of 35 million of the poor receive direct assistance under the anti-poverty legislation.

The funds provided for the Office of Economic Opportunity in 1964 and 1965 were, to a degree, sufficient for experimentation. However, we should not be deluded into believing that these funds have made a great impact on poverty in the United States. There are still children in Kentucky who have never seen a newspaper, who run out in the roads to see an automobile passing by. In every large city in the United States there are people packed in slums and living there under miserable conditions. In the cotton growing counties of Mississippi, the unemployment rate is 66 per cent. In the same place, 65 per cent of the people earned $500 or less during the past year. Many of these people are locked into poverty with no greater prospects for the future than to pass on this condition to their children, who in their turn will bequeath their condition to their children. This is the future of the poor in America unless more decisive action is undertaken by the Congress. This is why we believe that the authorization request by the Administration is not sufficient for the third year of the War on Poverty. The current Administration request of 1.7 billion dollars does not measure up even to the limited expansion of the poverty program initially projected by the Office of Economic Opportunity. The Office of Economic Opportunity originally estimated that by the third year of operation the over-all expenditure would be over 3.5 billion dollars.

The Administration has requested 1.7 billion dollars for allocation among the various programs supported by the Economic Opportunity Act. This does not approach the amount needed if we are to forcefully strike at the causes of poverty. If the Office of Economic Opportunity is limited to this budget, a variety of anti-poverty programs which are now in the development stage or just getting off the ground will not be able to move forward. Funding at the original 3.5 billion level projected by the Office of Economic Opportunity is the minimum necessary if the program is to move forward at all.

Not only is the total administrative request inadequate. The shift in emphasis away from community action programs is disturbing and disruptive of progress in the War on Poverty. Local Community Action Programs are complex and complicated undertakings. It was not anticipated that they would be successful overnight. They are based on the realization that there is no single cause of poverty. Its roots are deep and its origins complex. Support for massive and continuing mobilization of resources is basic if community action programs are to realize their full potential as a fundamental weapon in the War Against Poverty.

Requesting greater support for community action programs does not mean that we endorse greater expenditures without evaluating the effects of these local efforts. The Office of Economic Opportunity should begin a careful, objective, and systematic evaluation of these programs now in an effort to strengthen community action programs generally. Those programs which are performing poorly and in places where there is local cynicism and no observable inclination to radically improve performance should have their fund allotments reduced or terminated. Those implementing the goals of the Economic Opportunity Act should be expanded. None should be sustained simply be cause their applications are supported by a powerful political constituency. Further, we request reaffirmation of the intention in the original legislation with regard to the role of the poor in these programs. One of the most enlightened provisions of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 was the instruction that community action programs encourage maximum feasible participation of the residents of the areas and members of the groups served. No one should be saying that the community programs as a whole have massively involved the poor. In some cases there have been heartening efforts to encourage representation of the poor in the governing bodies of the programs and in other key decision-making roles. Yet, in many communities the proportion of representatives of the poor on governing bodies is still inadequate. As amplified in initial guidelines from the Office of Economic Opportunity, administration of local community action programs was to be a partnership involving representatives of the public agencies, the private sector traditionally concerned with poverty, and representatives of the residents of the areas and members of the groups served. Today, on the average, only 24.1 percent of all persons sitting on local community action boards represent the poor. We should not shift our attention away from it, but constantly seek ways of

improving that involvement and opening new opportunities for the poor to play responsible roles in attacking the causes of poverty.

A society that has brought freedom to so many can not, in good conscience, deny genuine opportunities to the poor to share in decisions that affect their lives.

We must also express our concern with regard to several amendments which appear in H.R. 15111. One proposes applying the Hatch Act to poverty programs. It is our belief that the Hatch Act could be used as a weapon to prohibit community action employees from engaging in activities which might arbitrarily be interpreted as "political." For example, it could severely restrict employees from helping poor people express legitimate complaints against the administration of public programs. It could also prohibit political action by any low-income member of a community action board receiving outof-pocket reimbursement in connection with board duties. We are hopeful, therefore, that the Hatch Act Amendment will not be added to this legislation. During the past months there has been continuing discussion about salaries paid to persons in local community action programs. Despite some just complaints we find that the great majority of CAP personnel are not being overpaid. Consequently, we do not believe that salary limitations should be built into the Act.

