If the land is on the market to settle an estate, or something of that kind, then I think the Federal Government, through this kind of program, should probably' move into this situation and try to reestablish the type of agricultural pro- gram which has been the American pattern. PAGENO="0305" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1021 But I think we must draw a pretty fine line there about which direc- tion we are going, and when and why we are to go these directions. I think we should point out that this is not going to be a very easy problem tO solve, because in many instances the farm buildings of the land that has been joined to other lands, other farms, to make this large unit, the farm buildings have been destroyed. They are no longer in existence. And the buildings are so extremely expensive today. I worked as a real estate appraiser long enough to know that if a barn burns in a great many areas, especially in New York where I worked, you are much wiser to buy an old farm, because you can buy the farm cheaper than you can build a new barn. These are economic problems we should be careful about getting into, unless we are willing to pay the economic price to do this. Per- haps we are going to have to do this in terms of land reform. I don't think we know whether we are going to have to do that or not, but this is an extremely important problem that we can't avoid facing. Perhaps this is the answer. I think on a limited basis we ought to try to see what will happen in this area by some kind of Government program. I think we would be reluctant to make this Government policy at this point, that is, an overall policy. I think with that much longer statement than I had anticipated giv- ing, this completes my statement. Mr. PERKINs. This legislation leaves it optional with the corpora- tion if they desire to sell to another corporation which wants to sell land to the small individual farmer. There is nothing here that spelLs out any compulsion. Mr. GRAHAM. That is the way we interpret it. We would hope that the Congress would so interpret it, too. Mr. PERKINS. I appreciate your comments on title III. If I under- stood you correctly, you feel that we should start out on a loan basis to the little farmer who has his problems, instead of giving a grant, even though it may turn out in the end that we may have to write the loan off. Mr. GRAHAM. Yes; in general. The little farmer or the big farmer, this is a deeply involved social problem, as you well recognize. Mem- bers of this committee, I think, are probably more familiar with the complexities with these social problems than, perhaps, any other com- mittee of either House, so I am not telling you anything except for the record saying that if it is a young farmer who has not even the beginning capital for a down payment, the $1,000 that he needs, even to qualify for the loans under the FHA, then I think if we are in- tending to develop a situation in which this farmer becomes self-sup- porting, that we should probably go the loan direction. Because, al- ways, this other is something that hangs over his head. If he becomes self-supporting, if these loan terms are sufficiently broad, I think he can handle that all right. Mr. PERKINS. Let us assume we have a little farmer who has an income of $1,500 and has indebtedness on his farm, say, $1,500; and the outlook in the future is that he may suffer foreclosure and will lose that farm unless he receives some Government assistance. Now in a situation of that type you would not see anything wrong with making a small grant available, where the representatives of the Farmers Home Administration recommend it and reported in all 31-841-64-pt. 2--20 PAGENO="0306" 1022 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 probability it would let him get back on his feet and enable that type of individual to stay on the farm? Mr. (&&ii~xt. This is why we have said that we do not oppose grants in some situations. We prefer the other, if it is possible. There are times when it is not practical to do it. Then we would go the grant way. We would have no objection to that. Mr. PERKINS. The situation of the type I have mentioned would be the instance where a grant would be most likely. Mr. GRAHAM. I should think that if a young man was trying to get possession of a good operating farm, one that is valued at $25,000 in- stead of $1 500, and he needed a thousand dollars for a downpayment, in this instance it probably should be done in terms of ~ long-term loan. Mr. PERKINS. I agree with you. Mr. GRAHAM. On the other hand,'if you get these older people who are simply tryingtO subsist on the land because they are too old to retrain or they are, too old to at least want to be retrained-the old saying is that, the old dog does not learn as well as the young one- the only reason for it is that the old dog does not want to; he can learn all right. Some of these people can be retrained; some of them don't want to be. Their roots are deep in these communities. Their chil- dren live there. Mr. PERKINS. You agree we should help this type of farmer `make a go of it on the farm if he can? Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. Mr. PERKINs. He only knows farming, he does not know anything else. Mr. GRAHAM., He only knows that community, too. We had~ better leave him there a.nd support him sOmeway there in a degree of happi- ness than t.Q move him off, in any retirement, in these retirement vil- lagOs which are not the best thing for these people. Mr. PERKINs. That is one of the chief purposes of title III. Mr. GRAHAM. At this point, I think we have no choice except to do it that way, no practical choice. Mr PERKINS Mrs Green Mrs. GREEN. Thank `you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry I was not here for yOur full statement. May I say that what I did hear of it is such a welcome change, in its constructive aspects, from the statement made by One of the other national farm organizations a week or so ago. I also' appreqiat.e a witness who proposes specific changes that he thinks will improve it. Under title III, regarding the grants to farmers, I find myself in agreement with you that a loan would be preferable. I would also say that `from the political standpoint we would have an easier time of getting it through the Congress on a loan basis than on a grant basis. But you suggest that the grant may be appropriate in very extreme cases. How would you: write that language? Mr. GRAHAM. That is a good question, Mrs. Green, and you put your finger on the problem. The only way I could say, and I am not prepared to writ~ that language, I am sorry I am not, I think we could give you sonie staff assistance at that point, and I would prefer that Joe Parker help with language rather than me because this is `an area with which Joe is considerably more familiar. But I think we have PAGENO="0307" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1023 simply got to write our language broad enough that there must be room for judgment on the part of the administrative agencies. I don't know how we can get around judgment in the final analysis. My only designation is this. If it is to be especially young people who are trying to get into really a productive farm that it ought to be the loan. If it is an attempt to keep people on the land in their homes, to enable them to live there at above poverty levels, and there is no justification in terms of the long-term repayability of a man 60 years old, for instance-how can he repay the long term? The changes are almost nil. It should go the way of the grant. I think the possibility of repayability should be the determining factor. Mrs. GREEN. You mean that if he could repay the amount, we would give him a loan; if he could not possibly repay it, we should give him a grant? Mr. GRAHAM. I did not mean it quite the way it sounded like when it came back from you. Mrs. GREEN. I am sorry. I do not mean to put words in your mouth. Mr. GRAHAM. I know you didn't, but that is probably what I said. Yet, when you said it back to me, that did not quite sound like how I wanted to say it. Mrs. GREEN. Then you say it, please. Mr. GRAHAM. I don't know if I can. I think we have to find a way of differentiating between the possibility of repayability-if we are going to get `somebody up simply a little above subsistence levels, I don't think we can possibly expect them to repay. If we are going to try to assist him in becoming a really efficient, full-time farmer, who has an income of $25,000 a year to $35,000 or $40,000 a year in terms of net income, I think we ought to expect that to be repaid and perhaps that is the purpose of the loan, the purpose of the use. Mr. PEmUN5. In that instance, we should expect repayment? Mr. GRAHAM. Certainly. Mr. QrnE. You did not mean net income, did you? Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. Mr. Qun~. $25,000 to $35,000 net income? Mr. GRAHAM. Well, I recognize that is a low point, as you well recognize, too. It is according to where you are and where you are farming, as you well know. Mr. Quu~. Maybe I did not understand; $25,000 to $35,000 net in- come? That is pretty good. Mr. PERKINS. This bill is not addressed to that type of income. Mr. GRAHAM. I think the Congressman was exactly right and per- haps he `got my point more nearly than I thought you would. I think we ought to aim at that kind of farmer in the future if we are going to help these young men go into agriculture as full-time farmers. We ought to aim at a direction where they can live with some decency and have at least a fair share of the good things of American life; $25,000- I did not mean net-I meant gross. Mr. Qun~. I thought you meant gross income. We should be aiming toward a $25,000 to $35,000 gross income? Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. You would agree that this is about as low as we can aim in gross. Net, I wish we could aim in that direction of income for agriculture, but I don't see how it will be possible to do it under this legislation. PAGENO="0308" 1024 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Mr. QuIE. Or any other. Mrs. GR~x. I have no more questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Quie. Mr. QtTIZE. Go ahead. Mr. Bell was here before I was. I would just as soon defer to him. Mr. PERKINS. Go ahead. Mr. Qu~. Mr. Graham, are you familiar with the programs we have had in the past where there have been some grants to farmers available for assistance? Mr. G~&HA3r. Yes. Mr. QUIE. Could you make any comments on how they have operated and the reluctance to use them? Mr. Gn~rnAM. I could, but I would answer the Congressman saying that these were used at a. time when our economic situation was so completely abnormal that the comparison between that time and the present time was a bit difficult to make and do it with good judgment. The other thing is that some of this information is rather old and what the results then wBre and what they would be today might not be the same. What I am talking about is more in general. I would answer you by saying this, that in some of the experiences that I have had where I had opportunity to dispense money to needy people, and I think this is generally true of relief groups, that they find that it is more desirable, if possible, to be helping them than to be giving to them. The net result is better. I think this is pretty generally recognized by social workers everywhere although this does not say that we should not give them money in some instances. Mr. QUTE. I think you are right, helping them to help themselves is better than an outright grant.. Right now, the Farmers Home Adinimistration can make loans to farmers but they have chosen to give the loans only to those who are at a pretty high level, just below the level of credit rating where they can get loans from private sources, Federal land bank or PCA, and just below the Farmers Home Administration. The ones who have less of a credit rating they have chosen not to make the loans to. Part of this is due to the decision of the farmers who pass on the loans, look- ing at their neighbors and deciding on which ones are actually good risks even though they do not have a good credit backing. How do you think their minds can be changed or their concept changed in a program of this kind? What you are doing will reach a little bit deeper into this kind of program. Mr. G~HA~I. This is one of the things that concerns us, to some extent the original purpose of the Farmers Home Administration seems to have been lost in administration at the level that you are pointing to, and that the original purpose of the Farmers Home Administration to bring people into productive capacity in agricul- ture that is sufficiently high that they have a reasonably good income has in more recent years, due to this continual depression in agriculture where their input has been so much greater than their output, their credit possibilities have been reduced and the FRA now in many instances is working the opposite way that it was supposed to because people who have bee.n able to get credit from normal credit sources and then they have gone into PCA, first the commercial and then into PCA PAGENO="0309" ECONOMIC OPPORTIJNITY ACT OF 1964 1025 and they get so far into debt where PCA thinks it no longer thinks it can handle them and they turn them over to FHA, which is the last stop before bankruptcy. Now, I think we ought to recover some of the original concept there wherewe help people go up instead of helping them come down and cushion their landing when they come down. It is at this point that we need, it seems to me, to begin to rethink the relationship of the Farmers Home Administration to this partic- ular problem of poverty, and then write the legislation in such a way that even the committee cannot misinterpret it and use these funds only in the direction they want to use it and refuse to use it in areas where it needs to be used, also. This is both the strength and the weakness of the committee system. Mr. QUIE. One thing about the way the FHA has been operating, there are certain requirements made of the farmer when he receives the loan to improve his management of his operation. The deeper you reach into the group who need help, I think there is the less will- ingness to accept new management operations and talk to some people, such as supervisors. Some of the farmers seem quite willing, to do it, but when they come out to the farm for the next checkup they have not done it. I remember reading an article once when they were looking around at a farm area and they said, why is it that this farm sits in an oasis of marginal farms around here? The farmer said, "The trouble here is that there are more marginal farmers than there are marginal farms." Do you think there has to be any tightening up of .the authority given F1E[A to require the management practices that are certain to make a success especially when grants are made? Mr. GRAhAM. Certainly in terms of grants, this ought to be pretty tight. I think this is what the Department has in mind that this will not be given, a fellow is not going to be given a check for $1,500, it will be a controlled fund like the present funds which are controlled funds. Incidentally, I am probably one of the few witnesses who has had an FHA loan. So I am a little familiar with the way it operates. I think the Congress should, either by direction or by law, and I don't think there would be any disagreement on the part of the Department, to have a pretty clear understanding about just how tight this ought to be in this administration of the grant and, on the other, I think they probably have enough authority at the present time if they want to use it. I would not be competent to be the final judge on that, but they have a good deal of authority, I can tell you by experience. Mr. PERKINS. One more question. Mr. QrnE. OK. I would like to hear your comments on the other portion of title III where the corporations can be set up to purchase land and resell it again to low-income farmers. First, what type of operations do you think we should have in mind to secure the land? What corporations are now owning or is it large landholders when the land comes up for sale; and, secondly, do you agree with the average of 80 acres which the statement that Sargent Shriver prepared for Members of Con- gress contained, as the size of operation that will be sold to the low- income farmer? PAGENO="0310" 1026 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Mr. GRAHAM. Let me see if I can get all three of these questions in: order. No. 1, at this point, on the kind of land that should be acquired, I don't think it makes much difference whether it is a cor- poration or a great deal of land that has been acquired by a private individual. The second is the time that it should be acquired, in my judgment, yet, unless we establish a national land policy, would be when it comes up for sale. What was the other question? Mr. QUIE. And what do you think of the average of the 80-acre size that was talked of in the statement that Sargent Shriver sent up to the Congress in the beginning? Mr. GRAHAM. I find it difficult in sizing a family farm, an owner- operator farm, on the basis of acres. It depends where you are. Eighty acres in some areas, in Illinois, for instance, you can `get a pretty good living out of that 80 acres. There are other 80 acres where you would starve to death and do it pretty rapidly. The definition that the National Grange has as to a family farm is one that is large enough to give the operator a reasonably good income and small enough that it is done with the majority of the labor and capital furnished by the owner-operator. Now, this means a good deal of flexibility, depending on areas a.nd how you are farming. If it is an area like a gardening area, such as in New Jersey, then it does not have to be very large. If it is a great farming area in the Great Plains, obviously it has to be much larger than that. I think this kind of definition must be left more in the areas to define what is a family-size farm. To put a man on a farm that is small enough that you are simply conde.nrning him to live along in semipoverty just makes no sense so far as any antipoverty program is concerned. Mr. QmE. Is it not true that the area where a farmer can make a, living and a good living on 80 acres, there is no poverty anyway? Mr. GRAHAM. That is generally true. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Holland, any questions? Mrs. GREEN. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. HOLLAND. Yes. Mrs. GREEN. I want to go back to the grants. Will you give me some examples where you think a~ grant would be justified and speci- fically for what? Mr. GRAHAM. I should think if it is a couple, 60-65 age bracket, that has a little retirment, that has a home but does not have enough income to live on a level that is by any American standard up to sub- sistence or better, and where they need something, for instance, like a roadside stand or some way, anything that would enable them to earn some extra money to get their living standard up above that of poverty would be justified. That is one "for instance." Mrs. GREEN. I come from a city area but farmers are located at the edge of it and the farmers could probable benefit from a roadside stand. How I could I justify voting for a bill for a 60-year-old farmer to build a roadside stand when I have thousands of 60- and 65-year-old people who live in the heart of my city who are living on $60 and $70 a month, far below subsistence wages? PAGENO="0311" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1027 Mr. GRAHAM. No. 1, I would say that this is not either-or, that this kind of grant for the rural area does not remove the need for some- thing in the area that you are talking about in the cities. Mrs. GREEN. What would you put in the bill so that I could vote for a $1,500 ~rant? For one thing, I should think there would be unlimited policing power to see that it was wisely used and the item kept and not later sold for some critical need at any given moment. For example, could the $1,500 be used to buy a tractor? Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, it can. I still am not sure that unless this tractor can be used efficiently and over a long enough period of time to justify this expenditure of money that this is the way to do it. I don't thrnk the grant ought ever to be given to do the thing which is economically unjustifiable any other way. This is a hard thing to define. I am vague on this, I know that I am. But would you loan money to the same person if the money was available and his credit was good? Mrs. GREEN. I must say it would make some sense to me to increase the social security payments for everybody over 60 than to give a $1,500 grant to a 60- or 65-year-old person living on a farm to increase his income. I think there would be more justice in it if we could have a social security payment that recognizes the cost-of-living increase from the time when we set the present amount. Then we would have justice across the board for the city dweller and the rural family. Mr. GRAHAM. I am not prepared to argue with the Congresswoman's judgment at this point. I think that is pretty good judgment. Mrs~ GREEN. The gentleman said they would not all come under social. security-then I think somehow we ought to find some way of bringing them in. Mr. Qun~. Farmers are under social security. This provision is if their income is low they have other options to pay into the retirement. Mr. GRAHAM. The problem is that if the income is low, the option is so hard to pick up. Mrs; GREEN. Even if it is hard, would it not bea better alternative to devise some way to make it easier than to say we will give a 60- or 65-year-old farmer who is living in poverty a $1,500 grant to supple- ment his income? You lmow the ~olitical facts of life. A situation like this would be politically impossible. How could aperson go home to his city and say, "I voted for a $1,500 grant for farmers for which you people are going to pay taxes and we don't pay you anything even though you also have barely enough to buy the necessities of life." Mr. GRAHAM. You are bringing up some of the questions that were in our mind when we talked this over in executive committee for a couple of hours. There are real questions to be resolved here. We are not sufficiently enthusiastic about this approach to have resolved all the problems yet. . . Mr. QtrIE. Will the gentlelady yield? . . . Mrs. GREEN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has the floor. Mr. HOLLAND. I yield. I yield to you farmers. . Mr. QmE. I want to remind you that your constituents are going to be paying a lot more of that to wealthy farmers under the cotton-wheat bill. I know you did not vote for it. *. . Mrs. GREEN. The gentleman who is a witness can close his ears, but the gentleman knows my vote on that. . Mr. GRAHAM. So does the witness. .. PAGENO="0312" 1028 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Bell. Mr. BELL. I am sorry that I was not able to hear your statement earlier. I had another meeting that I had to go to. There is one thing that puzzles me a. little bit in this bill. That is the grant, outright grant of $L500 to the farms, but there is no provi- sion in there for loans to the farmers directly other than through this corporation. I do not quite get the reasoning behind it. Do you have any comment on that? Mr. GRAHAM. Without trying to cover this with all the committee again, may I just briefly say what you will find in the record: that our preference is the loan route with the long-term nonrecurring loans that can be written off, if necessary, and with appropriate funds made available to see that this kind of approach is made possible. Mr. BELL. In other words, you would favor a loan arrangement of some kind? Mr. GRAHAM. That is correct. This is what we said. We say there may be instances where the grant is the only practical way. It may be cheaper than putting them on welfare, for instance. But, in general, we would prefer this other direction. Mr. BELL. I am sorry, I may have to ask you some questions that you have already been asked. Mr. GRAHAM; That is all right, tha.t is your privilege, I will answer them. Mr. BELL. In a. situation where you have, as you know, a great many farms, some of which ma.y not be viable at all, simply because they may be just impractical to try to operate. I do not know how ma.ny that will be, but I know there are many other economic factors in farming than just the routine operation of the farm-I should think in making loans and grants to farms of t.his kind the Government could be just adding to a dilemma and making it worse. Would you like to com- ment on that? Is that a problem you have discussed earlier? Mr. GRAHAM. This is the problem that is in the back of our mind all the time. I did discuss it some earlier. I suggested that we ought to dec.ide which direction we are going. In the case of a young man trying to get into farming with a life-. time ahead of him, we. ought to point him toward a. good farm where he can make a good living and not toward one which brings him for- ever at a subsistence level or a semipoverty level. We must get a dif- ferent approach than that or we are not solving t.he poverty problem. There is justification. I think, for trying to help some of the older people who are used to living on this small farm, to stay on that land throughout the rest of their lifetime. This becomes a different prob- lem. Mr. BELL. Then you are saying, in effect., I assume, just by jumping at what you are saying a little bit, that maybe some of the younger groups or members should be enoura.ged to go in the direction of a different type of economic livelihood and maybe leave the farm. Then you would be inclined more to take it on an a.ge basis and maybe en- courage the yoirnger members to leave the farm and get in some other type of work. Is tha.t right? Mr. GRAHAM. I think we have got to do that especially in the areas we are talking about because we are talking about margmal farming areas in general where the poverty is most deeply seated. PAGENO="0313" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. ACT OF 1964 1029 I know the old New Englander that said, "There is no such thing as a poor farm, there are just poor farmers." But this is not entirely true. Some of these people, the holding would have to be so large and the difficult of getting a living from the soil is just so great that it is pretty difficult to understand how a young man could expand an operation in. some of these areas, and never become a very stable economic unit in terms of being able to compete with the good productive areas of the rest of our Nation. . . . . I don't think we ought to try to direct young people in that direction unless they can see a reasonably good chance of making a reasonably good living. Then the next thing is how do we direct these people in these areas we are talking about so that they can make a living at something . else when they have the poor education they have and a number of other things. We have to attack that problem, too, so that if we are not going to keep them on the land in poverty we certainly do not want to move them into the city in poverty. We must give them something better than that, because we have solved nothing simply moving them off the welfare rolls on the land, in the country, on to the welfare rolls of the city. We must get at the root of this thing which is basically education and the things, the skills, that give them a chance to make a living in our industrial society. Mr. BELL. So you would move directly into, as I get it, into a train- ing program, training pointed directly toward giving them a skill in some other area that would prepare them for other parts of~ the country, maybe the city, or wherever it may be. Is that correct? Mr. GRAHAM. I think we have to do that as part of the ARA and ARD program and we also have to move beyond that to see that as often as possible they get businesses and industries in their areas so that they have a chance of living. There is no one way we go in this, it seems to us. We go all the ways we can go to move into a problem. Mr. BELL. In a situation like that, Mr. Graham, how would you determine and who would determine which person stays on the farm, which person goes to the city and gets trained? Would you do this on an age basis? Would you do this on a viability of the farm basis? Or would you do it on a combination basis? How would you decide and who would decide? Mr. GRAHAM. I don't think anybody should decide too much be- yond the men that are involved. This gets into an area of compulsion that is repugnant to us. If a man wants t.o live on the farm and shows his opportunities to do that, his abilit.y to do that, let us help if we can. But some of these people don't want to live there and yet they don't have the skills to go anywhere else. I think it is a matter of personal desire in America as far as pos- sible. If a man chooses tO go one direction to make a living and it looks like he has the ability to do that, if he has the ability. to do that, if he has sufficient education and sufficient skills, then if helping him get this education and skill takes him off the poverty roll into being a productive citizens, then this seems to us to be a practical answer to t.he poverty problem. PAGENO="0314" 1030 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Mr. BELL. As I get what you are saying, there would be no attempt to force somebody to do something he did not want to do but per- haps you would use a persuader on the basis of economics and say, "Well, now, you can't possibly make a living on this piece of land here, and you are fairly young, why don't you go. to school ?" Would that be the approach? Mr. GRAHAM.. That would be my approath. Mr. BELL. In other words, you would have someone representative of either the Federal Government or the State, or whoever it may be, to have a discussion with the person to try to talk to him about chang- ing his line of work? Mr. GRAHAM. I think the Farmers Home Administration is in a good position to do this because the man probably would be coming to them for credit or for the long-term loan or this type of thing. If, in their judgment, and these men have some experience in farm man- agement, that what the man is trying to do simply does not make any economic sense whatsoever, then we ought to be able to give this man an alternative from what he wants to do to something that he can do. Mr. Bm~L. Thank you. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Gibbons. Mr. GIBBONS. My farm problem in Florida is probably a little dif- ferent in my particular part of Florida than most of the ones you are familiar with. I do not know whether you have had any experience in it or not, but I have a lot of people who are farmers and I have a lot of people who are in rural areas who are poor. It has been my observation that the successful farmers in my particular area of the United States are the people who left the farm, went into the city, gained some skills, then came back and had a little capital, and could go into successful farming. The most unsuccessful farmers I have had are the people who never gained the skills or gained the capital. I do not know how this program would really help them at all other than maybe a little barbiturate to keep them from suffering quite as much. Can you explain to me how this thing could really raise these people mit? Mr. GRAHAM. The fellow who has never left the land, many of those have really insufficient skills and management. They have no knowledge of bookkeeping. Educationally, they are certainly lacking in many of the things that would be needed for modern farming. The day has passed when, if you don't know anything else, you can be a successful farmer. Mr. GIBBONS. That is what I am talking about. The most successful farmers I see are those armed with bookkeeping people and CPA and know t:he tax laws pretty well, probably have some other income to rely upon, and farming is almost a sideline with them. They reap a substantial income from it, but it is their main source of income or principal source of income. Mr. GRAn~r. There is another group down in Florida, from my observation down there, that is doing a pretty good job, and that is a bunch of the Yankees who have gone down there with Yankee capital and gone into milk production or something of that kind, but they are taking capital and know-how. You have to have both today, both PAGENO="0315" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1031 capital and know-how. If they have neither one, to try to put them on the land and keep them there becomes a pretty hopeless situation. Mr. GIBBONS. The poor people that I see around rural areas m my State are not really farmers, they are farm laborers and they are peo- ple who do truck labor, citrus labor, things of that sort. I do not be- lieve this program would get to them at all. Mr. GRAHAM. I think you have put your finger on one, and this is a concern that I would have, that this does not get to them and they are poor to some extent because of some other situations. We have those in the North, too, the dairy country, especially where the day laborer, and this is terrible- Mr. GIEBONS. That is the person I was thinking about, the day laborer on the dairy farm. Mr. GRAHAM. This is not confined to Florida, I assure you. The reason these people don't have the decent living is because the dairy- man himself does not make a decent living. He does not have sufficient return from what he is selling in Order to pay his laborers. All of them are working themselves to death with an average of 58 to 90 hours a week, an average of 37 cents per hour income from this kind of problem. * So, I think we properly try to attack this one on a different level so as to give the farmer enough income that he can pay his hired man a decent living. But he can't get blood out of a turnip and they are both caught in the same squeeze at that point. Mrs. GREEN. Would you yield? Mr. GIBBoNs. Yes. Mrs. GREEN. You would include all of the day laborers in this category who are working for people who do not pay decent living wages? Mr. GRAHAM. No, I am talking about particular people. He and I are talking about something that is more confined to the east coast than to your area. Mrs. GREEN. We had a cotton bill. There are a great many farmers who get a fairly substantial income from cotton who still insist on paying the day laborer 60 cents an hour. Mr. GRAHAM. Then you have a problem of minimum wages that some time, I guess, we will have to face in agriculture, too. Mrs. GREEN. The sooner the better, I think. Mr. GIBBONS. No further questions. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Griffin. Mr. GiurriN. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions. I would yield to my colleague here from California for another questiOn. * Mr. PERKINS; Mr. Bell. Mr. BELL. Mr. Graham, pursuing that course that we wOre discuss- ing a little bit, is it not possible you could run into a situation where you could have some farmers that just are not doing a thing but just eking out a living and still they would rather stay on their farm, eking out that living than to try to go to the city or improve their lot. They would rather take the $1,500 that is given to them each time and con- tinue? Do you find that to be a situation that would occur frequently? Mr. GRAHAM. I don't think there is any question but what some of the people are on the farm today and are eking out a living are doing that because they would rather do that than anything else. Again, this PAGENO="0316" 1032 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 is what they know, this is the community in which they grew up; their families are there; they buried their parents there; they know every- body there. The little economic benefit that people of that age would get from moving does not offset at all the sociological benefits that are involved. I don't know what you can do with those people except to let them make their choice and stay where they want to. Mr. BEr~L. Let me go a little bit into the Job Corps and see how this fits into the program. As I see it, the Job Corps, you feel, might fit into this situation or at least some type of training might fit into this situation as a possibility of relieving the younger people by preparing them for skills in the city, rather than stay on the farm. Now, Mr. Graham, would you not be further ahead to try to develop these young men directly in the training of skills tha.t would be usable in the city and basic education that would be attached through the use of an expanded program such as vocational education and manpower: de- velopment and training that we already have? Would you not be better off to rifle-in on direct training programs and direct basic edu- cation rather than have these young men spend a certa:in amount of time out in the woods chopping down trees a.nd getting maybe some basic training or some training in skills but obviously not as effective or as direct as you would get by using programs that are already in the works? Would you not think that would be a little better approach and more State control rather than totally Federal? After all, you know this is voluntary and that you are gomg to get youth who maybe could go into some direct training programs that would go out into the forest and postpone their economic viability? Mr. Gn~&n~M. You have two or three questions there. Let me see if I can get them all in order and get them answered. No. 1, I don't think there is an either/or answer. We probably need some of both. I am in perfect agreement that this program that we have in existence, if it were properly implemented a:nd properly fol- lowed would do a great deal along this line. There is much that needs to be done. Unfortunately, some of the problems that we have is because the education that should have been done at the s~hool level was not done there, so we are past this for some of these people. We should not pass this for the future, this is for sure. We ~ to make it certain through our educational program that these young people do not come to the productive years of their life with no skills. I would go with you all the way on that except to say that I am not quite so sure as you seem to imply that the State always is superior to the Federal Government at this point. I think a good case could be made the other way, too. Mr. BELL. But you would think it more appropriate to get right a:t the basic core of the problem educationally rather than some pro- gram of spreading a work program that might involve skills not usable in the city and areas where the youngster may want to go to gain an economic living? Mr. G~&m&~r. This is true up to only a point., and that is from what I read of the brief that was prepared, some of the skills that they were talking about in horticulture and planting a.nd these various things are skills that are in demand in the cities. For instance, I heard not very long ago that one of the major needs that we have today is skilled greenskeepers for golf courses. Now, maybe we can teach these boys PAGENO="0317" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1033 to raise grass or something like this. These are real needs today as we move our recreational life from the cities into these rural areas. So I think the Job Corps, what it is trying to do for some of these people would be a practical way of approaching a real problem. Mr. BELL. Mr. Graham, I would agree with you there that in some cases this may be the case, that is certain, but taking the large amount of youngsters that we have in mind, really what most of them are going to .get are probably jobs available to them in the city or urban areas, such as welding, machine tool work, and things that are in administration. These are different types of things that will teach them right on the spot an economic ability to make a living. Mr. GRAhAM. Well, we have some provision for. that under present legislation besides what you have referred to in the ARA and the rural areas development, manpower training, and vocational educa- tion. That is right. I think we should pursue that as far as we can. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Hawkins. Mr. HAWKINS. I have no questions. Mr. PERKINS. I certainly wish to compliment you, Mr. Graham. I think you have made it perfectly clear from your testimony that the Farmers Home Administration is in a position to identify the farm- er who deserves a grant, who deserves a loan, and I think your testi- mony is also clear that you do not oppose the grant authority but be- lieve that the Director should be circumspect in its use. Will you agree with me that the bill is balanced in its approach as respects urban and rural poverty and that title III certainly should remain in the bill in order to maintain that balance? Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. Mr. PERKINS. In order to give these farmers some assistance. Am I correct? Mr. GRAHAM. That is correct. May 1 say this in just a concluding statement, to go with your con- cluding question. We believe that in many ways we have attacked this already legislatively but there are still areas that we are not reaching with present legislation. This legislation appears to be moving toward this in about as practical a way as we can see to do it. So, we support the legislation with the suggestions that we have made, the way we think it might be strengthened. Mr. PERKINS. We already have the administrative machinery, as I understand your testimony, through the Farmers Home Administra- tion where we could carry out title III. Mr. GRAHAM. That is correct. Mr. PERKINS. And you would recommend that the Farmers Home Administration make the identification as to who needs the loan; who needs the grant? Mr. GRAHAM. In terms of the rural people, I think this properly belongs with the Farmers Home Administration. Mr. PERKINS. That is what I am speaking about. Mr. GRAHAM. In terms of how it might apply in community action programs, this we would not be so hard and firm about. Mr. PERKINS. I readily agree with you. Thank you very much. Mr. GRAHAM. I thank you. Mr. PERKINS. The next witness is Mrs. Helen Baker, who repre- sents the American Friends Service Committee. Do you wish to read your statement? PAGENO="0318" 1034 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OP 1964 STATEMENT OP MRS. HELENE. BAKEB, MEMBER, BOARD OP DIREC- TORS, AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMfl1~EE; ACCOMPANIED BY MISS BARBARA MOYFETT, DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY RELA- TIONS PROGRAM Mrs. BAKER. May I, please? I am testifying on behalf of the American Friends Service Committee, as a member of its board of directors. I also speak on behalf of the Friends. Committee on Na- tional Legislation. The two organizations speak for themselves and for likeminded Friends. We appear in support of the general purpose and principles of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. We speak. on the basis of our experience. I speak personally on the basis of strong cOnvictions of my own which have grown out of my experiences with illiterate urban work- ers in Virginia and North Carolina, in settlement houses in Chicago, with migrant workers in California, with the Prince Edward Coun- ty relations attempting to rehabilitate or help the morale in a com- munity where the schools have been closed for nearly 5 years,. and my present work as an attorney with the Baltimore City Legal Aid Bureau where all of our clients are people who fall within the bracket of the very poor. For almost 50 years the AFSC has reached out to the poor in many parts of this land and, indeed across the world. Our work in this country has involved us with the people whom the legislation under consideration is designed to help. Outwork has shown us the syndrome of poverty: inadequate education; poor jobs or no jobs; poor housing. We have seen these problems combine to create an ever-more-perma- nent poverty class. Out of our experience we would like to identify some factors which we feel could spell the difference between success and failure in this attempt to break the circle of poverty. We would like to emphasize that no program will produce lasting results unless it gains the participation of the poor. This, I should emphasize, should be in the initial stages of planning. To gain the participation of the poor is easier said than done. Few programs do it now; in fact, many are now saying that the people at the bottom of the economic ladder cannot realistically be involved in shaping the programs which affect their business. We believe they can; we will report experience which bears this out. In stressing this, we do not minimize the need for initiative from other sources. The act appropriately calls for wide involvement in attacking poverty. It seeks to stimulate broad community responsibil- ity for what is a problem of the whole community. We stress participa- tion of the poor themselves because they are most easily ignored and because their exclusion at early. stages of planning jeopardizes the suc- cess of projects undertaken. The war on poverty must operate on the democratic assumption that all people, given the necessary facilitating resources of skilled per- sonnel and funds, can plan effectively for their future. The admin- istrators of the program should be prepared to enforce standards of participation reflecting this commitment. PAGENO="0319" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1035 We further wish to emphasize that the program will require a major investment in finding and training skilled j~ersonnel. Staff must be put to work who can stimulate the participation of those unused to planning together. Personnel will need to serve as the catalysts through whom tentative and unsophistictaed ideas can be- come practical plans for action. The ability to listen; to be patient; and to persist are some of the qualities of effective community workers. They also need to be able to introduce practical alternatives; to share ideas that have worked elsewhere; and to use their imaginations to bring needed resources into a situation at the right time. This re- quires, first of all, an attitude of respect for the people and for the work to be done. It is also based on a set of learnable skills. Major train- ing programs will be called for. We cannot stress too urgently that there must be room for experi- mentation; for new and imaginative approaches. Pioneering is called for in the war on poverty. Such pioneering has been the traditional role in our society of the smaller private agency, with its flexibility and freedom to test out new ideas. We stress the need for funds directly available to `groups free to work on the cutting edge. This is npt to underestimate the role of the comprehensive plan and the large coordinating group, but the administrators of the program will need the reSources to introduce the innovation more likely to come at points through the small voluntary group effort. We support the provision in the act, therefore, for direct grants to private agencies. In this regard we would make the point that the skills and talents of many groups will be needed. We urge that support be' given to a wide variety' of groups, drawing the line only where the primary purpose of the work is the propagation of a creed. We call your studious attention to an, aspect of the pioneering neces- sary `to really reach the poor and;~ that is, a change, in the usual* timetable for producing statistically measurable results a~ a justifica- tion for the expenditure o'f funds. Th'ere is an urgency to the need, true. And who can feel it more clearly than the poor themselves? They want jobs Or better jobs, better schools, and a better place to live, and they want these things now. `But hastily conceived plans produced with an eye to quick results and omitting, in that haste, the development of the capacity of the poor to solve their problems, will not produce the results sought. People emboldened by being allowed to try things Out for themselves and, therefore, better able to cope with their problems in the future, ,must be the primary measure of success. In stressing these three general points, we speak out of the successes and failures of our own operations over the years. In work with American Indians, seasonal farm laborers, Negroes excluded from the job market-denied equal educational opportunities and decent hous- ing-and with Puerto Ricans and other Spanish-speaking American citizens facing similar handicaps, we know that a step forward, with- out the participation of those `for whose benefit it is taken, can amount to a step backward. We are aware of the sensitivities and skills re- quired to gain the respect of people who have reason to suspect that there must be a~ catch somewhere in any help offered them or that at least the helping hand will be withdrawn before the job is done. And we have learned that the most freewheeling, unstructured approach can produce the most' results in certain situations; especially in those PAGENO="0320" 1036 ECONOMIC OPPORTuNITY ACT OF 1964 where people are alienated and are hostile as a result of their ex- perience with society in general. Thus, we recommend: Thorough involvement of those we are trying to help, an emphasis on putting trained personnel into the field, and a willingness to engage in long- range experiment. With these emphases, we support the purpose of the Economic op- portunity Act of 1964 as a first step in war on poverty. We see these strengths in the proposed legislation: First. By attacking the educational and job problems of youth, it can get at the vicious circle of poverty at one important point. Much has been said about the difference between our present poverty and that of the depression years because of its lasting quality today. It is deeply entrenched. We are dealing with second and third gen- eration poor. The young people fated to enter this poverty class are frustrated, and rightly so, for without some skillful aid and some fairly revolutionary happenings in our economy they are indeed trapped in an environment of poverty. In introducing the proposed legislation, it has been said, "For the rebel who seeks a way out of this closed circle, there is little help. * * * He cannot make his protest hea.rd or has stopped protesting." This is a true statement in general, with the exciting exception of the civil right protest movement. To date this group has provided the most eloquent spokesmen of the poor-Negro or white or Spanish- speaking or American Indian, young or old. The issues of civil rights and economics have been joined in the protest movement. Can we hear that message and act on it? It is a heartening sign of life, of the strength of the spirit of our youth, that hope can exist for them. For the protests are a sign of hope as much as they are a product of despair and frustration. Their call-one of impatience with rights too slowly granted-includes a concern for jobs needed now, adequate education for the jobs of the future, adequate houses and neighborhoods in which to raise the fami- lies of the future. The Economic Opportunity Act can be one important response from the elected officials of the land to these fervent pleas from the youth of the land. 2. In considering the projects proposed for work with youth, we have welcomed the assurance of those who have designed the programs that they will be nonmilitary in character and will remain 100-percent voluntary. The Job Corps in particular will require every imaginative effort to meet its purposes. Its voluntary quality will be important in achieving its goals, in keeping it from the danger of having a punitive aspect, of seeming to be the place one is sent instead of to a reform school or after being rejected in the draft. It must be more than a convenient way to remove troubled young people from the headlines they may be making. To achieve its training goals, the corps wifl require top personnel with experience in working with youth and with the educational qualifications needed to establish programs with relevance to the future job requirements of this country. Because of the difficulty of this task, perhaps it would be wise to specifically charge the Citizens Advisory Council with an annual review of this aspect of the program. PAGENO="0321" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1037 Mr. QUIE. Mr. Chairman, could I ask one question here? Mr. PERKINS. Yes. Mr. QUIE. You say there is a need for top personnel with experi- ence for working with youth and with the educational qualifications. Are these people available? Mrs. BAKER. I could not say that today but I believe that in our country we have resources that can be made available within reason- able time. Mr. QUIE. Thank you. That is all. Mrs. BAKER. 