ceases, they must get into a rickety bus, travel from state to state all summer in order to keep alive. One staff member writes: "If there is any group that needs unemployment insurance more than the farm worker, I am at a loss to know who it is." Unemployment insurance would enable the farm worker to remain in Florida for the four or five summer months, would aid him in establishing a permanent home and in the long run provide a far more stable work force for the Florida farmer.

Our own Farm Labor Co-op experience is relevant. California has an optional unemployment insurance law. It is up to the employer. This Co-op, as employer, opted for insurance but the pay deductions required put the Co-op at such a competitive disadvantage with employers who did not carry unemployment insurance that the protection was dropped. The marginal existence of workers and the hourly pay concept makes voluntary reduction of wages for long term benefit very difficult.

C. Inclusion of farm workers of all kinds under the National Labor Relations Act should be a top priority. In a competitive society to deny the rights of collective bargaining to selected groups is an anomaly that society should no longer tolerate.

The anomaly of this situation is illustrated in Chester County, Pennsylvania where mushroom growing and cultivating is considered farm work and therefore not covered by NLRA, and compost making (an integral part of the mushroom industry) is classified as industrial work and therefore covered by NLRA. Many growers are engaged in both operations. J. B. had worked for one man for several years on the compost operation. He never received overtime pay. He finally complained to the NLRB and was told he was owed over $4,000 in overtime. He tried to collect. His employer said, "Take me to court," then fired him and evicted him from his house.

Most workers put in 60-70 hours a week to support their families. This grower now uses men for 40 hours in compost and then shifts them to the farm operation to avoid overtime. The right of collective bargaining would protect these workers. As individuals they are powerless. Other farm workers are even more helpless in securing their rights.

The argument of employers against coverage on the basis of the perishable nature of crops and harvest time needs seems questionable. As someone noted recently in testimony, there is nothing more perishable than an airline seat. Furthermore, unions in California have hundreds of collective bargaining contracts with canneries and other processors who can be struck at harvest time. Contracts which expire well in advance of harvest time leave ample time for contract negotiation.

D. We recommend that the whole public assistance policy be thoroughly reviewed and re-examined in the light of the goals of the President's War on Poverty; that federal contributions be increased and minimum national standards of eligibility, payment and administration be established pending the enactment of some form of income guarantee. Public assistance payments in many southern states bear no relation to needs and the nature of the ADC administra. tion too often promotes the breakdown of families. In addition, the administra tion is often discriminatory; red tape and arbitrary decisions impose great hardships on already destitute families. Welfare offices are inaccessible to families with no public or private transportation.

We can document many and varied instances of the inequity and immorality of the present system. We will illustrate from only a few. We commend the Southern Regional Council's recent publication: "Public Assistance in the South" to the Commission for study.

The size of payments should meet minimum standards of need and at least be based on raising the family out of poverty. The situation of one family receiving ADC is a case in point. With six children and no other source of livelihood except an occasional day of cotton chopping at $3.00 per day this family re ceived $31-$35 per month. Simple multiplication shows that even with 30 days work a year, the mother's maximum, her total income would be $510 per year. Another family writes: "How do you buy food stamps when you don't have any money coming in?"

The red tape, the arbitrary nature of decisions are dramatically illustrated in the story of L.S. Mrs. S. is the legal guardian of five nieces and nephews. She

is illiterate. For over a year since losing her job and being evicted, she has gone repeatedly the 15 or more miles to the welfare office for assistance, each time being told she needs additional documents to prove she is related to these children. First it was the children's birth certificates; then their parents' birth certificates and the father has vanished, then the grandparents' certificates, then incorrectly filled out forms. Only assistance from private funds and friends keeps her alive.

Another family was denied commodities because they had $500 in the bank (a loan from a friend to buy land on which to farm).

Payments and benefits should be on the basis of need; not tied to the whim or pleasure of an individual. For example, in some southern states a white man's signature is needed before commodities are made available. Often this signature is secured at the price of working, without pay, for the signer for an indeterminate period.

In Pennsylvania families too old or incapacitated to work drop out of the migrant farm labor stream. One year residence requirements denies them public assistance. Only an active citizens group, providing "charity" enables them to survive this period of ineligibility.

From California our staff reports the problems faced by Spanish-speaking families, which form a high percentage of the recipient group in some areas, because many welfare personnel have limited ability to communicate with them. These are but a few instances of the public assistance problem of rural people where no case worker comes to them, and payments are token.

E. Although some farm workers are now partially benefiting from inclusion in the minimum wage law (Fair Labor Standards Act as amended 1966) this is just a beginning. The total working force should be included and minimums should not vary according to occupation, though a period of upgrading for newly covered workers may be necessary.

