The most urgent need toward accomplishing that objective, according to our report, is for greater organizational emphasis within OEO on programs for the elderly. To meet this need, the Special Committee on Aging recommended that there be established within OEO a high-level position or positions charged with responsibility and authority to assure adequate consideration of the needs of the elderly.

This recommendation would be implemented by this subcommittee's adoption of amendment No. 612, sponsored by one of the members of this subcommittee, and one of the members of our Committee on Aging, the junior Senator from Massachusetts.

I cannot too strongly recommend that favorable action be taken on that amendment. The Committee on Aging regards this improvement as the key recommendation in our report.

If it is implemented, a major step forward will have been made toward adequately serving the elderly under the war on poverty. Without this improvement, it would be difficult or impossible to carry out the other recommendation in our report.

Before I learned of the intention of the junior Senator from Massachusetts to sponsor this amendment, I had planned to sponsor such an amendment myself. Senators who had agreed to cosponsor it were Senators Williams of New Jersey, Neuberger, Morse, Moss, Randolph, Long of Missouri, Yarborough, and Young of Ohio, and, of course, the author of this amendment, Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts.

If this amendment is not adopted, the next best means of assuring adequate consideration to the needs of the elderly in the war on poverty would be for this subcommittee to adopt an amendment earmarking for elderly programs a certain amount of the funds authorized by the 1966 poverty amendments. I believe it would be entirely appropriate to require that 20 percent of the community action funds be devoted to programs beamed at the elderly.

If the subcommittee adopts the Nelson amendment to provide funds for employment programs for the hard-core unemployed, it should be specified that a minimum of 40 percent of those funds be allocated to programs for the elderly, which may also be counted as part of the 20percent allocation of general community action funds.

To those who would question the desirability of congressional earmarking of poverty funds, I would point out that decisions regarding allocation of funds are inevitable, and that in the absence of congressional allocation, an allocation will be made by the agency itself. It is much better for this decision to be made by those elected by the people to make major policy decisions of this nature.

If the Kennedy amendment is not adopted, the only effective means remaining for assuring the carrying out of congressional intent regarding programs for the elderly will be an earmarking amendment of the type I have outlined.

In making this plea in behalf of our older compatriots, I feel fortunate in making it to a group of Senators who have already shown more than average interest in improving the later years of our fellow Americans. You have an opportunity in considering this legislation to do still more for older Americans than you have already done, and I urge and I know you will take full advantage of this opportunity.

Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, Senator Smathers, for a most helpful presentation of a very important matter.

Thus if the amendment which you and Senator Kennedy intend to present is adopted, then there would be no need for the earmarking which is your fallback position?

Senator SMATHERS. That is the fallback position. The Senator has expressed it correctly. We feel if we have in the program a high-level man with considerable authority to look after the needs of the elderly, then we feel we will be sufficiently able to get the money for them that will be needed to run this part of the program.

Senator CLARK. I will ask the staff of the subcommittee to get Mr. Shriver's comments on the Kennedy-Smathers amendment. I have no doubt within the family circle the junior Senator from Massachusetts I will also be in touch.

Senator SMATHERS. I agree with the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee. I think it is fortunate we have a member of the family who is leading this fight and whose name is first on the amendment. I think at least he ought to be heard.

Senator CLARK. Senator Kennedy?

Senator SMATHERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CLARK. Thank you, Senator Smathers.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. May I just add a word at this time to the testimony of Senator Smathers. I think it is appropriate to remind this subcommittee that, under the leadership of Senator Smathers, the Committee on the Aging has been extraordinarily active at least during the time I have had an opportunity to serve with him. He has held constant hearings. I think that the report which has been completed and publicized is one of the most exhaustive and comprehensive studies that has been made in this field, and he ought to be commended for it.

His great interest was recently demonstrated when the act itself, the poverty legislation, was amended. Section 610 now reads:

It is the intention of the Congress that whenever feasible the problems of the elderly poor will be considered in the conduct, administration of the programs under this Act.

