Senator MCNAMARA. How much time would you require to provide that?

Dr. HAWKINS. How long will you be in session?

Senator MCNAMARA. Tomorrow would be fine.

Dr. HAWKINS. I wouldn't be back in Charlotte until Thursday. Perhaps by the weekend, I might be able to get it.

Senator MCNAMARA. Well, if you get it in by the weekend, we will keep the record open until then. I want to thank you very much, Doctor, for your very fine presentation.

Do you want me to yield?

Senator PELL. No, no. I am sorry. I thought that you were finishing.

Senator MCNAMARA. We think that your presentation will be very helpful to the committee. I am sure that it will be studied not only by the committee, but by Sargent Shriver and the people in charge of the program.

Now, Senator Pell.

Senator PELL. I just have one question. I want to be sure I understand you. You say that no Negro is active in the poverty program in your home city?

Dr. HAWKINS. Let me explain this to you. When the poverty program became law, the economic and political forces, en masse set up a board, an incorporated board. This board selected people to draw up the proposal, which include the board of health, the welfare department, the school board, and the social planning agencies. All of this was done in secrecy. Nothing was known about it.

Then after they had drawn up this proposal, they selected 3 Negroes to serve on a greater board, which included 19 people. These Negroes were asked only to ratify this proposal. Some of them did object to the proposal as presented, but they were outvoted.

Then after this complaint was filed to OEO by our groups, stating that the poor had not been involved in this thing, that it had been in secrecy, nothing was known greatly about the whole planning of this poverty program, just recently, within this month, Charlotte area funds put five more Negroes on there, but these five were put on after the proposal had been drawn up, after programing had been started, after the director had been more or less selected, and all of these people are just sitting there, 8 Negroes, out of a board of 26, who have no say whatsoever about this program.

Senator PELL. And of the poor in your city, what percentage would you say would be Negro?

Dr. HAWKINS. I would say that the poor, comparatively speaking— we represent 27 percent of the total population, and over 90 percent of the Negroes in Charlotte are under $3,000 a year. No members of the poor, though, serve on the present Charlotte area fund. Not a member of the poor serves on this fund.

Senator PELL. The 33 percent of the members of the board and 90 percent of the people that they are trying to benefit, from what you say. Dr. HAWKINS. That is right.

Senator PELL. Is there anybody here from the Office of Economic Opportunity?

Mr. STEWART. Yes, sir.

Mr. Chairman, Senator Pell, I previously identified myself. I am Thomas M. Stewart of Mr. Gillis Long's office, Office of Congressional Affairs, and since the initial allegation was made here with respect to the general operation of the program, I have placed a call to Mr. Shriver's office, and I have been assured that there is a witness on the way here who has information with respect to factual detail.

I am prepared to state that, as the committee well knows, that it is the administration policy and the policy of Mr. Shriver to be consistent with the general principles that our witness is aiming at here, and if there is any discrepancy with respect to the fact or the way it is carried out, the witness who is on his way here, is prepared to testify with respect to those facts, Senator.

Senator PELL. Thank you.

Senator MCNAMARA. Any further questions?

Senator MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me and, incidentally, I congratulate you on the testimony-it seems to me the witness has testified in complete opposition, he said, to the testimony we heard yesterday from Mr. Shriver himself. He said that this committee was selected in secret. We were told yesterday that the committees were done in complete open fashion, and with full knowledge of everybody concerned.

Would you suggest that it would be desirable to spell out in the law more accurately exactly how these selections should be made, so that this couldn't happen again, let's say, so that all areas in proportion of the community are properly represented on these committees?

Dr. HAWKINS. I would ask that all of the meetings concerning the poverty programs be done, in public hearings, or that the public be made aware of everything that is in programing for the poverty programs. This has not been done in my State, and it has not been done in my city. We know nothing about these programs, until they are to be submitted to Washington, and if we did not have some connection with Washington we probably wouldn't ever know, because sometimes the press doesn't carry the full context of the programs that are to be submitted, so for this reason we are kept in the clouds, more or less, about the type of programs that affect our very destiny, and after it has already been approved, it is too late, then, for us to have anything to do about changing this program. That is what has happened in Charlotte.

