This is really our central core. There remains about a $20,000 deficit, which we struggle to make up and usually do somehow.

Of that sum, the money we get in, roughly $270,000 at the present time, $40,000 of that is a direct funding out of New York State youth programs. Here is the way they do it there and I suggest to you this mechanism.

The State makes a grant to each of the local communities. In New York City there is a youth board, in simple terminology. The youth board does provide this planning and coordination function. The youth board then disburses to the various private agencies in the city, in its own discretion, that amount of money it desires and it has full rights of inspection, standard setting, and everything else.

This doesn't mean we are State controlled or city controlled. We are not any such thing and we will not be controlled. The proportion of money we get

Mr. PUCINSKI. But that is where we get into trouble and I think that we are having this very same trouble in the poverty program. I would not want this legislation to get racked up on the rocks of disunity on that concept.

It seems to me that what we are trying to do in this bill is to find: (a) we require a community to come along with a comprehensive meaningful program, (b) we certainly realize public agencies are charged with responsibility to voters, who are the people who are going to elect them and who have a responsibility.

I am not one who looks with great favor upon spending huge sums of taxpayer's money among agencies that have no one to account to. The government structure has to account to someone. Your Governor has to account to his people very 4 years. Your mayor has to account every 4 years.

But what we want to do, because we know that we have agencies like your own, excellent agencies with a long record of fine service, expertise, staffs, the know-how to deal with the problem, is that we want to make sure that an organization like yours will participate in this program because we need you.

We need you to make this program successful. So we have tried to build a bridge between you and the public structure so there is continuity. That is what I am talking about.

Mr. LUMBARD. If our objectives are exactly the same, as I think they are, then it is a matter of draftsmanship from here because we don't want large sums. All I can say is that with very great fundraising efforts, I can report to you that our community is saturated with private agencies seeking funds.

We are desperately short. The direct factor as to the amount of service we can give the community is finances. We could expand and multiply our efforts terrifically with only the addition of one or two more social workers for we could thereby enlist 100 or 200 more Big Brothers.

The only element is money in our case. We have the program, the administrative structure, the acceptance among the judiciary, the board of education, and all elements of the community."

How do we get that extra bit? We are straining to raise everything we can and will continue to do that. But we need, if there is a valid

function to the juvenile delinquency prevention situation, as I now understand it, the assistance of the Federal Government, we need to share in this program so as to function on a larger scale than we now do. That is all we want.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Of course, as I say, I am very grateful to you for your contribution today, because we have a high regard for your organization, and if in your judgment, this language doesn't do the things that you want it to do, and I think you made a very significant contribution, we are going to have our staff examine this testimony and see whether we need any perfecting language over here to make sure that local communities can utilize the services and the help and the cooperation of organizations like yours.

Keep this one thing in mind if you will, and nobody knows it better than you. You know what intense competition you have for the charitable dollar. In this country I think the average citizen now is just about ready to throw up his hands in complete despair, I don't mind telling you, because of the tremendous number of requests that we get, and you get, and everyone of us gets for contributions for these very worthwhile projects, and I just don't know where the money is going to come from.

Mr. LUMBARD. I think I should in fairness to you, give something of the order of what we are talking about. In our agency, which serves the city of New York, $50,000 would open up a world of difference, $100,000 would open up new vistas. Our request is that small in dimension. May I only say that if anyone reading this record has any doubt and, if they are unfamiliar with our agency, rest assured I am not talking about our survival. We will survive whether or not we get anything under this program. The question is solely a matter of the degree of service we can give the community, and we are ready, willing, and able to expand that service terrifically.

We think that with some Federal funding-it doesn't have to be half, 25 percent, or even 20 percent. We are not even looking for something like that. But with some Federal funding, we think we can help you, ourselves, and the citizens of New York.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Would you have any objection to language which would provide that whatever you are doing has to be coordinated with the overall program

Mr. LUMBARD. Not in the slightest.

Mr. PUCINSKI (continuing). So that the Secretary before he could enter into an agreement with you would be assured of this. As a matter of fact, perhaps we ought to have the local agency give the Secretary some advice as to how your program fits in with their action so that we don't have all roads leading to Washington.

There is always a tendency, though, to have all roads lead to Washington. I am just old fashioned enough to think that you get much better coordination if you let the people at the local level work their problem out, then come to Washington as a package and say, "This is what we need." You let them look the program over and say, "Fine," and help to finance it.

Mr. LUMBARD. As a matter of fact, I would say it is highly desirable that there be a plan, that there be coordination. All I want to make sure is that we fit within it with funds that can help us in an operating

way because we don't need planning money. We don't need a lot of the kind of things that are in this bill. They will not help here for our limited program and which we think is a going, useful one now.

We merely wish to try to qualify. We are very grateful to you for the chance.

Mr. PUCINSKI. You are very kind. You have come down and pleaded this cause for an organization that has done a marvelous job with the young people of America. We certainly are going to give full consideration to your testimony.

While I am at that I might congratulate you on the very fine son you have here. I saw him taking copious notes before you came in.

Mr. LUMBARD. We are going to make him write a report.

Mr. PUCINSKI. He is already briefed on what transpired before you arrived. Thank you very much.

Judge, I want just two very quick comments from you and I think we can wrap it up.

I fully agree with you on your very strong language about this question of participation. I don't know why this language was put in there but had you been here the first day when Secretary Gardner testified you would have thought I was either looking over your shoulder or you were looking over my shoulder because I raised the very same point with the Secretary.

It does seem to me like that language that you referred to regarding the participation of the youngsters in the development of the programs unless there is real limitation could create vast problems for the community and for those trying to implement this legislation with action programs. The Secretary said that what he meant by that was certainly you would want to use some facilities for ascertaining what are going to be the most effective programs for the young people. I see no objection to consulting with young people who are going to be helped by these programs but I can appreciate your concern about writing into law the requirements that they have to be consulted.

