Mr. HAWKINS. What was the purpose of the 10 minutes then? Mr. SIMON. Well, it was just in the vain hope that that might conclude things. It was as it turned out, a vain hope, Mr. Hawkins.

So I am simply suggesting that we go until 11:15 with Mrs. Booth and then limit all future witnesses to a total of 1 hour unless there is objection, or I will abide by the wishes of the subcommittee. Is there objection?

Mr. STACK. Mr. Chairman, I object to giving Mr. Kramer any further time with the witness. I think that the questions have proved absolutely nothing and have developed nothing. I would certainly like to amend your statement that the testimony is not sensational, but I find that the witness is, however. [General laughter.]

Mr. SIMON. I stand corrected.

Mr. STACK. I think this inquisition, pleasant or unpleasant, should be brought to an end. I think Mr. Kramer has had sufficient time, and under the agreement as I understand it, we were going to give 10 minutes and we have given him 10 minutes. Let us get some other witnesses up here.

This is with all due respect, Mr. Chairman. The chairman, after all, is the chairman, and your wish is my command and I will not press the point.

Mr. SIMON. The Chair is willing to abide by the wishes of the subcommittee. If there is no objection

Mr. KRAMER. There is objection, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SIMON. You are objecting also to the 1-hour limitation on other witnesses?

Mr. KRAMER. I think if there is any reason to have the witnesses out here that we ought to explore what the purpose for which they were called is. If we do not do that, it makes no sense to have the hearing today. I can understand the concern of the other committee members, but I personally quite frankly am surprised by the answer to the questions, one small example, that the ACTION agency itself suggested to the particular organization that they ought to apply for a grant. That may not be sensational. It certainly is revealing to me.

I think that quite frankly a line ought to be pursued again at the Chair's prerogative and so forth. I am not the chairman of the committee, but I feel that there is no sense in handling a show and going through the motion without any real significance. And I cannot quite frankly concur in that procedure.

Mr. SIMON. The gentleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. BEARD. Mr. Chairman, we have a 5-minute rule and I would like to put a motion on the floor that we abide by that rule, the 5 minutes. Mr. SIMON. We will proceed on the 5-minute rule. Unless there is a motion to the contrary, though, we will proceed somewhat endlessly. Mr. HAWKINS. May I move that the witness, Mrs. Booth, be questioned until 11:20, and at that time the witness be dismissed?

Mr. SIMON. Is there any discussion on the motion?

Mr. KRAMER. I object to that. I call for regular order.

Mr. SIMON. That motion is in order and all those in favor signify

by saying "aye".

[Chorus of ayes.]

Mr. SIMON. Contrary mind?

[No response.]

Mr. SIMON. The motion prevails.
Mr. HAWKINS. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. SIMON. Mr. Hawkins is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. HAWKINS. I do have a resolution for my subcommittee pending in the House and for that reason I just did not want to make hasty departure in terms of a dissatisfaction of any kind. I think that motion itself can possibly give us an opportunity, or Mr. Kramer, the gentleman from Colorado, or some of the other members to question. So may I be excused, Mr. Chairman, at this time with that pending business? Mr. SIMON. Certainly you may, and we appreciate your taking time to be here.

Mr. HAWKINS. Your intent is to continue this afternoon?

Mr. SIMON. My intent is to continue interminably, if necessary. Mr. HAWKINS. I would hope that you would not say that.

I yield my 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stack. Mr. STACK. Thank you, Mr. Hawkins.

Mr. SIMON. It would be the suggestion of the Chair that at 11:20, if there are further questions, that the gentleman from Colorado or anyone else has that they could be submitted in writing to Mrs. Booth, I am sure she would be very pleased to answer those questions. Mr. STACK. Certainly.

Mr. SIMON. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. BEARD. You yielded your 5 minutes earlier?

Mr. ERDAHL. Yes.

Mr. SIMON. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 10 minutes.

Mr. STACK. I will reserve my time. I think there is a misunderstanding here on my part. I thought that under the motion we had a total of 10 minutes, that the witness would stay now until 11:20 and that we were going to operate under the 5-minute rule. My interpretation of the motion was to give Mr. Kramer the full time allocated, which is 10 minutes.

Mr. SIMON. The motion was that this witness testify until 11 :20, and if no one consumes that time, Mr. Kramer can continue his questioning. Mr. STACK. Then I will reserve my time.

Mr. KRAMER. Mr. Chairman, might I make a point of inquiry at this time? My understanding of the motion was that there was a motion for regular order.

Mr. SIMON. No, you called for regular order. The Chair was a little surprised that you voted for the Hawkins motion.

Mr. KRAMER. I am surprised I voted for it, too, because my understanding was that I made a substitute motion for regular order.

