or not. It seems to me there is only one place to get it. This is this swollen military budget of $80 billion.

These programs are not going to be funded or solved so long as we are trying to be policemen of the world and spending $80 billion on a military appropriation. I make that statement with some reluctance and I don't ask you to join in it because you have a different responsibility and different interests than I do.

I wanted to state on the first day of these hearings to the first witness, that we cannot run away from the dollar sign on these programs and I don't know where in the world else we are going to get it except from the military budget. In my opinion, I do not believe that the American people are prepared to raise taxes back to the level they were. I don't think they are going to be willing to do it and I don't think the House Ways and Means Committee is going to ask them to do it. I don't think the Senate is going to ask them to do it and I'm sure the President isn't going to ask them to do it, and so there's only one place, and that's the military budget. And as of right now, I see no consensus in the country that we are going to be able to do that. I am as pessimistic as Senator Kennedy is that we are going to get these. You don't have to comment.

Governor KERNER. I would like to comment.

Our report does comment on what we think ought to be done. Of course, we are only 11 people

Senator CLARK. Eleven pretty smart people, shall we say.

Governor KERNER. Only four of our members will be asked to vote upon this. I will not be, but we all agree unanimously that this program needed money and could not be found anywhere else, it ought to be in new taxes. We discussed the possibility of surtax, but we felt that as a Commission we should not really presume on ourselves the authority that the Senate, the House of Representatives and the President has as its responsibility, but we recommend new taxes and we include it in there, a surcharge if that is the way to do it.

Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, Governor, we were happy to have you with us. It has been an illuminating experience.

Our next witness is our distinguished colleague, the Honorable Fred Harris. We are apologetic for having kept you waiting, Senator. We know you have a fine presentation. I will ask that the entire text of your testimony be put in full in the record and I will leave it to you to summarize any way you desire.

STATEMENT OF HON. FRED R. HARRIS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Senator HARRIS. Since my text is slightly different from yours, I believe I'll just read my statement.

First let me say that I am pleased to have this opportunity to support the passage of the Emergency Employment and Training Act, of which I am a cosponsor. I am happy to add my testimony to that of my colleagues who served with me on the President's National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders. I want to say at the outset that the Commission felt that tremendously expanded employment and job-training opportunities were the single most important rec

ommendation we could make toward the solution of the problems of the ghetto which underlie riots.

The Commission found that

Unemployment and underemployment are among the persistent and serious grievances of disadvantaged minorities. The pervasive effect of these conditions on the racial ghetto is inextricably linked to the problem of civil disorder.

Of a total of 2 million unemployed persons and some 10 million underemployed persons in the Nation presently, the most difficult to reach and bring into the main current of the American economy are 500,000 hard-core unemployed who, in the Commission's words—

live within the central cities, lack basic education, work not at all or only from time to time, and are unable to cope with the problems of holding and performing a job. A substantial part of this group is Negro, male, and between the ages of approximately 18 and 25.

The Commission cited a 1966 Labor Department study showing that while the nationwide unemployment rate was 3.8 percent, the unemployment rate among 16- to 19-year-old nonwhite males in the major ghettos was 26.5 percent, and among 16- to 24-year-old nonwhite males, 15.9 percent.

Senator KENNEDY of New York. Could I interrupt for clarification on this? The Labor Statistics also said that between a third and fifth of the young men in the ghetto are missing from all statistics. Does that mean that you would add a third to that?

Senator HARRIS. The Commission itself tried to take that into account. These figures, as I said, were from a 1966 Department of Labor study, and I am sure they understate the problem because so many of the unemployed just can't be found. Those figures also exclude "underemployed" people, or those who work but don't earn enough to raise themselves out of poverty.

Senator KENNEDY of New York. So it is possible that the figures are considerably higher than that?