Senator Smathers brings a great deal of background, interest, and commitment with regard to our senior citizens, and when he speaks as forcibly as he has today I think it is extremely good evidence to support the recommendations which have been made by his committee. I would like to review some of the facts of the poverty program with him. I know we are both concerned with the question of funds. Medicare Alert involved some $713 million; foster grandparents involved $5.2 million; Green Thumb included $0.7 million; community action programs involved $1 million, and so forth. Is it your understanding, Senator, that if we consider the total amount of funds which have been spent on the poverty program, that only $1 out of every $100 is being spent for the elderly under the poverty program? Senator SMATHERS. I do not know offhand whether the statistics cited are accurate, but we really do not believe that the assistance given the elderly thus far is sufficient, and that is why we think it is so important that the amendment that the Senator is going to offer and sponsor be adopted; because once that is adopted we know that the elderly will then be better treated than they are now.

We do not direct any particular criticism at OEO administration today except that we do not believe that they have at this point interested themselves enough in this particular area.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Are your recommendations based on imaginative kind of programs such as Headstart? Do you believe that with an Assistant Director for the Elderly we would have the administrative machinery to develop similar imaginative programs for our senior citizens as well?

Senator SMATHERS. The Senator is absolutely correct. I want to say right here, he has been very generous with me. As the Senator knows, our committee has had a very effective year with respect to the elderly, and much of that good record is attributable to the hard work of the Senator from Massachusetts. But the problem is that the elderly people, as I stated briefly in my statement, do not demonstrate and have marches, and they are not able to attract all the attention that other unfortunate people, but nevertheless younger people. are able to do.

And they are easily shunted aside and forgotten about. In fact, most people like to do it. Therefore, they are the invisible poor, and therefore, they need spokesmen and help because it is harder to help them. Their future does not really offer much. When we are dealing with young people, we can say we will give you an education, we will open up program for you, we will send you to school of some type which fits your particular needs. But we cannot do that with the elderly very well, so we have to have somebody who is greatly interested in them and in programs for them over in the Office of Economic Opportunity, to see that they are not bypassed, and that is what I think the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts would accomplish.

We would then be giving them a mouthpiece, so to speak, a representative in this big organization, the purpose of which is to help those who are poor.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I would like to just make a final observation.

I think in part I, one of the first parts of your findings, it says and I am quoting directly:

As defined by the Social Security Poverty Index of 1965, 5.4 million persons past 65 live in poverty, another 1.7 million elderly persons on the basis of their own income would also be in the ranks of the very poor if they did not live with families above the poverty level set by the index. Thus, of the 18 million persons past 65 in the United States, more than 7 million are poor, or one in five of all poor.

Senator SMATHERS. Right.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Your testimony and this report have clearly demonstrated the need for giving a sense of priority over in OEO to the problems of our seniors. I look forward to working with him to see if we can have this amendment adopted.

Senator SMATHERS. If anyone can reach him, you can.

Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, Senator. It has been a pleasure to have you with us.

Our next witness will be Mayor John Lindsay, of New York. Mayor Lindsay, we are happy, indeed, to welcome you here as a representative of the U.S. conference of mayors and the National League of Cities.

65-922-66- 16

I remember with some nostalgia my own connection with those two splendid organizations. I must say they have made an excellent choice in having you represent them. My only regret is that you are a Republican and not a Democrat, but that will have no bearing at all on the careful consideration the committee will give to your testimony.

You have a formal statement which we will, without objection, have printed in full in the record and then you can handle it in any way

you want.

Mayor LINDSAY. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for your kind introduction.

I have with me on my right Mr. John Gunther, executive director of the U.S. conference of mayors, and on my left is Mr. Sidney Gardner, the executive director of the New York City Council Against Poverty.