After the program was OK'd, or when it was on its way, we found out about it, filed a complaint, held it up for a while, but then it was funded, and there is no other hope for us, except to organize an independent organization to try to either compete or to get at the root causes of poverty.

Senator MURPHY. There is always hope as long as these committees are sitting. Thank you very much for your testimony.

Senator RANDOLPH. Reverend Hawkins, of what church are you minister?

Dr. HAWKINS. I am the evangelist in the United Presbyterian Church, USA, and I serve on its general assemblies commission on religion and race. I have had the privilege in the past year of going into many metropolitan areas, dealing with this whole matter of religion and race, and we have run consistently into this problem of poverty, and I think that this has helped me quite a bit, and I think it

has helped the church, and I give you something in here of our visitations that were made, trying to get around many of the problems that confront us as persons, but I am an ordained United Presbyterian minister.

Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, I commend the witness for the courage with which he has discussed this problem in his home State. I think we should be very careful, yet we must be very thorough, in having before this select subcommitee the refutation of the allegations made. I think that Dr. Hawkins would subscribe to that theory. There has been a charge made, and there must be an answer received. Perhaps there can be a clarification, even, Dr. Hawkins, from you of some of these problems that you present to the select subcommittee. But I again stress, from the standpoint of the Senator from West Virginia, the desirability of this select subcommittee-I know our chairman subscribes wholly to this procedure-attempting to come out of these hearings with the information that can be translated into not only the language of the law, but the administration of the law, because no law passed will be effective unless it is equitably and honestly administered.

I am sure that all of us share this concept of our responsibility. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MCNAMARA. Thank you, Senator.

Thank you very much, Reverend, for appearing here today. We appreciate your testimony very much.

Dr. HAWKINS. Thank you very much.

Senator MCNAMARA. Now we have reached the point in the program where Senator Javits has asked us to delay our proceedings until such time as he gets here. I would like to ask his staff, is there any indication that he is on his way? He is at the airport.

Senator Kennedy, since these witnesses are from New York, I will ask you to take the Chair, and perhaps in lieu of the other Senator from New York, you can handle these witnesses.

Senator KENNEDY. I like the chairman who is there at the present time.

Senator, I will be glad to do whatever you want me to, but I am very happy at the present time.

Senator MCNAMARA. We have no authority to meet after noon today. I don't know how we can delay this meeting any further. There is no point in going into recess.

Well, we can take a 5-minute recess and see what happens. (Whereupon, at 11:32 a.m. a short recess was taken.)

Senator MCNAMARA. The hearing will be in order.

I will say to the members of the subcommittee that we have reached a point now where at the request of Senator Javits we can't proceed any further. We have Bob Perrin, my administrative assistant, instructed to be at the Senate at 12 o'clock to try to get permission to continue the hearings after noon today.

What is the pleasure of the subcommittee? Does anybody have any suggestions?

Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, I would wish for you to make the decision in the matter of continuing now, or meeting this after

noon.

Senator MCNAMARA. I don't want to continue in the face of the request of the Senator from New York, Mr. Javits, that we do not continue until he gets here. I see no other course than to ask the witnesses to come back at 2 o'clock, and we hope that by that timewe will have obtained permission from the Senate to continue, and by that time, Senator Javits will be here to take the Chair and listen to the witnesses and question them.

Senator Kennedy.

Senator KENNEDY of New York. I might just say that one of the witnesses has to leave, as I understand. You can't come back this afternoon? They have to leave, so that is unfortunate you came down for this, did you?

Senator MCNAMARA. Apparently this is not satisfactory. Do you have some other suggestions?

Senator KENNEDY of New York. No, I do not. I am just giving facts to the chairman.

