In another case, where an OEO staff man sought to have local youths involved in programs that would improve the community, pressure from county and city officials brought about his dismissal from the job. I have that case now before Mr. Rumsfeld, and I think he will make a fair disposition of it. For that reason, I don't mention the man's name. But it is a fact that this has occurred.

Sometimes local programs that would provide employment are snared by numerous technicalities. In one case that came to our attention, a program that would have eventually provided employment for approximately 30 hard-core unemployed was held up for 2 months because of a dispute about one word in the corporate name of the sponsoring agency. That was finally straightened out, and the program did get underway. But meanwhile people were out of work, 300 of them, because of an argument about one word in the corporate name. So far as the Employment Service is concerned, its record has been one of dismal failure to assist persons in need of help in the job field. I want to expand on that, Mr. Chairman.

I have been dealing with the Employment Service for many years, ever since Secretary Schwellenbach of the Department of Labor. And it is really an almost hopeless proposition to try to get much out of that agency.

We have observed the tactics of many of these officials over the years. Usually, they place in employment the persons who are well qualified and probably could obtain employment without any help. The individuals who need additional training or guidance and job counseling usually become a part of extensive files gathering dust in local offices. I might say that Mr. Shultz, the Secretary of Labor, indicated that there had been trouble in his testimony. He hopes that they can improve and thinks perhaps they are improving. I hope he is right. But, frankly, I don't have much optimism about the possibility of the Employment Service straightening itself out.

We have been trying to make the Employment Service offices more effective in handling manpower problems for the last 30 years. Generally speaking, the conditions have not changed much for the better. H.R. 11620 provides for skilled training centers supportive and followup services to supplement work and training programs-including health services-counseling, day care for children, transportation assistance, and other special services necessary to assist individuals to achieve success in work and training programs. Experience has shown. that all of these are practical necessities if we are to make certain that our citizens really benefit from the various manpower programs. Another feature of the O'Hara bill, providing for employment centers and mobile employment-service units, is also vital. Job coaching to insure job retention and relocation placement, where needed, are also extremely important.

We need bold and imaginative programs for the training, upgrading and employment of those who now are considered ineligible for jobs or unsuitable for promotions. From our observations of some agencies, such as OEO, we belive that they are in a far better position to initiate and carry out experimental programs than the old-line agencies, which are frequently staffed by people who are long on paperwork and policies but short on productive performance.

It is also important to maintain the maximum amount of freedom and flexibility which usually accompany programs under private sponsorship.

It should be noted that the recent move of State Governors who threatened to veto legal services and Headstart programs are examples of the kind of footdragging and political obstruction which make some State officials untrustworthy in handling programs that are designed to eliminate some problems in the manpower field.

In all of these efforts, it must be remembered that no matter how efficient we may be in training the Nation's manpower, nothing is accomplished if there are no jobs for the trainees when they are ready to go into gainful employment. The concept of guaranteeing meaningful employment opportunities by making "public investment to the extent that the private sector if unable to provide such opportunities," as contained in section 2(g), and the concept of meeting “unfilled public needs in such fields as health, recreation, housing and neighborhood improvement, public safety, maintenance of streets," et cetera, as contained in section 2 (h) of H.R. 11620, is indispensable if we are to make a dent in the acute job problems of our citizens in the so-called "disadvantaged" groups.

I would just like to mention this as an example of what I am talking about. It involves a Government agency, but it is a very good program. It is out in the State of Illinois, where the Atomic Energy Commission has started on this atom-splitting project.

The people out there were determined to try to do something in the area of reaching hard-core unemployed young people. They recruited a very able man from the very community in which the project is being built. He, in turn, went into Chicago and got young people who literally were "off the streets," some of whom had gotten into different kinds of trouble.

Interestingly, these were young colored people, but there were also some Indians. And I think a few in the group were Puerto Ricans There was a white man from Arkansas, who was an operating engineer around the premises.

He agreed to be the instructor on teaching these young people how to operate heavy equipment. It has just been an amazing transformation of these young people, who were sort of just hanging around. Now they get out, and you can see a real sense of pride as they operate that heavy equipment. And they could take the training because they knew at the end of the training period there would be a job.

That is why I think it is so important that, as we have these trair ing programs, that we try to be sure that when the people get what ever they are being taught, they can then get jobs.

It is incredible that in a time of national prosperity and avens the only way that some would approach the problem of indation is to promote and extend unemployment. As usually happens increases in unemployment mean increases of joblessness among Negroes 17. persons of Spanish ancestry, and among other minority groups S far, we have not been able to provide full employment from priv sources in our country.

The present policies of the administration in cce seem to resi in a decrease in jobs in the private sector. It is not yet clear whethe

this also has brought about a decrease in inflation. But, meanwhile, the people out of work are suffering from the loss of their paychecks. As we look at the piles of trash in our cities, because we do not have enough people working in our sanitation departments, and note the deterioration of our parks and recreational facilities, because we do not have sufficient maintenance personnel, it seems very clear that providing jobs on the public payroll to handle these matters would have the double effect of putting cash in the pockets of those who are jobless and, at the same time, improve the value and appearance of our public properties.

We appreciate this opportunity to testify on this important problem. We sincerely hope that the subcommittee will give speedy approval to the O'Hara bill.

Thank you.

Mr. DANIELS. Thank you, Mr. Mitchell, for a very precise statement. You disapprove of the principles set forth in the Ayres bill to empower the States with the necessary authority to bring all of these work programs under an umbrella and let the States determine which is best? Of course, it also provides for giving grants to central cities so that they may work in conjunction with the State.

However, that bill further provides for the Governor to veto any particular program.

I take it from your statement that you disapprove of that and that you think there is more flexibility in the O'Hara bill.

