firms from property taxes (and instead place the burden on the Federal Government), it would be self-regulating, and it would enable termination of tax-free status of municipal bonds. The program would need to be carefully structured, with development districts and growth nodes established to be the focus of efforts.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the effectiveness of the poverty programs has not increased in proportion to the number of programs in recent years. If we are serious about this business, we must put resources into it. I call not for more but for fewer programs. Let us drop numerous public assistance programs and substitute a negative income tax. Let us drop the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and substitute for it a program that will provide greater benefits for schools in poor than in rich areas. Let us drop some of our 30-odd fragmented Federal vocation-technical programs and replace them with a substantial effort to subsidize private industry to train and employ the disadvantaged. Let us drop public programs of low-interest loans and technical assistance-which attract the marginal firms-and replace these programs with a substantial tax writeoff for firms that locate in depressed areas. The latter would tend to attract progressive, profitable firms, because profits would be needed to benefit from the tax writeoff incentives. Finally, let us substitute action and funds for words and fragmented policies.

Senator HARRIS. Let's do this-both for members of this panel and members of earlier panels today who are here-why do you not just stand where you are, and let's have a few questions-if you can speak up loud enough to be heard.

Question. Senator-suppose that out of this comes a solution to your problem, to the Nation's problem? Is there any thought being given to implementing your solution, or a solution?

When will implementation take place? How are we going to provide the action as best we know?

Senator HARRIS. To repeat the question: How can we bring about political action-supposing we devise the solutions?

Do you want to respond to that first, Professor Bishop? I am afraid to myself.

Mr. BISHOP. Senator, I believe that is in your domain.
Senator HARRIS. Go ahead.

Mr. BISHOP. Well, I am convinced that some more effective means must be devised for expressing the wants and needs of the people who are not quite so numerous. Our present system lends itself to concentrating our efforts where you can get a fairly large number of people involved and you have something to show for your efforts. So, for a given number of dollars you usually get the most people involved in your large metropolitan centers.

I think this is what we are seeing. It distresses me, for example, when we take a good program, like the program of the National Alliance of Businessmen, where we are going to really get American business behind the efforts to cope with these problems, and we say we are going to concentrate our efforts in the 50 largest cities.

Unfortunately, there is not a North Carolinian that will benefit directly from that program. What we are saying to the North Carolinians is that if you want to benefit you must go to one of the largest 50 cities in the United States. And this is not what we want-not what we seem to want.

We say we do not want everybody to live in big cities, and yet we persist in concentrating our programs in large cities. Some way has to be found to meet the needs of the people who are not quite so numerous in the political arena. I do not know what the answer is.

Question. Do you have suggestions as to who has to be brought into this, or how these programs have to be developed so that they can be implemented?

Senator HARRIS. Let me just say, briefly, this:

I think that the first thing that we need is an awareness of the problems. And that just does not yet exist.

Our country is caught in the midst of forces of change which have radically altered our lives, and radically altered our society, especially since the end of World War II, in ways which many of us barely grasp and little comprehend.

Population explosion, the explosion of knowledge and technology, the fallout of that explosion, instantaneous communication, high mobility of our people, continued racism which exists in America-and these are not new forces-all these things I think, have radically altered our lives. And I do not think many of us understand that.

Now, suggestions about how to solve problems are going to sound foolish to those who do not think there are any problems. And that, I think, is our difficulty in America; that as good as we are at communicating on a broad scale, we are all so busy paying our bills, and going about our daily lives, that we just have not taken stock of what we are doing, and what is going on in our world.

I think you can preach to people all day, you can moralize about what they ought to do. I think those things are absolutely necessary. And it is that kind of basic concept of morality that has led this country to do the many good things it has already done. But I think when it really moves, when it acts, it acts upon self-interest. When the people of this country see that it is going to be better to act than not to act for themselves, then we are going to do it.

Now, I wrote a book on that-I thought I would just mention it— I wrote this book really with my dad in mind, he's a fellow who comes from Mississippi and lives on a farm in Stevens County. I think he has to see, and people like him have to see, that his life is very much bound up with these problems, and unless they are met, his life is going to be different in ways which he will not like.

I think we will move to act sooner or later in this country, but I think it is up to people like us to not just have some kind of mass catharsis during these 2 days, and confuse conference with action. I think there is that inclination-that we have conferred about this, and therefore we have solved it.

I think we have to go out and try to share with other people the awareness of these problems, and then we will get action. But we will not get action out of a Congress or out of a country which do not really think there are any problems.

Question. Can it be that we are seeking the wrong objective here? If awareness is evidenced in legislation, then the Congress has acted nobly in the last 7 years there has been more human resources legislation than we had in the New Deal. Legislation, then, is not the answer.

Senator HARRIS. I would like to respond briefly by saying that the U.S. Department of Labor announced 2 weeks ago that despite all these new programs and despite the war on poverty, that unemployment among black young people was the highest in history.

What we have to understand is that as we move to solve the problem, it is getting bigger all the time, with the increased birth rate in the central city, and the inmigration, so that while we are walking, running is necessary to even stay where we are.

Question. I agree with you, Senator. What I am trying to point out is what we need is backing-putting your money where your words are. The legislation is there. The policy is there. There is no need for failing to do in rural areas what needs to be done now.

If the Congress will put up the money, and if the executive branch will implement as it ought to be implemented.

Senator HARRIS. I agree with that.

Let me say that I think the Congress of the United States, while it ought to lead better than it does, is way ahead of the people. I think what you and I must do, the people who are interested in what is happening to our country, and do not like it, is to try to spread that awareness around.

My guess is that awareness would then be reflected in the Congress. Question. I would like to ask the panel what they think about a negative income tax for industry-to go back where they came from and maybe help different areas of the country. And this may be just one aspect of the problem.