Senator CLARK. We are happy to have both of you gentlemen here today.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN V. LINDSAY, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK

Mayor LINDSAY. Mr. Chairman, it is indeed a privilege for me to appear before you today on behalf of the U.S. conference of mayors and the National League of Cities. Through these two organizations, city leaders frequently have addressed themselves to the progress of the war on poverty. Our purpose today is to present some of the views of our Nation's cities on the crucial battle in which we have enlisted.

My report is made appreciably easier by my participation last week in the annual conference of mayors in Dallas. The conference, in its workshops and resolution committee, discussed the anti-poverty program in considerable detail. During the 5-day conference, a resolution on the community action program was considered, debated, and overwhelmingly adopted.

The resolution declares the enthusiastic support of our Nation's mayors for the community action program. Scattered doubts and disagreements during the early months of the program have given way to a clear endorsement of the community action program as a touchstone for the institutional changes that will permit our cities to deal more effectively with the blight of poverty. The mayors of America have come to play a decisive role in this drive against impoverishment.

Community action, in its 2-year lifespan, has evolved from a philosophical concept to a governmental program. It focuses on the need for fundamental administrative and political changes responsive to the needs of our disadvantaged citizens. In other words, it tries to give the poor people of our cities a chance to be listened to, with the knowledge that what they say will be acted upon. The community action program, supported by Federal funds, was designed to stimulate local initiative and muster local resources in an unprecedented attack on poverty in the cities of America. Its hallmark has been flexibility, ingenuity, and bold local leadership.

These elements, combined at the local level, are critical to the suc cess of a community action program. The Economic Opportunity

Act, more than any previous legislation, recognizes that no single program can do the job. Title II is founded on pluralism in urban government, providing the framework for a coordinated set of programs which together attack the roots of poverty in poor education, bad housing, inadequate job skills, and neglected environments. Flexibility and local decisionmaking are at the heart of community action. Yet moves have been made to limit the flexibility of the program, to restrict street-level innovation, and to remove local discretion. The most damaging proposal, in our judgment, originated in the House Committee on Education and Labor. It would earmark large segments of the community action appropriation for specific programsOperation Headstart, the Neighborhood Youth Corps, narcotics pro

grams.

Each of these activities is an essential component of the war on poverty. We believe, however, that it is inappropriate and unwise for Congress to define in national terms the specific elements of local community action programs. To step back from an act specifically designed to encourage pluralism in local programing and to impose a set of program priorities determined in Washington would be to straitjacket a program which must be implemented with maximum flexibility.

In addition, it is highly arguable whether the experience of 20 months under one of the most ambitious pieces of domestic legislation ever enacted can provide sufficient evidence to determine which segments of that legislation are most effective. I doubt that anyone involved in implementing the Economic Opportunity Act would claim that we have learned conclusively which programs are most effective in eliminating poverty in every community. We are learning much about the causes and effects of urban poverty, but we do not know enough to determine the ideal "mix" of different community action programs. It would be premature to assign specific priorities to programs within the community action framework.

Perhaps the war on poverty, like some other significant domestic programs, has become afflicted with the politics of panacea. It is a measure of the urgency we feel about the blight of poverty in America that in our cities as well as in Congress we too often grasp at simplistic solutions to vastly complex problems.

Senator CLARK. Mayor Lindsay, may I interrupt to suggest that you have learned that to your own satisfaction in the last few months? Mayor LINDSAY. I have, indeed, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CLARK. As I did some years ago as mayor of Philadelphia. There is nothing as complex as trying to run a big city government. Mayor LINDSAY. I discovered some of the things you did, Mr. Chairman, when you were in the same position as I am, were fruitful. I have tried to emulate some of them."

Senator CLARK. I had the good sense to get out while I was ahead. Mayor LINDSAY. No comments. Public housing, welfare assistance, and urban renewal were similarly thought of as the answer to social progress when first proposed. They were only one of the answers. Similarly, the short history of the Economic Opportunity Act has demonstrated that we cannot rely upon any single program or set combination of programs in our fight against poverty.