Farm workers, who are covered, will be guaranteed a minimum of $1.00 an hour in 1967. The President has determined that any family of four earning less than $3,160 is in poverty. At $1.00 per hour a man would need to work 60.7 hours for 52 weeks to achieve the poverty ceiling. But farm work is seasonal and increasingly fewer men find full time work in agriculture. Statistics show that the average number of days worked by farm laborers across the country in 1965 was around 120. These families would have to work not 24 but 26 hour days to rise above the poverty level!

In the Mississippi Delta men and women go out to chop or pick cotton when there is work. Some whom we know found work three to four days a week for only seven weeks during 1966. They worked 13 hours and earned $3.00 to $3.50 a day. Obviously even a minimum of $2.00 per hour would not be enough.

There are three alternatives: (1) pay the worker a minimum of $2.00 an hour and guarantee him 200 eight-hour days of work; (2) pay the worker unemployment insurance; (3) devise a form of negative income tax or guarantee of income. Most workers we know prefer number (1).

VII. The experience of Indian tribes on reservations has both positive and negative lessons to teach concerning rural poverty. We have drawn examples from our experience with American Indians throughout this testimony. The special legal status of Indian tribes calls for separate attention here. We urge the Commission to heed such experience as tribes themselves and intertribal organizations may have to share, since they will be giving detailed testimony of particular importance.

The inalienable, trust status of Indian land and property and the unique historical status of Indian tribes as "dependent domestic nations" retaining a degree of residual sovereignty has been a major stumbling block in developing good relationships between Indians and non-Indians and has been a major factor behind the conditions of abject material poverty which exist on most Indian reservations today. On many reservations the Indian groups have retained a spiritual richness, self-confidence and pride in their identity which has compensated in large measure for the physical poverty in which they have had to live. On other reservations the paternalistic administration of services and the debilitating lack of authority for Indians to make decisions concerning their own property and community have drained the Indian community of its original self-confidence and independence, creating spiritual as well as material poverty. There has been a constant temptation in Indian affairs to cut the Gordian

knot of regulations and red tape which have demonstrably crippled Indian initiative and prevented Indian tribes from developing viable economies. We should bear in mind that so far each cure-all "solution of the Indian problem" which has been tried-the removal policy of the 1830's, the attack on tribalism by alloting land to individual Indians in the 1880's, and the termination policy of the 1950's-have resulted in loss of Indian land; in greater red tape and bookkeeping by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, increasing the cost to the government rather than decreasing it; and in increased dependency of Indians on non-Indians. The policy of looking for the magic key which will force Indians to assimilate into non-Indian society and lose their separate cultural identity has not worked: neither the goals of the non-Indian majority (to solve the "Indian problem” and relieve the federal government of its special obligation to its Indian citizens) nor the goals of the Indian people (generally to live happy, fulfilled lives as they define happiness and fulfillment) have been achieved.

The experience of reservation Indians has been instructive in positive ways as well as negative. Reservation Indians constitute one of the few rural groups which have maintained a land base and which have retained societies based on utilization of their corporate land base. They have been inhbited unnecessarily in their use of their land base and in the exercise of local initiative within their reservation communities, since the Bureau of Indian Affairs has held the veto power over many major areas of community life, including the use of capital resources. Reservation self-government has been very limited, and tribal leadership is still in the process of trying to establish viable democratic forms of gov ernment over twenty years after the enactment of the Indian Reorganization Act, which made formal provision for limited local self-government.

What can be done in the local community dependent on the reservation land base when decisions are in the hands of local Indian citizens has been demonstrated by the accomplishments in a few short months of community action programs on Indian reservations. It is generally acknowledged that the most suecessful community action programs in the nation have been on Indian reservations, and Sargent Shriver has pointed out that local self-help and cooperation are among the basic values of most Indian groups, in spite of the fact that they have had little opportunity to exercise these values since the establishment of the reservation system.

In view of this experience the Bureau of Indian Affairs is to be highly commended for its new policy of delegating as much authority as possible to Indian Tribal Councils, of contracting with Tribal Councils whenever possible to provide community services rather than providing services directly as it has done traditionally, and of emphasizing community development and greatly enhanced educational opportunities. If reservation communities are allowed to exercise true self-determination and to plan and implement the programs they feel they need, while their independent land base is protected against further encroachment, great strides should be possible in overcoming the poverty which has been endemic on most Indian reservations for years. We hope the Bureau of Indian Affairs will be given sufficient appropriations by Congress to implement the reforms they are now planning.

CONCLUSION

In summary we would say that single uncoordinated pop shots at the problem of rural poverty may salve consciences but they leave the basic issues untouched. The full integration of rural people into the economic life of this nation as equals with their urban and industrial counterparts in terms of rights and benefits is essential. Rural citizens should have the same opportunities and services as urban and industrial citizens. They should not be denied the resources and the freedom to live and work, how and where they will. Only then will forced migration be ended and the quality of both urban and rural areas raised.