I think informing the people of this country, too, about what is going on here, and what Congress is thinking about, is part of the answer. I think you have to get to the grassroots of the thing.

Mr. BISHOP. The Rural Poverty Commission did make some recommendations with respect to attracting industry into area development districts through accelerated depreciation schedules and tax writeoff's, yes. But it went on record in opposition to municipalities issuing taxfree bonds to attract industry.

Senator HARRIS. Professor Tweeten, do you want to say anything further on that? You alluded to that in your statement.

Mr. TWEETEN. Well, I just might say-some people might wonder why do away with the tax-free status of the municipal bond. Well, one of the problems is that the people who are paying for this sort of thing, and the people who are putting the most money into attracting industries, are the communities that can afford it least. On equity grounds, a much better case can be made for a substantial tax writeoff, say, to industry.

Canada has tried this. Canada started out with a tax writeoff, and they switched to a cash subsidy to industry. I wish somebody would look into this experience a bit more.

But one of the troubles with the tax programs of low-interest loans is that they often tend to attract the marginal firm, because we tend to encourage firms to take advantage of this who cannot get commercial credit. What kind of firm do you get? It is more the marginal, unstable type of firm. But with a tax credit, you have to make a profit to really get the advantage out of it. So this tends to attract the more high-profit, successful firm. And besides, it is a stronger inducement. I tend to favor the tax writeoff because it is not an out-of-pocket cost to the Government, and I also think it is much easier to administer. So this would place on the Federal Government the financial responsibility of getting industry to the depressed area, and would take the load off the local community, which not only tends to provide bonds and so forth at low interest, but also exempts the property of the firm from local property taxes for a period of years. And this is a burden on a poor community than can often ill afford it.

Senator HARRIS. Dr. Shapero, here is a question that was addressed to you:

The implicit assumption in your discussion was that man would have to adjust to changing technology to the extent that he will become multioccupational. What is technology that man should stand so helplessly before it?

Is it not the orthodox marxist who believes that man is helpless before the powers of technology?"

Mr. SHAPERO. I did not realize that I had spoken so ideologically. I do not know why you consider this being helpless before technology. I had the distinct good experience of having picked crops in the field. There is nothing rewarding in that kind of work, neither financially, educationally, or morally.

Frankly, what has happened here is that all work in which men are used as semihumans, as objects, all the routine, repeatable and specifiable, is being automated. If you feel this is capitulation before technology, I must vote that I hope we capitulate very rapidly.

The short-term problem, short-term and desperate problem-and I am saying it is there now-it comes out again and again when people talk about the increasing unemployment in the face of all the programs I think it was very well said by Edgar Dunn, when he was saying that these are processes going on.

In a sense he implied we are diddling around the edges of it with gimmicks and gadgets, and here is a process going on that is making very profound changes.

My point is, how do we take advantage of the process, how do we recognize the process, and how do we begin to think in terms of preparing real human beings to live within a society that is really removing some of the onerous burden from man.

Senator HARRIS. Here is a question for both Dr. Tweeten and Professor Bishop.

I think it may involve some aspect of income maintenance. The question reads:

What good are preschool programs that serve only as a periodic recess from the disadvantaged environment-unless commensurate effort of changing home environment is made concurrently.

Mr. TWEETEN. We have certain principles we adhere to in this country. One is that society has a very limited ability to interfere with home life, and rightly so. The schooling program is one of the few

opportunities in our society to intervene in a cycle of poverty. It is one of the few socially acceptable ways to intervene.

Someone has said that the preschool program is a policy of trying to save the child from its parents. I do not quite agree with that, because I do think that you need to get the parents involved as much as possible. But one of the characteristics of the rural poor, at least, probably the urban poor, too, is that they are not organizers, they do not like to belong to very many organizations. Their organization very often is the family. And they do not participate in PTA's and so forth, like other families do.

So I say if you can do it, get the family involved. But we have to face the facts. Oftentimes we cannot do it. And the preschool program is designed to give the verbal and cognitive skills that the child does not get other places, and compensate for some of the inadequacies that we find among these children and give them the life skills they need in order to live in our kind of success-achievement society.

Senator HARRIS. Professor Bishop.

Mr. BISHOP. I think there is enough evidence to let us know that a good deal of what is accomplished during the regular school year is lost during the 3 months in the summer in some of these homes of disadvantaged people. This is the reason I feel that you cannot cope with these problems just in single-shot programs-you have to have a coordinated program that copes with the needs of people across the board.

I want to make one point here on one of Tweeten's comments earlier, before we close.

He stressed the progress that has been made. It is true we have made substantial progress in reducing the number of poor people in this country. But I would argue that this makes it even more possible for us to really abolish poverty if we only make up our minds to do it. I think that is what we really lack.

Senator HARRIS. Right.

Dr. Dick Poole will take over the chair during the second panel. (Short recess.)

Dr. POOLE. We are now ready to move into another phase of our conference dealing with the context, or the descriptive.

At this time we move to the section entitled "Consequences of the Migration for the Urban Areas."

We are pleased to have Sterling Tucker, executive director of the Washington Urban League.

Biographical Sketch: Sterling Tucker

Executive director, Washington Urban League; staff member, National Urban League, and director of its nationwide voter registration drive; member, Steering Committee, Urban Coalition of Metropolitan Washington; member of the faculty, School of Social Work. Howard University; consultant. lecturer, and writer for U.S. Information Agency, Foreign Service Institute, and other governmental and private organizations in the United States and abroad.

STATEMENT OF STERLING TUCKER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON URBAN LEAGUE

Mr. TUCKER. I am delighted to be here. I do not come posing as an expert of any kind. As a matter of fact, these days I am very reluctant to ever pose as an expert.