Senator HARRIS. That's right, I think it's not only possible but true that the actual figures are much higher. And in addition, I think those percentages are getting worse. Our studies showed that, for example, while 31 percent of the people in the Hough section of Cleveland were poor in 1961, by 1965 that proportion had risen to 39 percent. We found that sort of increase in poverty common in the Negro ghettos around the country. As you might expect, to cite Hough again, while the proportion of poor families was rising, the average family income was going down. In 1961 it was $4,700 a year in Hough but by 1965 it had dropped to $4,000 per year.

Senator KENNEDY of New York. Thank you.

Senator PROUTY. Senator, you give the figures for the nonwhite males in the 16 to 19 and the 16- to 24-year-old age groups. Do you have those for the white males?

Senator HARRIS. I don't have them, but I could furnish them to you or you probably would find that you have the Department of Labor studies from which they came in your files already.

Senator PROUTY. They are very high, too, as I understand it. Senator CLARK. Senator, when you gave those Cleveland figures, is it true as I suspect, but did not know, that the families are large. Do you break it down on a percentage basis.

Senator HARRIS. You find, of course, a great deal of family disorganization in these ghetto areas, which I think is the result of racism and poverty. I think you will find that family disorganization is less the higher the income.

Senator CLARK. More than that, the families in these disorganized units tend to be large, don't they?

Senator HARRIS. I think there may be some connection between. poverty and family size, but I think there is also a connection between education or the lack of it and the size of the family. Of course education itself is partly a function of income, too.

Senator KENNEDY of New York. I want you to know that a large family is a disorganized family.

Senator HARRIS. I think I finally got back on the track.

Senator CLARK. And some of the largest families are very well educated. But they have adequate information if they are able to remedy that situation.

Senator HARRIS. May I say, first, Mr. Chairman, that in order to reach these people we have been talking about-the unemployed and the underemployed-I think it is absolutely essential that we combine and concentrate our existing training and placement programs. They are much too fragmented and often do not lead to real jobs, but to greater frustrations.

Now, in regard to the pending legislation, both the objectives and the specific quantitative goals of the Emergency Employment and Training Act closely resemble the main features of the Commission's recommendations in the employment field. Thus less than 2 weeks after the Commission has completed its report, hearings are being held on one of its principal recommendations for action. I think this is a tribute to the acuity and sense of national responsibility of the distiguished chairman of this subcommittee and of its members. I might say that as I began my work on the President's Commission I took the time to read the complete hearings this committee held last year on so many of the subjects which the Commission subsequently covered. I found those hearings to be highly useful to me in our work, and the Commission as well found itself relying on them.

Senator CLARK. I would like the record to note that the Senator from Oklahoma has cooperated in every respect with the members of this staff. We were happy to make available to the Senator from Oklahoma the testimony from our hearings.

Senator KENNEDY of New York. May I say that I know the report is the result of the work of many individuals and long and arduous hours, but I think one of the most brilliant members of the Commission, whose contributions to the Commission are exceeded by no other, is our colleague, Mr. Harris.

Senator HARRIS. Thank you.

Senator CLARK. This is true.

Senator HARRIS. The finding and declaration of purpose of the bill under consideration explicity recognizes, as the Commission did in its report, that to quote from the bill

there is a huge backlog of need for additional community services and facilities in both urban and rural areas in such fields as those which contribute to development of human potential, better the conditions under which people live and work, and aid in the development and conservation of natural resources.

On this subject the Commission found that:

In the public sector a substantial number of *** jobs can be provided quickly, particularly by government at the local level, with our vast unmet needs in education, health, recreation, public safety, sanitation, and other municipal services. The National Commission on Technology, Automation, and Economic Progress estimated that there are 5.3 million potential jobs in public service.

Senator PROUTY. Could you amplify that just a bit?

Senator HARRIS. Let me cite an example, Senator. Right now we have a shortage in the country of 12,000 professional social workers, and that shortage is going to become more acute. We don't know where we are going to find people to fill those jobs.

I authored an amendment to the Social Security Act which was enacted last year, which requires each State welfare agency to recruit, train, and employ poor people, especially welfare recipients themselves, as social service aides, as they are called. Thus through the use of subprofessionals who can be trained to perform many professional functions some of the need for social workers can be met.