It is necessary to pay a "market price" to persons with the talents needed in local community action programs. Imaginative and creative persons with administrative abilities will not be attracted by poor salaries; and since the programs are new, these abilities are essential to their success. There is no logical reason for paying lower salaries to people in the human servce field than to those in say, the business world. The coordination of resources demanded in Community Action Programs, the necessarily complicated nature of financial arrangements in such programs, as well as their exploratory nature, all require a high level of professional competence. Necessarily, the salary levels will vary from locality to locality and should be left largely to the market and local discretion. The Office of Economic Opportunity should continue to monitor salary levels and take individual corrective action where appropriate.

Also, H.R. 15111 would increase local matching contributions to 20 per cent after June 30, 1967, thus doubling the amount which local groups will need to contribute after that time. It is widely known that local organizations, particularly neighborhood groups, already experience great difficulty in raising the required 10 per cent local contribution. Passage of this amendment woud cause added hardship in existing programs, particularly those privately operated at the neighborhood level and closest to the poor. Such a provision would severely hamper these programs, discourage the initiation of new programs, and generally increase dependence on local public agencies.

H.R. 15111 has also included an amendment limiting to 5 per cent of the total CAP budget expenditures on research, demonstration, and training projects. Many of the best known successes of the antipoverty legislation, such as Foster Grandparents, Upward Bound, Headstart, Legal Services, etc., have come from funds provided under Section 207 of the Act. There are many techniques yet to be tested and many ideas regarding ways of dealing with these problems which must be examined. To adopt this amendment would unduly limit further experimentation basic to increasing our knowledge about how best to eradicate poverty.

Furthermore, as emphasized earlier in these hearings, this part of the Act provides training for the personnel who must, in large part, carry out the objectives of community action. In the absence of funds for training, these programs would be severely jeopardized.

In conclusion, we wish to emphasize the importance of the Act to the future of this country. This is not an ordinary piece of legislation. Its potential for fundamentally improving the lives of America's poor has not been fully understood. We hope that the Congress will carefully study the resources needed to have a susbtantial effect on the lives of the millions who are burdened by a difficult life in a very rich country.

It is very likely that at some future time citizens reviewing this part of our history will find it impossible to believe that so many arguments were needed to persuade the wealthiest nation in the world to give real hope to her poor; that out of a national income of over 700 billion dollars we could not spare even two billion dollars so that the poor could escape from a misery

made more severe by the wealth of the majority of her citizens; that the poor, a minority among us in this modern age, remain untouched by the opportunities and benefits normally denoted as the "American way of life." The fact that we can spend five billion dollars for the exploration of space while we fail to spend a full two billion dollars for one fifth of our people isolated in poverty clearly demonstrates our current priorities. It is an unhappy thought that the extent to which we must advocate this slight expenditure may be commentary on the philosophy of our times.

We are asking for a greater commitment to these programs now because so much time will be needed to repair the damage which has been done by years of deprivation. And this work will take years, but we can win this War Against Poverty. People all over the Nation stand ready to lend themselves to this endeavor. We are requesting full support of this effort because this country has no good excuse for not abolishing poverty in our time. We ask for an energetic pursuit of the objectives of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE INTERRELIGIOUS COMMITTEE AGAINST POVERTY We are the Co-chairmen of the ICAP. The National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., the National Catholic Welfare Conference, and the Synagogue Council of America in cooperation with other Jewish bodies have joined in the establishment of the Interreligious Committee Against Poverty. The Committee is composed of representatives of these three religious groups, representatives whose background has given them a special interest and knowledge in the fields of social welfare, social action and the problems of poverty. The purpose of the Committee, stated briefly, is to provide a voluntary civilian agency through which the three religious bodies may cooperate and coordinate the efforts of their constituents and membership in seeking to eradicate poverty in the United States. We are here today to speak about the subject of poverty and the Federal Government's programs to combat it, especially those directed by the Office of Economic Opportunity.