In attacking poverty, there is still the underlying belief on the part of far too many people that people are poor because of their own inadequacies. So we de sign programs to remove these inadequacies. Our experience indicates that if we are to have a great or good society we must so restructure our society and its institutions as to meet the needs and aspirations of people rather than continue to try and change people to fit the needs and capabilities of the institutions we have created.

Mr. RESNICK. Mr. Mansfield?

STATEMENT OF JACK P. MANSFIELD, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF UNEMPLOYED YOUTH, GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of coming here today. In the eyes and the words of the romantics and the poets and the hearts of all of us who come from rural America, the spacious open lands, majestic rising mountains, and the endlessly flowing waters represent probably the greatest asset that our Nation has. Yet ironically, these attributes spell for countless millions, instead of assets, isolation, handicap, and deprivation.

The problems of rural development which face our Nation are devastating in their immensity and we recognize it would be impossible to begin to discuss in any detail but a few of these. We would like to focus the committee's concern on certain issues which we feel need primary attention, because of their far-reaching implications and our particular interest and experience.

The need for special concern relative to (1) manpower and employment problems, (2) economic development, (3) transportation, (4) migratory and seasonal farmworkers, and (5) certain Federal services operating in rural areas, we respectfully submit to your attention.

The positive effects of manpower programs in the rural southeast are easily enumerated. There are those who have been trained and as a result, now have a skill where before they had none; and there is the very real benefit that the outside money has brought to the area in general and to the vocational schools in particular.

But one is forced to concede that manpower training programs have not served the needs of poor people who have employment problems and live in rural or mountain areas. Vocational training programs have often reached the most reachable and most trainable for jobs that do not exist in the rural areas. The programs have not included acceptable ways, in the minds of the enrollees, to get them to places where these jobs exist. Currently, commuting is unrealistic and relocation creates new problems. Men and women who had not been able to find work were led to believe that through the manpower legislation and training programs real help was available. But training for training's sake, or as a holding operation for the idle, or the use of the training allowance money to help poor people survive the winter— all have served only to convince rural people that training programs don't lead to jobs. These are temporary solutions to the need for money, but they don't lead to meaningful employment. Therefore, the effect of operating vocational training in this manner has been to confuse the objectives and increase the level of frustration.

The manpower planning process-the planning process is most troubling. Much time and effort is expended; yet we have little of value to show for it. The planning process should allow for broadest possible participation, much of it on the local level where the problems are most real and solutions either work or do not work. Currently planning is highly centralized, occurring at the national or State level

82-388-67-53

within the Departments of Labor, and Health, Education, and Welfare mainly. Packaged programs centrally designed with an urban bias, strangely, are then prescribed across the board. But these imposed programs are having little effect on the area. Manpower development and employment programs have to be tied to community concerns and needs. The local community must be involved in the determination of what its problems are and what solutions are acceptable and feasible. Planning—that is, setting goals and determining use of resources-must involve the total community.

Coordination-lack of coordination among the manpower programs under many different Federal agencies has resulted in a fractured approach which fails to meet the multiple and interrelated needs of the rural poor. One of the impassable obstacles to the successful planning and operation of local manpower programs is the pervasive and persistent conflict among Federal agencies and their regional, State, and local counterparts and between Federal, State and local authorities. The struggle which is waged for control of these programs occurs at every level. In the end, however, it is the local program which constitutes both the prize and the battleground of the contending agencies.

Interagency conflict has had the most negative effects on the quality and the cost of local manpower development services. During the initial period of program planning these disputes have diverted the precious time and energy of all parties from the more important tasks of program development. Administrative compromise, concessions and attention to bureaucratic prerogatives and priorities rather than program excellence are too often required to initiate a local manpower program. Ultimately it is the needy person who bears the cost of this senseless struggle.

Greater structural unification of authority and responsibility appears to be the most effective way of reducing the unconscionable waste which is characteristic of the present situation. There is likewise an imperative need to insure that provisions for flexibility, innovation, and resident participation are clearly built into any unified structure. We believe that such unification would produce significant improvement in goal definition, particularly of a long-term character, in simpler and more consistent procedures, in the development of greater capabilities in program assessment and technical assistance, in more efficient program administration, in closer relationships with related programs in such fields as health, welfare, and economic development, and in other functional areas which seem extraordinarily difficult to achieve now.

Nevertheless, candor compels us to admit that we have no made-toorder plan for implementing this suggestion. In our view, there is no single Federal agency which now is sufficiently free of bureaucratic control or free of concepts and procedures which are inimical to the manpower development of the disadvantaged. We cannot identify any existing Federal agency which is sufficiently oriented operationally to the needs of the disadvantaged and whose procedures permit the flexibility and innovation required to meet the complex employment needs of the disadvantaged.

At this point, we are not sure what in the program area of skill training will work in rural areas since so little experimentation has been