That would turn into the same kind of a problem that we are now trying to resolve in the poverty program where for 3 years now valuable time has been lost in developing meaningful antipoverty programs merely because of the running feud in many communities of America that the poor are not adequately represented in the development of programs.

As you know, we went into the programs in Philadelphia where we had adolescents. I suggest that this language could ultimately be construed by someone other than Mr. Gardner long after he is gone that maybe we ought to have elections among the delinquents to see who is going to sit on the advisory panels to tell you how to run your court. I appreciate your making this observation, but I want you to know that the committee has already thoroughly explored this language and I have no reason to believe that the committee is going to accept this language.

Judge LINCOLN. One of the things that prompted me, Mr. Congressman, to make the statement as forceful as I did

Mr. PUCINSKI. It was forceful all right.

Judge LINCOLN (continuing). Is what I observed in Detroit. I am for the TAP programs and they are working where nobody else wanted

to work and they are doing a terrific job but, frankly, what you get in this is a good deal of experimentation and this may be all right, but sometimes they get way out and way off.

They got so bad that there was one next to our court that we had to enclose with a new parking lot by the court because I couldn't have my court workers even walk a block and a half to court. They would have their purse snatched. Their experiment adjoining the court made it the highest crime area in the city and part of this was this participation business.

They were running the show, the group that they had over there, and not only was it the group that they had over there, but they did this project in direct violation of what not only I said was bad, but also the director of corrections in the State of Michigan that said, "You don't set it up that way," but they did it and now they have straightened it out and they are on the right track, that is true, but there was a lot of trouble while they were experimenting with it.

Mr. PUCINSKI. I don't mind telling you that the longer you are here, the more you realize that there is such a thing as bureaucratese. It is a language that is totally unlike the language that you and I understand; for instance, in this proviso when they say that, "The Congress believes that the Nation's youths should be given meaningful opportunities to be involved in the efforts designed to assist them."

To you and me the word "meaningful" is a perfectly fine, innocent meaningful word, but when the guidelines come down and when our friend in the executive branch of Government start putting their interpretations on the word "meaningful" you suddenly discover to your complete amazement and astonishment how many things the word "meaningful" can mean that you and I never suspected and this is the way these programs, I think, get into trouble.

I don't blame the people in the agency. They have a responsibility. Their responsibility is trying to project into workable guidelines and procedures, rules and regulations reflecting what the Congress stated in its legislation. So, if I were somebody down working in HEW and I had to draw up a guideline for this particular section and I looked at the word "meaningful" in order to protect my flanks, I probably would give the word "meaningful" the broadest interpretation because I have a responsibility to presume that that is what the Congress meant. So I don't quarrel with the people downtown.

I quarrel with the Congress and that is why I am glad to have you fortify my thoughts.

If there is some question in our minds here as to what the word "meaningful" means the time to clear it up is now, not after the bill is passed and signed by the President and there is no sense in picking on a fellow down in some agency as reading it wrong or misinterpreting what we said. We ought to be in a position as legislators to say what we mean and mean what we say in this legislation.

Therefore, this whole section I agree with you is an invitation to all kinds of trouble and I think it would be best to just leave it out. Judge LINCOLN. Just eliminate it.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Yes. The other question I want to check with you. I understand you are going to be in town for day, and I wonder if you would be good enough to look this legislation over and have

your association look it over to make sure that we do not inadvertently establish as I said earlier, some system of interference with local standards. On page 6, line 8, where we talk about authorization of grants we say, (2) public and private agencies and organizations providing services referred to in paragraph (1)(A) (including police, courts, and other agencies involved in the youth correction process) will be consulted in the formulation by the applicant of project or program for carrying out the purposes of this part, and so on.

I want to make sure that we have agreement from you gentlemen who have to live with these laws that there is nothing in this bill which would provide directly or indirectly that a Federal grant to a juvenile court will in any form carry an implied proviso that the agency then has any right to look over your shoulder to second-guess your decisions in that court.

Judge LINCOLN. Sir, I commented on that, when you were called away for the moment, in the second part of my statement. But I was not commenting for the National Council of Juvenile Court Judges because they will not meet until late June-judges from all over the country.

We have an executive board, but we have to adopt resolutions to take an official position and we only meet once a year as a group. I commented on that this way.

I said what do you think of the redtape that has to be gone through under this proposed bill before States or local communities get any money?

And my answer to that was "Most of it is unnecessary." If you have to set up requirements I suggest that you start on page 5 and go through line 17 on page 7, put each of these requirements on a slip of paper, place them in a hat, and draw out half of them and burn them. Leave the others in the bill. It will work much better and make just as much sense.

Now, I am not being factitious. I have quite a lot to do with Government grants in construction. I was in charge before I became a judge of a program of $100 million of construction as the head of a committee, and this was for a period of 5 years.

I have worked on Federal grants, both for building of hospitals. health services, clinics, for our court, River Rouge flood control. I have been through it, and it is not easy. What occurs here is you are hitting at it from another angle. You are wondering if maybe this isn't touching on our power of authority.

Well, I think in effect we would ignore it because I think you would agree it might mess up the operation of the bill, but I don't think the Federal Government by a bill like this could take any authority from a judge. You say it might stop the grant. This might be true.

Mr. PUCINSKI. That is true, but remember this. I am mindful of the fact that this is important legislation in that it is setting up a program. which is going to be here for a long, long time to come, long after you and I are gone, and long after the President who is recommending this legislation is gone, and long after the men who are testifying here on this legislation such as our excellent Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Mr. Gardner, and various others are gone. So it is one thing for men to sit before a committee and say, "This is the way we see this bill. This is the way we think it ought to be written."