The Interreligious Committee Against Poverty is composed of representatives of many religious groups, representatives whose background has given them a special interest and knowledge in the fields of social welfare, social action and the problems of poverty. The purpose of the Committee, stated briefly, is to provide a voluntary body through which the religious resources of the country might be marshalled and coordinated in seeking to eradicate poverty in the United States. The Interreligious Committee Against Poverty was organized under the stimulus of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., the National Catholic Welfare Conference, and the Synagogue Council of America in cooperation with other Jewish bodies. It speaks, however, only in its own name, presenting this statement on the subject of poverty and the Federal Government's programs to combat it, especially those directed by the Office of Economic Opportunity.

RELIGIOUS CONCERN

The Interreligious Committee Against Poverty was formed with the conviction that the persistence of massive poverty in our society is a moral blight which must be eradicated.

The problem of poverty and its solution have been the concern of Judaism and Christianity through the ages. Deeply imbedded in our religious heritage are the moral imperatives calling for the elimination of poverty. Among these are the conception that God created the earth and all its resources and found them good; that man was created and ordained for dominion over the earth and its fruits; that man has the obligation of trusteeship over the natural resources of the earth; and that the will of God for man includes abundance of life, justice in human dealings and sharing of His gifts in charity and equity.

The abundant goods of this world have been created for everyone. No one, whether an individual or a community, has the right to reserve them exclusively for himself. All, on the contrary, have the serious duty of putting them at the service of mankind. All men are the children of God and possess a great dignity. They need the material necessities of life, plus the ennobling fruits of civilization such as education, recreation, and cultural pursuits to enable them to live a life in keeping with that dignity. They must be free from the total absorption of material anxieties to be able to be concerned with spiritual matters.

The

grinding poverty in which so many of our people languish makes dignified living and spiritual concern unattainable. The toleration of persistent poverty, especially amidst our national affluence, is morally indefensible.

GENERAL FUNDING

Recent Federal legislation marks a great stride forward in America's efforts to achieve the national purpose of the eradication of poverty. Many programs are already demonstrating their value. They should be extended and intensified.

This is not the time to begin to reduce or freeze the expenditures for the Government's War on Poverty, which has been so recently launched and whose effects are just beginning to be realized. We urge that increased appropriations be provided to strengthen and broaden the nation's programs to eliminate poverty. The moneys requested by the Administration and recommended by the House Committee on Education and Labor for the next fiscal year are insufficient to accomplish this. We are deeply concerned that these amounts for the new year will actually require a cut-back in current programs, many of which began at different points throughout the year. Just to continue them at the present level will demand an increased appropriation. We are convinced that additional amounts are needed to continue the poverty battle. We urge, therefore, that Congress appropriate substantially more money than the $1,750,000,000 which has been recommended for the Economic Opportunity Program for the coming year. If we as a nation are serious in our determination to eradicate poverty, to wage a total War on Poverty, this substantial increase in funding is an absolute necessity.

We urge that the local contribution for the funding of programs remain at the present level, namely 10 percent. To increase this to 20 percent would discourage many valuable programs. As it is, it has been difficult for many communities to meet the 10 percent requirement, and an increased demand would render it impossible for many programs to be launched or continued.

COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM

In order to fight the War on Poverty, the Congress has wisely emphasized the importance of Community Action Programs to encourage local initiative and responsibility for devising and administering programs best adapted to differing needs, problems and circumstances. This program should be retained, strengthened and expanded. We particularly refer to those programs which are locally conceived and initiated. Although the necessity of attacking some aspects of the poverty problems through direct Federal programs is indisputable, local programs should not be sacrificed in favor of Federal ones. Local assessment of need and local determination of programs to meet needs is a valuable asset of the War on Poverty. The nation needs the flexibility and ingenuity which are reflected in locally proposed Community Action Programs which truly foster the dignity of the human person and strike at the root causes of poverty.