I think if you study the health problems of the country, as a Presidential commission recently did, it is clear that we really have a crisis in health in this country which is becoming more critical every day; and a part of that crisis is a very large shortage of personnel in the field.

The same critical need exists in most other public-service jobs. We cannot meet those needs except through the use of subprofessionals, and it is only logical that we try to recruit, train, and employ many poor people themselves to do these jobs, for I think that not only would help them get income in a very dignified and socially acceptable way, but also help to humanize many of those programs. Senator PROUTY. You are not thinking of this as simply a makework program?

Senator Harris. No, I am talking about real and necessary jobsnot make-work at all, but work that will have to be done and cannot be done unless we use a lot more subprofessionals. As many of these jobs as possible should lead to career employment, with chances for promotion and increased wages.

Senator PROUTY. Thank you.

Senator HARRIS. The Commission recommended making "some arrangements for a flow of trainees from public sector jobs to on-thejob training in private companies." Consistent with this, the bill requires that persons recruited for community employment and training be "provided opportunity for further education, training, and necessary supportive services so that they may be prepared to obtain regular competitive employment in the future." Obviously, to the extent that it can be done, people employed in the public sector should be offered opportunities to move into the private sector. I would hope, though, that a reasonable balance could be struck between our need, on the one hand, for a great many more public-sector, humanservice jobs, and the desirability, on the other hand, of moving as many people as possible into private sector employment where their wages would be mostly or completely paid by private enterprise.

I am personally convinced that there will be no more important piece of legislation before the Congress this session than the Emergency Employment and Training Act. That statement may sound like an exaggeration but, for a number of reasons, I do not believe that

it is. First, in every survey of ghetto grievances examined by the Commission, the difficulty or impossibility of finding and keeping suitable and dignified employment at a decent wage was invariably cited as either the first or second most important complaint of ghetto residents the grievance competing for first place with employment problems was the attitude of the police toward ghetto residents.

Second, since the elimination of poverty in its simplest and most fundamental form-that is, poverty as lack of money-requires only that we provide poor people with sufficient income, this bill will make considerable progress toward that end by allowing 2.5 million people now living in poverty to earn a decent income for themselves and their families.

Third, the jobs and job-training provided by this bill-unlike other more direct methods of income maintenance-will repay their costs many times over through the contribution made to national productivity and national income by employees trained and put to work under the legislation. The GI bill of rights is, I think, a wonderful example of the great benefits America can realize from an investment in human resources development.

Fourth, I think it is important for social and psychological reasons that we try to relieve poverty as much as possible through employment rather than through alternative income maintenance schemes. If a person can work, a job is preferable to other forms of income maintenance because, the Commission found, "The capacity to obtain and hold a 'good job' is the traditional test of participation in American society. Steady employment with adequate compensation provides both purchasing power and social status," we said. "It develops the capabilities, confidence, and self-esteem an individual needs to be a responsible citizen and provides a basis for a stable family life."

I'd like to elaborate this fourth point just a bit because I think it is tremendously important and a vital rationale for the bill which you have before you. A lot of people in this country believe that most poor people are different from everyone else in that they don't aspire to decent, steady jobs which provide good wages and a future. I think that simply is not true.

One example I have cited before helps, I think, to dispute the myth that most poor peeople won't work or don't want to work. In Watts after the riot there in 1966, the Aero-Jet General Co.-doing what I hope many more private companies will now do-established a hiring program in the ghetto for a new plant, a military tent-making factory. That plant advertised 75 jobs, and for those beginning positions 5,500 people applied. I've heard more recently that companies publishing similar advertisements in Pittsburgh and Detroit have been inundated with applications from ghetto residents.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs began a program under which jobs such as road repair and fence maintenance and others were offered to welfare recipients who wanted to work. There was a catch: Initially the recipients could receive no more for working than for not working. Welfare recipients snapped up these opportunities quickly. Furthermore, after this program had been instituted, there was a spectacular increase in the number of eligible welfare applicants who said they were interested in welfare benefits because they could work for them. This made no economic sense for the people involved because a