3. By encouraging many-faceted approaches to coin- munity problems, the program recognizes that "poverty is a web of circumstances, not the simple result of a simple condition. The declaration of purpose of the act recognizes that "education and training, the opportunity to work, and the opporunity to live in de- cency and dignity" are the several problems that must be tackled if we are to fight poverty effectively. We support the multiproblem approach. Poverty is more than an economic phenomenon. From one of our field staff comes this supporting material. There is no poverty in the abstract, only poor people with many problems. If programs are set up to tackle only the problems of education or of housing, or of jobs, only people who fit into those programs will benefit. If instead, or in addition, programs are aimed at the problems of poor people, working through these problems in whatever way they arise, many more can be brought along to the point where they can participate in broader programs already existing. We have many illustrations of this principle. To select one at random: Our contact with one American Indian family began when they came to our project for some emergency relief. The husband had been out of work for over a year. They were about to be dispossessed. The family had exhausted any help the Bureau of Indian Affairs could give them. They had not been in California for the 3 years necessary to get general welfare assistance. Through our case- worker, the confidence of the family was gained, emergency aid found. But as the contact deepened, other problems were revealed: With the probation depart- inent; with medical and dental needs of the children; the attitudes toward the school on the part of the parents who kept one of the older children home fre- quently to look after the smaller ones; alcohol, housekeeping, and so on. In other words, a typical set of problems which keep occurring with variations. It would be wonderful to report that all the problems had been solved. They aren't, but the husband does now have a job, much of the pressure is off the situation, and the other needs are being tackled one by one. At one point this morning, we discussed rather thoroughly the much needed emphasis as to the need of the rural American. I would like to refer you to our written statement for that. 4. The act supports the principle of direct loans to the Government for the poor. I refer you to page 8 for that material. Here I think on page 8 will be found an answer to one of the ques- tions asked earlier this morning of Mr. Graham. On page 9, I think you will find a delineation of the way in which the Farmers Home Administration came to the rescue in one of the cases in which we were working. We would like to point out, however, or call your special attention to our project in Tulare County and emphasize with you that our emphasis has not been with the farmers as was the emphasis of the previous persons who testified this morning but rather with farm laborers, particularly in Fresno, in Tulare County in California. We share these illustrations with you to point up three things: The wisdom of involvement of the poor, their capacity to plan, the riced for skilled personnel, and the need for experimental approach. 31-847-64-pt. 2-----21 PAGENO="0322" 1038 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Now,, neither the President in proposing this legislation, nor any of those who testify m its support have seen this act as a cure-all or even remotedly adequate by itself to the task of eliminating poverty. We urge you here to consider the adequacy of a coverage for the poor of a great part of legislation which already exists. We have had reference this morning to some of this: The Fair Labor Standards Act, for instance, which even in its revised form excludes many of the rural poor, have any studies been made to see how many of the poor we are considering are covered by this act? Or what about extending social security coverage as part of the war on poverty? Farrnworkers who are excluded, for instance.. What about unemployment insur- ance coverage? Here again seasonal farm laborers are among the groups not normally covered. WThat about a new look at our housing policy? It,' too, must share in the goal of eradicating poverty. Finally, let us assume that the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 is passed in its strongest form and implemented in its most effective manner. Assume also that other legislation affecting the poor is strengthened. The challenge of the war on poverty will still not `have been met. Before each Of us, citizens and, public officials, are the challenges of the manpower revolution and the conversion of our economy from defense preparation to meeting national needs. These issues do relate to the structure of our economy and the size and kind of labor force that is required to meet the needs of a healthy economy. In conclusion, we reaffirm our belief that the problem of poverty in our country is solvable. This bill is an important first step. With a personal and governmental commitment on a National, Sta'te, and local level equivalent to our commitment in terms of national emer- gency, we can wage a succesful war on poverty in this way. (The formal statement follows:) TESTIMONY PRESENTED BY Mns. llrunx E. BAKER, MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AMERICAN FRIENDS SERvIcE COMMITTEE Mr. Chairman, my name is Helen E. Baker. I am `testifying on behalf of the American Friends Service Committee, as `a member of its board of directors. I also speak on behalf of the Friends Committee on National Legislation. The two organizations `speak for themselves and for like-minded Friends. No one organization speaks officially for the Religious Society of Friends. `We appear in support of the general purposes and principles of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. We speak on the basis of our experience. For almost 50 years the AFSC has reached out to the poor in many parts of this land, and indeed across the world. Our work in this country has in- volved us with the people whom `the legislation under consideration is designed to help. Our work has shown us the syndrome of poverty-inadequate educa- tion, poor jobs or no jobs, poor housing. We have seen these problems combine to create an ever more permanent "poverty class." Out of our experience we would like to identify some factors which we feel could spell the difference between success and failure in this attempt to break the circle of poverty. We would like to emphasize that no program will produce lasting results unless it gains the participation of the poor. To gain the participation of the poor is easier said than done. Few programs do it now. In fact, many are now saying that the people at the bottom of the economic ladder cannot realistically be involved in shaping the programs which affect their futures. We believe they can. We will report experience which bears this out. In stressing this, we do not minimize the need for initiatives from other sources. The act appropriately calls for wide involvement in attacking poverty. It seeks to stimulate broad community' responsibility for what is a problem of PAGENO="0323" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1039 the whole community. We stress participation of the poor themselves because they are most easily ignored and because their exclusion `at early stages of plan- ning jeopardizes the success of projects undertaken. The war on poverty must operate on the democratic assumption that all peo- ple, given the necessary facilitating resources of skilled persoimel and funds, can plan effectively for their future. The administrators.~ of ~the program should be prepared to enforce standards of participation reflecting this commit- ment. ` We further wish `to emphasize that the program will require a major invest- ment in finding and training skilled personnel. Staff must be put to work who can stimulate the participation of those unñ's'ed to planning together. Personnel will need to serve as the catalysts through whom tentative and unsophisticated ideas can become practical plans for action. The a'bility to listen, to be patient, `and to persist are `some of ~the qualities of effective community workers. They also need to be able to intro- duce practical alternatives, to share ideas that have worked elsewhere, and to use `their imaginations to bring needed resources into a situation at the right time. This requires first of all an attitude of respect for the people' and `for the work to be done. It is also based on a set of learnable skills. Major train- ing programs will be called for. `We cannot stress too urgently that' there mu'st be room for experimentation, for new and imaginative approaches. Pioneering is called for in the war on poverty. Such pioneering' has been the traditional role in our society of the smaller private agency, with its flexi- bility and freedom to test out new ideas. We stress the need for funds directly available to groups free to work on the cutting edge. This is' not to under- estimate the role of the comprehensive plan and the large coordinating group, but the administrators of the program will need the resources to introduce the innovation more likely to come at points through the small voluntary group effort. We support the provision in the act, therefore, for direct grants to private agencies. In this regard we would make the point that the skills and talents of many groups will be needed. We urge that support be given to a wide variety of groups, drawing the line only where the primary purpose of the work is the propagation of a creed. We call your studious attention to an aspect of the pioneering necessary to really reach the poor and that i's a change in the usual timetable for producing statistically measurable results as a justification for the expenditure of funds. There is an urgency to the need, true. And who can feel it more clearly than the poor themselves? They want jobs or better jobs', better schools, and a better place to live and they want these things now. But hastily conceived plans produced with an eye to quick re'sults and omitting, in that haste, the de- velopment o'f the capacity of the poor to solve their problems, will not produce the results sought. People emboldened by being allowed to try things out for themselves and therefore `better able to cope with their problems in the future must be the primary measure of success. In stressing these three general points, we speak out of the successes and failures of our own operations over the years. In' work with American Indians, seasonal farm `laborers, Negroes excluded from the job market, denied equal educational opportunities and decent housing, and with Puerto Ricans and other Spanish-speaking American citizens facing similar handicaps, we know that a step forward without the participation of those for whose benefit it is taken, can amount `to a step backward. We are aware of the sensitivities and skills required to gain the respect of people who have reason to suspect that there must be a catch `somewhere in any help offered them or that at least the helping hand will be withdrawn before the job is done. And we have learned that the most free-wheeling, unstructured approach can produce the most results in certain situations, especially in those where people are alienated and are hostile as a result of their experience with society in general. Thus, we recommend: thorough involvement of those we are trying to help, an emphasis on putting trained personnel into the field, and willingness to engaged in long-range experi- ments. ` With these emphasis, we support the purposes of the Economic Opportunity Act of 19434 as a first step in war on poverty. We see these strengths in the pro- posed legislation: 1. By attacking the educational and job problems of youth, it can get at the vicious circle of poverty at one important point. PAGENO="0324" 1040 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 i\Iuch has been said about the difference between our present poverty and that of the depression years because of its lasting quality today. It is deeply entrenched. We are dealing with second and third generation poor. The young people fated to enter this poverty class are frustrated, and rightly so, for with- out some skillful aid and some fairly revolutionary happenings in our economy they are indeed trapped in an environment of poverty. In introducing the pro- posed legislation, it has been said, "For the rebel who seeks a way out of this closed circle, there is litle help * * * He cannot make his protest heard or has stopped protesting." This is a true statement in general, with the exciting exception of the civil rights protest movement. To date this group has provided the most eloquent spokesmen of the poor-Negro or white or Spanish speaking or American Indian, young or old. The issues of civil rights and economics have been joined in the protest movement. Can we hear that message and act on it? It is a heartening sign of life, of the strength of the spirit of our youth, that hope can exist for them. For the protests are a sign of hope as much as they are a product of despair and frustration. Their call-one of impatience with rights too slowly granted-includes a concern for jobs needed now, adequate education for the jobs of the future, adequate houses and neighborhoods in which to raise the families of the future. The Economic Opportunity Act can be one important response from the elected officials of the land to these fervent pleas from the youth of the land. 2. In considering the projects proposed for work w-ith youth, we have welcomed the assurances of those who have designed the programs that they will be non- military in character and will remain 100 percent voluntary. The Job Corps in particuinr will require every imaginative effort to meet its purposes. Its voluntary quality will be important in achieving its goals, in keeping it from the danger of having a punitive aspect, of seeming to be the place one is sent instead of to a reform school or after being rejected in the draft. It must be more than a convenient way to remove troubled young people from the headlines they may be making. To achieve its training goals, the Corps will require top personnel with experience in working with youth and with the educa- tional qualifications needed to establish programs with relevance to the future job requirements of this country. Because of the difficulty of this task, perhaps it would be wise to specifically charge the Citizens Advisory Council with an annual review of this aspect of the program. 3. By encouraging many-faceted approaches to community problems, the pro- gram recognizes that "poverty is a web of circumstances, not the simple result of a simple condition." The declaration of purpose of the act recOgnizes that "education and training, the opportunity to work, and the opportunity to live in decency and dignity" are the several problems that must be tackled if we are to fight poverty effectively. We support that muliproblem approach. Poverty is more than an economic phenomenon. From one of our field staff comes this supporting material. "There is no poverty in the abstract, only poor people, with many problems. If programs are set up to tackle only the problems of education or of housthg, or of jobs, only people who fit into those programs will benefit. If instead, or in adthtion, pro- grams are aimed at the problems of poor people, working through these problems in whatever way they arise, many more can be brought along to the point where they can participate in broader programs already existing. "We have many illustrations of this principle. To select one at random: our contact with one American Indian family began when they came to our project for some emergency relief. The husband had been out of work for over a year. They were about to be dispossessed. The family had exhausted any help the Bureau of Indian Affairs could give them. They had not been in California for the 3 years necessary to get general welfare assistance. Through our caseworker, the confidence of the family was gained, emergency aid found. But as the contact deepened, other problems were revealed: with the probation department; with medical and dental needs of the children; the attitudes toward the school on the part of the parents who kept one of the older children home frequently to look after the smaller ones; alcohol, housekeeping, and so on. In other words, a typical set of problems which keep occurring with variations. It would be wonderful to report that all the problems had been solved. They aren't, but the husband does now have a job, much of the pressure' is off the situation, and the other needs are being tackled one by one." PAGENO="0325" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1041 4. The act gives much-needed emphasis to the needs of rural Americans. Secretary of Agriculture Freeman has said that nearly half the poverty in the United States is in rural America. He has pointed out the relationship between the poverty of our cities and rural poverty, saying: "* * * the urban poor who are today overcrowding our cities are the rural poor of yesterday, or the children of the rural poor of a generation ago. And the rural poor of today, and their children, are the urban poor of tomorrow." We know rural poverty through our seasonal farm labor programs and our work with American Indians. We see the related urban poverty in our programs designed to promote fair employment, in our school desegregation programs. It challenges us in our housing programs and in our work with urban youth. The problem needs no documentation here. We welcome the fact that the act pro- vides for an attack on one of the main sources of poverty in the United States. 5. The act supports the principle of direct loans from the Government to the poor. We have had experience in California with one Government program allowing for direct loans to the rural poor. Out of that experience we enthusiastically endorse the extension of this principle to other areas. The Government program was made possible by the 1961 Housing Act allowing the Farmers Home Administration to make direct loans on good credit terms to people who wanted to build homes. The loans could go to citizens ill communi- ties of less than 2,500 population who could show their ability to repay the loan and who owned their land. The AFSC community development program with seasonal farm laborers in Tulare County, Calif., had been at work 6 years or so when these loans became available. The work had involved patient exploration with people in shack towns to discover what their problems were and what could be done about them. Spe- cific result had been achieved over the years. For example, one community had organized itself to get a water system. As important, leadership qualities in the people had been tapped and they were gaining confidence. Jobs and housing were urgent problems. We tackled the job problem with a "farm labor co-op" to which we will refer later. To tackle the housing problem, we added to our community development staff a builder with a concern to experi- inent in ways of getting housing to people in an area where $2,600 was the median income per year. It was decided to use the self-help technique which would reduce the cost of the housing since the farm laborers would themselves, especially in off seasons, share in the work of building their homes, thus reducing the construction loan needed. Families were eager to start, but our project was stymied for lack of building capital. Most sources of loans, private and governmental, found the families ineligible for loans because of their short workweek, their low wages, and the type of commnunities they lived in. The new Government provision for direct loans ended the stalemate. We went ahead to organize a group of farmworkers. They studied with our staff the intri- cacies of mortgage financing, taxes, and insurance. Next they studied house design and layout, construction materials and methods. They were then ready to plan a home that matched their desires and their financial ability. In January of 1963 the Farmers Home Administration deposited funds to the account of the first three families to meet the requirements. Construction started and 6 months later these families moved from their substandard shacks into standard 1,000-squarefoot, three- or four-bedroom houses. The value of each home is approximately $9,000. The monthly payments total $38-$26 on the loan amortization and another $12 for fire insurance and taxes. Two factors are important here: (1) The direct loan from the Government had realistic credit terms-4 percent over a period of 33 years; and (2) the con- struction loans were reduced by $2,400 worth of construction work on the part of the families themselves. On the subject of credit terms, recent research has shown that by extending the period of amortization from 30 to 40 years and lowering the interest rates from 51/4 to 2 percent nearly twice as many families could enter the hous- ing market. More houses are under construction in Tulare County now and a group of farm laborers in nearby Fresno County are planning a whole new subdivision-57 houses in a community to be known as El Porvenir, or The Hope of the Future. We do not mean to suggest here that self-help housing techniques combined with realistic financing are the answer to the complex housing needs of the PAGENO="0326" 1042 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Nation. Obviously many approaches are needed. We report this experience primarily to support the workability of direct loans with good credit terms from the Government to the poor. We understand that the loss ratio on the Farmers Home Administration direct loan program has been two one-hundredths of 1 percent. We also share this case history to illustrate the points with which we opened this testimony: the wisdom of involvement of the poor and their capacity to plan, the need for skilled personnel, and the need for experimental approaches. OTHER STEPS IN THE WAR ON POVERTY Neither the President in proposing this legislation, nor, to our knowledge, any of those who have testified in its support have seen the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 as a cure-all, or as even remotely adequate by itself to the task of eliminating poverty. We urge Congress to consider the adequacy of the coverage for the poor of a great part of our existing social legislation. The Fair Labor Standards Act, for example, even as revised in 1961, excludes many of the rural poor. Has any study been made showing how many of the "poor" we are considering now are covered by this act? We do know from our experience that inclusion of seasonal farm laborers, of unskilled day laborers- presently excluded, along with other groups of whom we do not have firsthand knowledge-would be an effective step in the war on poverty. What about extending social security coverage as a part of the war on poverty? Farmworkers, excluded from complete social security coverage, have no other source of assistance in retirement (except, in some States, old-age assistance). The partial exclusion of the farinworker-extending him coverage only if he earns $150 from one employer-is in many instances total exclusion, since many cannot meet this requirement. What about unemployment insurance coverage? Here again seasonal farm laborers are among the groups not normally covered. We tried an experiment in Tulare County, Calif. We organized a farm labor cooperative which employs crews of farm laborers and contracts with growers. In California unemployment insurance is optional. The co-op, being an employer, could opt for the insur- ance and did so. making a deduction from members' earnings. But they found that they were at a severe competitive disadvantage with the growers, who did not deduct for unemployment insurance. We had difficulty attracting and hold- ing the best workers in our co-op crews. If unemployment insurance were com- pulsory, this would not happen. What about a hard look at national housing policy? It must share in the goal of eradicating the poverty in which many citizens live. By getting at housing problems, the environment of poverty is attacked. But getting housing bene- fits to the poorest in the Nation has proved difficult. In the March issue of the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, devoted to "Urban Revival," William Grigsby, research associate professor of city planning at the University of Pennsylvania, writes that, al- though urban renewal had its genesis in legislation to improve the residential environment for low-income families, "on balance it appears that not over one- fifth of the $3 billion donated to local communities under the Federal renewal program have been earmarked for projects intended to improve the living ac- commodations of the lower income families." Finally, let us assume that the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 is passed in its strongest possible form and implemented in its most effective manner. Assume also that other legislation affecting the poor is strengthened. The challenge of the war on poverty will still not have been met. Before each of us-citizens and public officials-are the challenges of the manpower revolution and of the conversion of our economy from defense preparation to meeting national needs. These issues relate to the structure of our economy and the size and kind of labor force that is required to meet the needs of a healthy ecOnomy. In this connection we commend to your attention H.R. 9005, a bill introduced 1)y 21 Democrats and Republicans to examine the problem of economic conver- sion, and S. 2427, introduced by Senator Hubert Humphrey, which would estab- lish a Commission on Automation, Technology, and Employment. We feel that passage of these bills would provide the legislative support for needed studies dealing with our economic structure. PAGENO="0327" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1043 Mr. PERKINS. Thank you very much. I think your statement, Mrs. Baker, is very clear and to the point. I am sure we all under- stand it. At least, one~ witness has testified that some percentage of the poor are in nowise motivated to abandon poverty by prospects of greater income. Do you agree with that statement? Mrs. BAKER. I do not agree with that statement at all. I think there are people who have no mind to abandon their present locale. There is a difference between abandoning locale and abandoning poverty. I think there are few people in their right minds who do not wish to abandon poverty. Mr. PERKINS. Your studies bear out the contrary. Mrs. BAKER. I would say that all our studies and experience bear out the contrary. Hope springs eternal in the mind and heart of the poorest person. Mr. PERKINS. Would the experience of the Friends offer any guides to possible courses for training the Domestic Peace Corps? Mrs. BAKER. I should like her to say that Barbara Moffett, who is director of our community relations program, is here and available for answering any questions you might ask. Mr. PERKINS. Yes. Come on up. Miss Moprnrr. Those are two questions that have been on the gen- eral subject of whether you could find the people to do the tasks we have outlined and said' need doing. I think there are sources for training people in the skills of community relations and community organizations. I think we have stressed as our second point here that a rather massive training program may be needed to carry out the provisions of this act, in-service training, with the staff currently working in this field and perhaps training of new people. But in the universities of the country and in some of the resources of private agencies, such as NAIRO, National Association of Inter-Relationship Officials, they have offered training to young interns under the grants from the Rockefeller Foundation, just as practical examples of the possibility of training human relations skills. Mr. PERKINS. Mrs. Green. Mrs. GREEN. First of all, it is good to see you again, Mrs. Baker. I have said many times that I know of no group that is affiliated with any religious organization that shows anywhere near the interest in legislation that the Friends do on Capitol Hill. So, again, my hat is off to you. I think our last conversation was in connection with the work you were doing in Prince Edward County. Is that correct? Mrs. BAKER. Yes. Mrs. GREEN. Did you ever get any grant from the Federal Gov- ernment to carry on the work there? Mrs. BAKER. We have never got a grant from the Federal Gov- ernment. Mrs. GREEN. There were youngsters in the country who were out of school for 5 years. Mrs. BAKER. This is the fifth year. Mrs. GREEN. The potential for juvenile delinquency was pretty great? PAGENO="0328" 1044 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Mrs. BAKER. Yes. Mrs. GREEN. I think your point of having grants made directly to private agencies is one t.ha.t is made very advisedly. But I must say after my experience with the juvenile delinquency control program, I do not see anything in this bill that will really result in grants to private agencies. It says "with community action organi~ations." But the commimity action organization is very likely to be a commit- tee appointed by the mayor, which again would require a comprehen- sive program without the grant going directly to an agency. Do you think this is possible? Mrs. BAKER. I think your observation is certainly true. Miss MOFFETT. It is to that very point that we are trying to speak here. Maybe we should have been a little more blunt. It is the ma- terial on page 3. We are saying we are not underestimating the role of the comprehensive plan and the coordinating agency but we would like somewhere in the administration of this program the freedom to make a grant outside of that piece of machinery for the innovating pioneering program. Obviously, it can't be out of step with the com- prehensive plan. it should not be, it ought to fit in with any compre- hensive plan. But we are trying to pinpoint the possible difficulty of having everything divided into such large units that you can't get a pioneering effort introduced. Mrs. GREEN. I am particularly interested in your comments in regard t.o personnel. I happen to agree with you on the lack of per- sonnel that may be available for this kind of program, and the success of the program will depend on the personnel. Now, we have had people outline to us the shortage of teachers. If I remember correctly, we need 8,400 additional teachers in the elementary and secondary schools that we are not getting. For each year in this decade, we have that much of a shortage. We need 321,000 additional college teachers in this decade, and we require a 75-percent increase in nurses. I am a little bit concerned when people say that we will have no problem, the personnel is available. Mrs. BAKER. I did not intend to give quite that impression that we will not have problems. Mrs. GREEN. But others have said people will respond to this pro- gram; but it may be that. they will respond only at the expense of already established programs. We have a shortage of personnel in almost every professional field-or otherwise, the committee has been misled in previous testimony-and in other legislative hearings. Mrs. BAKER. I think we have a real shortage, for instance, in the teaching force in the country. But there is a third point I think in my presentation that we may not have emphasized enough, which is new approaches. I am struck, for instance, by the approach of the Henry Street Settle- ment House in New York City which is unearthing a large body of personnel from the community and retraining them. These are people who live in the community, who understand the commirnity, and its problems. Henry Street Settlement House is dedicating itself to train- ing those people to work with the children, with the teenagers, and so forth. I think there is a large body of that sort of resource that we have bypassed far too long. PAGENO="0329" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1045 Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Dent, Congressman Hawkins, Con-. * gressman Sickles and I held hearings in Cleveland last Saturday on the juvenile delinquency control project in that city. and title II of this bill is patterned after it. If you had attended those hearings and then written your statement, you could not have made any more realistic appraisal of some of the problems than the necessity of par- ticipation by the poor. I gathered the impression that here was a group that came in to do the job for the other groups instead of involving them in it. They told us they could not get personnel. They have been working a year on planning and a year on the action program, and they simply could not find the personnel for that one program in Cleveland. They tried. They advertised in newspapers in several cities and carried on an active recruitment program and still could not get them. Mrs. BAKER. I think our experience in Prince Edward County is worthy of mention here, to indicate what we mean by "personnel"- the teachers have left the community but where we found a large body of people, a group of 24 people with high school and slightly above education, who were dedicated souls, willing to be trained to help in the problem there. Mrs. GREEN. But they will have to have training? Mrs. BAKER. Yes. Mrs. GREEN. Also, going back to the private agencies, one of the programs in Cleveland was a preschool program. Now, I do not know why we need to have a year of comprehensive planning before we could make a grant to this agency. The program, in and of itself, is good, but I do not think you have to have a citywide planning to decide that you need to establish a preschool training center. So, I hope that this language will be tightened up so that grants can be made directly to the agency that is already involved in the center of the poverty- stricken part of the town, and has people who have had experience and worked with the problem for a long period of time. I have one other question on the rural program. You mentioned the importance of the loans. You did not make any comment on grants. Miss MOFFETT. I just feel we don't have experience from which to speak there. Mrs. GREEN. I liked your suggestion for an increase in social secu- rity payments. I prefer this, as I mentioned earlier. If we are really going to do anything about poverty, let us also bring under the mini- mum wage law the migrant workers and some of these other agricul- tural workers who are getting 60 cents an hour-get them up to a decent hourly wage at least, or else quit talking about poverty. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Quie. Mr. QUIE. You mentioned that you thought we should have an opportunity to train people who are needed for this program. Are there enough courses available, are there enough places where they are providing this training available to do this on a big scale? Are not both private training centers and the universities using their per- sonnel to practically the fullest extent now? Are some of these people sitting around and waiting for students to come and receive training? Mrs. BAKER. I don't think we are sitting around. I can think of a city in which I am living now, which is Baltimore, in which all the colleges are very busy reshaping their emphasis, taking out a great PAGENO="0330" 1046 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 `body of what has commonly been accepted as what they will offer and putting in things that are directed toward helping with the problem which wecall in Baltimore, the "inner city." So, I think that colleges increasingly are recognizing this problem as being the problem of the age, and so there wifi be more and more training in this direction. Mr. QuIE. How long a waiting period do we have, then, before these individuals will be out on the market to be hired for these jobs? Mrs. BAKER. I don't think there is a particular waiting period. Mr. Quii~. How fast can they be trained? Mrs. BAKER. I know of one college which this year appointed a director and the students already are going out with some of the ~answers to the community. This is a sort of internship. The intern- ship idea might well be borrowed from NAIRO and used by more institutions in a bigger way than NAIRO could possibly use. Mr. QUIE. Down in Prince Edward County there were some highly qualified individuals who came down there to give stimulus to the `people- Mrs. BAKER. This year? ` Mr. Qm~. Yes, this year; to give stimulus `to people who were in the area and who could provide training to teachers. This was quite a stimulus to the teachers who were picked up in the area as well as to the students. What happens in the communities where they came from where the help of those particularly able individuals is no longer available? Mrs. BAKER.' I don't think that the communities from which they caine are any poorer for their having come down. I think some of the group came from a foundation in Baltimore, which has the name "Koinoina." Some came from northern cities, some came from south- ern cities. I know in one or two cases there were people who were not working at this time, who were qualified teachers, who felt this urge to go to this place and help at this time. I think we have a large body of people like that who are not being used. Mr. QUIE. Do you think the same thing could have been duplicated in other areas? It is true that other areas do not have exactly the same situation as Prince Edward County in that there were no schools available, buTt there are areas in the South which have wholly inade- quate schools. The teachers are so poorly qualified that the students are not learning to a sufficient degree so that you could even call them educated when they leave school. So the same kind of education input is needed all over such as put in Price Edward County. Do you think the Federal Government can duplicate what interested individuals have done in Prince Edward County? Mrs. BAKER. I would be reluctant to even suggest that the Prince Edward County experience has nothing-it has a great many things that can be learned from it, chiefly-let us say not have another one, but I would be very reluctant to suggest that this is the sort of thing that ought to happen all over any section of the country. I think that educationally we have needs all over the country. I would be certainly reluctant to pinpoint any area and say, "Well, people ought to go in to raise the standards of education." I think that with the mass com- rnunieatiöns, media for communication' that we have now, there will be a leveling of what is offered in all areas of the country. PAGENO="0331" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1047 Mr. QuIE. If you are not gOing to bring the Prince Edward County experience to other communities, how do you expect to upgrade the education in the communities where a high percentage of high school graduates cannot pass the preinduction mental examination for selec- tive service? Mrs. BAKER. As Isaid- Mr. QUIE. The Governor of Indiana appeared before us and told us 50 percent of the people in their program, which would be similar to the Job Corps, were illiterates, could not read and write. Yet they had gone through 8 or 10 grades of school. There is something wrong with the educational system all over the country when this happens. Mrs. BAKER. I don't think that here in this Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 that we propose this will cure all the ills of education. Mr. QuIE. Will it cure any of them? Mrs. BAKER. I think so; yes. Mr. QUIE. I would like to know how this is going to be brought about. This is a very unique experience in Prince Edward County which could be brought into other parts of the country but you say this should not be done. I wonder how it can be done? Whenever you trot out a new program or old program with new names, I know that hope does spring eternal but I would like to know how is could be done. Mrs. BAKER. We will admit that Prince Edward was an emergency. This is a very sick situation in which we had to do something. Mr. QuIE. I would say there is just as big an emergency in some other school systems where the children are in school but the education is perhaps no better than in Prince Edward County where the children were not in school. Miss MOFFETT. You are identifying an educational crisis. I think Mrs. Baker is saying, in Prince Edward County it finally got to be recognized as a crisis and a tragedy and therefore we put unusual resources in it. I think we are resisting saying put the same pattern of resources into each situation. But if you can identify an educational crisis and begin to mobilize the resources of the county to meet it, in many ways you are on the right track. It will have to be in many ways. Mr. QuIE. Do you think the Federal Government could have dupli- cated what happened in Prince Edward County without Federal help? Mrs. GREEN. They did not have any Federal funds. Mr. QuIR. Suppose there were Federal money available, a Federal program available, you could have turned to the Federal Government instead of struggling with private sources of money. Do you think the Federal Government could have duplicated this? Miss MOFFETP. The thing that we were discussing was not it school system. In other words, a group of private citizens, private money is running the school in Prince Edward County now. Under discus- sion were various other smaller approaches, some of which could have had Government support, and very happily, sir, that could have added to the situation. Mr. QUTE. But I gather from this that the Federal Government or these Federal programs could not have done the job that was acc.on~- plished with private funds? PAGENO="0332" 1048 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Miss MOFFErT. They might have. I think the Federal Government could. You asked "could." There wasn't the legislation to allow it but I think that at one time we made a proposal tha.t these children be taken to a nearby abandoned camp and young people be brought in to teach the children. This would have been a Federal project. But the Federal Government is not free to move into Prince Edward County with an educational system. The field has been preempted. Mr. QmE. I know there was not any money but I was wondering if we ha.d a program. Miss Moi'i'~rr. If legislatively that had been possible, the program could have been dOne by a Federal agency. Mr. QUIE. Do you think it would have worked aswell? Miss Mon~r. I thinkso. Is your question whether you need local involvement to make these things work? Mr. QUIE. Yes. Miss MoFrErr. If so, you do. `Whether it is in response to Govern- ment initiative or private initiative, you need local involvement. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Dent. Mr. DENT. Without detracting from the value of proposals and suggestions relating educational and juvenile delinquency phases of this program. I want to compliment the witness for touching on some- thing that is more directly in line with our present struggle to wipe out poverty. As we plan, many of the features of this act go into the planning for tomorrow's winning of the war on poverty. I notice on page 11, you touched on, just slightly, but very pointedly, the things I believe ought to be done now. I do not believe that the program can move forward to achieve a base strictly on poverty until we move into the area of social security, and until we move into the area of unemployment compensation. If there was any valid reason for hav- ing social security passed in 1935, 1936, and 1937 and perfected, then there is more valid reason today to implement it and make it work. This is the one program, these are the props, that through the years have kept this poverty situation from becoming as explosive as it is now. However, it has carried as much as it can carry under the old concepts of social security and unemployment compensation. Mr. Chairman, I do believe, and I have made this point for the last 8 or 10 years, that our failure to update social security, our failure to make unemployment compensation work in every area of our indus- trial complex, farming, mining, and industrial, has been probably the greatest contributor to the present crisis in poverty in our coun- try. As we lower the number of years that a man has to produce, whether it is through automation or any other outside influence in the area of production of goods, as we lower the number of hours re- quired to make things. certainly in the bottom we have to increase the number of years that we send children to school to be better pre- pared for the new type of operation and then reduce the number of years that a person has to work. We seem to have completely forgotten that in the past 30 years. Of all the witnesses who have come before us, at least the young lady who is presently addressing us has put her finger on what I think is the most vital part of the program, and it is not covered under any conditions in the war on poverty. PAGENO="0333" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1049 How can we have an all-out war on poverty if we are just going to have skirmishes and not make an attack on the problem itself? The problem itself is the people who are untrained for today's new jobs, but are trained for the jobs that are being held by people over the retirement age under social security but who cannot afford to retire. We would save millions and millions and millions of dollars in our retraining program `if we would take people who are trained for jobs right now and who are denied them because older workers have to hold on to these jobs. It is only because of seniority that they are holding on to the jobs. I think that, very frankly, this committee ought to consider seri- ous1y discussing with the administrative heads the possibility of tying into this program the question of unemployment compensation and the question of social security. I know that it is not within the jurisdiction, but neither are some of the other phases of this act, of this committee. I would like to know your reaction to this suggestion. Mrs. BAKER. I certainly approve. I think your comment is part of the answer to personnel. In Prince Edward County we used a great number of people who were retired people. Mr. DENT. That is right. Mrs. BAKER. And this is something that we must turn our atten- tion to. Mr. DENT. I do not believe, and I think it was pointed out at our hearings in Cleveland, that these agencies are coordinating their efforts. I question whether they are getting much coordination for they seem to completely overlook this great area of help that they can draw from without any special prejob training. What does it take for a visit to a hon'ie? Does it take a confirmed or certificated social worker? Or does it take somebody with under- standing? There are simple questions to be asked, there are simple records to be kept. They can be kept by a retired person or a person in a community that has the time. This program will never succeed if we are going to have to man it completely with high-wage person- nel. We have already discovered in Cleveland that the majority of the money that has been spent has been spent for 300 personnel and as yet not one delinquent has been questioned, not one history has been recorded. Yet the program has been going on for 3 years. We are supposed to be alleviating the situation among the juvenile delinquents. It appears to me we are alleviating the joblessness among social workers. Mrs. GREEN. Would you yield? Mr. DENT. Yes. Mrs. GREEN. I would like to ask one other question because I know of your tremendous work in housing programs. You have had ex- perience in these slum areas. Is it totally unrealistic to devise a pro- gram where you would have a grant and a loan on a block basis? We would take a slum area. You talk about participation and the absolute necessity of people who need the help participating if the program is going to be effective. Suppose we devise a program and we said there should be a grant or a loan if the people on a block in a slum area get together and devise a plan for the improvement of that block. I know of a few instances here in Washington where they had PAGENO="0334" 1050 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 a cleanup and pa.intup program on a block basis and both children and adults were involved. As a result, there was a difference in the appearance of that little block. Do you think that this would be possible? Mrs. BAKER. I think it is not only possible but very necessary at this time. At one time in here I said that we have the experience of our successes and our failures. I think that American Friends Serv- ice Committee has done a great deal in housing and we have learned the hard way about some things, but I do think that the idea that you have for a block grant for self-improvement in which you eliminate much of the cost of the improvement by self-help would be a great idea and highly workable. Mrs. GREEN. We drove into this area where there was a grant for a juvenile delinquency control project and saw rubbish, dirt, all over the street, and the one playground for the school was locked up and dark and the kids were standing on the street corners. It would seem to me that if they developed a plan in which they could say: Let us have this school ground lighted for the kids to play in, let us have a group~ Mr. DENT. Will the gentlelady yield at this point? Mrs. GREEN. Yes, it is your time. Mr. DENT. After going t.o Cleveland, I checked into the recreational program in my own locality. I find that it is more paperwork than play work. What we have now are recreation directors who, by some logic or reasoning, have gotten themselves into the class of a profes- sional and the recreation areas are shut down at 5 :30 or 6 o'clock. They say the children have to go home to. supper, but I find it is t.he recreational director who has to go home for supper. The whole thing is completely out of hand. We have beautiful playgrounds which, when I was a kid, we did not have. These kids do not have as much opportunity to use the playgrounds that they have as we had to use the playgrounds that we did not have. It is a bit out of line. Mr. Q.u~. Will t.he gentleman yield? Mit. DENT. Certainly, if you will be on my side. Mr. Quir. I am on your side. I want to know what these 300 people are doing up there. Mr. DENT. So do we and we are going to get the answer. Mrs. Green has already asked that we get a detailed report on these 300 people, their duties, and their salaries. We will get it, I hope, if we do not have to send the sheriff to get it. Mr. Quir. That is all I want to know. Mr. PERXINS. I wish to compliment the witness. I share the con- cern of the gentleman from Pennsylvania concerning the inadequacy of our present social security system. I personally feel that we should lower the retirement a.ge, that we should update our social security laws, because no one realizes better than I do, that we are going to do nothing for so many old people unless we do update our social secu- rity laws. But, at the same time, I feel that this legislation will com- bat juvenile delinquency, especially title I, by giving these youngsters a job, taking them off the streets, at the same time we can give them some basic education. Thank you very much. PAGENO="0335" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1051 Mrs. BAKER. Thank you. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Hawkins, do you have any questions of this witness? Mr. HAWKINS. No, I will just commend them and let it go at that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. PERKINS. The committee at this time will recess to come back at 1:30p.m. (`Whereupon, at 11 :55 a.m., the committee recessed until 1 :30 p.m. this same day.) AFI'ERNOON SESSION Mr. PERKINS. The committee will come to order; a quorum is present. Our next witness is Mrs. Stephen J. Nicholson, who wjll represent the American Federation of Women's Clubs. We welcome you here. STATEMENT OP MRS. STEPHEN J~. NICHOLSON, EXECUTIVE SECRE. TARY, GENERAL FEDERATION OP WOMEN'S GLU~S Mrs. NICHOLSON. Thank you. I am Mrs. Stephen J. Nicholson, executive secretary of the General Federation of Women's Clubs. I should like to read the statement which our president, Mrs. Dexter Otis Arnold, had hoped to present today. Mr. PERKINS. Proceed. Mrs. NICHOLSON. The General Federation of Women's Clubs is an organization whose purpose is- to unite the women's clubs and like organizations throughout the world for the purpose of mutual benefit, and for the promotion of their common interest in edu- cation, philanthropy, public welfare, moral values, civics, and fine arts. The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, which would mobilize the human and financial resources of the Nation to combat poverty in the United States, touches on many of the areas of interest of the General Federation of Women's Clubs. As stated in this bill- The United States can achieve its full economic and social potential as a nation only if every individual has the opportunity to contribute to the full extent of his capabilities and to participate in the workings of our society. It is, therefore, the policy of the United States to eliminate the paradox of pov- erty in the midst of plenty in this Nation by opening to everyone the opportunity for education and training, the opportunity to work, and the opportunity to live in decency and dignity. There is no mention in this bill's purpose of a national welfare dole-and that is good. The mOst important words are "education" and "training" and "opportunity to work." The members of the General Federation of Women's Clubs have long realized that the most lasting help which can be given to those in need is the opportunity to learn and the opportunity to become self-sup- porting. Poverty perpetuates itself so it is the upcoming generation that should be given the greatest consideration if the cycle of poverty is to be stopped. And one of the best ways to help them is to educate their parents. II a father and a mother are given the opportunity to work and to con- PAGENO="0336" 1052 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 tribute to the full extent of their capabilities and to participate in the workings of our society, then their children will be better able to take advantage of this bill's educational opportunities. In title II and in title V of this bill, mention is made of adult edu- cation but no specific recommendations are made. In our opinion, the need for making the basic educational opportunities available to adults is equally as important as making these opportunities available to the 16~ to 21-year-old group. Illiteracy is a major cause of poverty and, if first things come first, illiteracy must be eliminated before the problem of poverty can be solved. With the increase of technological unemployment., it be- comes more and more important that~ the unlearned a.nd the mi- skilled be given a basic education in order to prepare them for other jobs. We ask you to consider seriously the possibility of writing into this bill a provision which would provide educational opportunites to the illiterate, unemployed adult. For the past 2 years the General Federation of Women's Clubs has conducted its own battle in the war on poverty in the form of an adult literacy program which has been aimed at this very problem of adult illiterates. This program has been taken up quite enthusiastically by our club members across the country and the results have been very gratifying. We published and distributed this book which I hold in my hand entitled, "Tea.chin~ Adults the Literacy Skills," which was prepared for us by experts in the Office of Education. This book is designed to teach volunteers how to conduct courses in the basic literacy skills. Another highly successful tool to combat illiteracy which has been used by our members is "Operation Alphabet"-a series of 100 tele- vision lessons designed to take the student through the third grade. "Operation Alphabet" has been televised in many States and in those areas where it has been shown for the second and third times it seems to be gaining a wider and wider audience. An enlargement of educational television programs of this kind is certainly worthy of consideration. Since 1955, clubwomen throughout the country have fought their own war on community inadequacies which lead to poverty through the community improvement program, a program sponsored jointly by the General Federation of Women's Clubs and the Sears, Roebuck Foundation. At the present time, close to 10,000 clubs-an estimated 300,000 club- women-are working in this program which examines community needs, organizes for action, and works to solve local problems. Their successes cut across a wide range of community improvements includ- ing health, welfare, employment, education, and industria.l develop- ment. Acting as community catalysts, clubwomen have brought about change in defunct coal mining towns in Appalachia, in complex met- ropolitan areas, and in small towns throughout the land. Their work is testimony to the fact that community problems relating to the perpetuation of poverty can be attacked and solved. If the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 is passed and if the Di- rector of the Office of Economic Opportunity believes that the mem- bers of the General Federation of Women's Clubs can be of help in PAGENO="0337" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1053 combating poverty through community action programs or in some other way. which might later suggest itself, we hope we might be given the opportunity to serve and thereby further implement the purposes for which our organization was formed. The General Federation of Women's Clubs appreciates this oppor- tunity to appear at this hearing in order that we may publicly an- nounce our willingness and eagerness to promote the public welfare by joining in this concerted effort to eliminate poverty in every possible way. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Goodell. Mr. GOODELL. I have no questions. Thank you very much, Mrs. Nicholson. Mr. PERKINS. Likewise, I wish to compliment you on your state- ment, Mrs. Nicholson. Thank you very much. Mrs. NICHOLSON. Thank you for this opportunity. Mr. PERKINS. The next witness is Mr. Richard Schifter, general counsel, Association on American Indian Affairs. Come around, Mr. Schifter. I notice you have a prepared state- ment here. Do you wish to insert that in the record and summarize it? STATEMENT OP RICHARD SCHIPTER, GENERAL COUNSEL, ASSOCIATION ON AMERIGAN INDIAN AFFAIRS Mr. SCHIFTER. I shall do so, Mr. Chairman. Mr. PERKINS. Without objection, the statement will be inserted in the record at this point. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT BY RICHARD SCHIFTER, GENERAL CouNsEi~, ASSOCIATION ON AMERICAN INDIAN AFFAIRS 1~1r. Chairman and members of the committee, I am here to testify on behalf of the Association on American Indian Affairs. As we may be unknown to members of this committee, I would like to identify us briefly. The association is a national organization of citizens concerned with the welfare of American Indians. Together with its predecessor organizations it has been in existence since 1909. Today, it has about 10,000 members distributed throughout all 50 States. Our president, until his death last year, was the well-known novelist and writer, Oliver LaFarge, of Santa Fe, N. Mex. Our present acting president is Roger Ernst, of Phoenix, Ariz., who served as Assistant Secretary of the In- terior from 1957 to 1960. The association enthusiastically supports H.R. 10440. We believe that the programs which can be initiated under the bill can bring hope and encouragement to areas of our country which are, at present, not really part of our land of oppor- tunity. These areas most definitely include our Indian reservations. In his testimony before you, Secretary Udall furnished you with some statis- tical information about the present conditions of our American Indian popula- tion. I do not want to repeat the Secretary's figures, but would like to add another dimension to his analysis. What the conditions of poverty, ill health, poor housing, and maladjustment have produced is an all-prevailing spirit of hopelessness, resignation, despondency. These factors, in turn, are reflected in a high incidence of broken homes, in delinquency, alcoholism, and other symptoms of social disorganization. What must be remembered in this context is that the experiences of the 18th and 19th centuries are still a vivid part of the group memory of Indian communities. All too often do you hear expressions of fear and distrust of outsiders; the feeling that outsiders are out to get something out of the Indians. There also prevails the resigned feeling that these outsiders will ultimately succeed, that the Indian just does not have a chance to come out on top. This is, as I have indicated, the prevailing mood; a mood instilled in 31-847-64--pt. 2-22 PAGENO="0338" 1054 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Indian young people when they become aware of the conditions of their commu- nity; a mood which stays with them all their life. Let me illustrate this point with the result of a study conducted by Rev. John F. Bryde, superintendent of the Holy Rosary Mission School at Pine Ridge, S. Dak. Father Bryde compared the achievement test results of Indian young- sters with the results in comparable non-Indian groups. He found that the Indian youngsters lagged behind in the early elementary grades, largely because of problems of cultural deprivation in the home and often an inadequate knowl- edge of the English language. They caught up in the third and fourth grades, but began to lag behind again by the time they reached seventh grade and con- tinued to lag from then on, with the dropout problem setting in relatively soon. Father Bryde attributes this lag at the high school level to the fact that it is at that age that youngsters become aware of the predominant view of their community-that Indians cannot succeed; that they have no future. To give you another illustration of Indian attitudes: 3 years ago the leaders of the Oglala Sioux Tribe in South Dakota took the initiative in creating the first Indian housing authority for the construction of low-rent homes. After news of the new housing program spread throughout the Indian ëommunity, a great many people laughed it off as just another Government promise that would be broken. When construction was begun on the first houses, doubt was still ex- pressed by a great many people that the project would ever be finished. When the program was finally finished and the first families moved into the new homes, the questions which were being asked were: "Where is the catch? What is the Government trying to get out of us now ?" Soon a rumor spread that the tribe would lose the rest of its land. One of the candidates in an election to the tribal presidency contended that the housing project was "a Trojan horse." that the tribe would now surely have to give up its land in return for the housing assistance. I am glad to say, though, that the tiny fraction of our Indian population which has obtained housing during the last 2 years has responded well. These families feel that the homes have given them new hope; a new lease on life. They are grateful for the opportunity of providing decent surroundings for their children. Similarly favorable responses have resulted from other Federal programs, once they had established themselves and have been accepted by the community. One of them is the cattle loan program which was started by the Bureau of Indian Affairs during the thirties. While there have been failures, under that program, there have also been a good number of successes and on many reserva- tions the only Indian families which have achieved economic independence. other than those employed by the Government, are the families of cattlemen who were put into business by the Indian Bureau's loan program. Another great success was the Civilian Conservation Corps. The so-called CCC-ID projects, which differed somewhat from the regular CCC program and came closer to the programs envisaged by title I, part B, of the bill now before you, helped a great many young Indian people to develop work habits and skills which enabled them to fit better into the pattern of our American economy. More recently, another successful Federal program has been launched. It is the adult vocational training program, under which young Indian people are given training which makes it possible for them to be placed in jobs; generally off the reservation. I have now spoken of the programs which have been successful in improving the lot of Indians. I have mentioned these merely to demonstrate that, where improvement programs were initiated, they had good results. But it should he understood that these programs were, and are conducted, on so small a scale as to affect only a fraction of the population in need. Also, each of the aforemen- tioned programs has been a pinpointed program, addressed to one phase of living; such as, housing, or to one group of people; such as, young people with a sufli- ciently good school record to benefit from an adult vocational training program. Most of the programs have not reached the people who are really down and out, and there are a great number of those in the Indian country, particularly in the so-called full-blood group. The hope is that through new programs, authorized by the Economic Opportunity Act, a substantial impact can be made on the problems of Indian poverty. You may wonder how my statement, that existing Federal programs for Indian economic improvement are quite small, can be true in the light of the rather substantial appropriations which Congress has been making and continues tomak-e in the field of Indian affairs. What you will find, if you look closely at PAGENO="0339" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1055 your appropriation acts, is that the. Federal Government operates only one major program which provides a special service for our Indian population. That is the Indian Health Service, a division of the Public Health Service, which has done a great deal to improve Indian health conditions. Yet, as Secretary Udall's statistics indicate, we still have far to go before health conditions on Indian reservations will approximate the national average. If we look at appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, we find that the bulk of the appropriations is a form of relief to the States. Close to 60 percent of the Indian Bureau appropriation is for education (both operation and construction), a service which if not rendered or paid for by the Federal Government would have to be assumed by the States. The second largest BIA appropriation item is for the construction and maintenance of roads, roads serving Indians as well as non-Indians, roads which would otherwise be built or maintained by the States. The Federal appropriations for the maintenance of law and order on Indian reservations fall into the same category. By the time you get down to the programs designed to improve economic conditions on In- dian reservations, you will find that they are narrow in scope and limited by the size of the appropriations. This is why, in spite of the existing Federal pro- grams, there is a need on our Indian reservations for a comprehensive attack on poverty. Let me make it clear, at this point, that I do not want to suggest that H.R. 10440 will cure all Indian problems overnight. What it can do, however, is provide the funds, the flexibility and the personnel (including in particular, the volunteers under title VI) to attack some of the root causes of poverty. Pro- grams could be developed to rehabilitate people and to start youngsters on a path which will not require later rehabilitation. Projects could `be started to improve the educational opportunities of young people from nursery school age up. Nor should we overlook the need to provide employment for heads of fam- ilies, to give Indian people the opportunity to acquire skills which would fit them into our general economy, which has less and less use for unskilled people and, above all, to provide them with opportunities to use these skills. Let me be specific for a moment. Title II would make it possible for Indian tribes to provide day-care centers for preschoolers, providing better surround- ings for the great many children who come from broken homes, and making it possible for all participating children to be better prepared for schoolwork when they enter the first grade. Title I, parts A and B can reach the teenage group, taking the dropout children off the streets and putting them to work in activities useful to them as well as to their communities and the Nation. Titles III, IV, and V, as well as community projects under title II, could enable adults to become economically independent and self-sustaining. Finally, the volunteers provided under title VI could do much to assist Indian people in developing their own potential and to do this at a very low cost to the Federal Government. In con- ducting these programs, the Office or Economic Opportunity could help bring to bear on the problems on Indian reservations the resources made available by various other departments of the Federal Government, resources such as those provided by the Department of Agriculture, of which Indians have not hereto- fore availed themselves. To make these projects successful, it will, of course, be important to work with the communities rather than imposing them on the communities from the outside. Projects should be developed jointly with Indian tribal councils and should be designed to give key planning roles to the Indian people themselves. This approach would not only safeguard the success of the project but would also provide valuable leadership training for the participants. There are two points of a purely technical nature which I would like to call to the committee's attention. Secretary Udall has already stated that Indian tribes are intended to be covered by the antipoverty program. It would, never- theless, be helpful if the committee report were to make it clear that certain terms in the bill, such as "local agencies," "publicly owned and operated," and "public agency" encompass Indian tribes and their property. Furthermore, I would suggest that on page 25, line 17, in section 302(b), the word "qualified" be stricken and the word "able" be substituted. This section refers to families eligible to obtain help under the title III program. As presently written, fami- lies "qualified" to obtain assistance under other Federal programs are not eligible. Almost all Indian families would be "qualified" to obtain help from the Indian revolving loan fund. However, they may not be able to obtain loans because of the insufficiency of funds in the Indian loan program. The PAGENO="0340" 1056 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 standard which should prevail is whether a family is "able" to obtain assist- ance elsewhere, not whether it is "qualified" to obtain such assistance. In summing up, let me say again that our growing, dynamic society and our productive economy have, by and large, passed by our Indian reservations. These have remained islands of poverty and depression. Efforts at relocation have failed in that only the more enterprising persons have been successfully relocated, thus depriving the home community of leadership talents. Even at the height of the Government-sponsored relocation program in the fifties, the reservation population continued to increase. The reservation communities won't just go away. To solve their problems, effective and comprehensive tin- provement programs must be started. The present Federal programs of assist- ance to Indians are, regrettably, small both hi size and scope and inadequate to get at the root causes of Indian poverty. On the other hand, programs which could be initiated under this bill could make a start toward the rehabilitation of Indian communities. In doing so, they could have the effect of turning areas of our country which are, at present, a drain on our economy, into true assets, making a useful and valuable contribution to the Nation. Mr. PERKINS. Go ahead. Mr. SCHWrER. Mr. Chairman, my name is Richard Schifter. I appear as general counsel to the Association on American Indian Af- fairs. In view of the fact that our association has never testified before this committee, I wifi just say briefly who we are. We are an organization of citizens throughout the United States with members in all 50 States of the Union. Our organization is concerned with the welfare of the American Indians. We have about 10,000 members and we have been in existence, in- cluding our predecessor organization, since about 1909. Our associa- tion wishes to endorse H.R. 10440 not as a final solution to the problems of poverty in the United States but as a good first step. The problem that we face on the Indian reservations is a problem that combines the problems of lack of opportunities in rural areas throughout the United States with the problems of social disorganiza- tion in the core cities of the United States. In other words, the In- dians have the worst of both problems; rural poverty and urban slums. This is reflected in a great deal of unemployment and the lack of skills of many people and in such matters as broken homes, delin- quency, and generally a spirit of hopelessness, that poverty engenders. This spirit encompasses the feeling of a great majority of people on Indian reservations. I believe that Secretary Udall has indicated to the committee what. the problem is in terms of numbers. When we think of unemploy- ment ratios of 15 to 20 percent in other parts of the country, we think that is high. On an Indian reservation that would be low. The average unemployment in the Indian country is about 45 percent and that is actually lowered by the fact that a good many women are em- ployed. Among men, unemployment is usually above 50 percent. You can visualize what this means to a community when more than half of the potential supporters of the families, the breadwinners, are unemployed and there is a feeling that there is no place to go. There are some myths throughout American society about how the Indians get by. Perhaps I could say a few words about that. Some people think every Indian gets a check from the U.S. Government. Of course, members of the committee know that is not so. There is also talk about. oil-rich Indians. There are very, very few in that category. Even those tribes that do have oil or uranium resources have an income that, if divided among all members of the tribe, would PAGENO="0341" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1057 be negligible. There are few exceptions where such income makes a difference so far as the economic status of the group is concerned. By and large, Indians throughout the United States have no sub- stantial resources to fall back on and, above all, generally lack skills that enable them to fit into the American economy. You may wonder why the services already provided by the Federal Government are inadequate. I would like to comment on that briefly. There is only one very substantial service that the Federal Government offers American Indians and that is the medical service through the Public Health Service. This is undoubtedly an extremely valuable aid to Indians and something that has done a great deal to bring Indian health standards closer to our national norms. Mr. PERKINS. Have the Federal programs worked well insofar as they go and have the Indians been discriminated against or has the Federal Government done a good job in administering the present pro- grams, so far as you know? Mr. ScrnFlER. So far as the health service is concerned ? Mr. PERKINS. Yes; and other programs. Mr. SCHIFTER. I would like to comment on them, one at a time. So far as health service is concerned, there has been a substantial step- up since 1955 in the kind of assistance that is being given, and there have been very good results. Indians have come along quite a bit in the last 10 years in terms of improved health conditions. However, they still are way behind the national average. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question at this point per- taining to health? I read somewhere, I do not know whether it was in one of my local newspapers or whether it was something that the AMA sent me, but they are blaming, somebody is blaming the poor health conditions and the short longevity of life that the Indians have on the fact that they do receive all this Government medical care. Could you fill me in a little on what has been the history of medical care to Indians? Mr. SCHIFTER. Congressman Gibbons, the medical assistance to Indians, goes back for a good many years. It was not really sub- stantial until about 1955 when the Public Health Service took over the responsibility. Whatever assistance there was was helpful, no question about it, but I think the evidence would show, if you just look at what has been going on on the reservations, that where the service has been stepped up the Indians have definitely benefited. For example, what you have seen in recent years is really the eradica- tion of tuberculosis on the Navajo reservations. Now, that would not have happened if it were not for what the Public Health Service did there. Another thing is that there has been a very substantial decline in infant mortality. It used to be very, very high. It still is quite high. But there has been a decline just as there has been an increase of the kind of medical services being given. So, I think the record would indicate that whatever help they have received has brought them closer to the national a.verage but they are still far behind. Mr. GIBBoNs. I was wondering, what is the cause of poor Indian health? Is it poverty? PAGENO="0342" 1058 `ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Mr. SOHIITER. Yes; definitely. There is a Public Health Service study that was put out some years ago that made the point that by providing doctors and nurses and all that, you can bring Indian health standards up to a certain point. But if you have environmental con- ditions that breed disease and general economic conditions that result in malnutrition or improper diets a.nd, above all, poor housing con- ditions, all of this creates a health situation which presents us with certain ~problems that no amount of doctors and nurses can solve. Mr. GIBBONS. Would it be fair to sa.y that to blame the Indians' poor health on Government medical services is ridiculous? Mr S0HIFrER. Yes; I would say so. From all the evidence I have seen wherever you have had improved medical care, you have had improved heath conditions among Indians. If you talk to the Indian people themselves they will tell you that. There is no question that more and better medical care has helped to improve conditions on Indian reservations. If you take a look particularly at the problem of infant mortality, the sharp decline coincides with the stepping up of the Public Health Service assistance. I think this tells the story in itself. Mr. GIBBONS. Is it because the Indians live such an isolated life on their reservations `that they really have no interest to get medical help other than by this? Mr. Scmr!rER. Yes. In a way, the problems are similar to other parts of rural America, but it is so much worse on most reservations in terms of inadequacy of medical care. Mr. GIBBONS. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. PERKINS. Proceed. Mr. SGHIFTER. Another type of assistance, to come back to the chairman's question, is rendered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. As to that, one point ought to be understood. If you take ~ look at the annual appropriations made by the Congress to the Bureau of Indians Affairs, more than half of the amount appropriated is really aid to the States. For example, 60 percent of this year's appropriation is for education alone. If this were not done by the Federal Govern- ment, it would be a burden on the States to furnish that,particular help. In the same category is Federal assistance for the construction and maintenance of reservation roads. Local and State governments would have to supply that to serve not only the Indians but non- Indians as well if the Federal Government did not do it. Federal supported law and order on Indian reservations is in the same cate- gory, as are certain types of welfare assistance. So really, when you get down to the economic development type of help, there is very little of it in the Bureau of Indian Affairs program, simply because there is very little money for that. Whatever they have, by and large, Mr. Chairman, has worked out quite well. If you take a look at some of the Indian reservations throughout the country, you will find the beneficial effects of economic development programs. If you examine the self-supporting Indian families, you will find that a good number of them got their start back in the 1930's through a lending program which is somewhat similar to what you have in title III of this bill. Another group of self-support.ing people got their start in the 1930's in the CCC. As a matter of fact, the way the CCC was carried PAGENO="0343" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1059 out on the Indian reservations was not the CCC that you know of normally. The usual CCC program of the 1930's roughly corresponds to title .1, part A of this bill. rfhe CCC program on Indian reserva- tions was more like title I, part B, that is, a local program which was not limited to the ,very young people but took Indians up into their 30's as well. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has operated a small economic devel- opment program which has tried to get industry in Indian country and that, too, has provided employment. All in all, these programs have been really a drop in the bucket and the unemployment and poverty problem on the Indian reserva- tions is really still an extremely serious one, probably more serious than in any other type of community throughout the country. I believe it was Congressman Bell who, this morning, raised the question about whether you cannot possibly train people better through the manpower development training program and various programs sponsored by ARA. I. think the answer to that question, at least as far as the Indian people whom I know, would be that for a certain group of people, those who received enough of a background at home and in school, a program such as Manpower Development and Train- ing Act and Area Redevelopment Act can be of great help. But, there are a great number of people among the Indians who just never got started in life. Perhaps because of home environment, perhaps because of other factors in the community, they never got started on the road where they could pick up the kind of training that you get when you go to school. For them it is extremely important to get a simple work experience, just being broken in and just doing work and being on a regular schedule of work, that you could get through the programs in title I of this particular bill. What I am basing this on is that people have told me time and time again about the experience among the Indians, the successful expe- rience, with the CCC in the 1930's. Mr. Bir~u~. Will the gentleman yield on that point? I agree in some instances, for example, in certain areas that this may be desirable in some limited way and perhaps it could be very bene- ficial to the Indians. But I was thinking primarily of the situation back here in the East, such as in Appalachia, oppressed areas and other areas, that it could be done in a different fashion. In other words, as far as you are concerned, you would not say that sending some of your Indian youths to Alaska or to Montana on a youth pro- gram would be more satisfactory than having them in a State program where they live? Mr. Somr'rI~R. Well, what I was addressing myself to, Congress- man, some youngsters in good families that may be in a situation where they pick up from their home, from their environment, the background that makes it possible for them to fit into our economy. Giving them the added help that Manpower Development and Train- ing Act and Area Redevelopment Act provide, can solve their unem- plOyment problems. But, there are others who do not get that background, who are from the down-and-out families. For them a program such as the one provided by parts A and B of title I would be extremely helpful. PAGENO="0344" 1060 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Mr. BELL. Let me ask you a question there. Would it be likely that the ones you are talking about would be the ones who would enlist in the Job Corps or would they be the ones who might not go into that project? They might choose some type of basic education somewhere else or something else. Mr. SCHIFTER. Yes; the Association on American Indian Affairs discussed that for a number of years. After all, this program has been imder consideration since 1958, or so. As a matter of fact, even before then the Indians would tell me, "If you could only bring the CCC back, t.his is what really got our boys going." I think the answer perhaps is that they themselves feel tha.t this is what helped a great deal in getting things going. Mr. BELI~. But the problem still remains, though, that that does not necessarily equip them immediately for another job. Mr. SCHIFTER. There is no doubt about that, Congressman.. What a CCC-t.ype program does, though, is help some people to get the basic skills that perhaps you need before you even develop a tech- nical skill, and that is simply the ability just to fit into our economy in terms of actually getting going and looking for a job and being interested in working a.nd being able to adhere to a work schedule. There are some people, particularly among Indians, who have not picked that up at home. Nost of us pick it up at home; many Indians have not. This goes back to historical cultural problems that I don't want to take up here. One point I also want to make in that connection, and I notice that the Farmers Union and the National Grange people this morning touched on it. is the problem of relocation. There is no doubt that as far as many Indian young people are concerned a good many of them would be better off finding their wa.y int.o communities off the Indian reservations. But if you take people without skills, without adequate preparation and background and move them from one community to another, particularly from these rural Indian reservation areas into the big cities, you are just transferring the problem from one geo- graphic location to another and the comments that were made this morning with regard to rural people generally, certainly apply to Indians. The Indian relocation program conducted by the Federal Govern- ment during the 1950's was limited in its success by that very fact. A good many Indian people could not make it in Chicago and Los Angeles and came back to the reservations, sometimes at suistantial expense to the Federal Govermnent. Now, what this bill could do is make it possible for Indian commu- nities to initiate programs, first of all, for the young, under titles I and II. I believe reference was made before to what you can do in the way of preparing youngsters for school through a preschool program. This would be extremely valuable in the Indian country. When the kids get to school at age 6, they have to spend a number of years just get- ting used to the school surrrnmdings and perhaps even perfecting their knowledge of t.he English language. If you can initiate pro- grams that make it possible for children to participate earlier in some form of preschool activity, you can make the educational process later on much easier. You can step up, of course, the quality of edu- cation generally. PAGENO="0345" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1061 Title I, again, can provide an outlet, an opportunity for teenagers and then under titles TI, ITT, IV, and VT-and Indians can use all of these because their problems run across the hoard-you can develop programs for the adult population that can sustain them better in their community setting. They could make greater use of the agricultural resources that are available to them. They could develop commer- cial opportunities and finally industrial opportunities that would em- ploy people in the reservation setting. Now, all of this would have to go hand in hand with the training program, such as could be evolved under this and other legislation. You can use here the volunteers which would be available under title VI of the bill in helping people get trained. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Hawkins, do you have any questions? Mr. HAWKINS. Not specifically, except that I would like to relate to the witness the question that Mr. Bell, my colleague from Califor- nia, has been developing, it seems to me, in these hearings and that is this question of title I, the Job Corps, being the means of somehow delaying a young boy's entrance into industry and some productive occupation rather than facilitating it. There seems to be the impli- cation that these young boys already have the habits and the attitudes that would make them, let us say, the type of individuals who would take advantage of vocational education or many of the other programs already in existence. Now, is it your opinion that title I-I know you are relating it primarily to a specific group of persons, the American Indians-but do you envision this title as somehow delaying a person who may better be sent into a different surrounding altogether or do you agree that this would be the means of delaying an individual from obtaining help in one of the existing programs? Mr. SCHIFTER. While I am testifying particularly with reference to Indian people, I believe the same thing applies to youngsters who come out of the slum areas of the cities. There are certain ones, and, as a matter of fact, there is a good number that do not pick up at home or in their immediate environment, the habits that are needed to fit into our economy and into our society generally. To think of training programs for them is illusory. Before you can train them in the skills you have to get them to acquire certain habits and atti- tudes that I believe the title I programs certainly would help instill in them. Mr. BELL. Will you yield? Mr. HAWKINS. I will yield because you seemed to be developing the point, I think to some extent you do have a point, but I am wondering whether or not your approach is the complete story. I yield to you, Mr. Bell. Mr. BELL. Mr. Hawkins, I am not saying what should be done but I detect certain weaknesses in this, I believe, tha.t may not stand up under really a fair amount of scrutiny. I think perhaps in certain cases I would agree that there are certain areas and the Indians may be one area where this could be handled in certain cases perhaps on a State level. However, I do want to point something out: that, first of all, in answer to Mr. Hawkins' point, they have set aside a basic education program in the manpower development and vocational edu- cation program, these are for the basic education. PAGENO="0346" 1062 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Reading from this book, "One-third of the Nation," put out by the Labor Department, they do not seem to agree with this. These young men face a lifetime of recurrent unemployment unless their skills are significantly upgraded. In the opinion of professional employment interviewers, 80 percent of the group needed job counseling, literacy training, or job training. A great majority of the men indicated they were willing to undertake such training. In other words, what it implies is that 80 percent of the people who are interviewed relative to what they want, basic education and training is wha.t they wanted, and to the tune of 80 percent they were willing to accept it and go right into the training programs. This is what the Labor Department indicated in their study in this book. One other feature bothers me relative to the Indians. The lack of faith that you indicated in here of the Indians traditionally because, as you quoted, they felt it was just another promise that might be made only to be broken. This lack of faith is where? In the Federal Government, not your State government or local government. This is the Government which has had the Indian affairs in their direct counseling and programing. In the history of this country, it has been, and under Federal Gov- ernment still is, one of the poorest programs where the literacy and the problems of the Indian people are greater than any other single minority. That was indicated by testimony by, I believe, Mr. TJdall. So, here the Federal Government has had a project but this has been one of the weakest programs of all of them for the minority race. It seems to me there is a pretty good indication there that perhaps the Federal Government should not be handed so many things. Mr. SCHWTER. Do you want me to answer that, Congressman? Mr. HAwKINs. You are getting far afield from my original point. Would you answer that and then I also would like to get back to the first phase of the point you raised because that is the point I was trying to develop. I do not mind including this also. Mr. BELL. I felt this was also pertinent to what we are talking about. Mr. SCHIFrER. I think, in all fairness, it might be said with the In- dian people you start further behind than with any other group. If you think, for example, of people whom we are concerned with here, people on the reservations of the West today, about three generations ago they were hunters and fishermen and perhaps thousands of years removed from our culture. In other words, just 75 or 100 years ago, the American Indians were in a state of life in which your ancestors or mine, Congressman, were about 4,000 years ago. I don't want to go into an anthropological analysis of this but there was a tremendous gap which had to be bridged here. The fact that it has not been suc- cessful is perhaps understandable. For example, if we found ourselves plunged down in the world in the year 5000, we might run into problems, too. So, the problem is very serious and the Federal Government has had a tough time trying to cope with it. By and large, the Indians still feel that the Federal Government is in a better position to bring its resources to bear on the problems on the Indian reservation than the State government can. PAGENO="0347" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1063 I personally feel you have to be flexible about this. In some States, undoubtedly in California, the State can do a good job. In other poorer States, the States won't have the money to do it and are not even set up in terms of facilities to do it. Mr. BELI~. Mr. Schifter, I am not exactly throwing out the idea of matching programs for the States. So, you cannot say they would not be getting help, Mr. Schifter. They could be getting help. Now, when you speak of the problem of the Indian, I also want to point out that there are many other minorities who also have very dif- ficult problems. I am the first to come to the aid of the Indians be- cause I have been instrumental in helping them many times. I also want to point out that the other races in this country have had very severe problems, too. It is a question of just how you analyze it. Yet, this is the one that has had the least effect and this is the one where the Federal Government has had the most control. That is all. Mr. SCHIFTER. Could I make one other point; that is, under title I, part B, and title II, the Indian tribal governments can actually do a great deal for themselves in the way of developing programs, and that would be extremely useful. In other words, for local communities to come up with programs to qualify for Federal~ assistance but which were developed at the local level. Mr. BELL. That is what should be emphasized, the local, application of it and the Indians themselves working on it. Mr. SCHIFThR. Very definitely. Mr. BELL. And maybe directed by.the State rather than the Federal Government. Mr. SCHIFTER. Technical assistance would be desirable from the Federal Government but certainly the local people could work up the programs. Mr. HAWKINS. Mr. Bell, the only point I wanted to make was that you continue to emphasize a group of persons who can directly be bene- fitted by existing programs such as the Manpower Development and Training Act and vocational education, and so forth, that in addition to that there are certain individuals who cannot be helped by those programs. This is merely an additional program to help a small section perhaps but certainly a substantial number of individuals, and I certainly have many of them who live in my district who need to be removed from the environment in which they live a.nd to develop wholesome work habits and new attitudes. They are not going to develop those atti- tudes in the environment in which they now live. If they can be transferred to a new wholesome environment and put to work in a wholesome outdoor environment, let us say a completely new~ one, to develop these habits, to develop cooperative attitudes a.nd so forth, I think they would be helped. Now, I am simply suggesting that I do not think that it is the question of saying that it has to be one or the other, we need all of them. I join you in emphasizing that, wherever possible, if they can be given training in their home environment, that is wonderful, but I see no reason why this precluded title I of the bill on the theory that it does not help a substantial number of individuals. That was the only point I was trying to make. PAGENO="0348" 1064 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Mr. BELL. If the gentleman will yield. Mr. HAwKINS. Certainly, if I have any time left. Mr. BELL. I am not suggesting that we should eliminate all of the youth conservation programs entirely. I am just suggesting that maybe in most instances the State government can handle it. You have also a voluntary program and all these people might, I think, be more interested in volunteering if they are going to be within the reasonable area of their homes, perhaps, in the same State but in some cases a different area of the State. Mr. HAWKINS. You vaguely say let the State have it. Take the State of Cahfornia, which is certainly One of the more prosperous States. You are suggesting that our State can assume the financial responsibility of handling this problem when it is the Republicans in Sacramento who today are votmg against the appropriations of the budget. Do you think they would accept a program to increase the taxes of the people of California? Are you suggesting this? Mr. BELL. Mr. Hawkins, I want to, first of all, say I have suggested matching funds in which the Federal Government would be paying part of the bill just as many other programs we have in the State today are on a matching basis. I am not suggesting that California would be by itself in this program. Mr. HAWKINS. Even if it means increasing taxes in our State? Mr. BEr~. I am saying mostly through a matching fund arrange- ment programs could be set up and there is a program today in Cali- fornia, a conservation pilot program and it is fairly large for a pilot program which is operating today. I have talked to the people in California and the one thing they wanted was to be sure that there was no Federal control in directing it. They wanted their resources to be used. They have lots of places to use them but they wanted the State to control it. Mr. HAWKINS. Who is going to pay the bill? Mr. BELL. I am suggesting a matching program. The State pays part and the Federal pays part of it. Mr. HAWKINS. It seems to me we get back to the old story. On the Federal level, we say the State should do it. On the State level, it is usually members of your own party who oppose these heavy expendi- tures. They in effect say let the Federal Government do it. Mr. BELL. When you say who is doing it, you are not talking about the Federal Government doing it on a matching basis. In some cases, our matching arrangements are higher than 50-50. So the Federal Government could be doing the lion's share of it in some cases. I am saying that the State should have control over it, not put up all the money. That is what I am saying. Mr. PEiuuNs. Mr. Gibbons. Mr. GIBBONS. How many Indians are there who are actually in- volved in reservations? Mr. SCHIFI'ER. The total Indian population of the United States is about 650,000. The reservation population is about 380,000. Mr. GIBBONS. Is the problem primarily on the reservation? Mr. SCHW2ER. Yes. There are some off reservation, too, but then it becomes not an Indian problem but really a problem of various communities. PAGENO="0349" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1065 Mr. GIBBONS. What makes these people stay on the reservation? Most reservations that I have seen most human beings could not live on them. Why do they stay on the reservation? Mr. SCIIIFTER. You heard the testimony of the representatives of the National Farmers Union and the Grange this morning. I would say that Indians stay on their reservations for the very same reason that white people stay on poor lands. It is home to them. It is a community they know. Indians have their own system of helping each other which is quite different from most of our society. If an Indian is hungry and he has a cousin, second cousin or uncle or an aunt, he just moves in with them and they help him somehow. Indians feel very insecure going off into the white man's world. This is a very serious problem to them. And there is this clear remembrance of the last battle. On one reservation that I work with in South Dakota, the last battle was in 1890. They talk about it as if it happened yesterday. Every child is taught to remember that. All that provides is a feeling, "here is home, here is where we have been all the time for hundreds and hundreds of years, this is where we ought to stay." Mr. GIBBONS. Don't you think we ought to try to lure these people off the reservations? Mr. SCHIFTER. Congressman, when you try to lure older people off it doesn't work. When you train young people to look for other things, then quite naturally they are going to look around for opportunities elsewhere. What you have to do is, first of all, teach them a certain amount of knowledge about how to fit into our society and our economy and some skills. The only way off the reservation has invariably been a higher education. It is the Indians who go to college that stay away. In a way, that presents a problem for the community because then the community is deprived of having college people within it or people with better training. So you have somewhat of a problem with those who stay behind because the less enterprising are the ones who stay behind. Somehow you have to cope with that problem, too. Mr. GIBBONS. Is the population increasing? Mr. SCHIFTER. Increasing in a way that refers back to what I men- tioned before, the substantial decrease in infant mortality, has in- creased population at a rate higher than the general average throughout the United States. Mr. GIBBONS. I have seen so many examples of Indians moving into the mainstream of American life and excelling when they get off the reservations. I have seen so many of these reservations and they just appall you. I do not see how anybody can make a living on them. Mr. SCHIFTER. Usually the ones with a higher education are the ones that move off. That is right. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Goodell. Mr. GOODELL. I appreciate your statement, Mr. Schifter. I think, basically, what you have said is that you need more money to help the Indians. As far as I am aware in questioning Secretary Udall, it was pretty well confirmed that the present authority in the law would permit, for Indians, virtually everything that is in this bill for the poor, generally. There is the authorization now for the Fed- PAGENO="0350" 1066 ECONOMIC OPPORTDNITY ACT OF 1964 eral. Government with its responsibility, with its authority, to under- take programs of this nature for the Indians alone. Obviously, if we extend a program of this nature to all the poor of the country, the Indians would be included. But if you had enough money, presumably, the Burea.u of Indians Affairs, you could do it right now. Some 70 percent of the Indians are on reservations, I think we are getting an average of $837 a year from the Federa.l Gov- ernment to support them. This is a very substantial figure in terms of the amount of aid that the Indians seem to be getting. They seem to be supported at the very lowest level of poverty in some cases. I think the question we have is not whether Indians should partici- pate-obviously, I think they should participate and this program holds some potential for them-the question we have had is why have we not had any programs of this nature for Indians over the 100-and-some-odd years that we have been carrying the major re- sponsibility for them. Mr. SCHIFTER. Congressman, first of all, the figure of $837 is not a figure paid to support the Indians. If you take a look at it, as I mentioned before, most of that goes for schools and it is really a way of aiding the States. In other words, the States with a large Indian population, Arizona, New Mexico, South Dakota, Montana, would have to foot the bill for providing assistance to Indians if it were not for the fact that the Federal Government is either maintaining schools on Indian reservations or paying under the Johnson-O'Ma- honey Act a certain amount of assistance to local school districts. Mr. GOODELL. This is the net cost today in the Federal Govern- ment. Mr. S0rnFFER. That is right, of which schools, as I say, are the larg- est item. Mr. GooDsErJ~. Schools will be a large item of this, too. I did not mean we are giving them $837 cash. This is the total benefit. They are getting benefit from the schools as much as they are from any other program that we have. Mr. SCHIFTER. Yes. As I said, this is aid to the States. This is not really special assistance to Indians. The Federal Government is providing education rather than the States in these communities. In some cases, it is done by the State. Mr. GooD]~r~L. If you would accept that logic, then every program where we have a joint Federal-State situation or jurisdiction, the Federal money is in the form of aid to the State. All of your various types of welfare programs, your manpower program as it is set up, your vocational education program, you can make the same kind of argument by analogy that these are aids to States not to the indi- viduals involved because there is State money involved. Mr. SCHIFTER. What I am saying is that education throughout the United States is a service rendered by the States and the local com- munities. In the case of the Indians, the Federal Government steps in and pays the bill. What I am trying to say is that this is not a special service for economic development. What we are talking about in this particular bill here is financing opportunities for economic development. Now, you are absolutely right in that under the broad powers vested in the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and the Secretary of the In- PAGENO="0351" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1067 tenor, there is adequate authorization legislation to do it all if Con- gress were to appropriate funds for these purposes. But Congress has not seen fit in the past to appropriate money for such purposes and probably will not do it just for Indians, that is my guess. I think it is politically rather clear that if you render assistance across the board, then the Indians can benefit from it, too. Let me point out to you, as an example, only a few years ago we found out that the Public Housing Act covered Indian reservations and there is now housing assistance being given at a rate which In- dians a few years ago would have considered unbelievable, simply by tying into a program that is just generally available to the American public. The same may be true of other programs. The Accelerated Public Works Act provided a great deal of help for Indians. `They would not have gotten it on their own. Mr. GOODELL. I sympathize with that view. Of course, at the same time that we are providing the eligibility for indians under our gen- eral program, we are punishing the Indians through other policies of the Government. Has your organization been involved at all with the Seneca Nation of Indians, the Kinzua Dam, in trying to help them? Mr. SCHIFTER. Yes, we have been. Mr. GOODELL. I hope you will be in the next crucial 2 or 3 or 4 weeks. Mr. SCHrFTER. We are aware of it, sir. Mr. GOODELL. The Senate having knocked the insides right out of the House bill, there is probably a minimum justice for them. The thing that concerns me so much about this is that the House bill was set up on a basis to make the Seneca Nation a continuing self-sufficient unit. They have been completely free of Federal aid since 1949. They are one of the unusual Indian tribes in this country who have not been receiving Federal money. We take the very heartland of their nation away from them and then we refuse to give them enough money as reimbursement for this so that they can have a self-sufficient economy from what remains of their reservation. The Senate has cut them right to the bare subsistence level and they are going to' have to take an $837 allotment or whatever it turns out to be for them from the Federal Treasury, once again encouraging the lack of any ambition or motivation, just the worst features of an individual human being to sit back and accept these things; they did not want it. They are a very proud people. And they moved away from it. Now we are forcing it right back on them. Mr. SCHIFTER. Congressman, we applaud the position that you and the House of Representatives have taken on this and we hope you will prevail over questions raised by certain Members of the Senate. Mr. G0ODELL. If you have any influence over some of these western Senators- Mr. SCHIFTER. Yes, there are just a few involved. Mr. GOODELL. Thank you. Mr. PERKINS. Thank you, Mr. Goodell., ` How many Indians did you say there were still on the reservation today? Mr. SCHIFTER. About 380,000, Congressman. PAGENO="0352" 1068 ECONOMIC OPPORTLTNITY ACT OF 1964 Mr. PERKINS. Thank you very much for your appearance. Mr. SCHIRTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. PERKINS. The next witness is Mr. E. B. Whitten, executive sec- retary of the National Rehabilitation Association. I notice you have a prepared statement, Mr. Whitten. Do you wish to summarize it or read it? STATEMENT OF E. B. WRITTEN, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL REHABILITATION ASSOCIATION Mr. WHITTEN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit the state- ment for the record, including two documents that are attached to the back of it, one of which is an amendment to the bill, the other a brief statement explaining in detail the reasons for the amendment. Mr. PERKINS. Without objection, your statement and the exhibits will be inserted in the record at this point. You may proceed. (The statements referred to follow:) STATEMENT OF E. B. WHITTEN, DIRECToR oF THE NATIONAL REHABILITATION AssocIATIoN I am E. B. Whitten, director of the National Rehabilitation Association, a voluntary nonprofit association with approximately 20,000 individual and organi- zational members and with affiliates in 46 of the States. About one-half of our members are people who have a professional interest in rehabilitation of handi- capped individuals, including administrators, physicians, counselors, psycholo- gists, nurses, social workers, and therapists. The other half are public-spirited citizens in many walks of life who attempt to advance rehabilitation of the handi- capped individuals by supporting the association in its efforts. The membership of the National Rehabilitation Association not only cuts across many profes- sions, but includes individuals employed by or otherwise related to both public and voluntary rehabilitation agencies. Established in 1923, the National Rehabilitation Association was the sponsor of the 1943 Amendments to the Vocational Rehabilitation Act, which broadened the program to include physical restoration services and made the mentally ill and mentally retarded eligible for services, and of the 1954 amendments which set up programs of research, training of rehabilitation personnel, and the legal basis for a greatly expanded State-Federal program of rehabilitation. The inter- est of the association is in the rehabilitation of all physically and mentally im- paired persons without regard to age or category of disability. AMENDMENT PROPOSED The National Rehabilitation Association is giving general support to H.R. 10440. Our testimony is confined to the bill as it relates to the rehabilitation of handi- capped people. At this point, I shall appreciate having inserted in the record a one-page item headed "Amendment to H.R. 10440, Proposed by the National Rehabilitation Association" and a three-page item containing questions and an- swers pertaining to the amendment which is proposed. The general purpose of our amendment is simple. It is to assure that in an all-out attack upon poverty we do not neglect physically and mentally handi- capped persons who can profit from rehabilitation services and who desire such services in order that they may become useful and productive citizens. EXTENT OF PROBLEM Mr. Chairman, testimony on H.R. 10440 has included very little reference to the problems of physically or mentally impaired people, and there has been no mention, so far as I know, of organized efforts now underway to rehabili- tate such individuals; yet disability is a most significant factor in poverty. In fact disability contributes to poverty, and poverty, in turn compounds dis- ability. It is generally agreed that we have in this country at least 31/i PAGENO="0353" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1.069 million individuals who need vocational rehabilitation services to become employ- able and who would accept such services if they were available at the time they are first needed. Aproximately 400,000 additional individuals are added to this number annually, as a result of accident, diseases, and congenital causes. The Secretary of Labor has reported that 12 percent of all of the individuals applying under the manpower development and training program are identi- fied as being physically handicapped. It is undoubtedly true that the most severely handicapped do not make application at all for benefits under this pro- gram. If the emotionally ill and mentally retarded are added to this number, the proportion would be much greater. Handicapped people are to be found in every strata of human beings who are eligible for services under the various titles of H.R. 10440. The tendency is going to be to neglect them, unless serious steps are taken in this bill to see that efforts to rehabilitate handicapped people keep pace with general efforts to abolish poverty. STATE-FEDERAL VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM In 1920, the Congress of the United States established a vocational rehabili- tation program. The legislation has been revised and the concept of rehabilita- tion expanded a number of times, notably by Public Law 113 of the 78th Congress (1943) and Public Law 565 of the 83d Congress (1954). This program is ad- ministered by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare through the Vocational Rehabilitation Administration. At the State level it is administered by State vocational rehabilitation agencies in all of the States and territories The program operates in all of the States and in all of their subdivisions. It may literally be said that vocational rehabilitation services are being carried through this program into every nook and corner of our country. Economic need is a condition for practically all of its services. If there has ever been a program devoted to constructive efforts to relieve poverty in this country, it is the State-Federal program of rehabilitation. It has learned the hard way the lessons that many others are learning today. In these agencies and in their companion voluntary agencies, principally the rehabilitation centers and the workshops, will be found the knowledge that is required in order to deal success- fully with a large proportion of the people with which this bill is concerned. It is significant that the U.S. Department of Labor, through its manpower devel- opment and training program, is making contracts with rehabilitation agencies throughout the country to carry on demonstrations of how the economically and socially deprived may be prepared for employment. The State-Federal vocational rehabilitation program is a successful one. Currently, it is rehabilitating over 110,000 individuals annually. It is esti- mated that the number of persons rehabilitated will increase to 133,000 in the 1965 fiscal year. It is significant that the number of people being rehabilitated annually today by the State rehabilitation agencies is more than one-half of the number that the Secretary of Labor estimates will be involved in the work- training program under H.R. 10440. Services provided handicapped people under the Vocational Rehabilitation Act include medical and psychological diagnosis and evaluation, counseling and guidance, medical services, vocational training, placement, and followup on the job. These are the same services that are going to be required to help millions of individuals who may not be physically or mentally impaired in the usual sense but who have many of the same problems. The techniques for applying these services practiced by the rehabilitation agencies, public and voluntary, are the techniques that are going to be found effective in dealing with such individuals. Rehabilitation agencies have the confidence of their State governments and the confidence of the Congress of the United States, as has been demonstrated in many ways. These agencies are in a position to make a vital contribution to the success of any antipoverty program. To ignore their experience, would be foolhardy. H.R. 10440, as now written, mentions vocational rehabilitation services only one time. This is in section 204 which lists vocational rehabilitation as among the fields with which community action programs will be concerned. There is no mention of the utilization of the State vocational rehabilitation agencies in this poverty program. The testimony of administration witnesses has given no indication as to how vocational rehabilitation will be involved in. this pro- gram or how the State vocational rehabilitation agencies will be utilized. We believe, therefore, that we have real reason for concern that physically and mentally impaired persons may be neglected under this program. 31-847-64---pt. 2-~23 PAGENO="0354" 1070 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 AMENDMENT E~LAINED Our amendment is written as a second section to title V. There are good reasons for this. The Public Welfare Administration which will administer this title as it is written, and the Vocational Rehabilitation Administration are com- panion programs in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. They carry on cooperative programs at the State and local levels. Many of the projects are concerned with the rehabilitation of physically and mentally im- paired parents and guardians of needy children. Disability is a factor in such dependency in at least one-fourth of these families. The amendment authorizes the Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity to transfer funds to the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare for the specific purpose of extending and improving vocational rehabili- tation services to handicapped people under section 3 of the Vocational Rehabili- tation Act. This is a special project program. All projects must be identifiable and must provide for a new or extended activity. The section appears to be tailor made for use in implementing the purposes of H.R. 10440. The amendment provides that funds will be aUotted to the States on the basis of criteria determined by the Secretary to be most appropriate to assure maximum contribution to the purposes of the legislation. The Federal Govern- ment would pay 100 percent of the cost of the projects, as is provided for in the other section of title V. Projects will be initiated at the State level. The individuals to be served will have some kind of identifiable physical and/or mental disabiltiy, but a substantial component of their total disability may be the result of economic and cultural deprivation. This is a somewhat more liberal definition of the handicapped individual than appears in the Voca- tional Rehabilitation Act. It will enable State rehabilitation agencies to provide services for a badly handicapped group of individuals who need the identical services that are being made available for physically and mentally handicapped clients at this time, but who might not be considered eligible in some cases. The State of Washington has been a leader in providing rehabilitation services to a group of handicapped who may be said to be "nondisabled," in as much as they may not necessarily have medically determinable physical or mental dils- abilities. Cooperating with the Department of Public Welfare, and using State funds only, this program is making a significant contribution toward the achieve- ment of objectives of H.R. 10440. In this amendment we do not disassociate eligibility from physical and/or mental disability, but we are assuming that numbers of individuals such as those now being served by the Washington Rehabilitation Agency under its new program will be eligible for services under this amendment. We shall give a few illustrations of the kind of projects that might be devel- oped under the amendment. The Georgia Division of Vocational Rehabilitation. in cooperation with the Georgia Public Welfare Department, is operating a successful pilot project in Chatham County demonstrating that handicapped parents and guardians of ADO recipients can be rehabilitated to the great bene- fit of the famifies themselves and with great savings to the State and Federal Government in public welfare cost. With additional funds appropriated under H.R. 10440, this program could be ex:tended to other parts of the State. Similar projects are underway in many other States. They include: Arizona, Mart- copa County; Arkansas, Pulaski County; Florida, Orange and Seminole Coun- ties; Minnesota, Ramsey County; Nebraska, Douglas and Lawrence Counties; New Jersey, Union, Passaic and Middlesex Counties; Oregon, Multnomah County; Texas, Harris and Bexar Counties; Vermont, Chittenden County; West Virginia, Kanawha County; Wisconsin, Milwaukee County; Massachusetts, Boston County; Utah, Salt Lake County; Illinois, Cook County; Kentucky, Har- lan, Bell, Johnson, Martin, and Lawrence Counties. The Iffinois Division of Vocational Rehabifitation has developed a program in cooperation with the public school system of Champaign to provide services to bridge the gap between school and employment for mentally retarded youth. A similar program is operating in the La Grange area. With funds appropriated under H.R. 10440, these programs could be extended to other parts of the State. Almost all of the States would be able to develop similar projects. States that already have underway special projects making a beginning in this field include: Oregon, New Jersey, Minnesota, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Puerto Rico, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Texas, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana. In Kentucky, the vocational rehabilitation division is developing rehabilita- PAGENO="0355" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1071 tion units in two State schools for the mentally retarded. It also has a special program for the mentally retarded and others in Harlan County. These pro- grams could be extended with funds appropriated under H.R. 10440. In Minnesota a significant project at the Kenny Institute has demonstrated significant rehabilitation potential in applicants for and recipients of social security disability benefits. The division of vocational rehabilitation is cur- rently seeking financial support to extend its program to this group of the dis- abled. Similar research projects have been carried on at Tulane University and the Ohio University Rehabilitation Centers. Projects of this kind are appropri- ate in all of the States. In considering an all-out attack on poverty, special concern must be given to the approximately 1 million individuals who are al- ready drawing social security for disability benefits and the almost equal number who have made application for such benefits but have been denied services on the grounds that they are capable of some substantial gainful employment. It is significant that State rehabilitation agencies are ready to go on programs such as we have described. Pilot projects are underway or have been com- pleted. This program has leadership and direction. It has experience. It has contracts and/or effective working relations with all of the professions and community facilities, medical, educational, and vocational, that are needed to get the job done. In New York City, a special project recently completed has demonstrated techniques effective in the rehabilitation of older workers. This program could be extended to other areas. Such projects would be appropriate in most of the States. Many other illustrations may be given: Projects can be developed to extend services to special categories of the handicapped, such as to the mentally ill or to the mentally retarded; or to groups in certain settings, such as recipients of public assistance or social security disability benefits. Projects may also be developed to improve community facilities for serving the handicapped, such as workshops and rehabilitation centers. RESULTS ANTICIPATED We are not asking additional appropriations to implement this amendment. We do suggest, however, that $20 million of sums appropriated be allotted to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to implement this program during this first year. Experience will sho whew much will eventually be needed to do a complete job. Twenty million dollars is necessary if allotments to States are to be large enough that significant projects may be developed. Small allot- ments has been one of the difficulties in the administration of section 3 of the present act up to the present time. This committee, naturally, is interested in what might be expected as a result of this expenditure. The average cost of rehabilitating an individual at the present time is approximately $1,000, which includes all salaries and administra- tive costs. The average cost under the new program should not be substantially higher. This would mean that between 15,000 and 20,000 additional rehabilita- tions may be expected per year. Again this means successful cases, actually working at the time of closure, not just people who are served with the hope that they will find employment. Incidentally, it is significant that vocational reha- bilitation agencies are providing comprehensive rehabilitation services on an individual basis at a lower average cost than is estimated for vocational training programs only in other sections of this act. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize that this amendment is consistent with the express purposes of H.R. 10440, its administrative framework, and its drafting procedures. The amendment will help achieve the purposes of the bill by stepping up the war against poverty in that portion of the economically deprived who are physically and mentally handicapped. It will do so by using an experienced successful program already devoted to the alleviation of poverty. It will be administered in the manner consistent with other provisions of the bill, that is, by the transfer of funds to an already existingdepartment of Govern- ment. The drafting form is similar to other titles and uses almost the same language as found in the present title V. The Federal share of expenditures is also consistent with the provisions of title V. We shall appreciate the careful consideration of our proposal and will be glad to furnish any additional infor- mation which the committee may require in making its judgment. PAGENO="0356" 1072 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 AMENDMENT TO H.R. 10440 PROPOSED BY NATIONAL REHABILITATION ASSOCIATION The principal heading for title V shall be revised to read "Family Unity and Rehabilitation Through Jobs." A new "Part B" is added as follows: PART B-REHABILITATION THROUGH JOBS SEc. 503. The purpose of this part is to assist in initiating, extending, and improving rehabilitation services for physically and/or mentally handicapped persons, including those unemployed individuals whose inabifity to secure and maintain employment is heavily influenced by economic and cultural deprivation. PAYMENTS FOR EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT PROJE~rS SEc. 504. In order to stimulate the expansion by the States of programs designed to help handicapped individuals achieve independence and productive capacity, the Director is authorized to transfer funds appropriated or allocated to carry out the purposes of this act to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to enable him to make payments to the States for extension and im- provement projects under Section 3 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act. (29 U.S.C. 41.) The costs of such projects to the United States for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1965, shall, notwithstanding the provisions of such act, be met entirely from funds appropriated or allocated to carry out the purposes of this act and the limitation on the duration of projects and the allotment provisions of section 3 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act are waived. NATIONAL REHABILITATION ASSOCIATION PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO H.R. 10440 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 1. Question. Why is it desirable that a part of this bill refer specifically to services to handicapped people? Answer. Physically and mentally handicapped people constitute a large propor- t.ion of the proverty stricken in this country. For instance, the U.S. Department of Labor reports that 12 percent of those applying for training under the man- power development and training programs are physically handicapped. Most of these cannot be served effectively without special services not ordinarily avail- able in State and local training programs. The inclusion of the mentally re- tarded and emotionally ill would increase this percentage sharply. Handicapped people usually feel poverty first and are affected most deeply. Since handi-~ capped people require special treatment for their rehabilitation, they are likely to be neglected, unless special provisions are made for them. 2. Question. Why should this program be administered through the Depart- ment of Health, Education, and Welfare? Answer. It is assumed that the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare will assign responsibility to the Vocational Rehabilitation Administration, which administers the Federal aspects of the State-Federal vocational rehabilitation program. The Vocational Rehabilitation Administration has a long history of successful administration of vocational rehabilitation, including research, train- ing, demonstration, and extension and improvement areas. 3. Question. How would the program operate inthe States? Answer. The Secretary would make grants to the States (vocational rehabilita- tion agencies) as under the Vocational Rehabilitation Act. Services would be provided under conditions of State vocational rehabilitation plans and such other policies as the Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity and the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare shall deem appropriate. 4. Question. Are the State vocational rehabilitation agencies prepared to carry out such a program? Answer. Yes. These State agencies are well established, operating effectively and economically. They have been rehabilitating handicapped people for over 40 years. Practically all services are provided on the basis of economic need. If there ever has been a program devoted to constructive efforts to alleviate poverty in this country, it is the State-Federal program of rehabilitation. It already has contracts with hospitals, physicians, clinics, rehabilitation centers, sheltered workshops, vocational schools, and other vocational training institu- PAGENO="0357" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1073 tions. These State agencies are rehabilitating over 112,000 persons annually. This means that those handicapped individuals are actually placed on jobs and have been employed long enough that there is a reasonable expectation that employment is permanent. These agencies are in a position to expand their programs without delay. 5. Question. Why is it suggested that section 3 of the Vocational Rehabilita- tion Act be used as the legal basis for this program? Answer. This is an "extension and improvement program." Projects must be designed to extend services to new groups, provide more intensive services to groups of handicapped already being served, or to otherwise extend and improve vocational rehabilitation activities. This section of the Vocational Rehabilita- tion Act seems ideal to carry out the purpose of H.R. 10440, so far as it relates to handicapped individuals. 6. Question. Is it possible for the Director of the Office of Economic Oppor- tunity to transfer funds to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare for purposes described in the amendment as H.R. 10440 is now written. Answer. It may be possible. We are not sure. It is extremely unlikely that it would be done without specific authority. We feel that the handicapped need the legal protection of a special provision of the bill. This will enable Congress from year to year to identify specifically rehabilitation aspects of the anti- poverty program and evaluate their effectiveness. 7. Question. How much money do you propose be transferred to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare during the first year for purposes of the amendment? Answer. Twenty million dollars would make allotments to States large enough to enable them to develop significant projects. 8. Question. How would the funds be allotted to the States? Answer. Section 3 funds are now allotted on a population basis. We are sug- gestiong that this be set aside for the new program to enable the Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity and the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to establish criteria for fair distribution of funds among States, as is provided in other titles of the bill. 9. Question. What will be the Federal share of the program? Answer. We are suggesting a 100-percent Federal share, as is provided for in part A of title V, pertaining to pilot projects and demonstrations in public assistance. 10. Question. What results can be expected with an allotment of $20 million annually ~ Answer. Twenty million dollars should be the starting figure. Experience will show needs in future years. The average cost of rehabilitating an individ- ual at the present time is approximately $1 000 which includes all salaries and administrative costs. The average cost under the new program should not be substantially higher. This would mean that between 15,000 and. 20,000 addi- tional rehabilitations may be expected per year, after the program has got into full swing. Again, this means successful cases, actually working at the time of closure not just people who are served with the hope that they will find employment. Incidentally, it is significant that vocational rehabilitation agen- cies aie providing rehabilitation services on an individual basis at a lower aver age cost than is estimated for vocational training programs only in other sections of this act. 11 Question Will the ~ ocational iehabilitation agencics paiticipate in other titles of this bill? Answer. Yes; both public and voluntary agencies will dO what they can to help in community action programs, and' use other programs as resources, when this is appropriate. The amendment we propose will enable the rehabilitation agen- cies to make a contribution much more consistent with their experience and knowledge in dealing with problems of poverty on a nationwide basis, than they could do if their activities were confined to existing titles of the bill. 12. Question. Why should vocational rehabilitation be singled out for special attention in this act? Are there other public programs not mentioned in this bill that could make an equal claim for such consideration? Answer. The most important answer is that handicapped people are likely to be neglected, unless specially provided for. In addition, however, it must be said that vocational rehabilitatiOn is the only nationwide direct service program whose activities are already directed 100 percent toward constructive alleviation' of pov- erty. Its contributions, therefor~, to the achievement of the objectives of this bill will be unique. Its participation on a nationwide scale will result in more PAGENO="0358" 1074 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 genuine, constructive relief to the poverty stricken than can be accomplished any- where else with similar expenditures. In saying this, however, we recognize fully that other programs are necessary for other groups of economically de- prived individuals. 13. Question. Is this amendment consistent with the purposes of H.R. 10440, its administrative framework and drafting procedures? Answer. The answer is yes in all three instances. This amendment will help achieve the purposes of the bill by stepping up the war against poverty in that portion of the economically deprived who are physically and mentally handi- capped. It will do so by using an experienced, successful program already de- voted to the alleviation of poverty. It will be administered in a manner consistent with other provisions of the bill; that is, the transfer of funds to an already exist- ing department of government. The drafting form is similar to other titles and uses almost the same language as found in the present title V. The Federal share of expenditures is also consistent with the provisions of title V. Mr. Wrn'riTx. I will come directly to the point with respect to the chief purpose for our being here. We are in general support of this legislation but our organization is concerned specifically with its relationship to the rehabilitation of physically and mentally impaired persons. Incidentally, this is a most significant part of the total number of impoverished people in this country. You may have noticed that the secretary of Labor says that 12 per- cent of the individuals who are applying for manpower development and training programs are physically handicapped people. We have every reason to believe that if the mentally retarded, the mentally and the most severely handicapped who would not necessarily apply for such benefits were added, that this might mean 20 percent of the total number of individuals that you are proposing to help through this legislation. Now, frankly, we want to use this legislation in order to speed up efforts to rehabilitate handicapped people in this country. They are generally the most poor of the poor. In fact, disability itself is the cause of poverty in a large number of instances and poverty com- pounds disability when it is the other way around. So, we think this is the most significant part of the total purpose that legislation of this kind ought to have. Now, in the hearings up to this point, there has been slight reference to rehabilitation, to this particular part of the poverty load. None that I remember at all by any administration witnesses, and any other refer- ences have been in the sideline fashion. We have been afraid that, unless there is~ special emphasis given t.o the special problems of handicapped people in this legislation, we are going to find handicapped people falling again through the cracks, so to speak, of these programs just as they have in so many other programs that have been started in this country. Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt the witness for a moment? Mr. P~nxn~s. Go ahead. Mr. G00DELL. I am going to have to leave. I want to tell you, Mr. Whitten, that I have read your testimony and I would just like to ask you-I think it is very impressive-it seems to me, however, that in a sense you are proposing something that, for some portions of this bill, should be an alternative rather than a supplemental suggestion. I am deeply concerned that we are setting up a new director with some sort of implied authority over ongoing, existing programs with- PAGENO="0359" ECONOMIC OPPORTuNITY ACT OF 1964 1075 out any very specific authority in the law. The director has new au- thorities we grant under this act for special projects. Obviously, to be effective it must be dovetailed with the ongoing existing programs. One of the finest is the vocational rehabilitation program. I notice you say $20 million will do the job to start with the first year. You recommend two or three things which are very important; one, that there be a State allocation formula for that $20 million; two, that the money go to HEW and thereby obviously to the present Vocational Rehabilitation Administration. Both those points I agree with very strongly. I would like you, if you would, to expand for a moment on the importance of those two points and why you stress them so. Mr. WrnrrEN. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Goodell, let me say that we assume that rehabilitation agencies, both public and voluntary, would participate to whatever degree they could in any kind of community undertaking underway. But the reason for our specific proposal is this: The State rehabilitation agencies have been in the poverty busi- ness for 40 years. They are the agencies that know more about the problems of poverty and they have been dealing with it more effec- tively than any other in the country. These are statewide organiza- tions, operating in all the States, in the territories, and in every politi- cal subdivision of the States. They have programs going on now of experimental, special project nature, including experimental exten- sion improvement projects that are ready. In other words, this would be a very simple thing and I am confident that more would be ac- complished for the money spent for this particular group of people for whom we are concerned than any other way you could spend it. It is just that simple to me, Mr. Chairman, I hope it will be to others. Mr. GOODELL. I agree with that point that you have made. You are. saying, in effect, that they have had since 1920 the experience of build- ing up, rehabilitating these individuals with one form of disability or another, and that a very large segment of our impoverished in this country belong in that category, perhaps not technically under the present Vocational Rehabilitation Act but they are disabled. You make the point that it is cultural deprivation that disables them but they are disabled in making their own way in society today. They are beyond the immediate reach of the programs that are there for those who can help themselves. I do think that the faster, the most effective way of launching a new attack here is to utilize the framework of such organizations as the vocational rehabilitation, trigger them with some more money. They are all ready apparently with a lot of plans, particularly the Vocational Rehabilitation Act amendments that we put there a few years back that authorized this experimental type of program. Mr. WHIrI'EN. In fact, Mr. Goodell, some of the things that people are calling experimental are not experimental to us at all. It just happens that this section 3 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act is ideally tailored to accomplish the objectives of this bill. This is nothing contrary to the spirit that we are suggesting and the purpose, I think, of those who proposed the bill. We think our knowledge as to how this is operated puts us in a position to say that in addition to approaches that other people have taken that this is the way to PAGENO="0360" 1076 ECONOMIC 0PPORTU~TTY ACT OF 1964 really get these agencies involved in the most effective and economical manner to accomplish a large part of the objectives of this bill. Mr. GOODELL. In effect, what you are saying is, give us $20 million more under section 3 with a little broader authority than you now have under section 3, and you can do a tremendous job here, probably more per dollar than in any other immediately available program. Mr. WHIr2EN. This is illustrated by the fact that the average cost of rehabilitating people in State rehabilitation agencies is about $5,000 a year and this includes all cost, salaries, administration, and every- thing. I understand the Secretary of Labor is anticipating a greater ex- perience than that for each person trained under the youth program. I am not saying his estimates are too high, but I am saying that through the experience a.nd the connections and the fact that these programs have had to operate economically all through the years that they are geared to do this job more economically probably than any- body else could do it. Mr. GOODELL. I do not think there is a. finer program that we have going in the Federal Government than the vocational rehabilitation program. `When I say "in the Federal Government," I recognize, and I think you do, Mr. Whitten, the importance of the State con- tribution involved in this program as it now operates. Both levels of Government plus the local level deserve a great deal of credit for it. I appreciate your testimony. I am very sorry to interrupt your train of thought and your presentation, but I wanted to get these points in. I was particularly interested in your being here today and did read your testimony very carefully in advance. I appreciate the points you have made. Mr. Wurri~N. I am glad you interrupted me because the important thing for me is to get my message over and you are here now. So it does not bother me to be interrupted. Mr. GooD1~n~. Thank you. Mr. Wnrri~x. Mr. Chairman, by virtue of this interruption, which has indeed been welcomed, I may change my tack a little bit so as not to repeat some things that I might have otherwise saId. I think that probably you might be. as interested as anybody else if I could tell you how this program would work in some of the States and illustrations of the kinds of projects that might be developed. I believe I will begin with that and see if I can make clear the kinds of things that we would probably do in the vocational rehabilitation program. There are 110,000 people or more being rehabilitated each year in the program now. By the way, this is over half the nmnber that the Secretary of Labor anticipates will be' trained each year under the youth training program. So, you see, this is not a small program we are talking about, it is a program that has reached proportions and is staffed and engineered to do a real job. The problem of it has been to try to get enough State money to match Federal allotments in order to do a more complete job. Now, about illustrations of the type of projects we might have. One group is in connection and in cooperation with State and local educa- PAGENO="0361" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1077 tional agencies. These are aimed, of course, at rehabilitating handi- capped youth and many of them, particularly mentally retarded handicapped youth. We have special projects already underway in this country and, by the way, it is interesting, Mr. Chairman, three or four of them would be in your State, in Bourbon County, Rock- castle County, Rowan County, and Floyd County; Vigo County, md.; Eugene, Oreg., Jewish Vocational Service, St. Louis, Colorado De- partment of Education, University of Kansas, Massachusetts Rehabil- itation Division. Let me illustrate how this works in Harlan County: A contract is entered into between the division of vocational rehabilitation of the State department of education and the Harlan County public schools. The purpose is to rehabilitate handicappped youth that are coming up through the schools, some of which stay, of course, on through, and others drop out. The public schools offer the intensified general educational services that any child is supposed to get. The vocational rehabilitation divi- sion identifies these people early in their careers while they are still in school and together, the educational people and the vocational rehabili- tation people plan the course of this individual after he drops out of school or after he graduates from school so that there is no interruption. The vocational rehabilitation division gives him additional vocational training and/or other services, frequently in a workshop or other rehabilitation center, and takes responsibility for placing him on the job. This is the type of thing that is in an experimental program now in 15 or 20 States in the United States. It has already shown to be thoroughly sound, productive, and suc- cessful. If we had money under this bill we then would just be able to expand these units. Instead of 5 counties in Kentucky, we could go to 10, 15, or 20, or in any of these other States that I mentioned. There would be no necessary delay other than just getting tooled up to do the job. In other words, we know how to do it. There is another type of project I would like to mention and this has reference to cooperation with the public welfare departments. You know, there has been a lot said about the fact that there are so many children on ADC grants-and, by the way, about one-fourth of the relief load is the result of disability on the part of one or more of the parents or of the guardian in the case. Now, we have experimental programs underway in cooperation with the public welfare people in Arizona, that is Maricopa County, Ariz.; Pulaski County, Ark.; Chatham County, Ga.; Orange and Seminole Counties, Fla.; Ramsey County, Minn.; Douglas and Lan- caster Counties in Nebraska; Union, Essex, and Monmouth Counties, N.J.; Multnomah County in Oregon; Harris and Bexar Counties in Texas; Kanawha County in West Virginia, and Milwaukee County in Wisconsin. Here is what they do, about like this. The rehabilitation division and the public welfare department comes into an agreement. The public welfare department assists the vocational rehabilitation people in identifying the people on the public assistance caseload that have promising rehabilitation potential, then with the public welfare de- partrnent continuing to provide welfare services as they are needed during the course of rehabilitation, the rehabilitation agencies take PAGENO="0362" 1078 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 these individuals, provide theni sheltered workshop experiences, rehabilitation center services, vocational training, whatever they need, and then take the responsibifity for putting them out on the job. An interesting thing is that this has been going on long enough that we know at least half of these people can be rehabilitated if you pro- vide the right kind of service. Again, what I am saying is that if you give us enough money under this bill we will immediately move in where, instead of one county in Georgia, we will move to two, to three, four, five; the same way in Kentucky, California, and Oregon and all these other States. We know how to do it. The experimental work is over, so to speak. We just need to move in with the money to provide the services. Mr. PnnKn~s. The Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1954 with the amendments, you are saying, is adequate to do the job now? Mr. WHITrEN. It is not adequate to do the entire job, Mr. Chairman. A piece of legislation is before this committee which I think Mrs. Green's subcommittee will hear as soon as this is over which will, shall we say, correct and improve the legislation itself. So we had not intended here today to get into the little changes that need to be made in the vocational rehabilitation law but to show you what can be done without any change in law through this poverty program to attain its objectives, to enable us to rehabilitate more handicapped people. There is one other illustration I want to give. One of the most terrific problems of rehabilitation in this country, and poverty is found through the individuals identified as disabled through the social se- curity programs, we have 1 million people drawing disability benefits under the Social Security Act. We have nearly another million people who have been denied benefits on the ground that they have some ability for gainful employment, most of whom, however, are not em- ployed, and the rehabilitation agencies have not in most instances been able to serve them eff~ctively yet, because of the lack of money primarily. Now, Mr. Chairman, these are people whose names and addresses we can produce. They have applied for benefits. They have either received the benefits or they have been denied them. This is not guesswork about the number of disarmed people like we used to have to do. We can produce them. Mr. PERKINS.. Do you not think that, under the proposed program here, the purposes of your amendment could be accomplished under a community action program under title II of the bill? Mr. WHrrrex. Mr. Chairman, we gave a lot of thought to that. As I said a moment ago, we feel that the rehabilitation agencies, both public and voluntary, will cooperate in every possible way with these community projects. But the programs I am talking about are not the kind of thing that lend themselves to 40 different agencies getting together to accomplish some specific objectives. We have the names of these handicapped people; we know where they are. These are cooperative programs, you see, as I have mentioned, the Rehabilitation Division with the Department of Eduëation on the one hand, the Public Welfare Department on the other. Mr. PEn~n~s. The kind of programs which you are now advo- cating; would they be different in nature from those already em- PAGENO="0363" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1079 ployed to aid the physically and mentally handicapped under other legislative programs? Mr. WiirrrEN. There would be additional, yes. For instance, the * definition of handicapped persons that we have in our amendment as implied a while ago is somewhat different and broader. Although it does not dissassociate services from physical- Mr. PERKINS. Don't you feel that if we had more money to spend on the present vocational rehabilitation program under this legislation that each program would complement the other? Mr. WHITTEN. Which programs do you mean, Mr. Chairman? Mr. PERKINS. I mean if you had more money to carry on the present program which you are advocating before this committee along with the legislation, if it was enacted into law under the community action programs to do rehabilitation work, do you not feel that each one would complement the other and that we could use both of them? Mr. WHITTEN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we certainly don't want anything that we are saying here to appear to be in opposition to the community action program. That is useful and it will be useful in rehabilitation ways, too. As I have indicated, it is not the best, or certainly ought not to be, the sole method of involving 52 poverty agencies-agencies experienced in poverty-in a direct attack. Mr. PERKINS. I think I understand your position. You have made yourself clear. Is there any other statement you want to make before we question you? Mr. WHITTEN. I though you would want to know what you could expect if you should let us have $20 million in this program, because this will be a program the results of which you can measure. We are rehabilitating now at a cost of $5,000 apiece. We think this would be somewhat more of a caseload than we have already. We believe we can rehabilitate 15,000 additional individuals per year with $20 million; 15,000 to 20,000 people with $20 million. You will be able to call us to task and see whether we are able to accomplish it or not. These reports are made annually so it is easy to see whether it is possible to deliver. Sometimes we don't deliver as rapidly as we think we can and sometimes we do. As I said a moment ago, Mr. Chairman, this, we tliink~ would be a most significant attack upon poverty as a supplement to the already existing prOvisions of this bill. It is not out of harmony with the bill itself. It is not out of the spirit of, the bill but it is a way, we think, of getting the job done better, quicker, and cheaper than the same job could be done without this supplementary legislation. So I think that is all I will say now. I will wait on you. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Hawkins. Mr. HAWKINS. Mr. Whitten, I get a strange reaction to your state- ment. It seems to me that you are trying to single out one group and give it some particular attention under the bill when it seems to me that they are somewhat related to all titles of the .bill as all other groups. I think the same argnment could be made to any group. I cannot see just how you relate this to the general problem of trying to do some- thing for impoverished people. It seems to me that the physically handicapped are in perhaps the same position as persons who are handicapped for other reasons. PAGENO="0364" 1080 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 While I agree with everything that you want to do for this par- ticular group of people, yet it seems to me that you have an idea which you are trying to hitchhike on a bill that perhaps should be a separate process rather than relating it to this bill. I see nothing in this bill which prohibits State vocational rehabilitation agencies from being employe.d or being used. It seems to me cooperation is set up in the bill for that group as well as the other. The physically handicapped have some of the same needs as all other people. Their needs are not only those that relate to their health but also housing and the general community. These things are also of interest to the physically handicapped as to the other people. It just seems to me that you are simply objecting to the question that they are not em- phasized enough in this bifi. But to set them out as a separate group is exactly what the physically handicapped do not want. That is my reaction to your statement. Perhaps you can explain why you attempt to have this specialized approach rather than one which would relate their problems to everybody else. If every group came in with the same idea, then we will end up with no bill at all, it seems to me, but with a hundred different ap- proaches to the same problem, and we will be back just where we were in the beginning. Nobody will get helped and everybody will have his own special program. If there is any value in this approach it is that it is a comprehensive overall approach to the problem; one of coordinating all the forces in the community to help everybody who is impoverished. Every- body has to rise with it or else each individual group is going to fall. That is my reaction to your statement. I would like to have your comments. Mr. WHIT1'EN. Well, we have so much zeal for this subject, we might not be above what you call riding on the coattail of a program or something like that. Mr. HAWKINS. Hitchhiking just in order to get $20 million. I do not think that is the purpose of the bill. Mr. Wm'rrIN. Really, that is not the idea here. We all have plenty to do. It is not that. I think there are logical reasons for this approach. In the first place, handicapped people do require special services. They do not fit into these other programs as the general rank-and-file do. For instance, the Department of Labor says that 12 percent of all the people who are coming to them in the manpower development and training program are handicapped but they are serving a very small percentage of them, by their own reports. In other words, they are slipping througk We are convinced that the severely handicapped people cannot be very well served; for instance, through the camps that are proposed. Their disabilities make them less likely to fit into the regular training programs that are developed in schools for classes of individuals. The very fact that we have a Vocational Rehabilitation Act Which Congress passed and which it has supported liberally in its emphasis ~s the fact that there are special programs that have to operate in special ways in order to serve this particular group of people. Mr. }[&wxixs. Agreeing with you, is there anything in the bill which prohibits that being done? Why can't that be done under the bill as it is now written? PAGENO="0365" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1081 Mr. WHITTEN. I think you are correct in this sense that there is nothing in the bill that forbids it. We made a very thorough inves- tigation to try to see what thinking had gone on behind this bill. It is very evident that in a community action project, whatever a com- munity action project turns out to be, that there could be involvement of rehabilitation. We do not argue this at all. We think it would' be difficult, however, in that kind of program to involve the rehabilita- tion agencies in such a way as to make a very significant contribu- tion to the program, but it could be. Mr. HAWKINS. Why can they not be involved as well as any other agency? Are they so different that they will not cooperate or that they camiot be involved as well as any other agency? Mr. WIIITrEN. Well, it is not that they wouldn't cooperate but the organization of the vocational rehabilitation agencies makes it diffi- cult. For instance, they do not operate on a county basis or on mu- nicipal basis. They operate on a statewide basis with the assignment of individuals to various sections. There would not, for instance, be spelled in every municipality where they might be an urge to de- velop a community action program. So it would be more difficult for them to participate administratively in this sort of thing. I certainly want to say again that we assume and feel confident that they would work to the maximum of their possibilities in the com- munity action programs. ~We just think these special programs are necessary. After all, what we are suggesting is not out of the spirit of the bill. Actually, this type of transfer of funds is provided for in all these other programs, the youth program, the college training program, the welfare program, to attack the problem of dependency. This legislation is right along the lines of these current provisions of the bill. I don't think it is out of harmony or spirit of it at all. Mr. HAWKINS. I do not think so, either. That is why I suggest that the bill at the present time, without this amendment, facilitates having everything done that you suggest but to the extent that you rewrite a bill and put in, in effect, a separate title with special attention, pulls away from the bill a specialized program, and there is no reason why it should not be done for each group. If you do it for each group, then you do not have any overall plan. You may as well not have any director. You may as well just set up an appropriation bill and give the money to the various agencies; and what would we have then? We would have nothing. Mr. WHITTEN. I, of course, don't agree with you as you probably didn't expect me to on that point. For instance, I wondered, myself, is it not possible, I said, for the Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity to make this transfer of funds to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, without any amendment to the bill? Mr. HAWKINS. If he so desires, I assume it can be done. Mr. WHITTEN. There is nothing in the bill that forbids it but when I got to talking with people, including the staff of the Office, what staff they have, I talked to some of the high officials in it, they felt there was practically no likelihood that it would be done because it was not written in and these others are written in. They seem to feel more or less the fact that some are spelled down with specific au- PAGENO="0366" 1082 ECONOMIC OPPORTUI~1TY ACT OF 1964 thority and this one is not would make its chances very slim that a transfer of this kind would be made. Therefore, we decided to offer the amendment. If they had told me, "yes, this can be done, probably will be done if the Director decides this is an urgent part of the program," I would not have felt the keen necessity to offer the amendment. Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you. Mr. Pr~ux~n~s. Mr. Bell. Mr. Bi~r. No questions. Mr. PI~KINs. I certainly wish to thank you for your appearance, Mr. Whitten. I appreciate your statement. Mr. WHrrrEx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. PERKINs. The vocational rehabilitation program is an out- standing program to my way of thinking and under the amendments that we enacted in 1954, 1 feel that considerable good has been done tl1roughout the country. Mr. WHITTEN. You have every reason to be proud of that legisla- tion, Mr. Chairman, and we want these agencies to make the maximum contribution to the purposes you have in mind in this bill. Mr. PERKINs. Thank you very much. The committee will stand adjourned until 9 o'clock in the morning, at which time we wifi hear Dr. Adrian Doran, NEA. legislative com- mission representative in behalf of the president of NEA; Paul Glazer of the Ashland Oil Co.; Rabbi Hirsch; Allison Bell; ~Dr. Charles Schottland; and Joseph Vincent. (Whereupon, at 3:15 p.m., the committee adjourned to reconven'~ at 9 a.rn., Tuesday, April 21, 1964.) PAGENO="0367" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 1964 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AD Hoc SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WAR ON POVERTY PROGRAM, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Wa8hington, D.C. The ad hoc subcommittee met at 9 :15 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 429, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Carl D. Perkins presiding. Present: Representatives Perkins, Landrum, Green, Roosevelt, Dent, A.yres, Griffin, Quie, and Martin. Also present: Representatives Pucinski, Hawkins, Gibbons, Gill, and Bell. Staff members present: Dr. Deborah `Wolfe, education chief; Leon Abramson, chief counsel for labor-management; Charles Radcliffe, minority counsel for education. Mr. PERKINS. The committee will come to order. A quorum is present. We have with us this morning as the first witness who is here-he is not scheduled first-Dr. Charles Schottland, on behalf of the Na- tional Association of Social `Workers. Come around, Dr. Schottland. We are delighted to have you with us again, Dr. Schottland. I note you have a prepared statement. You may proceed in any manner you wish. STATEMENT OP DR. CHARLES I. SCHOTTLAND, CHAIRMAN, DIVI- SION ON SOCIAL POLICY AND ACTION, THE NATIONAL ASSO- CIATION OP SOCIAL WORKERS; ACCOMPANIED BY RUDOLPH DAMSTEDT, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE Dr. SCHOTTLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the op- portunity to be present. For the record, my name is Charles I. Schott- land. I appear today in my capacity as chairman of the Division on Social Policy and Action of the National Association of Social Work- ers. `With me is Mr. Rudolph Damstedt, our Washington representa- tive. May I identify myself further at the outset. I am dean of the Florence Heller Graduate School of Advanced Studies in Social Wel- fare of Brandeis University. I served from 1954 to 1958 as Commis- sioner of Social Security under Health, Education, and Welfare Sec- retaries Marion Folsom and Arthur Flemming. Before that, I was State commissioner of public welfare in the State of California, appointed by the then Governor, now Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren. 1083 PAGENO="0368" 1084 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 The National Association of Sociai Workers which I represent here today is a professiona.l organization with 40,000 members employed in governmenta.l and voluntary health, welfare, and recreational agen- cies. The association represents a profession which has been histori- cally concerned with the problems of the poor, many of whose members are today the foot soldiers who will and must be called upon to wage what your committee and the President calls the war on poverty. Our association supports this legislation but, in our testimony, we shall particularly address ourselves to Title~ V: Family Unity Through Jobs, and Title II: Urban and Rural Community Action Programs, because those titles bear most closely upon areas in which as social workers we have very particular experience. Viewed historically, H.R. 10440, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, has the promise of becoming the sort of pioneering social legis- .Iation that the American concern for the welfare of people periodically produces. We whittle away at problems and then, suddenly, it almost seems, an approach takes shape and a social solution to what we had viewed as a series of separate incidents occurs. The students of poverty in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, among whom many distinguished social workers were included, oc- cupied themselves intensively with a search for the personal and social causes of poverty. One statistical table of that period included in addition to drink, immorality, laziness-a "roving disposition" as a factor contributing to poverty. But, gradually over the years we fulfilled in some degree our social obligations to widows and children and the aged who could no longer work as we cautiously moved State by State into programs of mother's assistance and aid to the aged. Then in 1935, we encompassed these concerns into a national program through the Social Security Act. Thus action against the hazards of death or disability of a bread- winner and a loss of income because of age became a. matter of an earned right instead of a privilege granted beoause of need. Although we have placed a floor of income under an increasingly large proportion of our people through the Social Security Act, through unemployment insurance, through veterans' benefits, through public assistance and through private retirement plans, and although our labor force continues to rise as does annual income, we still have the stubborn and persistent fact that for too many Americans their share of society's goods, services, and benefits, continues year after year to be extremely limited. PIONEERING EFFORTS OF PUBLIC WELFARE IN PREVE~~ON OF POVERTY Over the years, welfare programs-governmental and voluntary- have first sought to alleviate the conditions of poverty. In our urban areas we had societies for improving the condition of the poor while in New England our public bodies were the overseers of the poor. In the last quarter century those of us who had responsibility for administer- ing public welfare programs have sought valiantly to prevent poverty b~seeking authority and funds to provide preventive, protective, and rehabilitative services to recipients of public assistance. III 1956 when I was Commissioner of Socinl Security, the Congress amended the public assistance titles of the Social Security Act to encourage States to provide self-help, self-care, and maintenance of family life services. PAGENO="0369" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1085 Then in 1962, public welfare took a great stride forward when Con- gress enacted the public welfare amendments which provided assist- ance to the needy children of unemployed parents, permitted the de- velopment of community work and training programs for employable relief recipients, offered incentives for recipients to seek and hold em- ployment, provided day care for the children of employed mothers and insituted a program of social services designed to prevent and eliminate dependency. Reluctantly, perhaps, we have to concede that while these forward steps in public welfare were impelled `by our desire to help recipients toward self-help and self-care, they were also propelled `by extensive, often completely unwarranted public criticism of the program-par- ticularly, aid to the families of needy children. But we do have the outlines of a program of prevention although time is required for the States to understand, accept, and implement the constructive pro- visions of the amendments while today `and for some time to come these public welfare agencies have and will have problems of acute shortages of persons well qualified to provide these services. THE PROBABLE IMPACT OF THIS ACT ON PUBLIC WELFARE It is our judgment that the Economic Opportunity Act provides a new and imaginative concept that will stimulate public imagination and support and can supply a dynamism that will accelerate State `action on the public welfare amendments and challenge young people to seek employment in the welfare field. Poverty becomes truly not an issue to be endlessly debated as to its causes-social or individual- but a condition `that is at least partially remediable. Roscoe Drummond, in a recent analysis of the war on poverty, de- scribes the poverty program of President Joimson as "headed in the right direction." He notes that poverty is not due to the failure of our economic system per se, `but rather "to the failure of our society to provide the education, the job training, and retraining and en- couragement and the environment needed to help the poor become productive and the productive more prosperous." The inclusion of title V, "Family Unity Through Jobs" is, we be- lieve, an illustration of the poin't of the stimulatory effect of this leg- islation, for we understand that some opponents of the act neverthe- less do support `this particular title. In the perspective and philos- ophy of this legislation-this program is not work for relief-too often an employable individual on assistance is given work relief to quiet criti~ism of the so-called dole-but a program providing tools and `supervisory skills so that employability is maintained and even enhanced. In the context of this legislation, work relief becomes transmuted to economic opportunity; a dignity is added to earning an assistance payment that is a significant strike forward in an individ- ual's feeling of self-worth, a basic ingredient in the psychology of employability. We do want to underscore, however, that families on aid to families with dependent children represent the poorest of the poor with the national average yearly family income well below $2,000. As part of the history of this legislation, we stress the importance of State action to increase payments for AFDC and, with respect to AFDC youth 31-84!7-'64--pt. Z-24 PAGENO="0370" 1086 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 in the Job Corps, we urge that the States take full advantage of the 1962 amendment that permits the corpsman's allocation to his family to set aside in part at least for his future identifiable needs including educational plans and therefore not counted as income to his family deductible from the assistance grants. TILE CATALYTIC POTENTIAL OP THIS LEOISLATION The proposed community action program-title IT-will in our judgment be the most difficult one to initiate and administer. Except in times of crisis, the "mobilization" of resources, public and private, to combat some social problem, is one of the most difficult tasks in human affairs. The history of social welfare is strewn with good intentions-in the form of plans to mobilize and coordinate public and private health, welfare, education, and related programs so as to pre- vent or control this or that social problem-good intentions stranded on agency competitiveness or jurisdictional claims. An extensive research concern at the Florence Heller Graduate School at Brandeis is the study of the dynamics of effective commu- nity action program in urban renewal, programs for the aging and other areas of health and welfare. Not unexpectedly, we have re- affirmed that there is no substitute for solid, inspired community leader- ship which has a workable plan and the power and resources to trans- late this plan. We find high significance in the fact that this legislation places responsibility for the leadership in this war on poverty in the Office of the President. We do not know of any other instance in the history of our Goverinnent where the resources and leadership of such a wide range of key Federal departments such as Health, Education, and Welfare; Labor; Interior; Agriculture;. Commerce, and even the De- partment of Defense, have been so extensively related in an attack on a social problem. This impresses, particularly, the many of us who have labored often with indifferent success with the use of coordinating devices like the onmipresent interdepartmental committees. At the Federal level this represents the sort of leadership which has a workable plan and the power and resources to translate the plan into action. This is a "can do" approach and philosophy which can and should assure a "can do" response in the local community. We attach, also, high significance to section 202 (a) (3) which de- scribes a community action program as one "which is developed, con- ducted, and administered with the maximum feasible participation of residents of the areas and members of the groups referred to in section 204(a). We think this is particularly important in getting the cooperation of members who will be involved. We think this is one of the few pieces of Federal legislation which emphasizes this particular point of a partnership between those administering the program and those who are the beneficiaries of it. This is a principle frequently subscribed to in theory but frequently overlooked and ignored. In I to 1 personal services we recognize that a helping service does not begin until the individual wants it and participates actively in the helping process. We know, similarly, that programs directed toward groups of people achieve a much more significant level of participation if the members PAGENO="0371" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1087 have an important role in the creation and administration of such programs. Wise and concerned community leadership will, of course, recognize that plans created by, for, and of the people affected possess a power- ful dynamic and that the role of the leadership is not only to assure that such planning occurs, but, also, that the resources necessary for the realization of the plans are provided. In hundreds of communities throughout the United States there are powerful arrays of public and private resources which can be mobi- lized. There are 400 welfare planning councils in our local communi- ties in the United States and over 3,000 local public welfare depart- ments. In every county of our country there is a local public welfare agency which can and should be a primary and basic resource in* any commu- nity action program. Although such agencies have as their first re- sponsibility the provision of assistance grants-the foundation pro- gram in any attack on poverty since the recipient group is at the very bottom of the economic ladder-they are also the agencies that know and should know and work and should work with other primary programs, the employment services, the educational system, the health agency, the housing agency, and a wide variety of specialized voluntary groups in family counseling, child welfare and day care and neighbor- hood organizations. Many of these local public welfare agencies and voluntary organizations provide counseling and social services de- signed to help recipients become employable and to maintain and strengthen family life. Under the 1962 Public Welfare Amendments all these local public agencies are now charged to provide such services and have access to funds needed for such provision. Furthermore, these agencies may now provide such services to individuals and f am- ilies who have been or are likely to become applicants for assistance. So in every county in the United States this public welfare agency represents in some degree a present resource or a potential resource designed or capable of being redesigned to in some measure prevent poverty. What this legislation and this community action section particularly does, is to energize this resource by focusing upon the partial solubiity of the problem of poverty by providing resources for coordination and planning and through a call to action to community leadership. This committee has already seen the response to this call to action represented by this legislation in the endorsement and testimony of business, labor, and community leaders and the mayors of many munic- ipalities. We are prepared as an association to enlist behind this com- munity action proposal the interest and support of our 165 chapters located in every section of the United States. The association also supports the Job Corps and volunteer pro- posal-our association has testified previously before subcommittees of the House Education and Labor Committee in support of both the Youth Conservation and National Service Corps legislation. Title I, the youth opportunity program, represents in our judgment an improvement over the original youth conservation bill through the inclusion of training centers in addition to conservation camps. This legislation provides an intriguing series of educational levels that flow from essentially work-habit training-the conservation camps- PAGENO="0372" 1088 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 through intensive training in semiskilled j obs-the training canips and community work-training programs-to providing work-study opportunities which would enable young people with the highest potential to obtain a college education. The volunteer program proposed in title VI is a somewhat more limited approach than the original legislation. When we testified earlier we indicated that one of the great values of this legislation is the endorsement that would be given to volunteer services by presiden- tial and congressional endorsement of such services. In my own State of Massachusetts some of you may be aware of the fact that the Governor of the State has proposed that we have a State domestic peace corps to utilize volunteers in the State and hopefully, if this is enacted, it would be able to be integrated with whatever is passed by the Congress. We note with interest that at the end Of February-more than 2 weeks before the President submitted his message on poverty-the six Republican members of the Joint Economic Committee proposed a seven point program for an attack on poverty. Two of these proposals were: (1) Lifting children out of a poverty environment by federally assisted programs including residence schools for certain disadvantaged ones; and (2) upgrading schools in poverty impacted neighborhoods. The first of these suggests a close similarity to the training camps in the pending legislation while the latter proposals could be pursued under the community action program. The Republican members of the Joint. Economic Committee also proposed "increasing the number of professionally trained public and private welfare and social workers" in order that the ranks of these workers, the statement continues "who are on the frontline of the war on poverty" may be increased. This struck a particularly responsive chord for as we have earlier testified unless some action is taken to increase the number of foot soldiers in this war-the family unit through jobs and community action phases of this legislation will be severely handicapped. We realize, of course, that the community action title provides that up to 15 percent of the funds may be used for research, training, and demonstration activities. Without knowing the details, however, it is probable that such training will be short term a.nd inservice training since this is the usual pattern of similar provisions in other legislation. The realities of the manpower needs of this program quite obviously will require extensive utilization of persons without special education including 4uite properly some of the beneficiaries of the program who may be discovered to have a promising potential. But special trained staff is essential to the overall poverty program and vital to the effectuation of public welfare services. We want the history on this legislation to record that the 1962 Public Welfare Amendments provided authorization for such training of public wel- fare personnel. However, no appropriation for this purpose has been made. May I add a personal remark since I was involved in some of the original legislation which passed the Congress for the training of public welfare personnel, tha.t I think it is particularly regrettable that we keep passing legislation to train such personnel but we do not make the PAGENO="0373" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1089 small appropriation which would make the training of such personnel possible, particularly when we realize that the personnel involved han- dling the big public welfare programs, most of them almost entirely completely untrained, are spending over $4 billion of the taxpayers' money in very complicated programs of public assistance, programs which really require the most competent kinds of personnel. I do hope that the time will come when an appropriation may be made so that we may be able to train these personnel in the same way that we are train- ing personnel with Federal training funds in mental health, child welfare, medical care, and a variety of other programs. Now, the President, in his poverty message of March 16, described this economic opportunity legislation as "the foundation of our war against poverty." However, it "does not stand alone" he indicated and then went on to describe the critical importance of hospital in- surance for the aged, protection for migrant farmworkers, a food stamp plan for the needy, coverage for millions not now protected by a minimum wage, new and expanded irnemployment benefits for men out of work, a housing and community development bill for those seeking decent homes. To these basic measures we would add two more: An increase in so- cial security benefits-too many of our poor are the elderly whose sole income is old-age insurance-and elimination of residence re- quirements in determining eligibility for public assistance and health services. Americans at all economic levels are a mobile people in search of better opportunities including following the crops, to be closer to family, in search of a better climate, better schools, in search of health care. When disaster strikes we should not deny them food, shelter ~nd clothing, and needed health care because they fail to meet some legal definition of residence. In this statement we have described this Economic Opportunity Act as pioneering legislation that recognizes that poverty is a social prob- lem that requires a total approach involving community leaders and beneficiaries instead of a series of not related measures. We have underlined the core nature of public welfare programs to this attack on poverty. We have stated our conviction that this legislation pro- vides the outlines of a campaign and sets forth a mission to which. Americans will respond. This proposal is ~in important and necessary beginning in a national attack on poverty. It provides us with a framework and sets a di- rection that should~ command and stimulate the sort of long-range planning that will be absolutely required if we are to truly abolish poverty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. PERKINS. Thank you very much, Dr. Schottland. I am de- lighted that you have been interested in securing legislation to assist our Nation's youth as it enables us to hear you again. I recall you were before the committee when we had the Youth Opportunity Act and other legislation. You have had a great deal of valuable ex- perience. I am wholeheartedly in accord with your viewpoint that we need an increase in social security benefits. I am very hopeful that the House Committee on Ways and Means will get around to increas- ing retirement benefits during the present session. I have talked to Congressman Mills and I know they are going to consider it. PAGENO="0374" 1090 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 I personally realize that we cannot overlook this group of retired peopie who are living on a very meager income. An increase is long overdue especially in view of the inadequacy of previous increases and when we consider that the cost of living has risen substantially since the retirees have received any increase at all. I think your recom- mendation is excellent in that respect. I agree with you that because too many of our people are the elderly that we should eliminate this residence requirement in determining eligibility for public assistance. I do not know why we have not clone that before, but it certainly should be done. It may be that we have left it up to the States to more or less make policy in that area.. I feel that your recommerida- tiOns are excellent. Mrs. Green, do you have any questions this morning? Mrs. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to see you back again, Dr. Schottland. Dr. SCHOrI'LAND. It is good to be here. Mrs. GREEN. On the residency requirement, since there is a match- ing fund, do you think it is politically feasible? I presume you are referring to a Federal requirement. Dr. SCH0TrLAND. Yes. Mrs. GREEN. Do you think this is politically feasible? Dr. SOHOTrLAND. Well, there are some requirements that are in the Social Security Act that probably when they were enacted, were more revised, by the States. I think more and more the States are coming around to it. I think there would .be opposition from many States. It is quite interesting, you Imow, the article that people would come into the high-income States just is not borne out. New York has very liberal public assistance grants. They don't. have a residency require- ment. People are not coming into New York to take advantage of relief. I do not think people move for those reasons and I think they move for other reasons. I think the States are beginning to realize it. Even my old State of California, I think there is a considerable change in attitude. The Kerr-Mills legislation on medical care has done away with res- idence as a Federal requirement. They have made it a Federal re- quirement that the States cannot have residence under the Kerr-Mills medical legislation. No one has really objected to it. Mrs. GREEN. The Kerr-Mills Act has not worked out very well, as yet. I'd have to admit those two matters are unrelated, however. Dr. ScIIoTrr D. I think they are. I agree with you that it has not worked out as well it should. Mrs. GREEN. But the residency requirement has no bearing on it. Does New York have any residency requirements for mental health care, for hospitalization? Dr. SCHOTFLAND. I do not know about. that. I do not think so, but I am not sure. Mrs. GREEN. I was under the impression they did not. Dr. SOHOrrLAND. I am not sure. Mrs. GI~N. On pages 9 and 10 of your statement you refer to the lack of personnel. Would you or your organization he able to provide any more detailed statistics on the shortage, especially in the area where you are particularly competent to speak? PAGENO="0375" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1091 Dr. SCHOrrLAND. Yes; we will be glad to. do that. If I may take a few seconds to tell you why we are so concerned and why over the years we have tried to get the Congress concerned. Take the average local welfare department; they take some young lad or some girl out of college and they give them a case load and they give them a little training. They know nothing about the complexities of the program. That young person goes out and obligates between $50,000 and a quarter million dollars worth of public funds, just to give you a quick figure so that you can see the realities; let us say they have a case load of 200 pepole and the average grant is, say, $75 a month. That is $900 a year times 200, you can see that is $180,- 000. We let them go ahead and do this kind of thing without the slightest training, without any attempt to tackle his problem realisti- cally. One of the problems that we have in this field is that many federally aided programs are draining off personnel, because they can get money for training-mental health, child welfare, and some of the others. We need the same kind of backstopping to train people in this par- ticular field, because a young person today who does not have any money is going to go for training; he would much rather take a train- ing program where he can get some stipend to assist him. We will furnish the figures to the committee. Mrs. GREEN. I do not know whether the committee wants them, but if you will send them to my office, I will appreciate it. I think this is one of the most serious obstacles to the successful implementation of this program-the shortage of personnel in spite of the way it has been passed over by some of the witnesses. On page 6, you discuss participation. Let me throw out a sugges- tion and see your reaction to it. In one of the titles we have language which would make possible the grant of $1,500 to a farmer if it were going to improve his income or standard of living, and we also would have loans available. What would be your reaction to language which would make a grant and/or loan possible if the people in a block in the slums of the city could get together and could map out a program for the self-improve- ment of the residents of that block? It might include repairs, paint- ing, cleaning up of the area; but there certainly would be self -partici- pation in it. I realize they are not the owners of the property, and this presents a real problem. But if the tenants in a block area were young families, and there are 100 youngsters, maybe they need most desper- ately a day-care center. But if they could get together, maybe with the help of a neighborhood house, map out this program, would it not make just as much sense, or more sense, to make them eligible for grants or loans as for a single family in a rural area? Dr. SCIIOTrLAND. I think it is an interesting idea. I had not thought about it, of course, until this very second. I rather like the idea. I have two comments: I think if this were done, of course, this should be merely in the form of a recommendation so that you would not give to them the authority to obligate Federal funds. This would be a pro- cedure subject to the approval of the appropriate authorities directing the program. I see this as something that could make a real contribution. PAGENO="0376" 1092 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Mrs. GREEN. Maybe a couple of blocks could get together. I drive past these areas and see the schoolyards closed at the time when they are most needed for recreational purposes. If there were involvement and participation, I think we could move to clean up some of these areas. I think that some landlords would welcome a program such as that in which his tenants are going to be involved. They could do a lot themselves. You could have people channeling their energies in constructive ways instead of standing out on the corner. Dr. SOHOTTLAND. I think something could be thought through and worked out satisfactorily. Mrs. GREEN. I wish you would lend your considerable talents and brainpower. Dr. ScHornAND. Let us think about it and see what we can do about it. You might be interested to know in our community of Boston we have been opening the public school grounds after school in some cases. It is not easy in many communities but it is terribly important, I think. Mrs. GREEN. It is the rigidity in the school system I'm concerned about. I cannot understand how this country can have the capital investment it has in the schools and not insist that they be used 12 months a year-365 days-from early morning until late at night. Dr. ScHorI~x~. I agree with you; it is very discouraging. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Quie. Mr. QtTIE. I would like to defer to Mr. Martin, since he has another committee he has to go to, but I will retain my time for the rest of the questions. Mr. PEEniNs. Go ahead. Mr. MARTIN. Thank you, Mr. Quie. Dr. Schottland, on page 2-when you are speaking of the students of poverty in the late 19th and 20th centuries among whom many dis- tinguished social workers were included, they occupied themselves in- tensely with the search for the personal and social causes of poverty- you state: One statistical table of that period included, in addition to drink, immorality, laziness-a "roving disposition" as a factor contributing to poverty. Do we not stifi have those factors today, and how are you going to overcome this with a national program in this field? Dr. SCHOTTLAND. We still have these factors, Mr. Martin, but they are relatively minor in relation to the total number of persons involved. If you take the total poverty class in America, they fall into big groups. You have the aged, where you have many millions of persons with very low income. You have the minority groups; the Negroes with lack of education. You have certain geographical pockets of poverty where, during periods when the area had employment, you did not have real poverty. Today, the area does not have employment and, therefore, you have poverty. You stifi have these problems. You still have some of these personal problems but they are relatively minor. The way to tackle these personal problems is to provide skilled per- sonnel who know how to work with people. Mr. MARTIN. Do you think you can overcome the habit to drink too much-laziness, and immorality-with your social workers? PAGENO="0377" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1093 Dr. SOHOTTLAND. You can't completely overcome it but you can make a real impact on it. We do this in many areas. We do it with delinquents. We work with a person who commits a crime and gets sentenced; we supply probation, social, psychiatric services; and we do make impacts. Persons who present personal problems and people who are just poor. Mr. MARTIN. I am afraid I will have to disagree with you on your conclusions. On page 4 you quote Roscoc Drummond who emphasizes the fact, about providing education, job training, and so forth, for these people. Now, the Congress has recently passed, last December I believe it was, a greatly expanded job retraining program and a greatly expanded vocational education program that thus far has not even had an op- portunity to show what its effects might be on this problem. Do you not think that before new legislation is enacted-and I emphasize this point here-that we should find out what this expanded program, which is going to cost so much, will do? Dr. SCHOTTLAND. I think, Mr. Martin, the virtue of this approach- setting up this program in the President's office-makes it possible to avoid the question of duplication because I think it can be coordinated and integrated so that whatever any of the other programs pick up- Mr. MARTIN. That is not specifically answering my question. Here are two programs that are greatly expanded and we have not had an opportunity to see what effect they will have on this problem. Dr. SCHOTTLAND. I am hoping they will have an effect but I don't think they will answer the complete problem because it is not just a question of jobs. I think that the community action programs here, some of the other programs, touch other aspects of the problems of poverty that aren't answered just through jobs and retraining. Mr. MARTIN. Do you think we should authorize another program that is going to cost almost a billion dollars the first year without see- ing the effect of the millions of dollars that will be spent on this re- training and education program? Dr. SCHOTI'LAND. Mr. Martin, on all these programs, if we sit back and wait to see the effects on one program and then we start another program and wait to see the effects of that, we really will never tackle these big social problems. In a country like ours, where we have rich resources, whatever our limitations, we are the richest country in the world who continue to have large numbers of our people living in conditions of poverty. It is something I don't think this country can afford. I don't think we ought to have it. Therefore, I think we ought to have a broad attack on this problem, not just job training, not just a community action program, not just a program for youth but a series of programs across the board which will help once and for all to put us in a position where we can say, as some countries today, the Scandinavian countries, for example., are able to say, we don't have large groups of people who are below the. minimum standard of liv- ing in our country. This is something that I think we ought to have as our goal. Mr. MARTIN. I believe you will agree with me that statistics show that on a percentage basis of our population the number of people in the so-called poverty classification has decreased over the last 30 to PAGENO="0378" 1094 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 40 years in this country quite a considerable extent, so we are making progress in this field. Dr. SCHOTrLAND. That is true, but we ought to make faster prog- ress. I don't see any reason why millions of people ought to stay in the poverty class if they are ready, able, and willing to work but are prevented from doing so. Mr. MARTIN. That is the first point I made, are they able to work? What do you think of this Newburgh plan where the recipients of welfare relief there were told if they were going to continue to receive aid they had to get out and work on municipal projects or for non- profit groups, schools, whatever it might be, in the area. What do you think about putting these people to work and giving them some credit against the welfare relief they receive? Dr. SCHOTLAND. I am very much in favor of work plans but I think that you ought to be aware of the fact that there are very few people on relief today of the 7 million people on relief who are able to work. - Mr. MARTIN. They found quite a few of them up there, I understand. Dr. SCHOTTLAND. They really didn't, Mr. Martin. If I might be very blunt, this was one of the biggest frauds. The manager of New- burgh actually found one person in his entire caseload who was able to work and that person didn't last very long because of personal dif- ficulties. That is all he really found. You analyze it very quickly- don't hold me to the exact figures because I don't have them in my head-but you take the 7 million people, you have many of them who are receiving old age assistance. Very few of those can work. Their average age is 77-point-something. Two-thirds of them are women. The typical person in this old-age assistance load- Mr. MARTIN. I am sure Mrs. Green will agree with me that women are capable of working and have the ability to work, so why should their sex be excluded? Mrs. GREEN. I'm not sure how many jobs are available to women in their seventies, and I would not agree if the gentleman from Nebraska is suggesting that we not be concerned about the poverty because some people are immoral or alcoholics. Mr. MARTIN. That was not the point we were making, Mrs. Green, I am afraid. Mrs. GREEN. I thought you were pointing out that these immoral and drinking people on welfarc-~--- Mr. MARTIN. I was making the point that we should have the same philosophy as was proposed and propoimded in the equal pay for women. Mr. PREmxs. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. Gibbons? Mr. GIBBONS. I will yield to the lady from Oregon. Mrs. GREEN. I would like to ask one other question, if I may. Are you connected with the juvenile delinquency control program in Boston? Dr. SCHOTrLAND. Yes; I am. Mrs. GREEN. Title II of this bill is patterned after the juvenile delinquency control legislation. Dr. SCHOTTLAND. Yes. PAGENO="0379" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1095 Mrs. GREEN. Would you have any recommendations for changes that should be made? Dr. SCHOTTLAND. I think in the administration we have to have some changes made. I think that we should not just have a little proj- ect approach, take a project here and a project there. I think it ought to be a part of a broad community action program. I think the Fed- eral Government should require that when requests are made for a grant that this be a broadly conceived program as part of a total program approved by the appropriate responsible parties in the com- munity, city government, et cetera. Mrs. GREEN. I do not mean to interrupt, but do you favor the requirement in the juvenile delinquency control program that no grants be given unless there is a very comprehensive program in the city involving every public and private agency? Dr. SCHOTTLAND. Yes; I like that. Mrs. GREEN. Do you think it has worked out well in Boston? Dr. SCHOTTLAND. No, I would not say that it has been the most perfect plan in Boston but I think the idea is good. I am very much concerned about individual agencies going off on their own, spending money without having it a part of a coordinated plan. I think we ought to try to get these coordinated plans. I think it has made a real impact in Boston and has made a real contribution. I don't think it has been as good as it might be. Mrs. GREEN. I wish you might offer some recommendations and changes there. I am pretty disillusioned with the way it is working out. I am not enthusiastic over title II if it follows that same procedure. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Quie. Mr. QUIE. Mr. Schottland, do you ever oppose any proposal for a Federal program for the poor? Dr. SCHOTrLAND. Have I ever opposed such a proposal? Mr. Qure. Opposed any proposal for a Federal program for the poor. Dr. SCHOTTLAND. I don't know that I have testified in opposition to any specific programs, but I certainly have been opposed to much legislation which has been before the Congress. As a matter of fact, yes, now that I recall, I have opposed several things Congress has passed. I opposed reducing the age of social security for women to 62 which I thought was a step in the wrong direction. But it has since been followed by the. reduction of the age for men to 62. I think this was a mistake. I don't think with our increasing longevity we should have done this. But I am in a minority on this, both the minority in the profession I represent here today and a minority as far as Congress is concerned, because you gentlemen passed it. Mr. QurE. This is in the administration of a program. Is there any Federal program which you think is unwise for a Federal program? Dr. SCHOTrLAND. I can't remember specifically over the years but certainly much legislation I have opposed. There have been specific proposals in legislation that we have opposed that persons proposed because they thought it would be helpful to persons in the poor and poverty class, but I can't recall specific programs. PAGENO="0380" 1096 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Mr. Qm~. Have you analyzed this program to where you believe that all parts of it a.re good, and do you support every bit of this big program here ~ Dr. SCHOTrLAXD. Well, there are certain things we think are going to be more valuable than others. We are hoping that once this pro- gram is passed with the specific things that are in it that we can also begin to look to thegaps in the program, that we can begin to think of an overall plan in the attack on poverty. If you were going into a private business, you would want to develop a pretty complete plan of action, including an analysis of your production, your sales, the market, and so forth. We do not like to do that in Government programs for some reason. We do not like to think it through along the broad front because that. sounds too much like planning, but, really we have to do this in this attack on poverty so that we can do it as efficiently and as effectively as possible.. I am hoping that out of this will come much more think- ing about some of the gaps in the program so that we can make a real impact on the problem. Mr. Quiz. In other words, what you are saying is all that is pro- posed here is good but there may be some gaps that may have to be filledin? Dr. SOHOTTLAND. That is right. Mr. QUTE. You mention this is the first time in history where the resources and leadership of such a wide range of Federal departments have been so extensively related to attacking a social problem. Does this mean that each specific department itself has not proposed any- thing as far reaching as this, or are you only drawing attention to the fact that we are going to have a man who will be the general of the war on poverty and we. have never had a general. Dr. SCHOTI'LAND. I think it is both. We have never had any person with the authority to really utilize the programs of the various depart- ments and coordinate all of these departments. I think that is very good. - I think also that-no; I would not say that no one has proposed anything as sweeping as this before. There have been proposals that have been very broad. But the one thing we like about this particu- lar proposal is that it does make it possible through the Office of the President to overcome Some of the jurisdictional problems between departments. When you have a program of employment and retrain- ing in the Department of Labor this has influence on other programs that might be in HEW and one way to make some sense out of this is to have it coordinated at the presidential level. Mr. Quip. You mean to say that no President before this one has proposed the coordination or even worked at coordination of the povèr- ty proorams? Dr. ~CHOTTLAND. ~o; there have been various methods of coordina- tion, interdepartmental committees, the Budget Bureau is a coordinat- ing agency, itself. But there have not been very many times since way back that we have had an agency right in the Office of the Pres- ident charged with this kind of responsibility. I think it is a good device for this particular type of program. I would not want to recoimnmend it for everything or we would have all offices in the Office of the President. PAGENO="0381" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1097 Mr. Qun~. There are many departments handling eduQation. Do you think it would be good to have an educational czar, too? Do you propose one for poverty here? Dr. SCHOTTLAND. I don't think it is a bad idea to have someone in the Bureau of the Budget, someone who is charged with the responsi- bility of seeing to it that educational activities among the various agencies are properly coordinated. I think it would be a good idea to have experts in the Bureau of the Budget who would be experts across the board on particular subjects so that someone in Government knows what is happening in a particular field, health or education or agriculture or something else. Mr. Qu~. In title II, the community action program, do you expect it would take us as long to do the planning and get any action programs underway as it has been in the juvenile delinquency program Do you think we have to expect 3 years of planning before we can help any individual in poverty, unless the program is already going on at present? Dr. SCHOTTLAND. I don't think so. I don't think it ought to take very long at all. There was a great emphasis in the juvenile delinquency program on planning because a lot of people felt we didn't know too much about the problem. I think there is not the necessity for this kind of approach. I think we can have community action programs that can start quickly and immediately. We have a tremendous number of local agencies able to immediately move in and make a contribution in this area. I really think that this could be started almost immediately. Mr. Qnn~. In other words, the idea would be to put Federal money into an ongoing program, ongoing organization? Dr. SCHOTTLAND. It might or it might be for some new activity. I would hope that existing agencies could be utilized for this. There is no sense in creating additional agencies. Mr. Qmi. Is this not one of the reasons why so many existing agencies support it because they expect to get Federal money to aid what they are doing right now? Dr. SCHOTTLAND. I am sure that Federal money always influences some people. I really don't think that this is the basic factor. I think the basic factor is that there are an awful lot of people in this coun- try who don't believe that a rich country like the United States ought to have poor people and there are things we should do about it. Mr. QUTE. We should not have juvenile delinquency, either. Dr. SCHOTTLAND. It is a little more difficult to know what to do about that. We know a great deal what to do about the poor. We have seen programs that take people out of their poverty and we know that we can make a great impact on it. Mr. DENT. Mr. Quie, I have to go to an executive meeting. Would you yield to me so that I can ask a question and you can have my time? Mr. PERKINS. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. DENT. I want to ask only one question. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Dent. Mr. DENT. I have only one question. As a social worker and as a representative of an organization of sOcial workers, in this war on PAGENO="0382" 1098 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 poverty and considering its history as we know it, and the future prospects, do you think that the greater emphasis has to be placed upon the social aspect of poverty or upon t.he economic aspect? Dr. SCHOrrLAND. This is a never-ending question, Mr. Dent. Mr. DENT. I know it. It is like, which came first, the hen or the egg, but one of them got there first. Dr. SOHOVTLAND. I think you have to do both at the same time. I just came back from a meeting, international meeting of UNICEF, the United Nations Children's Fund, in which they were discussing the problems of the children in the less developed countries. The same problem is bothering even the developing countries, they em- phasize the social and economic aspects. I think we have to do both. I do think there are a tremendous number of people in the poverty class where the problem is primarily economic. This is the basic problem. Mr. D~r. A tremendous number, or would you say the vast ma- jority? As I see it, this is a war on poverty, not on social status. Maybe I am wrong in my viewpoint. I just wanted to know whether or not we can overemphasize the social aspect because of the fact that the social workers are organized and are probably the only organized group in the entire country prepared to step into the picture at this time and, if they do, can Congress give them the "go" sign, and in the normal process of social service thinking will they give the proper emphasis to the economic factor in this war, or will they overempha- size the social factor? I am asking you as their representative. Dr. SOHOITLAND. Yes; I think we ought to clarify something. If the implication is that these are programs that will make a lot of jobs for social workers and members of our association, I would like to make it clear that we don't need jobs. There are tens of thousands of jobs that are vacant today in this field. Mr. DENT. I am not questioning tha.t part of it. I am just asking where the emphasis, in your mind, as a social worker, is to be placed properly in this war on poverty? Dr. SCHOTTLAND. I think it is on both. If you want to have a categorical answer, I definitely would place it on the economic side. Mr. DENT. I think if we go along on that premise, and all of us so understand it, we may be able to reach the social aspect as we upgrade the economic standard. I may be wrong but that is my opinion. I went through the depression, as many of us did. If I remember correctly, all of the talk did not do any good until we got the WPA into operation and somebody started gefting $52.80 a month. Then we started to pull ourselves away from the abject poverty which was prevailing in the whole country, even among some of the bankers. I appreciate your answer very much. Mr. PmxINs. Mr. Landrum. Mr. LANDRUM. I have no questions. I am sorry to have been late. But personal conditions made it unavoidable. I will read your statement carefully. Mr. P~xn~s. Thank you very much for your appearance this morning. Dr. Soiiorrwqi. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. PERKINS. Come around, hr. Doran. PAGENO="0383" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1099 It is my privilege to welcome Dr. Adron Doran, the president of the Morehead State Teachers College, Morehead, Ky., who is repre- senting the National Education Association. I have known Dr. Doran and his interest in education for some 25 years. He served as speaker of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and since he became president of the Morehead State Teach- ers College, approximately 12 or 13 years ago, that institution has grown, I would venture to say, about 200 percent. We are delighted to have you here, Dr. Doran. I notice that you are to present the statement of Robert H. Wyatt, president of the Na- tional Education Association of the United States. Did you wish to insert that in the record or summarize it and then let us ask you questions? How do you prefer to proceed? STATEMENT OP D1~ ADRON DORAN, PRESIDENT, MOREHEA]) STATE TEACHERS COLLEGE, MOREHEAD, KY., REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION OP THE UNITED STATES Dr. DORAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to your charitable statement. Mr. PERKINS. Without objection, the statement will be inserted in the record at this point. I suggest that you summarize it, since the members of the committee have not had time to read it. Dr. DORAN. All right, sir. As you indicate, this is a statement prepared by President Wyatt. I would say to you that the state- ment represents the background philosophy of the National Education Association represented in its charter, as represented by the resolutions which the National Education Association has passed through the duly elected representatives or delegates in their convention and the consistency between President Johnson's statement concerning the act before you and the philosophy of the National Education Associa- tion through the classroom teachers who are dealing with such prob- lems as represented in H.R. 10440. I would like to file this statement as representing President Wyatt's personal viewpoint and the viewpoint of the National Education Asso- ciation and if you would, sir, I would like to use this as a point of de- parture. If there are to be any questions to be asked concerning it, I will try to answer them. Otherwise, I would like to use the time that the committee will indulge me in presenting my own concept as a citizen of a region and as a person directly dealing with the problems presented in this legislation as a schoolteacher in eastern Kentucky. Mr. PERKINS. Proceed. Without objection, the statement will be inserted in the record. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF ROBERT H. WYATT, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL EDUCATION AssoCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES I am Robert H. Wyatt, president of the National Education Association, an organization of over 890,000 professional educators of which 90 percent are classroom teachers from every level and kind of school and college in every State in the Union. Our members are employed in public and private schools in the cities, suburbs, towns, villages, and rural areas of this Nation. They teach in American schools throughout the world. They teach children and youth of all races, creeds, and economic backgrounds. They are bound together by their PAGENO="0384" 1100 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 dedication to the purposes and objectives as stated in the charter authorized by the U.S. Congress in 1907: "To elevate the character and advance the interest of the profession of teaching and to promote the cause of popular education in the United States." The concern of the NEA for equality of educational opportunity for all has, through the years, been evidenced by the association's continuing interest in the problems of migratory farm labor. school dropouts, disadvantaged rural youth and, more recently, the socially and economically deprived youngsters in the heartland of our large urban population centers. The latest expression of this concern is in Resolution No. S as adopted unanimously by the 6,795 delegates to the 1963 representative assembly: "8. Disadvantaged America*ns.-The National Education Association calls for wide recognition of the grievous problems in education of disadvantaged Ameri- cans. The mobility of the disadvantaged serves to underline the fact that their problems are the problems of the whole society. The forces that prevent their successful adaptation to urban living lead to low achievement, dropout, delin- quency, disease, and disorganization. "It is of the highest importance that the American people take steps to combat these problems at their roots. Public schools of goc~d quality, universally avail- able to all Americans, are the greatest single hope. Such schools are costly, but not nearly so costly as the other programs which must be-and are-provided for dealing with these problems. "The association urges that action programs be planned and implemented which will lead to the rapid improvement of the educational, economic, and environmental status of disadvantaged Americans. "It is desirable that State associations, in cooperation with affiliated groups such as the Congress of Parents & Teachers and board of education, initiate the call to action. "The above groups plus representatives of housing authorities, churches, social agencies, political agencies, political organizations, realtors, businesses, industries, and organized labor should be encouraged to participate in effecting and implementing action programs." President Lyndon B. Johnson's inspiring White House message on poverty is one of the most far reaching proposals ever directed toward achieving the American ideal of equality of opportunity that has been made in this Nation's history. The recognition of the importance* of education and the emphasis on opportunity for youth are, of course, most gratifying to the teaching profession. The President's message, which for the most part has been transferred into the legal terminology of H.R. 10440, gives renewed emphasis to programs which the NEA has supported such as the Youth Employment Act and the proposal for a National Service Corps. We note with approval that the President's message also called for enactment of "new proposals which strike at important areas of need and distress." The President then asked the Congress for immediate ac- tion "to extend those which are already in action, and to establish those which have already been proposed." Among those listed by the President are "programs which help the entire country. such as aid to education which, by raising the quality of schooling available to every American child, will give a new chance for knowledge to the children of the poor." There are pending before various subcommittees of this Committee several of the remaining parts of President John F. Kennedy's National Education Im- provement Act (H.R. 3000, S. 580). While appreciative of the contructive action taken on parts of this comprehensive legislation, we remind the committee that the basic problem, that of aid to public elementary and secondary education, has been virtually ignored. With remarkable insight, the distinguished Secretary of Labor, the Honorable W. Willard Wirtz, said, in a November 6, 1963, address before the National Com- mittee on Youth Employment: "Think what would happen in this country if we declared war on ignorance- by elevating the standards of teachers to the levels the importance of their job demands, by paying them the salaries which the required skills would warrant, by cutting the students-to-teachers ratio to the point good sense would require, by building the schoolrooms which are needed, and by giving every child in the country the educational opportunity, from first grade through college, which a few have today. Education would become our largest economic enter- prise, as it ought to be. This would, in itself, create full employment. It would wipe out ignorance. It would virtually end the intolerance and bIgotry of PAGENO="0385" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1101 racial and religious discrimination. It would give young Americans the skills they need in an automated work force, and the broader. knowledge a working majority of people must have if a government by the people is to make sense in a world where most of nature's forces are now being brought within human control." - The most effective war on poverty, in the long run, is a war on ignorance, as Secretary Wirtz has so eloquently said. \Ve have a few specific recommendations in regard to certain titles of H.R. 10440: TITLE I. YOUTH PROGRAMS Part A. Job Corps.-The inclusion of this proposal, so similar to H.R. 5131, the Youth Employment Act, in the Economic Opportunity Act, is very appro- priate. We approve of the enlargement of the program as provided in title I of H.R. 10440. However, we believe the language of HR. 5131, section 104(4) pertaining to the education of enrollees requiring that "to the maximum extent practicable such programs shall be provided by State and local educational au- thorities under agreement with the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare" is far superior to the provision in H.R. 10440, section 102(b) which seems to give precedence to a federally operated and controlled education program. We urge the committee to substitute the H.R. 5131, section 104(4) language in the final draft of the bill, not only for philosophical reasons, but for economic reasons as well. The proposed substitute language is reasonable, and clearly expresses the intent of Congress that education be primarily under the control of the State and local education agencies. Part B. Work-training programs.-This propOsal is very similar to title II of H.R. 5131 and we believe it is an essential part of the Economic Opportunity Act. While the Job Corps opportunity is limited to young men, this work- training program gives to young women as well as young men a chance to "earn and learn" in a wide variety of useful ways. We believe that part B, as drafted, is sound and highly desirable. Part C. Work-study programs.-This is a sound proposal which can be very useful in assisting more young people from low-income families to attend col- lege. The American tradition of working one's way through college should be encouraged. As student enrollments expand it becomes an increasingly com- petitive situation. There are not the resources in the colleges, and in most small college communities, to provide jobs for those who need them. This work-study proposal will aid the colleges and the students alike. TITLE II. URBAN AND RURAL COMMUNITY PROGRAMS This proposal is commendable in its intent to stimulate communities to combat poverty through communitywide action programs. However, we feel that this type of proposal will be primarily an attack on the symptoms rather than the causes of poverty. We recognize that immediate as well as long-range programs must be provided for, and that concerted Federal-State-community action for improving housing, health, and employability are practical battles in any war on poverty. Nevertheless, the war will not be won unless and until the causes of poverty and inequality are attacked at the same time. A war on ignorance is a war on poverty-and the only way to achieve permanent victory. We note with approval that section 204(b) provides for public control of any elementary and secondary school education programs which may develop* under this title and that such programs must be made available to all children whether or not they are regularly enrolled in the public schools. We urge that the committee seriously consider as part of the Economic Op- portunity Act Amendments to Public Laws 815 and 874 to provide payments to local school districts based upon two additional categories of public school pupils who have a relationship to Federal programs and activities. Public Laws 815 and 874 could be amended to recognize the Federal connection for school district payment purposes of (1) children of school age on whose behalf parents are cur- rently receiving payments under the aid for dependent children welfare program, and (2) children in families receiving unemployment compensation in those areas which have been designated by the Secretary of Labor as areas of sub- stantial unemployment. ~1-847-G4-pt. 2------25 PAGENO="0386" 1102 ECONOMIC OPPORTINITY ACT OF 1964 TITLES III AND IV The National Education Association has no specific comments in relation to titles III and IV since they are not primarily related to education. However, the NEA agrees with the sponsors of the Economic Opportunity Act programs to combat poverty in rural areas and programs to provide employment and iiievst- ment incentives should be an integral part of the overall "poverty war" and should be included in the Economic Opportunity Act. TITLE V. FAMILY UNITY THROUGH JOBS The objective of this proposal is especially commendable and should result in experience, through experimental pilot programs and demonstration projects, upon which a long-range attack on the causes of poverty can be based. Stable family life is the cornerstone of our Nation. The necessity for the head of the family to be able to secure and retain employment is a basic social as well as economic factor in family stability. We would urge that the Adult Basic Education Act, H.R. 5542, as previously approved by this committee either be included in the Economic Opportunity Act or passed as supplemental legislation in the w-ar on ignorance and poverty. Hearings on H.R. 5542 have developed ample evidence to show the necessity of substantial expansion of existing basic adult education programs. The ex- perience to date with the Manpower Development and Training Act proves con- clusively that many of the chronic unemployed need basic training in simple skills of reading, writing, and simple arithmetic before they can be helped. by MDTA or similar programs. Title V can help in discovering new w-ays to im- prove family unity, but cannot cope w-ith the widespread need which H.R. 5542 is designed to help fill. TITLE VI. ADMINISTRATION AND COORDINATION This title appears to have been drafted w-ith considerable care. The granting of quite broad authority to the Director. while somewhat unusual, seems justi- fled by the urgency of the job to be done. The Economic Opportunity Council including all members of the Cabinet (except the Postmaster General and, the Secretary of the Treasury) as well as Other agency heads, should insure broad interagency cooperation. The NBA is also pleased that the National Advisory Coucil provides for participation of the public in recommending courses of action. We particularly approve of section 603 providing for the recruitment of skilled volunteers along the line of H.R. 5625. the National Service Corp., already ap- proved by the Special Subcommittee on' Labor of this committee. Perhaps a better title than "Volunteers for America" can be found, to avoid confusion w-ith existent civic and patriotic organizations. ` ` The National Education Association strongly urges that the Economic Oppor- tunity Act be considered as a totality-a combination of elements to solve prob- lems that have no single solutions. The National' Education Association appreciates this opportunity to comment on the Economic Opportunity Act of fl]64 and congratulates the chairman and members of this committee for their dedication and diligence in seeking solutions to the problems of our disadvantaged citizens. The resources and staff of the NBA are `ever ready to assist the' committee and' its staff in every way possible in this war on ignorance and poverty. Dr. DORAX. I want to say to' you and to the cothinittee, Mr. Chnir- inan~ that back in ` 1957 the Acting Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky appointed what came to be known as the Eastern Ken~ tucky Planning Commission. Later its title was changed to the Et~st- em Kentucky Regional Development Commission. - From 1957 until 1960, this mne-member commission, which was a- cross section of the professional and business and educational inter- ests of our region, and containing representation from the two niajor political parties in Kentucky, worked on a- plan to develop the ap- proach t.o the attack on the underdeveloped region of eastern Ken- tucky and other countries in other States that constituted the Ap- PAGENO="0387" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1103 palachian region. The program that we tried to develop, and I think successfully so, and the provisiQns of the act before you, have great similarity. It represents what we proposed a.nd what I think you are proposing as local initiative coupled with State support, Federal assistance and regional cooperation to solve the problems of areas of our Nation that are either depressed, underdeveloped, under- privileged or whatever other term that you would want to apply to it. We. feel, and I speak not only my personal conviction but the con- viction of those in my region with whom I have worked, that the eco- nomic opportunities of our people will be enhanced greatly if the. local, State, and Federal governments arrive at a cooperative effort to~pro- tect. the people and their property against floods, will make provisions for the construction of roads as inlets and outlets to our people, and will cooperate in the full process of developing the educational facili- ties and programs and personnel to handle these jobs. So, I would say in general that we in Kentucky have moved in this direction. We have many communities which have reached the limit of their financial ability. We have designed what we think is sound machinery at the State level, and with the assistance of the Federal Government and a cooperative effort on the part of the other people with similar problems, we feel that great advances can be made with the passage of this legislation. Mr. PERKINS. I notice that you have suggested that the adult basic education legislation be included be included in this legislation. Why do you make that suggestion? Dr. DORAN. I feel, and I think it is the position of those who have dealt with the problem, that the provisiOns of this act could well be enlarged to include the same principles that have been embodied in the Adult B~tsic Education Act. You will recall that your hearing on our campus on this legisla- tion produced the evidence of the great need for this program. Some of the other members of the committee were with you. Mr. Griffin was there. The principles embodied in that legislation which you sponsored could well be used as a base for consideration in this act, too. Mr. PERKINS. I certainly agree with your suggestion that we should get this legislation, the A~Iult Basic Education Act, enacted into law at the earliest possible moment. The Federal Government should do something to encourage the States to set up an adequate adult basic education program throughout the country. We have tried to get the legislation enacted but we have never been able to get by the Rules Committee on that suggestion. However, here, as you realize, is the question of just how broad a bill we can get. through the. committee and through the Congress, how much ground we can. cover, in other words. I am certainly hopeful that we can do something quickly in this area of adult basic education. Now, 1 notice over here, in another part of the NEA's statement prepared by Mr. Wyatt~ that he suggests amendments to Public. Laws 815 and 874 in order to make assistance avail able at the elementary and secondary level. He suggests that the impacted aid program be ex- tended to school district.s on the basis of the relative number of parents currently receiving payment under the aid for dependent children wel- f are program and children in families receiving unemployment con- pensation and those areas which have been designated by the Secretary PAGENO="0388" 1104 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 of Labor as areas of substantial lmernployment. I personally feel that we should have enacted an elementary and secondary education pro- gram a long, long time ago, but we have not been able to do it. I am sure that you realize that the religious controversy has been our greatest handicap in this particular area. But be that as it may, I do not know whether we can get an elementary and secondary amend- ment of that type in this legislation but I am hopeful again that the Congress will take some action before this session is adjourned. I certainly intend to continue hearings on all aspects of elementary and secondary education just. as soon as we get this legislation over with. Dr. DORAN. Of course, Congressman. as you well know and have implied, the National Education Association is committed wholeheart- edly to general Federal support for public elementary and secondary schools. In this conn~tion, we feel that there are other factors that impact areas in addition to the factors that Congress has already considered as impacting forces. We, in no wise, are suggesting that you lessen the attention given to the impacted areas under 874 or 815 but rather to enlarge it, in consid- ering that there are other factors that impact it in addition to Federal installations and these are factors over which the local communities or the people who live there have little control. Mr. PERKINS. I may say that the Subcommittee on Education has given that idea considerable thought. I believe that there is a very real "impact" on an area occasioned by an act of the Federal Government when it decides to locate a Federal activity in a certain spot. and at- tracts to that spot technicians, skilled workers, and commercial activ- ities by draining the best talent and activity from other areas, so that the areas in which the Federal activity is not located are more adversely affected by t.he Federal decision that the area in which the activity is actually located. In fact, we are considering that proposal at the present time, and have been considering it for some time. Dr. DORAN. I know you have. Mr. PERKINS. Now, there is one question that I would like to ask you. Doctor, which has recurred here on several occasions. T.Tnder title I, the Job Corps, do you feel from your experience as a college president that we will encounter any difficulty in selecting per- sonnel at an early date to teach basic education in the Job Corps and iii the work training centers in the country considering your experi- ence there on the campus, your teacher placement offices, and the re- tired teachers that we have in the country, who might be available as. volunteers? It has been suggested before this committee that that would be a difficult problem. I just want to hear you discuss that. Dr. DORAN. Congressman, I think it will be a difficult problem surely but I do not think it presents difficulties beyond the ability of a community to marshal it.s forces. sow, we have many people who have reached retirement age who would be available. We have many community-minded individuals, who have other jobs, who would be willing to devote some time to in- struction. We have the ability as a college, in such a region as we are talking about, to bring these people to our campus for refresher courses, for conferences, and for institutes where our division of ap- PAGENO="0389" ECONOMIC OPPORTIJNITY ACT OF 1964 1105 plied arts at the college could help organize their techniques and the procedures that they would follow. Now, we have not encountered great difficulty in our adult educa- tion program of marshaling enough community forces to conduct these education courses outside of the public school hours. As you know, Mrs. Doran is president of the Kentucky Federation of Women's Clubs, and they have taken this on as a project of theirs. The women in the various communities who are housewives or wives of professional business people have spent much time in working on an illiteracy elimination program or working with these youth in the area who are functionally illiterate. I have all the confidence in the world in the communities of Ken- tucky, and I am sure they are representative of communities all over the Nation. There are sufficient untapped resources to get the j~b done. Mr. PERKINS. And that could be done at an early date, say within 4 to 6 weeks? Dr. DORAN. I would venture that kind of guess, yes; that within a month the public agencies of these communities could marshal these forces without great difficulty. Mr. PERKINS. What number of teachers would you estimate could be selected within a month by your college after a refresher course of some 4 to 6 weeks, teachers who would be qualified to teach basic edu- cation to these groups out in the Job Corps, in the conservation camps, and in work-training centers? Dr. DORAN. I would not venture a guess on numbers, Mr. Chair- man, but I am confident in the 44 counties that we designate as the Appalachian area in Kentucky that there is not a community, known to me at least, where there would not be 4 or 5 people immediately available to begin this work. I think we would have more difficulty in organizing ourselves to take care of the large number of people who would be available than we would in recruiting people to make themselves available. I think the greater task would be on refreshing these people than getting the people, themselves, marshaled. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Landrum. Mr. LANDRUM. I am in hearty accord with that statement that Dr. Doran has made here. The correspondence that I have received since being involved in the drafting and presenting of this legislation mdi- cates that just what you have said is true, not only in Kentucky but throughout the country. I see a tremendous interest, a sort of ground swell of interest throughout the country in just what we are talking about. I think that perhaps one of the great benefits we are going to derive from this legislation is the development of an awareness of this prob- lem among the people. I quite agree with Dr. Doran that our real problem is going to be probably a sifting out and choosing of the right personnel rather than getting personnel to apply for it. I think we are going to have a great many well-qualified people. I would ask you, please, Dr. Doran, to comment just a little more explicitly about just what Mr. Wyatt, I believe it is Mr. Wyatt, means in his last paragraph of his statement on title II about amendments to 815 and 874. Surely, he does not mean to say that we should add 3i-847----64~--~t. Z-26 PAGENO="0390" 1106 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 those provisions to this act? Is he saying there t.hat we should go over and amend 815 and 874 when they are extended or does he mean we should include this provision in this act? Dr. Don~N. I think it is an effort, Congressman Landrum, to pomt out that either in this act or by some legislative enactment the strengthening of public elementary, and secondary schools would be a very effective weapon in eliminating poverty and would be justified on a poverty district area as an "impacted area" as greatly as Federal installations do in what we by law now consider as impacted areas. It ought to be considered in this act or by immediately modifying in a separate bill 815 and 874. These factors ought to be considered. Of course, we are in no position as a national education association, and I am sure I speak President Wyatt's sentiment, to tell you in what fashion such legislation should be drafted or how it should provide. Mr. L cnRmbr. One of the problems that I have in my small mind here is that the theory of 815 and 874 is simply that we provide this assistance because of a Federal activity that creates an impact on the community. Now, while it is true that some of the communities in which we have large Federal activities have pockets of poverty, I doubt seriously if we can say that the Federal activity is a contributing factor to that pocket of poverty. I think, onthe other hand, ithas tended to relieve that somewhat and pushed it down in a concentrated area where the locality needs, where the local forces need to take hold of it. Dr. Doit~uc. I think, Congressman, the point of it is that he is not contending that this installation has contributed to thea pockets of poverty but, rather, take in our own situation in Fort Knox Ky Fort Knox has impacted the area where the schools have received Federal assistance,. We believe that there are other areas, Congressmai~, not only in Kentucky but somewhere else, not because the Federal installations at all have impacted.those areas but because the conditions which have contributed to poverty have impacted those areas; not Federal instal- lations impacting them but these factors here have impacted those that are two separate and distinct things. The point of it is that the Federal Government has assisted school districts where impactions have been broughtabout because of Federal activity without any feeling of Federal control at all on the schools. Now, our point is that there are other areas in America which have been impacted not by Federal installation but because of these factors of poverty that the Federal Government ought to give equal attention to, that the Federal Govermiment did not cause it. the communities did not cause it. Mr. LANDRUM. I think I see what you are driving at there. I am nOt qmth ready to agree that it ought to be `done under 815 and 874 because 1 believe we are dOing what I think you mean under title II of our bill, under thecommunity action program. I am afraid that if we tried to amend 815. and 874 so as to provide additional assistance under that theory that we would run into some problems that we have been trying to keep from running into in that particular area. I am not unwilling to consider it. I appreciate the suggestion. But I wanted to get your reaction. PAGENO="0391" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1107 Dr. DORAN. We would be in no position to tell you how to do it. Of course, the bill that Senator Morse and Congressman Dent have introduced has to do with this thing we are talking about. Mrs. GREEN. Will you yield? Mrs. LANDRTJM. Yes; I will yield. Mrs. GREEN. It does not seem to me this has a direct relationship to the war on poverty. There have been tremendous changes since 1954, not. all of them based on the Supreme Court decision, but it seems to me there really has been a Federal impact as a result of the 1954 decision. There also has been a tremendous in-migration to the urban centers of people from some of the rural areas who have not had the same type of education or the same quality. It would seem to me this impact of in-migration from other States might be more urgent for the committee to consider in Public Laws 815 and 875 than the two suggestions made on page 4. What would be your comment? Dr. DORAN. Mine would be consistent with yours that. these are things that are impacting areas. As Congressman Perkins knows, we, in his congressional district, have contributed to the impact in other areas because of the outmigration. That is why it becomes more important for the youth of eastern Kentucky to .receive a more `ade- quate education if we are going to impact. areas outside of Kentucky. I had the privilege a few years ago of visiting the Ohio Legislature when it was in session., As speaker of the, House of Kentucky, the Ohio speaker introduced me to. the House. He said: "One of `the things that has impressed me about the' Kentucky school is that it is teaching. the ,three R's-four R's, he said-'reathng, writing, arith- metic, and Route 23,' which is the road that leads out of Kentucky into Ohio. As soon as our students were able to read Route 23, they left for Columbus, Cleveland, `or somewhere else and impacted, the area.", That `is the great argument that we have, for the `Federal Govern- ment's assistance in the school area where these impactions have taken place. , , . Mr. LANDRtTM.. Well,, Route 23 has taken a great many people out of a great many communities throughout the Nation who ought to re- main home and who could make a great contribution to local improve- ment if we could provide some means of keeping them there and I hope we can. I hope this may `be part of the foundation to do it.' Dr. DORAN. I think so. Mr. LANDRUM. I believe it was last Thursday or Friday that we had the privilege of having your young Governor here; Governor Breathitt. . ` Dr. DORAN. Yes, sir. Mr. LANDRUM. In his appearance, he made very clear the fact that Kentucky is moving on its own to eradicate some of this poverty. Nevertheless, he emphasized that it could not be done without the assistance of the Federal Establishment. I wonder if that would be your view, also: That your experience in Kentucky as a member of the State legislature, as speaker; your ex- perience as a college professor; your firsthand knowledge of the condition in Kentucky and knowledge of the organization and the efforts that are `being put forth down there now by yOur State govern- ment, as great as they are; could they be as sufficient on their own with- out the assistance of the Federal Government? PAGENO="0392" 1108 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Dr. Dor~x. I would agree wholeheartedly with Governor Breat- hitt's observations. We, through our efforts to determine our ability and plan for the utilization of our resources of Kentucky through the Eastern Kentucky Regional Plamiing and Development Com- mission, have definitely found that we have reached limits in certain places with local community financing and even State financing to get the job done. Now, I know there are many Federal agencies who are working in our region to help us improve the way of life for our people. But, Congressman, there are certain criteria that these Federal agencies are using which do not fit these underdeveloped areas that we are talk- ing about; for instance, in highways. So much of the road funds are distributed, as you know, on the basis of the traffic count. Well, you can't get money into a place where yoll don't have any traffic, and you can't get any traffic in a place where you don't have some roads. The same thing with flood-control money. The property value is one of the great factors in determining whether we will build a dam to hold back the water. The property is not worth much until you control the floods. Mr. LANDRUM. Incidentally, is it not true that Public Law 566, the Small Watershed Act, is one of the basic pieces of legislation in the fight on this thing we are talking about ? Dr. DORAN. No question about that; yes, sir. So, what we think this act will do is to provide opportunity for the Federal Government to redefine its criteria and to set up an agency which will provide coordination among the agencies that are doing the work, Congressman, lest they duplicate efforts and go off in differ- ent directions on different horses in an effort to solve the problem. Mr. LANDRUM. Thank you, Dr. Doran. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Griffin. Mr. GRIrFIN. Dr. Doran, I am sorry that I did riOt get here earlier to hear your testimony in full. I am glad to welcome you to this sub- éommittee. I recall with great pleasure the trip that I had thepleasure of making with your Congressman, Representative Perkins, to your campus and Observing first hand what you are doing and are trying todo there. We are very pleased to have your testimony and the state- ment of Dr. Wyatt. I assure you I shall read with careful attentiom Thank you. Dr. DORAN. Thank you, sir. Mr. PERKINS. Mrs. Green. Mrs. GREEN. I have another questiOn on personnel. I have a tre- mendously high regard for my colleague from Georgia, but it does seem to me that the testimony that the NEA-other educators, and the Secretary of Labor-have given is based on the evidence that we do not have an adequate number of personnel; that we have a great shortage of teachers, social workers, nurses. Unless, under this legislation, we are going to pay them more and attract them in this way, I just do not quite see how you reconcile these two views. You plead for more Fed- eral aid for schools and for teachers' salaries, and so on. Yet today you tell us that there will be no problem getting the personnel. Dr. D0RAN. Mrs. Green, I do not intend to appear to represent inconsistencies. There is definitely a shortage of classroom teachers and we do need assistance to prepare and hold them. But there, to me, is a reservoir of people who are not willing either because of commit- PAGENO="0393" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1109 ments at home, commitments to other choices which they have made or other professions, to remain in the classroom but who would be available for the poverty program. We have grown up here with a feeling that we are not sure who is responsible for all of this poverty and this underprivileged and underdeveloped sector of American life. Somebody wants to get in here and sort of relieve their conscience and purify their souls and relieve their feeling of guilt that we can do something about it and we ought to do something about it in a land of plenty and in a land where there is an affluent society. I believe from this group of people we can draw enough teachers, supervisors, instructors, guidance people, to get this thing off the ground. And they are people who are not now available to us because of many conditions to enter the classroom but would be available to do this job that we are talking about to help the community raise its sights and raise its level of living. Mrs. GREEN. I hope you are right, but I cannot see how a person would not be willing to go into the classrooms because of family or commitments but would go quite a few miles away to a conservation camp. Dr. DORAN. Well, they would have a different commitment, in my opinion. Mrs. GREEN. Do you think it would be a lasting one? Dr. DORAN. I would hope that it would last long enough for us through our normal process to train some other people to do it. Mrs. GREEN. Let me ask two questions which may seem contra- dictory. The first one is the greater effort that it seems to me educa- tiona.l leaders and NEA could take, a leadership in doing more in the war on poverty itself, and then the second one is the concern that we are overburdening the schools. I say these seem to be contradictory. We talk about comprehensive plans in a community. Could not the National Education Association take the leadership in making sug- gestions and recommendations for the schools of the country? Let me mention some areas that come to mind immediately. One, opening of the playgrounds, especially in the urban centers that now we find locked and dark. Second, a more flexible schedule in school systems that would allow many people to teach for a half day who would not be able to teach for a full day. I refer to the same group to whom you referred a few moments ago, the very, large number of women college graduates, whose families are raised, who have brilliant minds and who would like to teach for a half day and could adjust their family responsibilities to do that, but school systems have been so in- flexible that unless you can teach full time they do not want you. I think of two diametrically opposing conditions. In New York City, under the juvenile delinquency control program, we are spending part of the money to pay teachers an additional amount so that they will visit the homes of the underprivileged. Last Saturday I was told that there is a school regulation in Cleveland that a teacher cannot visit the home. Now, it seems to me there are so many areas where more could be done, and I think also of using the school buildings longer hours. A youngster who comes from a deprived home and comes from a room where there are five other youngsters and no books and no facilities does not have an equal opportunity in studying and learning with the PAGENO="0394" 1110 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 child who comes from a very well-to-do home where he has his own private place or study and where he can put forth his best efforts. Cannot the schools, without any assistance from anybody, really make a comprehensive study of a much greater contribution that they could make to the war on poverty? Dr. DORAN. I would suppose the same thing could be said, Mrs. Green, about various public institutions in the communities could make a greater effort. I would suppose that my answer, number one, would be that the schoolteachers are pretty well taxed energywise, timewise, and facilitywise, to get the job done that they feel primarily coin- mitted to do in the classroom. I do doubt that the school, within itself, could be charged with the lack of interest or concern or energy to keep the playground open for all times. Now, I would say to you that, in my opinion, you would find receptive people in the National Education Association to this sort of thing. But there is a limit to which a schoolteacher can go in getting these jobs done if you take a full survey of all of the things that the community ought to do for itself. That is where I think this bill will e.ngender some initiative on the part of various other agencies of the community to do this. Mrs. Gnmx. I am not suggesting that the teacher needs to do all of it, but I am suggesting that the school leaders make recommendations of how their facilities and how their personnel and perhaps volunteer personnel, could carry on a program. Dr. Doit~N. I would hope that the schools could be one of the agen- cies, Mrs. Green, that would be motivated with assistance from other agencies to do this for a community. I would say that I would be the first to stand indicted that school- teachers and the public systems have not done all they could in some communities to make their facilities and their personnel available or to schedule their programs and their time in a flexible fashion to provide all of this. I am sure we are hidebound and committed to certain traditions and customs and procedures away from which we are quite reluctant to move. Mrs. GREEN. There is another comment I would like to make. At the same time, I say this: I do feel that society is most willing to over- burden the school with all of the ills of society and with adult prob- lems. I refer to housing, for example. We have segregated housing in city after city. This is a problem not created by the schools. The teachers and the school personnel are not responsible because housing in almost all cities is segregated. Yet, today, we arc witnessing boycotts against the schools and urging children to stay home and not attend classes; we are placing this burden on the educators and the schools as if they themselves had created the problem. I think of another instance, the very controversial one of prayers in the schools. Again we are attempting, or it seems to me many are attempting, to shift from the church and the Sunday school and the home the responsibility for religious training, for prayer and Bible study. In other words, let the teachers also take on this responsibility. It seems to me that the adults in society ought to let the schools do the work for which they were established-educated and train youth. PAGENO="0395" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1111 Mr. GRIFFIN. I just want to add a footnote of agreement with Mrs. Green on the point she made about utilizing teachers in the community who are willing and desire to teach half-time. Every time we get an educational organization or someone administering education before this committee I think we ought to bring this matter up. I have the same feeling as Mrs. Green; that the NEA and the State educational associations not only are not encouraging the use of half- time teachers, but maybe they are discouraging it. If the people in the community who are willing to teach half-time were utilized, it would free many other teachers to go out and teach in a camp situation, for example. I know that the use of half-time teachers is working in some of the communities in my own area, where the local school administra- tion does employ teachers half-time. But I know, as you do, that many other areas refuse to hire teachers on this basis. I do not think the Federal Government can direct them to change, but certainly we could be encouraging them. Dr. DORAN. Mr. Griffin, I don't want to seem defensive in this at all, but there are areas in which this is being done. At our college, for in- stance, we are using the city engineer to teach a course on campus. Many of us have done that in many areas but I am sure we are lacking in other areas, too. I don't know but what this kind of opportunity would be good for us for you to goad us into doing more of this; and I am sure we have not exhausted it. Mr. Chairman, I hope Mr. Roosevelt, who has just come in, will re- member he spoke to our Eastern Kentucky Educational Association when I was its president, at Ashland one time at your invitation and got to look in on our situation there. Mr. PERKINs. Mr. Quie, do you have any questions? Mr. QUIE. I note that in part A of the Job Corps you suggest a change in language so that such programs shall be provided by State and local education authorities. In other words, tie this educational program to the State and local education program, rather than have some Federal program put out there. Evidently this is what you are driving at. Dr. DORAN. This is consistent with our philosophy as a national, and certainly as State associations, that we believe that that ought to be the basis on which any Federal programs are financed and admin- istered; that it ought to be done through the State and local educa- tional authorities which have been created for that purpose. Mr. QuiR. The NEA has always been strong on this and insisted that there be local and State control and responsibility over educa- tion, even though Federal money goes into it; is that right? Dr. DORAN. That is what we think. Mr. QUIE. I mean strong in your resolution as well. Dr. DORAN. Yes, sir; I am a member of the National Education Association Legislative Commission, and that is the basis on which we represent the delegation assembly. After all, the position of NEA is determined, Congressman, by the delegate assembly. NEA has no policies and can move in no direction other than the direction that is established by the delegate assembly; and it is very clear in its enuncia- tion of this principle of operating the schools in the loc~l communi ties and in the States through the local and State agencies created for that purpose. PAGENO="0396" 1112 ECONOMIC 0PPORTD~ITY ACT OF 1964 Mr. QmE. There are some school districts in some States which evidently do a wholly inadequate job of education, as evidenced by the booklet "One-third of a Nation," in which a study was made of pre- induction examinations of Selective Service. It was indicated, for example, some Northern States have very few who are rejected because they cannot pass the mental examination. In that book the figure they state for Minnesota, the best State, is 2.7 percent. South Carolina is worst, with 72 percent rejected because they cannot pass the mental examination. I note in looking at an NEA Journal, that South Carolina is one of the best States in the percentage of elementary and secondary school teachers, wit.h at least 4 years of college. There are only six States which are better than South Carolina, aceording to this booklet. What is happening to the education in some of the States? Also in the booklet "One-third of a Nation," it states that 20 per- cent of those who are rejected because they cannot pass a mental exam- ination, which could be called equivalent to a seventh grade education, have had 4 years of high school, or more. They make the point that 40 percent of these rejectees have had only elementary school edu- cation. The astounding thing, then, is that 60 percent have had more than an elementary school education. What is going on in the educa- tional system? It is not only in the South. The Governor of Indiana was in here and told about a program which is similar to the Job Corps, and they found that better than 50 percent of these young men could neither read nor write. The average education was, I believe he said, between 8 and 10 grades of school. How can the, students spend all that time in school and learn virtually nothing? If the Federal Government is going to put money into it, are we going to get results out of it? I feel that education is one way that we can break this vicious cycle we have gotten into where people stay in poverty generation after generation. But how are we going to do it, if these people don't know how to educate? There is something wrong. You being in `the NEA and an educator probably can give us some answers to this. Dr. DORAN. I am not familiar with the statistics to which you refer, I do not have them at my fingertips. But, I would say to you, that it may be because the funds that have been available, because of the emphasis that the Federal Government has given to certain programs may have resulted in neglect of some of the more basic programs in education, and in some cases we may have found ourselves moving with greater emphasis, say, in science and mathematics because we want to get up to a higher level on that. And not having the facilities and the funds and the institutional materials to strengthen the areas of reading and spelling and speaking that you are talking about, I am sure we are inadequate in a lot of the people we turn out who cannot read and who cannot spell and who cannot write acceptably. Tha.t is why I would contend in the extension of some of your assist- ance programs that you would consider English, not as a second lan- guage. hut as basic t.o an education as science and mathematics. Mr.' QuiE. Is there any excuse, however, despite the shortage . of money or facilities, for a person to finish elementary school and not know how to read or write? Is there any excuse for a person to finish PAGENO="0397" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1113 4 years of high school and not he able to pass the equivalent of a seventh grade test? Dr. DORAN. I could not defend that; no, sir. And I would not put myself in a position to do so. I would agree he ought to be able to read and write, if he graduates from high school. Mr. QUIE. He ought to be able to read and write, if he graduates from elementary school. He ought to be able to pass the equivalent of a seventh grade test if he graduated from high school; isn't that right? Dr. DORAN. I don't know why Cassius Clay didn't pass his test. He did not, however, and he has a certificate of attendance at one of the high schools in the city of Lousville. Mr. QUIE. I doubt if Federal money, itself, whether it be for the buildings or for the teachers, is going to do the job. My own feeling is that there are some people in this country who are experts and can greatly upgrade the education level in the school and it would not only upgrade the education level of the students, but it would also be a great incentive for the teachers to improve themselves and, if such could be made available to the schools-who definitely do not have their sights set very high, and for reasons that the power structure in the community has not seen fit to provide adequate education- something along this line could be done. Dr. DORAN. I think that would be spotty instead of general indict- ment against public education. Mr. QuIE. It would have to be spotty, because some States have such a great record. Also, the schools in some communities have a great record in terms of what happened to these young people after they graduated from high school. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Roosevelt, do you have any questions? Mr. ROOSEVELT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to say to Dr. Doran, I certainly do remember that meeting with a great deal of pleasure. I have one question: It does not deal with what is in the bill today, but I would like to know what the NEA's position is with respect to education of migratory workers' children. Have you taken any action in this area at all? Dr. DORAN. The position that we have taken is an advisory one to the hearings that have been held on such legislation, and, of course, we favor an effort to assist the communities which have been im- pacted by these migratory workers, children of migratory workers. Mr. ROOSEVELT. The migratory worker, as such, and the problem of his children are certainly fitted into an area of poverty; and it is the feeling of some of us that if you really want to eliminate poverty that this should be included in this effort and that an educational part of the bill should certainly include the effort to provide educational facilities for the children of migratory workers. Frankly, I do not feel the impacted area section probably would not be enough, because migratory farmworkers don't stay long enough to be considered. Would you, in general, favor this program? Dr. DORAN. Yes, sir; very strongly, if this act could be modified to include it. Very definitely so; yes, sir. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Thank you very much.. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Ayres, do you have any questions?. PAGENO="0398" 1114 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Mr. An~Es. I have no questions. Mr. PERKINS Mr. Hawkins. Mr. HAWKINS. I have none; thank you. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Martin. Mr. MAIrnx. I have a couple of questions in regard to your point that Public Laws 815 and 874. your recommendation that those laws should be amended and consideration given for children attending the public schools whose mother is receiving aid from the dependent children program and also those who are. receiving unemployment compensation in areas of substantial unemployment. What is your logic based on that these programs should be amended to include these two points? Dr. DORAN. Well, we feel-and there are communities that show evidence of it-that these school districts are not able to provide the kind of programs that other communities are able to provide, because they are impacted by an undue number of these people who do not provide the wealth to this local community that would be provided if they were not classified in these- Mr. MARTIN. Are you familiar with t.he reasons why this program was first enacted; the original hearings on the bill? Dr. DORAN. Yes, sir. Mr. MARTIN. You are getting quite a distance away from that, aren't you? Dr. DORAN. Our point in this connection, Congressman, is the fact that the same reason that Congress employed that saying that certain communities have been placed at a disadvantage because of Federal installations or Federal activities which have impacted them is one thing, and if that commimity and the school system is placed at a dis- advantage because the Federal activity has impacted that area, then by the same reasoning there are other communities which are impacted by these people living in them, constituted by these definitions, that are unable to cope with that situation ~md, therefore, the Federal Gov- ermnent should look at its obligation to provide adequate education for these children whose parents cannot- Mr. MARTIN. In other words, we started originally with the primary concept that it was an in-lieu-of-taxes program. This is getting far afield from that. If this program-Public Laws 815 and 874-were ~r~i.nded to include these two points you have made here, you would have a general Federal-aid-to-education program in the entire country. Dr. DORAN. If you had a general aid program, you would not need impacted areas or anything else. Mr. MARTIN. I realize that you are in favor of the general Federal- aid-to-education program, and I am on the other side of the fence be- cause I am opposed to that. But you would make Public Laws 815 and 874 a general aid to education? Dr. DORAN. I would do so. Mr. MARTIN. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Gill, do you have any questions? Mr. Gu~. Yes. I think the gentleman has been refreshingly frank, and it would solve a lot of our problems if we could get over the last hurdle of the general Federal aid to education. Could you give us some idea of how this particular program might work, particularly in relation to making payments to areas that need PAGENO="0399" ECONOMIC OPPORTuNITY ACT OF 1964 1115 supplemental education for disadvantaged children? It is my under- standing that the majority of these children would be going to school during the regular hours anyway, but they would need additional help either after hOurs or in the summertime or times when they are not normally in school, and that would require either additional teachers or additional time being put in by existing teachers. Dr. DORAN. You are talking about expanding Public Laws 874 and 815? Mr. GILL. No; I am talking about the poverty program as it might work under the titles that relate to aid to education. Now would it be your feeling that we should set up an afterhours program and hire existing teachers and pay them additional amounts over and above their regular salary from the locality, and make that additional amount chargeable to the poverty program; or how would this be worked mechanically? Dr. DORAN. That would be one solution, Of course, to it. But you would find few people already regularly employed in the public schools either with time or energy to do this sort of thing. But we explored earlier the great reserve of retired people in the various communities who would be available for this sort of activity, and that the colleges would be willing to assume the responsibility of in- service education, to sharpen the wits of these people who would be available for this kind of teaching. Mr. GILL. By "these people," to whom are you referring? Dr. DORAN. I am talking about retired teachers or teachers who have made choices to leave the classroom and rear families, or wives of professional people who, because of extenuating circumstances, are not available to go into the classroom as such, but who would be available for this sort of work; such as, marshaling civic clubs, fra- ternal organizations, women's clubs as a means of motivating these people to accept these assignments. Mr. GILL. In other words, you are saying there is a reservoir in most communities of people who have teaching aptitude or experi- ence but who are not able or willing to take on a full-time teaching job because of other responsibilities? Dr. DORAN. I would think so. I testified from my knowledge of the people of our region who would be available for that, Mr. Congressman. Mr. GILL.* Would you suggest that the same training requirement or competence requirements be applied to these special teachers as are applied to the school system in the given locality where they are teaching? Dr. DORAN. Well, yes; I would. I would not want. to water this program down below the competency of the people who are being certified to teach in the public schools. I don't think you would have to do that. On the other hand, you would have some people who would qualify for what you might call equivalency certificates in certain areas that would not qualify to go into a first grade in a formal class- room who would be available for this kind of help. Mr. GILL. 110W about the wage scale? Would that be comparable to-the wage scale in the locality? .. Dr. DoTt~&N. It should be comparable. . PAGENO="0400" 1116 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Mr. GILL. In many of your areas, where you have the worst prob- lem with teachers' pay scales, can you get good competent people at those rates? Dr. DORAN. I said, or implied, earlier, that. I think many of the people who would be available for this sort of work are going to be motivated by the desire to help our people improve their standard of living, and they are going to be motivated by some missionary zeal behind all of this, as you have found in your Peace Corps program, for instance. Mr. GILL. We certainly hope that, but you can't eat missionary zeal. Dr. DORAX. I understand that, but they are. already, most of them, are going to be supported on other than the salaries they draw from this. But I would not want to set the. pay scale. for these people less than the pay scaie you have set for the public school teachers of your community. Mr. GILL. Or higher, either? Dr. DORAX. I would not think there would be any need to make it higher. It would be a comparable thing, to me. Mr. GuL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. PERKINs. You would agree that it would require the best teach- ers, though, and special equipment which we already have through adult basic education courses, and teachers trained in that connec- tion to teach these adults and to teach vocational educational courses, and things of that kind? Dr. DORAX. I would; yes, sir. Mr. PEiuuxs. Mr. Bell. Mr. BELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Dom~x. I appreciate very much your interesting statement and having you here with us this morning. Thank you. Mr. BELL. I want to commend you for your statement on title I, on page 3, relative to your statement preferring the wording in the Youth Corps program of the bill H.R. 5131, rather than the present. one. I certainly think it makes more sense to have certain specified state authority in a program of this kind. I want to ask you, Do you do this because of just a general philosophical viewpoint, or have you had some little difficulty through having the Federal Government get. more in the direction of this program? Dr. DORAX. We have not experienced any difficulty, Congressman Bell, at all. I have no fear of the Federal control following the Fed- eral dollar. We have had no trouble with it in public education, and I have been from a classroom teacher, a high school principal, and State department of education before I degenerated to a college presi- dent. We never did have any trouble. I fear none now. But basi- cally, the concept of education from the profesisonal standpoint, has been that these things ought to be handled through the local and State agencies created by our society to handle them. Mr. BELL. In addition to the feature you mentioned, the Federal control feature, I want to step also to the problem of administration. There is a problem there, is there not, sometimes, when you get the Federal Government in to direct something you have problems of overlaps and problems of administration, and other difficulties. Isn't that correct? PAGENO="0401" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 19 64 1117 Dr. DORAN. Yes; but our difficulty in education in America has not been in the Federal Government controlling it.. Our difficulty has been in the failure of the Federal Government to assume its propor- tionate share of paying for public education. Now I am exhibit A of a fellow who graduated from high school and all the science I had in high school was vocational agriculture. I went to college and they put me in a biology course. It was foreign language to me, because I had never studied biology in high school. I finally minored in biology in college, by the way. The reason we had such a strong program in vocational agriculture in this rural community high school was because of the money that the Federal Government put into vocational agriculture. Now under your National Defense Act you are assisting the high schools of America to strengthen and broaden their science offerings. We have no more difficulty in the administrative control of education since you have been helping the biology teacher than we had when you were helping the agriculture teacher. Mr. BELL. Isn't it true that at certain times when you start a pro- gram of this type you have troubles in administration when the Federal Government is involved? For example,I think you will find in many of the States today you will have trouble with the Manpower Development and Training Act in the administration problem where you don't have as much with the vocational education? Dr. DORAN. There is a possibility of it. Maybe at the local level we have to kick a few shins of bureaucrats before they decide that the strong arm will not be tolerated. I agree with that. Mr. BELL. My State of California is having considerable trouble. They think as a matter of fact they are not going to be able to use some of the funds of Manpower Development and Training Act until sometime postponed, because there is so much redtape, too many prob- lems, the legislature has not gotten the key to how it is operating, and so on. I think you are likely to find some delays until these problems are worked out. . Dr. DORAN. We have had no difficulty in Kentucky. Now some people had a great horror at you in Congress when you required a person who received a national defense loan in college to stand up and say "I believe in the Constitution of the United States," and so on. Our people never did disagree with that, because they believed in it anyhow. Now some people give definition, Congressman, to Federal encroach- ment that really is somewhat of a bugaboo, it really does not exist in the final analysis. When we get down to receiving the funds and administering the programs, the Federal control that was thought to have been inherent in the program just didn't develop. Mr. BELr~. In administrative program, from the standpoint of fluidity with which you can operate, and so on, would you not prefer to have most of these programs directed at the State level ? Dr. DORAN. No question, and we would propose that money come to the States be commingled with State funds, and they lose their iden- tity as Federal funds. Mr. BELL. Then, I think we could jump as far as the Job Corps is concerned, if you had the direction of it, it would be a little better operation. would it not? PAGENO="0402" 1118 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 Dr. DORAN. It would be; yes, sir, or the direct responsibility for it. Mr. BELL. Doctor, you mentioned when you were speaking to Mr. Martin a few minutes ago that you favored Federal aid to education. Would you extend that also to the usual question, parochial schools? Dr. DORAN. ~o, sir; I would not. Mr. BELL. You would not? Dr. Doi~N. I would not. Mr. BELL. The NEA would oppose this? Dr. DORAN. Yes, sir. Mr. BELL. In other words, if you had to have the parochial features of it, you would be against it? Dr. D0RAN. I would be against the Federal support to parochial schools. Mr. BI~I~L. You would be against the bill, if that were included in it? Dr. Do1i~N. I would be against that part of the bill. Mr. BEta. I mean on final passage. You can't vote "maybe" in the House. Dr. DORAN. I would say I would be against that part of it. I un- derstand, but there is such a thing as Congress amending the bill. Mr. BELL. Supposing the amendments fail? Dr. Don~&N. I would oppose Federal aid. Mr. BELL. Then you would oppose it?. Dr. D0R4N. I am speaking for myself now, but I think this is the general policy of the National Education Association, the Kentucky Education Association, that we would prefer the Federal Government remain out of the field of public support, unless the money could be confined to public schools. Mr. BELL~ To the extent of your putting yourself in the position of a Congressman voting the views of NEA, you would, then, have to vote, against the bill if parochial private schools were involved in theaid? . ~... ... ... Dr. DORAN. I would sodo; yes, sir, Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Hawkins, do you have any questions? Mr.'HAwKINS. I have no uestions. Mr. PERKINS. One finid question; Dr. Doran. I notice that yOu state in your statement thtt title II `Lthcks the symptoms but not the cauSes of poverty. What do you deem to be the causes of poverty? And then, the second phase of my question, No. 2, inasmuch as you were a high school principal in the old NYA days which was very similar to the work training program provided for in the bill we are considering-how do you see the~ work training program helping the youngsters that are unemployed in these communities throughout the country? Dr. DORAN. In answer to your first question, Congressman, of course, ignorance, lack of education, would be more of the cause of poverty. An inadequate school system would contribute more greatly to poverty than unemployment, itself. I think that is what we are talking about in causes and effect. In relation to your second question, one of the most fascinating parts of this program is the inclusion of your work-study program. We had great benefits from your National Youth Administration Act. I was a high~school principal during that time. I can point to young- sters now who are in the legal profession, who are practicing medicine, PAGENO="0403" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1119 who are teaching school, who are in the ministry, and various positions of community leadership who could not have gone to high school ex- cept the $3 or $4 a month that they earned through this NYA program. I know we have many students in Our college and they are* in the elementary and secondary schools now who need this kind of assist- ance to eat and get the clothing they need to continue their education. One of the strong facets of this program is your work-study title. Mr. PERKINS. You feel that the work study program will enable hundreds of youths in eastern Kentucky to enter college who otherwise would not be able to go to college? Dr. DORAN. And remain in college, Congressman. If you will, let me give you this personal experience I had Sunday afternoon. I interviewed a young lady for a job as a laboratory assistant in our language program and she is the youngest of eight children. Her father is a displaced person in Ohio working, and he commutes back and forth from home. The mother is torn between the two locations. She is the first of her family to graduate from high school, the first of her family to graduate from college, and she has worked her way through college. Now the thing of it is, the colleges do not have enough money for all of the people to obtain employment. Nor can all of the jobs that need to be done on college campuses or on high school campuses be done by the people who are now available for employment. There is no question but what in our particular region there would be many students continue their education who have dropped out or who are flooding the labor market that would stay in school under this kind of arrangement. Mr. PERKINS. Thank you very much for appearing, Doctor. Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, could I ask one more question of the witness? Mr. PERKINS. One, yes. Mr. BELL. Dr. Doran, did NEA support the Higher Education Facilities Act this past year ~ Dr. DORAN. The National Education Association, Mr. Congress- man, took no particular position for or against. I was very strong for it. Mr. BELL. You were for it? Dr. Don~N. And many college presidents were on the other side. It was not a matter of the NEA supporting it or opposing it. Mr. BELL. Why did they not support it? Dr. DORAN. Well, there were some areas of consideration in it that may have been interpreted to be inconsistent with the resolution passed by the delegate assembly in Detroit last year. I personally had no fear, neither did we in Kentucky have any fear, and there are many private colleges in Kentucky that are not going to use the money; but I know of no public schools that will not use it. Mr. PERKINS. We appreciate your appearance here, Dr. Doran. You have been extremely helpful to the committee. Dr. DORAN. You honor me, Mr. Chairman. It is a great honor to see my Congressman in the position you are in. Mr. PERKINS. Come around, Mr. Brooks. Our next witness is Dr. Joseph J. Vincent, superintendent of schools, South Park Independent School District, Beaumont, Tex. PAGENO="0404" 1120 ECONOMIC OPPORTIJNITY ACT OF 1964 `We have with us here this morning a distinguished Member in the Congress, Congressman Jack Brooks. It is a pleasure for me to recognize yOU, Mr. Brooks, to introduce the witness. STATEMENT OP HON. JACK BROOKS, A REPRESENTATIVE~ IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP TEXAS Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman. I want to say thank you to the com- mittee for your gracious willingness to hear Dr. Vincent. Joe Vincent has been a lifelong friend of mine. He taught in public schools for 40 years and he taught in a 2-room school and now has been running, for the past 17 years, a system which has 14,000 students. He served in World War I and in `World War II. He has been a. broadminded educator who was not unwilling to get. into the politi- cal battles of mine and others. He has made a considerable contribu- tion in that light. Also, during `World `War II, he worked specifically in rehabilitating semiliterates and illiterates and did some considerable work there. He has some background, I think, and he will make a contribution. I want to thank you for your willingiless and courtesies in hearing him, and hope he will not impose too much on your time. Thank you very much. Mr. PERKINS. I want to say, in response to Mr. Brooks' statement, that I feel you did a good job in sending Mr. Brooks to Congress, because on all occasions he has worked for the general welfare of the people of Texas, and especially for all educational programs. I am delighted to join with Mr. Brooks in welcoming you here. I notice you have a prepared statement. Do you wish to insert it in the record? STATEMENT OF JOSEPH J~. VINCENT, SUPERINTENDENT OP SCHOOLS, SOUTH PARK INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, BEAU-. MONT, TEX. Mr. VINCENT. I will proceed in order- Mr. PERKINS. Any way you prefer. Mr. VINcENT. Instead of questions at the end, if any of the com- mittee wish to ask questions they may do it when each matter comes up. I promise I will be out of here in 15 minutes. Mr. PERKINs Take your time; proceed. Mr. VINCENT. First., I wish to thank this distinguished group for taking the time out for this. I want to thank my good friend, Con- gressman Jack Brooks, for making this meeting possible. With the hopes that I can avoid being placed more or less in the category of a crackpot or someone handing in new ideas, and with the hopes that I can gain your attention and consideration of. this thing, I am going to try to identify myself so that it will explain my attitude, if this is creative. I was born in a homestead on the lowland swamps of Louisiana. There were no schools. We lived off the la.nd. And, since I have viewed the very sections of the underprivileged and poor people in the Appalachian highland, I decided I must have been very poor, be- cause those children there have much more now than I had. We lived PAGENO="0405" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1121 from game, and we had no electric lights. We got food if there were plenty of ducks and geese and rabbits, and that sort of thing. We were not unhappy, because we didn't know we were poor. We were as good as anybody else. There were no rich folks around to compare us with. So, I think I know what I mean when I mention poverty here in reference to the President's message. I was a dropin at school when they finally got a little one- or two-room school. I mean, I dropped in when there were no potatoes to plant or corn to puii, or something of that sort. I have three college degrees from standard universities, and I never spent a day on a college campus during regular session. I belong to the old school. I took an examination, started teaciung school. I took correspondence; I did some summer terms, and I did extension work, traveling sometimes a hundred miles each weekend to take it. So I think I know what it means to get an education the hard way. This is not boasting. I am trying to get you to listen to me with the hopes that I understand the phase in our help to the underprivileged. I am talking about two-room schools; I am talking about colleges. I have coached football. I am now retiring as the superintendent of a fine school system where I have been for 37 years. I should have re- tired 5 years ago, when I reached 65, but the board asked me-they can ask me 1 year at a time-and they asked me if I would not stay on. The other day I told them they would have to let me go. Of course, that aroused my ego, because most of the boys* try to hold their jobs. So I feel I have working knowledge of education administration. We built 21 buildings, $11 million worth, and never lost a bond issue since I returned from overseas during the last war. I served in both of these wars, and each time I got charged with the "eight balls." What are eight balls? Section 8 of the Army Regulations, which pro- vides for rehabilitation of people who cannot read or write, or who are not well adjusted and are not good for the service. We returned 91 percent of them to the services. And now I will ask you-this is just to prove it, not to satisfy my ego. I have a letter of commendation there, just as a matter of proving what I have said. In the second paragraph it says the way it was done. I was interested in this con- versation a while ago in speaking of people who have education and become teachers of educational courses. In this case, we took a segment of soldiers, and we took the top peo- ple, all soldiers, and taught the bottom group and rehabilitated 90 percent of them. And here is proof from one of the finest generals in the U.S. Army. I have a personal commendation from General Mac- Arthur, but it is verbal, and I am sorry I do not have a record of it, for the Tokyo Army Educational Center, in which I had 25,000 stu- dents. There, every member of the faculty was a POW, including Henry Snyder, the greatest harpsichordist in the world. It was the only school I have ever had where we had to put out MP's to keep peo- ple from coming in. Usually we have to work the other way. Now you have this, which is a short skeletal outline of something that I propose. Let me emphasize at this time I am retiring; I am not looking for a job. I do not want any political favors. I just think I have something here which would bother my conscience the rest of 31-847---~i4---tpt. 2-27 PAGENO="0406" 1122 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 this time if I did not lay it out. If you would pick up this paper and ask questions as you come along, it is too brief to do otherwise. Now, in order that you may get in somewhat of a frame of mind just stand back and think of the CCC camp. That is not what it is, but in order to get you based on it, I propose something like that, be- cause the CCC camp did do a wonderful job. And I know men re- tiring in town here, field grade Army officers, who if it had not been for the CCC, would be out now on charity. So the CCC camp did do a good job. It had its faults. Now this particular thing, after it was written and after we had been working on it for a number of months-I have the President's message here of last March, and I find after underlining the red parts that the President has here that it has been included here. Now I am pleading for a package unit, using just what is dripping off the table from the many programs which we have to educate and to rehabilitate and to take care of poverty. I think that we can take the drippings from the tables of these vari- ous organizations, mobilize them in such a way as to take care of a whole lot of it-the things that we have discussed here for 2 or 3 hours. The name of this thing, I don't know what it would be. I have a name there. I feel definitely the name of it should be something that sounds important. The name above, or one similar to it, is an important thing. This is fundamental, if it is to appeal to the people who want to be somebody. You get down to the bottom of it, and that is what most of us want to be. Now listen, the object of this thing, to coordinate, combine, and economize those parts of our many agencies which overlap in their efforts to fight poverty, aid education, rehabilitate the delinquent youth, and on and on. To vitalize America. We are rumiing siTlort on patriotism. I am saying this now, because a little later on I am going to propose a military turn to it which now seems to be a little un- popular. To satisfy military obligations of our young men. Why do we draft a young man and put him in the Army, when at the same time we could be educating him in a school setup? I tell you why. The Southern Association, American Association, dictates to us in high schools that we can't recognize work done in the Army. A man retired, who dropped out of my high school 20 years ago, worked at Cape Canaveral and did most of the electronics work. He took an examination when he came home and retired to the Texas Gulf Sul- phur Co. He came to the topman, and he said, "You are going to be boss of this construction. Where is your high school diploma? "I don't have it." He came out to my high school, "I would like to get a high school diploma on these credits, 20 years in the Army." "I can't do it. The association says I can't." We do a lot of silly things under the Office of Education. That is one of the worst. We could demand standard teaching in this unit. Not all Army teaching is standard teaching, but much of it is much better than some I am doing in public schools. I don't know about the rest of it. To provide experience in a wholesome environment for those who have been deprived of this. Sanitation-those of you who remember after World War II the hospitals, you sent a person in from a pretty good family. You went there and he was down, very far down, be- cause of the spat in the bathtub. It was a~ terrible situation, because PAGENO="0407" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1123 a lot of those people came out of that sort of environment, and military training thrown back in there would teach them sanitation. Sanita- tion goes along with that. Look at your pictures on TV about Appalachia. You see open privies and all that, in the backyard. No garden, but at the same time a situation which could be corrected through a camp environment and military influence, housekeepers. Now through cooperation and planned liaison with industry and business to train for jobs in existence and those anticipated. What are we saying up here? A lot of school teachers are in this room. Listen- ing to this silly thing. We are getting students, prepare them for jobs which we are going to have 10 years from now. Who knows what those jobs are? I don't know. Now we could do something `alongthat line. You remember during the war how they sent around trains to dif- ferent towns and they had gadgets on the wall everywhere. People walked in and said, "I can prepare this in my little factory." Some- body else said, "I can prepare that in my little factory." Why can't we do that with these people in these towns? We. go out, industry will help us. These folks will say, "We can prepare this and teach them to prepare it." Industry can come nearer telling us what these jobs will be than anybody else. They would serve probably for a dollar a year. Now for whom? For youth, male and female. Avoid rigid age brackets, because some kids at 14 years old are older than some at 20. Biggest fallacy is that a child should be 6 before accepted first. `Some should enter school when they are 3 years old, and some not until 10. But you have to have a deadline That would be a hard political problem in this situation, but I am giving you what I think would be right at the time. Interest should .be on case studies.,' Dropouts, kickouts, another problem,' as well as normal people, I think could be handled provided you had the `military for the housekeepers. Not necessarily squads right `and `left, but the military. `housekeeping as regards sanitation, getting up, going to bed, and keeping lockers clean. ` `Now where? A lot of Congressmen now are having trouble for the simple reason that I know down around Lake Charles they' removed the base from down there, the airbase." They' want to save taxes, but not at L'ake Charles. They are all friends `of mine, so I can talk about them. Now these camps can be good schools. Many of them have good hospitals. The last time I went to Fort Crockett in Galveston, that was a good while ago, there was the most expensive hospital there. We sold it. It was a wonderful plant. In this place we could teach nursing; we could teach dental tech- nicians; we could teach anything that is there, because a military com- munity. is a complete community. , ` ` Where would you get your staff? I noticed a while ago that came up. We hired some teachers who do not have standard degrees. We gave a teacher $6,000'a year when she starts. We hire two people with degrees that do not have training. We hire two for one, for $3,000 each ; and we have been able to get them for that. Now housekeeping in charge of selective armed service officers and noncommissioned officers from all services. Do not ask for these peo- PAGENO="0408" 1124 ECONOMIC OPPORTuNITY ACT OF 1964 pie by number. Any old soldier knows this. You say, "I am going to set up a unit here, send me 10 men." The old general will tell you that. He will clean out his regiment. I always got that. So, call for these men on an elimination basis, on the screen test. Servicemen and civilians used as teachers depending on supply. At any rate, let it be organized by hard core, experienced people. Combine and coordinate that part of all agencies which overlap as far as you can in the poverty, education, unemployed, training, Peace Corps, and so forth. There will be little bits of that. Of course, what you fellows are thinking about is how all these organizations are going to say, "Don't get into my own little empire." But if we could get the right, we are talking about ivhat drips off the table, and we could have a wonderful program with that, if we can get the coordination of these people. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Roosevelt, do you have any questions? Mr. ROOSEVELT. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. PERKINs. Do you have any other observations you want to make before we ask some questions? Mr. VINcENT. No, sir. You can start any time you want to. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Hawkins, do you have any questions? Mr. HAwKINs. None. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Bell. Mr. BELL. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman, except to say how much I appreciate hearing you. Mr. VINCENT. Is the time up for me? Mr. PERKINS. How much more time do you feel you need? We want to try to hear another witness. Mr. VINCENT. I want to put my proposed plan in the record. Mr. PERKINS. Without objection, that will be inserted in the record. Mr. VINCENT. Thank you very much. Mr. PEIuw~s. Thank you very much, Dr. Vincent. Mr. VINCENT. No, sir. I am just Joe Vincent. One of my degrees wasn't doctor. Mr. PERKINS. You have made all the comments you cared to make, have you not? Mr. VINCENT. Yes, sir; in view of the fact that you have copies of this thing. Mr. PERKINS. Thank you very much. Mr. VINCENT. I hope you excuse flamboyancy, but I am just a coun- try boy. (The outline referred to follows:) PROPOSED PI~N FOR ARMED SERVICES INSTITUTE FOR TRAINING AND EDUCATION FOR YOUNG AMERICANS Tue name The name above, or one similar to it, is important sounding. (This is funda- mental if it is to appeal to people who, mainly, "want to be somebody.") The object 1. To coordinate, combine and economize, those parts of our many agencies which overlap, in their efforts to "fight poverty," "aid education," and "rehabifi- tate delinquent youth." 2. To vitalize Americans. 3. To satisfy military obligations of our young men. 4. To provide experience in a wholesome environment for those who have been deprived of this. PAGENO="0409" ECONOMIC~ OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1125 5. Through cooperation and a planned liaison with industry and business, to trains for jobs in existence and those anticipated. (a) Plan job placement in services, industry, and business. For whom Youth: male and female; avoid rigid age brackets; entrance on case study. ("Dropouts," students expelled from school included * * * that is reason for military discipline.) Where In some of the "not needed" military installations scattered over America are laboratories, workshops, cafeterias, libraries, schoolrooms, and mountains of usable material being sold to GI surplus. Some of the clothing would be us- able-for example, coveralls, of which we have tons. Staff and teachers "Housekeeping" in charge of selected armed services officers. (Not asked for by numbers because commanding officers would send least competent, not his best.) Servicemen and civilians used as teachers, depending on supply. At any rate, let it be organized by "hard core" schoolmen from the field with years of experience. Combination and coordination 1. Combine and coordinate that part of all agencies which overlap * * * pov- erty, education, unemployment, training, Peace Corps, etc. 2. Affiliate work with public high schools of the Nation, when it is up to standard. (Servicemen have returned home as master sergeants in electronics and high schools could give no credit for graduation.) 3. Coordinate work with labor and trade unions. Ask their help in solving apprentice problems and training. 4. Industry and business-same. 5. Use both the above to find jobs. 6. Get support and good will of armed services by asking them to train for service courses. Motivation and helping solve poverty problem (1) Ten dollars per week which, if allotted to parents, would be matched dollar for dollar. (Base pay.) (2) Training and education personal pay. (Motivation pay.): (a) Academic education pay: Grade 10 cents per point per month average (academic), thus: grade Grade 10 cents per point per month average (academic), thus: grade of 87X10 cents $8. 70 "Doing" subjects, 90X10 cents 9.00 Total merit personal pay per month (grading period) 17. 70 (3) Travel pay home on common carriers once per 6 months, if in uniform. None for private cars * * * there should be no cars. (4) Uniform dignified-probably modified service uniform; the uniform should be one which would add dignity, as these people most of all want to "be some- body." Philosophy in brief Much of our social and economic training and education problems come as the result of personal or community lack of discipline * * * people who want free- dom but refuse to accept the resultant responsibility. Military discipline is training in patriotism, punctuality, endurance, pride, courage, and respect for the "boss" and oneself. This could be a fine training for an armed service career which is certainly a worthwhile service and profession. Nurses, beauticians, dental technicians, cooks, and hundreds of other job-training features could be offered by the WAC to girls. Mr. PERKINS. We have with us now Rabbi Hirsch, of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations. Come around, Rabbi Hirsch. Identify yourself for the record and pi oceed PAGENO="0410" 1126 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT .OF~ 1964 STATEMENT OP RABBI RICHARD C+. HIRSCH, UNION OP AMERICAN HEBREW CONGREGATIONS Rabbi }JHISCH. Thank you very much. I am Rabbi Richard G. Hirsch, director of the Religious Action Center of the American He- brew Congregations. In the interest of time, I don't think it is necessary for me to read the entire testimony. Mr. PERKINS. Without objection, your testimony will be entered in the record at this point as though you did read it. (The full statement follows:) TESTIMONY OF RABBI RIcHAnD G. Hrnscn, REPRESENTING THE COMMIssIoN ON SocIAI~ AcTIoN OF Rm'ORM JUDAISM I am Rabbi Richard G. Hirsch, director of the Religious Action CenterS Union of American Hebrew Congregations. I appear in behalf of the Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism, a joint instrumentality of the Central Con- ference of American Rabbis and the Union of American Hebrew Congregations. Other national agencies which are members of the commission on social action are the National Federation of Temple Sisterhoods, the National Federation of Temple Brotherhoods, and the National Federation of Temple Youth. In consonance with the policy positions taken by the organizations I represent, I come before you today to urge full support for H.R. 10440, the Economic Oppor- tunity Act of 1964. In 1960 the Central Conference of American Rabbis called for a sustained attack upon all the social and economic conditions which make for poverty, stating that social progress is realized through concrete solutions of specific problems rather than by the adoption of any dogmatic and inflexible system. Our aim must be a social order which will provide the maximum of security, education, and wellbeing consistent with the liberty and dignity of the individual and his right of free choice. The Union of American Hebrew Congregations, in November 1963, adopted a resolution which states in part: "America faces a serious moral problem in the continuing high rate of unemployment. * * * We heartily commend the local, State, and Federal Government programs designed to (a) train unskilled work- ers; (b) retrain workers who have been displaced by technological changes; and (c) develop a more extensive vocational guidance and training program. We urge that such programs be expanded." Although our national organizations have not taken positions on the specific details of legislation before this committee, Judaism has formulated a position on the responsibilities of a society to its individual members. I speak tO you from the perspective of that historical position. The economic and social conditions which necessitate Government action to alleviate poverty have changed since Biblical times but the moral issues which motivate our concern have remained constant. The admonition of the Bible applies with remarkable pertinence to our day: "When you have eaten your fill and have built fine houses to live in, and your herds and flocks have multiplied, and your silver and gold have increased, and everything you own has prospered, beware lest your heart grow haughty and you forget the Lord your God, who freed you from the land of Egypt, the house of bondage * * * and you say to yourselves, `My own power and the might of my hand have won this wealth for me.' Remember that it is the Lord your God who gives you power to get wealth." (Deuteronomy 8: 11-18.) Unfortunately, too many Americans have grown haughty and have forgotten that their personal wealth is not only the fruit of their own labors, but repre- sents the accumulated wealth derived frOm the labors of countless generations of men. A recent Gallup poll, March 21, 1964, revealed that 54 percent of the American people believe that when a person is poor, it is because of "lack of effort on his own part." The concept that poverty is the result of indolence or lack of ability is deeply ingrained in the American psyche and is reflected throughout our history, from Puritanism to Horatio Algerism. The fundamental task confronting us today, therefore, is to reorient our own people to a recognition that poverty cannot be solved by individual action alone. We cannot vaccinate people against poverty by lining them up, as we did this PAGENO="0411" ECONOMIC. OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1.9 64 1127 week in Washington for the polio vaccine, and dropping a sugar-coated pill marked "incentive" into their mouths. Until Americans realize that most poor people are poor not so much because of their own deficiencies as because of basic deficiencies in society at large, we shall never win the war on poverty. Until that day comes, the real poverty in America will be found not in the slums, but in the impoverished hearts of those who refuse to accept responsibility for the welfare of their fellow men. We support this antipoverty legislation, not because it will solve all our prob- lems, but because it will firmly establish a recognition that the problems exist, and that our society, through it Federal, State, and local governments, is deter- mined to embark on a comprehensive, coordinated, continuous campaign to eradicate the problems from American life. We support this legislation because we need to convince the "invisible Amer- icans" that they have been seen, the "wasted Americans" that they are useful, and the "other Americans" that they are brother Americans. The impact of poverty on the personality of the poor has been well docu- mented: Destruction of self-respect, dissipation of incentive, and feelings of hopelessness and frustration, often accompanied by hostility and aggressiveness. However, we should be just as concerned about the impact of poverty on the rest of the population. Our sages taught that during the years of the famine in ancient Egypt, Joseph used to eat so little that he was alway hungry. When people said.to him, "Why are you hungry when you have vast storehouses filled with grain at your disposal?" He answered, "I fear that if I satisfy my own hunger, I might forget the hungry." When the satisfied forget the needy, the character of the satisfied is distorted. What kind of values do we inculcate in our children when they see the adult population callous to the needs of the poor? What kind of "mixed-up kids" do we create, when children in school learn about "the land of opportunity" and outside the school see the doors of opportunity closed to millions of persons? What kind of human beings do we produce, when white children feel that people of colored skins are inferior and that persons who live in slums deserve no better? Fortunately, in this instance our moral concern is buttressed by sound eco- nomic policies, and it is possible to foresee the fulfillment of the Biblical state- ment: "He that giveth unto the poor shall not lack, but he that hideth his eyes shall have many a curse." (Proverbs 22: 9.) Long-term unemployment, de- pressed areas, vast expenditures of public funds to sustain nonproductive per- sons, inadequate economic growth, crime, and juvenile delinquency offer vivid evidences of "many a curse" which are the result of hiding our eyes. Con- versely, programs such as those contained in this legislation, followed soon, it is to be hoped by much more extensive and intensive programs, would result in the alleviation of these "curses" to the greater benefit of society. Never before in our history has there been such a coalescence of the needs of the economy and the imperatives of social justice. This legislation will improve the lot of all persons regardless of race, but it is important to recognize that although nonwhites constitute only 10 percent of the population, they comprise 21 percent of the poor. At the very moment this committee is considering antipoverty legislation, the other body of Congress is considering civil rights legislation. Passage of both pieces of legislation in the strongest and most effective form is essential to the well-being of our Nation. For the Negro, the civil right, and antipoverty bills are the two sides of one coin. The problem of race is inseparable from other social and economic prob- lems. In a sense, the treatment of the Negro has come to mean what the treatment of the Jew meant in other periods of history-the criterion by which to gage the moral health of our society. The Negro has become America's "chosen people," destined to be God's "suffering servant." The very color of his skin has made all poverty more visible and all injustice more conspicuous. Without fully realizing it himself, the Negro has become a symbol for all Americans. It is as if God, the divine artist, had taken His brush and darkened the face of every 10th American in order to teach all Americans the lesson of social responsibility. So long as there is unemployment, a high percentage of Negroes will be unem- ployed. So long as Americans are inadequately housed, Negroes will people the slums. So long as the lowest 40-percent income groups do not receive an in- creasing proportion of the total national income, Negroes will be deprived citi- zens. All social issues are interrelated, just as all men are interrelated. Racial justice fOr nonwhites is inextricable from economic justice for all Americans. PAGENO="0412" 1128 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 We commend the section of the bill (title I) which stresses vocational train- ing and work experience. One of the rabbis of the Talmud declared, "Whoever does not teach his son an occupation, teaches him to become a robber." This legislation would enable our society to provide its sons with the skills necessary to become productive citizens. It would enable persons who have been enmeshed by generations of poverty to break out of the pattern of inherited deprivation. It would restore a sense of self-respect and dignity, reflected in the dictum of our tradition: "A man prefers 1 measure of his own to 10 measures of his friends." We support those programs (title IV) geared to offering incentives for employment and investment, in consonance with the spirit of the medieval Jewish philosopher Maimonides who declared that the highest degree of charity is "to give assistance to a fellow man"-by procuring work for him, thereby enabling him to become self-supporting. We endorse the section of the legislation (title II) which would enable the Federal Government to encourage and aid financially, State,- local, and other "community action programs." Federal initiative and finances are indispen- sable, but the primary responsibility still rests within each community and it is most appropriate that emphasis should be placed on stimulating local action. We note with approval the provision that all funds for educational programs will be administered by public educational agencies and we trust that the prin- ciple of separation of church and state will be adhered to throughout the legis- lation. The legislation before this committee is only a beginning, but it is a vital beginning in the direction of fulfilling the American dream of assuring every person equal opportunity for dignity, security, education, and maximum develop- ment of his human potentialities. We look to you, our elected representatives, to assume leadership in the struggle for justice. "Open thy mouth, judge right- &ously, and plead the cause of the poor and the needy." (Proverbs 31: 9.) Rabbi HIRsCH. I realize we are somewhat in the position of an Egyption mummy pressed for time. Therefore, I would like to read excerpts of my remarks. Mr. PERKINS. Any way you prefer. May I say we had hoped to get to you before this time. In fact, I looked around for you as the first witness this morning. Rabbi Hrnscii. We were called by your office and notified that we were going to be number three and that it wasn't necessary for us to be here until 10:15. Mr. PERKINS. We kind of reversed the trend this morning. If we had been here we would have gotten to yousooner. Rabbi HIRSCH. That is perfectly all right. Unfortunately, too many Americans hiwe grown haughty and have forgotten that their personal wealth is not only the fruit of their own labors, but represents the accumulated wealth derived from the labors of countless generations of men. A recent Gallup poll-March 21, 1964-revealed that 54 percent of the American people believe that when a person is poor, it is because of "lack of effort on his own part." The concept that poverty is the result of indolence or lack of ability is deeply ingrained in the American psyche and is reflected through- out our history from Puritanism to Horatio AJgerism. The fundamental task confronting us today, therefore, is to reorient our own people to a recognition that poverty cannot be solved by indi- vidual action alone. We cannot vaccinate people against poverty by lining them up, as we did this week in Washington for the polio vac- cine, and dropping a sugar-coated pill marked "incentive" into their mouths. Until Americans realize that most poor people are poor not sO much because of their own deficiencies as because of basic deficiencies in society at large, we shall never win the war on poverty. Until that PAGENO="0413" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1129 day comes, the real poverty in America will be found not in the slums, but in the impoverished hearts of those who refuse to accept responsi- bility for the welfare of their fellow, men. We support this antipoverty legislation, not because it will solve all our problems, but because it will firmly establish a recognition that the problems exist, and that our society, through its Federal, State, and local governments, is determined to embark on a comprehensive, co- ordinated, continuous campaign to eradicate the problems from Ameri- can life. We support this legislation because we need to convince the "in- visible Americans" that they have been seen, the "wasted Americans" that they are useful, and the "other Americans" that they are brother Americans. There has been a great emphasis, gentlemen, on the impact of pov- erty on the poor, and considerable amount of testimony has been sub- mitted to this committee in that regard. I should like to emphasize that I, personally, am very much concerned about the impact of pov- erty on those who are not poor; on the other members of society. What kind of values do we inculcate in our children when they see the adult population callous to the needs of the poor? What kind of mixed-up kids do we create when children in school learn about the land of opportunity and outside the schools see the doors of oppor- tunity closed to millions of persons? What kind of human beings do we produce when white children feel that people of colored skins are inferior and that persons who live in slums deserve no better? I think it is very important to realize that fortunately in this in- stance our moral concern is buttressed by sound economic policies. I think it is possible to foresee the fulfillment of a Biblical statement, "He that giveth unto the poor shall not lack, but he that hideth his eyes shall have many a curse." We have seen many of the curses which have come to our society as a result of our failure to live up to our responsibilities. I include in these inadequate economic growth, the vast expenditures of public funds to sustain nonproductive per- sons, crime and juvenile delinquency, and many others, including th~ impact of poverty on the personality of those who are poor. I believe never before in our history has there been such a coales~ cence of the needs of the economy and imperatives of social justice. This legislation will improve the lot, of all persons, regardless of race. It is important to recognize that although nonwhites constitute 10 per- cent of the population, they comprise 21 percent of the poor. At the very moment this committee is considering antipoverty legislation, the other body of Congress is considering civil rights legislation. We believe that passage of both pieces. of legislation in the strongest and most effective form is essential to the well-being of our Nation. For the NegrQ, the civil rights and antipoverty bills are the two sides of one coin. The problem of race is inseparable from other social and economic problems. Jewish tradition maintains that all social issues are interrelated, just as all men are interrelated. Racial justice for nonwhites is inextricable from economic justice for all Americans. We endorse the section of the legislation which would enable the Federal Government to encourage and aid financially State, local, and other community action programs. We believe that Federal mi- PAGENO="0414" 1130 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 tiative and finances are indispensible, but the primary responsibility still rests within each community. And it is most appropriate that emphasis should be placed on stimulating local action. We note with approval the provision that all funds for educational programs will be administered by public educational agencies and we trust that the principle of separation of church and state will be ad- hered to throughout the legislation. The legislation before this committee is only a beginning, but it is a vital beginning in the direction of fulfilling the American dream of assuring every person equal opportunity for dignity, security, edu- cation, and maximum development of his human potentialities. We look to you as our elected representatives to assume leadership in the struggle for justice. "Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and the needy." Mr. PmKINs. I certainly wish to compliment you on an outstanding statement, Rabbi Hirsch. I just regret that we do not have the full membership of the committee here to have heard this statement. Congressman Roosevelt. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Rabbi Hirsch, I would like to join our acting chair- man in what he has said, and to say that I think too often, as we begin to legislate, we get bogged down in the technicalities of improving the legislation. While I would be the last one to try to take away that function, it is an important function, of course, to improve the mech- anism of each piece of legislation; but I think you have again brought back to us the proper moral tone; the spiritual need; the philosophic background upon which this proposal rests. And I want to say that I join the chairman in saying that I hope all members will read your full statement, because I think it is a very valuable contribution. Rabbi HIRSH. Thank you, Mr. Roosevelt. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Bell. Mr. BELL. Rabbi Hirsch, I would like to add my word of compli- ment to that of the chairman and Mr. Roosevelt. I fully concur. Yours was an excellent statement. I appreciate the soundness of your thinking and your broad viewpoint on this whole problem. In some of the testimony you may have heard here earlier, Mr. Quie brought out a point that I thought was somewhat surprising; that is, the large percentage of rejectees in our military that have a high school educa- tion. These rejectees took tests equivalent to the seventh grade. There certainly is something peculiar with our educational system, when something like that can exist. Will you comment on that? I have felt that a substantial propor- tion of the rejectees are nonwhite, which would indicate, I think, that perhaps some of the educational features for one group is one thing and for another group is something else. Rabbi HIRSCH. I think what is at issue here, and something which I think our society unfortunately has not recognized, is that there are two types of education. There is what might be called book learning and what might be called inculcation of values, incentives, which are provided not only by the public school system, itself, but which are part of the essential background motivating someone to learn, which essential background derives from a person's environment and his reaction to environment in which he lives. PAGENO="0415" ECONOMIC OPPORTuNITY ACT OF 1964 1131 If I might just comment on that, in terms of Jewish tradition, I think one of the reasons why Jews have placed such emphasis on edu- cation-and I do not say this in any way, in any kind of chauvinism; but it is a known fact that Jews have always stressed education-one of the reasons we have done that is that it it has been part of the family environment. In Jewish tradition, for example, study is the equivalent of wor- ship. You want to pray to God? You improve your mind. The emo- tion without the intellect is nothing. That there is an inextricable relationship between what a person feels and what a person thinks. TJnforunately, I think what so often happens in our society-and it is true, not only of those who flunk the examinations; it is true of those who pass, as well-what happens in our society is that too many people are concerned with getting an education for the sake of earn- ing a livelihood alone, or for some other motivation just to get through with it. The difficulty is that I think our society has not yet created that incentive which will look upon education as the fulfillment of the human personality. Just to answer your question more specifically, to get away from the philosophical approach, I think that the reason why these people failed is not necessarily because of the poor educational system but because of all the other failures which I blame on society as much as on specifically the home environment of those individuals involved. Mr. BELL. Rabbi Hirsch, I understand that-correct me if I am wrong. I understand that in the Jewish religion they start the young- sters earlier; do they not, in some type of actual academic training of your own religion. Is that true; at the age of 4, 3, or thereabouts? Rabbi HIRSCH. Well, it depends on the particular situation. The Jewish home is a learning experience from the day a child is born. There are ceremonies and rituals which are part of the home environ- ment. Our holy days are observed in the home. We talk, for exam- ple, the holy day of Passover we just had, where a 2-year-old is expected already to participate in the educational experience of re- * counting the story of the exodus from Egypt. There is not only a dis- cussion, but there is actually action which takes place as part of the home. I think that is part of the deficiency in our society; that the learn- ing experience, particularly in those instances where children come from broken homes or where they come from homes where the parents are not around because they have to work-the difficulty is, that in those homes the home environment is not such to induce or to motivate the learning experience. Mr. BELL. It is true, I think you were practically stating it there, that when they reach the school age the youngsters also have some additional learning which parallels their school learning. Do you find from this that actually our schoolchildren potentially could be pushed a little more? Isn't this an indication that our learning could be stepped up a little bit by virtue of the fact that many of the Jewish children are really taking what amounts to two courses at the same time? Would this seem to indicate to you that possibly we could step up our educational facilities? Rabbi HIRSCH. I think that, in great measure, we have done that in recent years. I think that one of the unfortunate aspects. of our PAGENO="0416" 1132 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 stepped-up educational program has been that it was motivated by the Sputnik and our desire to compete with Russia, which, from what I recall, is the time when the issue first came to the fore in American society. I would have liked that issued to have come to the fore 30 or 40 years ago. I do think there is much we can do. Mr. BELL. You think our educa.tion system could be stepped up and a little more push given to our children? Rabbi HIRSCH. I think so. Mr. BELL. Thank you very much, Rabbi. Rabbi HIRSCH. Thank you. Mr. PERKINS. Rabbi Hirsch, I have one concluding question: Do you believe any of the features of title I endangers family life, we may say; and then again, how do you propose to upgrade the level of education in poverty-stricken or impoverished areas? Address yourself to the first part of the question, and then to the second part. Rabbi HIRSCH. First of all, let me say that as a representative of the organizations for which I have spoken, we have not taken any specific stand on any of this legislation. In essence, what we have said is that in this war on poverty we are going to praise the Lord and you should pass the ammunition. But I do feel, and I am speaking personally now, I do feel that there has to be great concern for family life in title I, where you do take people-particularly the first section of title I, where it is proposed that people will be taken out of their home environment. In some instances, it may be good for the person and good for the home. In other instances, depending on the individuals involved, it may be bad. My only concern in that area would be that there should be sufficient welfare concern to see to it that the programs that are involved are programs that are best for the development of the potentialities of the individuals involved. I have heard some of the testimony which says tha.t it is bad to take people out of their homes. I say the answer to that is: Which homes are you taking them out of? That, I think, has to be decided on an individual basis. Mr. BELL. Will the gentleman yield for a question? Mr. PERKINS. Let him answer the second part of the question, to up- grade the level of education. Rabbi HIRSCH. The second part was the upgrading of the level? Mr. PERKINS. Yes; how do you propose to upgrade the level of edu- cation in these impoverished areas? Rabbi HIRSCH. We have no specific recommendations on that. The only thing I do think is, that none of the programs which have either been encompassed in this legislation or in the other sections of legis- lation are sufficiently comprehensive or intensive enough to do the job. I think this is a beginning and we will have to experiment; and, if we have the commitment to do something, then I think we will recog- nize we should do more. Mr. PERKINS. Do you want to comment, Mr. Bell? Mr. BELL. Yes, relative to the first part of the chairman's question, don't you believe this home feature should certamly be analyzed very carefully, and. we should be sure that we are not upsetting the home situation by encouraging youngsters to go off to some kind of camp? PAGENO="0417" ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 1133 It means that we should be very careful about this feature of the bill. Don't you agree with this? Rabbi HIRSCH. I think we should be careful, but not be so careful that we should eliminate it. I think we ought to be concerned with the individual. Mr. PERKINS. Thank you very much, Rabbi Hirsch. We certainly appreciate your appearance this morning. I wish all the members could have heard your testimony. At this point I wish to insert in the record a statement from the American Association of University Women in the form of a telegram addressed to the chairman, endorsing the legislation. If there is no objection, it will be inserted in the record at this point. (The telegram referred to follows:) APRIL 21, 1964. Hon. ADAM CLAYTON POWELL, Chairman, House Education and Labor Committee, House Office Building, Washington, D.C.: (Attention of Deborah Wolfe) Greatly regret misunderstanding date of appearance representative of Ameri- can Association of University Women in support of H.R. 10440. As unable to present representative today, will file supporting statement for inclusion in rec- ord of your committe's hearings. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN, ALI50N BELL, Staff Associate. Mr. PERKINS. Now the committee, when it reconvenes tomorrow at 9 a.rn., will hear at first a panel comprised of Dr. Herman Miller, Bu- reau of Census; William H. Hurwitz, Chief, Statistical Research Division, Census; and William Werner, Assistant Chief, Statistical Reports, Census. They will appear as a panel. Then at 10:30 a.rn., we have nother panel composed of Harold Gold- stein, Assistant Commissioner, Bureau of Labor Statistics for Man- power and Employment Statistics; Dorothy Newman, Bureau of Labor Statistics; and Harold Wool, Department of Defense, Office of Manpower. At 2 p.m., we will hear David Hackett, Department of Justice. And then we will hear another panel, composed of Dr. Ellen Winston, Commissioner of Welfare; Dr. Forrest Linder, Chief, National Center for Health Statistics; and Rosemary Walker, Office of Education. Until tomorrow at 9 a.m., the committee stands adjourned. (Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the committee recessed to reconvene at 9 a.m., Wednesday, April 22, 1964.) 0