We urge continuing and increased support for such Community Action Programs, and, therefore, strongly suggest that an increase be provided in nonearmarked Community Action funds. We oppose the cut which has been proposed in the funds.

We urge that, when funds are allocated for Federally initiated programs such as Head Start, they be set apart from the Community Action funds. These latter funds should be reserved for the new and locally initiated programs.

To further strengthen the creativity of the Community Action Programs, we urge that the demonstration grants, such as contained in Section 207 of Title II, be funded at a higher level than they are at present.

We strongly support the increased allocation for Head Start and the Neighborhood Youth Corps. We also urge increased funding for the other programs such as the Job Corps, Legal Services, and Adult Literacy programs.

We are convinced of the value of these programs, and of the necessity for substantially increased allocations in order to continue them at a higher level of effectiveness.

PARTICIPATION OF THE POOR

One of the most challenging aspects of the Community Action Programs is the requirement that they be "developed, conducted, and administered with the maximum feasible participation of the residents of the areas and members of the

groups served." The basic concept is an integral part of the religious and demoeratic commitment to help people to help themselves. We deplore any attempt, national or local, to dilute the concept of maximum feasible participation of the poor.

We recognize that the implementation of this maximum feasible participation has caused anxiety in some areas, and is seen as a threat in others. We are convinced, however, that the basic concept is sound and should be continued. We should not be deterred by the difficulties of achievement. We urge a redoubling of the efforts to encourage the full involvement of the poor in anti-poverty programs.

It has been recommended by others that the Hatch Act be made applicable to those engaged in Community Action Programs, but we oppose this. Such an application might block useful and even necessary expressions of interest in political affairs by the poor. It would, in some instances, render inoperable the concept of maximum feasible participation of the poor. It very probably would restrict community organizers in their efforts to develop the interest of the poor in the affairs of their neighborhood and community. Its application here would deprive many people of their basic political rights.

Further, we are convinced that the most important characteristic of the idea of maximum feasible participation is that it be meaningful. Opportunity for participation must be joined with training and experience which will enable those in poverty to take advantage of this opportunity. The number or the percentage of such persons on a Community Action board or organization is not the most important factor. Of greatest importance is that they actually are the "residents of the area and members of the groups served," that they are representatives of those groups, that they work closely with all other persons on the Community Action board or organization, and that their involvement be significant. For proper implementation of these requirements, the Office of Economic Opportunity should make certain that every Community Action Program has provisions for training the poor for "maximum feasible participation."

We repeat what we said when we formed the Interreligious Committee Against Poverty five months ago: "In view of the magnitude of the task and the experimental nature of these programs, some mistakes may well occur in their conception and implementation. While the duty of responsible criticism should be exercised, the entire effort should not be condemned because of occasional false starts, set-backs, or errors of judgment. Such problems are inherent in new programs and should be the stimulus to new and greater efforts and commitment."

SUPPORT OF RELIGIOUS GROUPS

We compliment Congress for its willingness, yes even its courage, in launching the War on Poverty. Verbal counter-attacks have been mounted in great numbers, but these should not be permitted to slow the prosecution of a total War. In this effort, we pledge the support of the great religious bodies which we represent. Our voices are the voices of the vast number of our local leaders and members who share commitment but who are seldom heard in the halls of Congress. We will work and pray for total victory. We will accept nothing less. Respectfully submitted.

Dr. EUGENE CARSON BLAKE,

Principal Cochairman.

Dr. NORMAN J. BAUGHER,

Rabbi SEYMOUR J. COHEN,

Mr. LOUIS STERN,

Most Rev. ROBERT E. LUCEY,

Most Rev. RAYMOND J. GALLAGHER,

Cochairmen.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BLUE CARSTENSON, ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,

NATIONAL FARMERS UNION

The opening battles in the War on Poverty have been fought and it is time that the policymakers, the Congress, evaluate the progress and make decisions and give directions to the way the war is to be fought.

There have been errors, but ten thousands have escaped out of poverty because of the War on Poverty. Many more are on their way. Hundreds of thousands have new hope. Some people are discouraged because of the confusion and