Mr. SIMON. No, there was no substitute motion. Regular order is not a motion, it is a phrase that is shouted out occasionally in committee meetings and on the floor. Usually, you shout it when you want to vote on a particular question.

The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. KRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my objections to this method of proceeding. It is my feeling that if indeed the motion of Mr. Hawkins was the one in front of us and that is what has in fact prevailed, and indeed that we are not going to continue to allow the members of the committee who wish to explore the areas that I have

expressed some concern about through the proceedings this morning, then I quite frankly see no sense in continuing these meetings at this ime.

I regret to say that, but I am in a difficult position. I want to be fair to the members of the committee but at the same time I do not intend to participate in what I would consider to be a farce. The Chair has ruled that I did not make a motion and that Mr. Hawkins' motion was in front of us at the time. And I will certainly accept the Chair's ruling on that part, but I see in light of that rule no reason to continue the proceedings.

Mr. SIMON. If the Chair can just simply respond to the remarks of the gentleman from Colorado, the Chair has bent over backwards to be fair to the minority. We held, as many of you know, a 14-hour session. At one point we indicated to the minority that if they wanted to call any witnesses, they could do that. They had requested six witnesses. Those witnesses testified, then there was a request for 1 additional day and we granted that request. It was set up today.

Last night we got this request that this meeting be canceled. The gentleman at whose request we had this hearing today is not here today and we will proceed with the witnesses.

If Mr. Kramer does not have any questions, why that is his decision, but there is no question that we have bent over backwards to be fair to the minority in this whole procedure.

Mr. STACK. Mr. Chairman, may I reclaim my time?

Mr. SIMON. The gentleman from Florida is recognized.

Mr. STACK. I very much object to the characterization of the hearings as a farce. On the contrary I have found them very enlightening and, in fact, at times I would say exhilarating. The testimony at our last meeting, for example, to perhaps broaden the concept of ACTION to further involve the young and the old in ways that were described during that testimony, I found that to be, as far as I am concerned, informational and mind-expanding. It gave me an opportunity to see new horizons for this agency. Whether we choose to continue to call it ACTION or whether we choose to call it by another name as was suggested at that hearing, I certainly do not consider this a farce.

The purpose of these hearings, as I understand them, was really informational. We who serve on this committee are very anxious to know what is happening in the field among the various agencies, and the purpose of the hearings was not to hold the type of inquisition into which we have been launched.

What we are going to do I hope for the rest of the day is to talk to the remaining witnesses and have them tell us what they are doing so that we Members of Congress can be better informed. And on that basis perhaps can produce legislation that will improve the effectiveness of the voluntary movement in America, which has to be one of the great national considerations.

The fact is that this is an age that we are moving into the age of the volunteer, particularly among young people and among the elderly. In my own district where I represent so many people who are characterized as being elderly because they are over 62, I would fight that description to death. If I may say, these youngsters of 62 whom I represent are looking for volunteer work and it is up to us to give them direction.

That is one of the reasons why I want to serve on this subcommittee under your very able leadership, Mr. Chairman, so that in the future we can work to effectively use this great source of energy that we have among the young and the more experienced people whom I represent and whom I am part of, I might say.

Now I do not want to run over my time, Mr. Chairman. I do not want to set a bad precedent here, and at this point I will yield.

Mr. SIMON. Are there further questions of the witness? If not, Mrs. Booth, Mr. Rauh, we thank you very, very much.

Mr. RAUH. May I just reiterate what you said about answering questions. If Mr. Kramer has any questions or any information he wants from Mrs. Booth, she has asked me to say it will be forthcoming. Mr. SIMON. Mr. Bob Creamer is our next witness.

[Whereupon, there was a recess taken.]

Mr. SIMON. The subcommittee will come to order.

Our witness is Mr. Bob Creamer. You can identify yourself and the gentleman who is with you there.

Mr. CREAMER. My name is Robert Creamer and with me is my attorney, Mr. Rauh.

Mr. SIMON. You may proceed however you wish. You may enter your statement in the record, read it, summarize it, whatever you wish. Mr. CREAMER. Why don't I read it over.

[The prepared statement of Robert Creamer follows:]

STATEMENT OF ROBERT CREAMER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ILLINOIS PUBLIC ACTION

COUNCIL

My name is Robert Creamer. I am the Executive Director of the Illinois Public Action Council. The Public Action Council is a federation of 57 community organizations, consumer organizations, labor unions, farmers organizations, and senior citizen organizations. Its affiliate groups are located all over Illinois and are made up of members of white, black and Latino backgrounds— and of low to moderate income economic circumstances.

Public Action has only one purpose-the creation and maintenance of a network of organizations through which average citizens can affect the conditions that shape their lives. In particular it was created to assure that low and moderate income people can organize to protect their own interests, improve their own communities and upgrade their own economic conditions.