Mr. MITCHELL. There certainly is. In the administration's proposal as I understand it, if the Governor does not provide a plan that is satisfactory, there is an appeal to the Secretary of Labor. But anybody who looks at what we are going through now on the question of school guidelines with the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare would know that it won't mean much to have that kind of procedure.

I just don't see how it would be possible for the Secretary of Labor to make an intelligent and effective program work when he has got to deal with Governors who, for various political reasons, might even be acting against the interests of the cities.

Unfortunately, there is frequently a big political battle between the State capital people and the people who are trying to run the cities. There is also another feature of the administration's bill which would provide for a kind of a collaboration between the mayors of cities and county officials in the surrounding areas. This would be pure poison for most Negroes, because usually the counties that surround the major cities of our country are the places to which white people have fled because they want to get away from the Negroes. Very frequently, the officials in those counties have a kind of a racist approach to things, in a gentlemanly sort of way, and they act against the interests of the peoples of the cities.

As I said before, that would be a dangerous thing if we put that into legislation.

Mr. DANIELS. Congressman Gaydos?

Mr. GAYDOS. I have no questions.

I would like to compliment the gentleman on his very practical

Mr. DANIELS. Mr. Erlenborn?

Mr. ERLENBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Mitchell, I appreciate your statement, particularly your reference to my congressional district. You didn't mention when you were talking about Illinois that Weston, the Atomic Energy project, is in my congressional district, and, as a matter of fact, was almost not located there because some people fought the placement of this particular project in Illinois because Illinois didn't have a statewide open housing law.

I am happy to find good results of the operation.

Mr. MITCHELL. May I interrupt and acknowledge that I was very determined not to have that located in Illinois, if we could possibly avoid it, and I now say that we lost that fight. But we lost it because the people in that community asserted the kind of leadership which made it a place that this project could be located in.

They passed, as you know, a fair housing ordinance of their own. And subsequently, of course, they got the national fair housing legislation, I am happy to say, with your help and cooperation and leadership.

In addition, the Atomic Energy people have been very sensitive about their role in building a community that would really be a democratic community. They have done-I won't say they are perfect, but certainly they have tried and continue to try to meet these problems. So I am happy to say that, although I have had many misgivings and fears about this, the reaction of the community and your own personal interest in these matters have helped tremendously in solving these problems.

I think if other people would react that way, we wouldn't have much trouble. But I must say that you and your associates out there are sort of unusual people. We don't run into folks like that in many of these communities.

Mr. ERLENBORN. I hope your comments concerning at least one program in Weston would indicate that you are generally pretty well pleased with the conduct of this project.

Mr. MITCHELL. With respect to the employment of operating engineers, yes. I don't know about the other crafts, but that one seems to be good.

Mr. ERLENBORN. The final objection that we had to overcome in the other body to getting this approved finally came down to the demand that the county adopt a fair housing ordinance, which was not legally within the power of the county. I felt that some of the attacks on the designation of Weston for this project were a bit unfair and unreasonable. And I am pleased that, even though it was a Democratic administration and a Democratic Congress, this Republican district wa awarded the project and that presently, I think, the action of the people in the community bears out the promise that they gave at the tine they were seeking the location of this project there.

Mr. MITCHELL. I would like to say for the record, Mr. Erlenborn. that I got into a great deal of difficulty because I mentioned a State where I thought we could have this located and would not have trouby on housing. That happened to be the State of Colorado, where, as yo know, there are two Republican Senators, who joined with me in say

that they thought their State would be a good place in which to te this.

immediately got in trouble with people in California, who wanted Sacramento, and people in New York, who somehow or other ted it in their State.

ut I can't overemphasize the fact that we were not objecting to because we didn't want to see the State of Illinois benefit from We were objecting because there had been statewide, consistent position to fair housing legislation. And in that area there was ry reason to believe that without fair housing legislation, the roes would not have any place to live if they came there to work. The difference in Weston was that instead of being just intransint, the people in the community did what they could do about ssing an ordinance. And I remember a speech you made, on the or, I believe, about this matter, which is different from the way ople usually react. Usually they fight and say, "We are going to ve it whether we have fair housing or not."

But you and your associates there attempted to correct the probn. And I feel certain the project would never have gone there except at the fact of the good will evident and the prospect of passing ational fair housing legislation were all weighed and resulted in a vorable disposition for your community.

Mr. ERLENBORN. In your statement, you mentioned without using ames of individuals or particular cities where this happened, that a astor got in trouble for using funds to improve a facility.

Now, your assessment of the motivation of the person who went the prosecuting attorney may be right. I don't know. But I would k you, do you know if the person who expended these funds had gal authority to use the funds for that purpose? Or might there be legitimate dispute as to the utilization of training funds or Headtart funds for capital expenditures?

Mr. MITCHELL. Actually, what happened in there, there were arangements under which it would be possible to allocate certain parts of the money for capital expenditures. The pastor of this particular hurch is a very civic minded individual. He attempted to allocate out of his church funds a certain amount of money for the cost of doing this, since it was a capital improvement, and also a certain. amount of the project funds, because it wouldn't have been necessary to do it if they didn't have the project in the first place.

Well, it turned out upon review, there was nothing wrong with what he had done, but the publicity vindicating his action and judg ment never caught up with the sensational thing that was done in the first place.

The man who instituted the action was the city auditor in this community, a very ambitious political figure. I am convinced that he did it-because I did talk with him-I am convinced he did it purely without any hope of actual prosecution, but with the hope that it would get enough publicity to discredit the program.

That is about par for the course in many of these communities. That is why I say I don't think they can be trusted to handle these

programs.

Mr. ERLENBORN. You make reference, also, to recent moves by State Governors to threaten vetos of Legal Services and Headstart programs.