Senator MCNAMARA. With the permission of the members of the subcommittee who are here, I would call their attention to the fact that we have somewhat of an emergency. One of the witnesses has responsibilities elsewhere that require her testifying now or not being able to testify, and I think under the circumstances, and since Senator Javits. is now here, we should continue the hearings.

Is there objection?

Hearing no objection, the hearings are now in order.

I am going to ask Senator Javits to take the chair and proceed with the witnesses as he sees fit.

Senator JAVITS (presiding pro tempore). Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. Pantoja, would you be kind enough to come forward?

Thank you very much for waiting, and I am glad I arrived in the nick of time. I had other appointments in New York today. I have made a round trip to New York this morning and my plane was late, so you can understand that I haven't been keeping you waiting for

no reason.

Would you just proceed in your own way and would you tell us, first, how to pronounce your name correctly?

STATEMENT OF MISS ANTONIO PANTOJA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PUERTO RICAN FORUM, NEW YORK, N.Y.

Miss PANTOJA. Yes, Pantoha. That saves me introducing myself, other than saying that I am speaking here for the Puerto Rican Forum, which is an organization in New York City of Puerto Rican New Yorkers.

I am also the executive director of a service agency which the forum sponsors, called ASPIRA, whose purpose is to build career opportunities and leadership development opportunities for Puerto Rican New Yorkers. I was also during the summer of 1964 the director of a Puerto Rican Forum's antipoverty program, a study and program proposal presented to the city of New York during 1964.

Considering the troubles and problems encountered in the implementation of this act in such cities as New York City, the Puerto Rican Forum is surprised to find no measures in the amendments to deal with

such problems as I am going to list. I am going to make a list of about four or five problems that I consider must be looked into by this committee.

The first is the participation of the poor on all levels of these programs emanating from the Economic Opportunities Act.

In New York City, where the Puerto Rican forum worked, a detail proposal with maximum participation and involvement from the Puerto Rican, in board levels as well as staff, and as well as being the recipients of the services, the proposal of the forum was rejected, in total, leaving only three small programs to be funded, and the three small programs are service agencies, which will not participate in the total administrative body that will administer the total poverty programs of New York.

Only one Puerto Rican citizen sits in the antipoverty counsel of New York City at present, even after all the disturbances that were created when that body was being formed. It has been claimed that other Puerto Ricans will come into that body, and the body has been increased to be formed by a hundred people. They will be coming in as a result of a selective process, which will happen when 16 neighborhood program centers will elect people to sit in this council.

We have repeatedly explained that this will not bring many more Puerto Ricans into this board, since the Puerto Rican does not form a majority in any of these 16 areas, or in any other geographical area of the city. We are scattered throughout the city.

The Puerto Ricans are also organized in a citywide basis in their grassroots organizations. They do not respond to geographic organizations.

The second part of this whole program that I think should be looked into by this committee is that there is no provision to cope with a bypassing of community groups by the antipoverty structure.

For example, the Puerto Rican who is the poorest New Yorker, as a group-and let me tell you that when I say that the facts are in the hands of many of the staff of the members of this committee, in the study that was produced this summer.

The Puerto Ricans have the highest rate of unemployment in New York City. They have the lowest family income, the lowest achievements levels in education. Those employed are concentrated in the areas of employment that are in the lowest pay, and are doomed to disappear.

The jobs are doomed to disappear with such movements as automation and other technological developments in New York City. The group has a high rate of dropout, and a high rate of reading retardation. The lowest in the possession of power to be able to reach the answers for these situations.

They are the group with the most acute symptoms of poverty in New York City, even having a more acute situation than the Negro American, which you know already has a critical situation.

On the other hand, when we in the forum thought that it was necessary to establish a crash massive multiapproach to make use of this legislation, that legislation which you are contemplating amending today, for exactly the purpose which it was passed, to pull a group of people out of a poverty situation, by efforts that would be self-help in nature, the Puerto Rican group has been bypassed in this,