Public Action is governed entirely by its affiliate organizations. Those organizations decide what state wide and regional objectives they want to jointly pursue and determines when our resources should be applied to aid groups to organize at the local level.

A number of statements have been made in the course of your hearings about our organization and ACTION. Frankly, I am saddened that the VISTA programs that have brought hope and made a real difference to the lives of thousands of poor people in Illinois have been maligned before this committee.

I feel a heavy responsibility to help set the record straight here today. It would be tragic if a program like VISTA-that is doing so much to help poor people help themselves-is cut down because of serious charges that have no foundation whatsoever, in fact. Statements have been made here that allege that many of the organizations that were part of the national grant program were radical fringe organizations whose leadership has some set of sinister ulterior motives. Nothing could be farther from the truth and the best way to demonstrate that is to tell you a little bit about the people who run Illinois Public Action.

Public Action's board includes representatives of many types of affiliate organizations and many of them are the leaders of organizations whose memberships are poor.

Take for example Margaret Person. Margaret is a retired retail clerk who has spent the last fifteen years organizing senior citizen clubs throughout the Chicago area. In recent years VISTAS have helped her organize a new city wide federation of these clubs. Club representatives meet and evaluate major priority senior

goals, and then mobilize their members to make those goals reality. They've worked for and gotten new bus shelters all over Chicago to keep seniors from waiting for buses in the snow-for better security on mass transit-for senior oriented crime prevention by the police for lower utility rates.

Our VISTAs don't do things for the seniors-they help them plan and mobilize themselves for what they want. So aside from these very real material gains, Metro Seniors gives senior citizens a sense that their lives are more meaningful and useful than they would be if they were relegated to social hours and bingo games.

Take Rev. William Hill of Kankakee. Rev. Hill is a former Public Action Board member and is pastor of a church in the poor black neighborhoods of Kankakee. He's worked for years to promote civil rights and to get jobs for his people, and to keep his church alive. He came to Public Action because he wanted help in establishing a strong permanent neighborhood organization in Kankakee. The concern of his parishioners was the epidemic of abandonments and boarded up homes in his area. His Kankakee Homeowners asked the Public Action Board to help them make their organization a vehicle through which they could have some control over the forces that were destroying their community. This year, with the help of a $70,000 grant from the Campaign for Human Development of the Catholic Church, Public Action is able to provide full time expert staff to the Kankakee Homeowners, and similar organizations in East St. Louis, Moline and Joliet. We're hopeful that in the near future a VISTA can supplement the work of the full time paid staff in Kankakee and these other sites and help make Rev. Hill's dream of empowerment of his community a reality.

Take Ed Nelson. Ed is a 70 year old black UAW retiree in Peoria. For years he's been active as an officer of Peoria's South Side Improvement Associationtrying to defend his community from deterioration and trying to slow utility rate increases to Senior Citizens.

Ed was instrumental in developing a grant proposal to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to establish Consumer Energy Councils in each utility service area of Illinois. These Councils include representatives of poor people's organizations, community organizations, labor unions, and churches, and are intended to represent the interests of residential consumers in battles with utilities over residential rate increases.

These Consumer Energy Council projects were based on a model development by one of our VISTAS in the Quad Cities. That prototype was so successful that HEW made funds available to emulate it throughout the rest of the state.

These are just a few of the people who make up the Public Action Council, but the exciting thing about our organization is that the Nelsons and Persons can work together with representatives of larger, longer established organizations. Other Public Action affiliates include groups like The Woodlawn Organization, several districts of the International Association of Machinists, District 31 of the United Steelworkers, and Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, the Southwest Parish and Neighborhood Federation on Chicago's Southwest Side.

We maintain offices in Chicago, Springfield, Champaign, Metro East, the Quad Cities, and Peoria. Public Action canvasses virtually the entire state each year door-to-door and receives almost 80,000 individual contributions of $3.00 to $5.00 each every year.

Last year, the speaker at our annual fund raising dinner was Senator Edward Kennedy. The Honorary Co-Chairmen of the Dinner Committee were former Mayor Bilandic of Chicago and Senator Stevenson. The Committee also included Governor Thompson of Illinois, former Governor Walker, Congressman Mikva, and a wide variety of other public and private officials.

Our recently opened Consumer Services Organization division provides prepaid legal, tax, and consumer complaint services to its members. Its Advisory Committee, which meets regularly each month, includes the Deans of several Chicago area law schools, the Assistant Regional Director of the Federal Trade Commission, and the Consumer Commissioners of both the City of Chicago and State of Illinois.

Let me say a word about the roundtable meetings of May, 1977. I was invited to attend one of these meetings to be briefed on the new Administration's plans for VISTA and to provide input with respect to those plans. To be honest I went to that meeting skeptical that a government program of this type could really be useful to help people help themselves. I was concerned that VISTAS would be required to do nothing but provide services to individual poor people.