Mayor ALEXANDER. Yes. As I indicated, through attrition there will be vacancies in all our administrations. As these vacancies open up, there would be a natural transition.

Senator NELSON. But you are expecting at some stage, assuming the act expires, and the administration insisted upon a 2-year limitation

Mayor ALEXANDER. To put them on my own payroll; yes.

Mayor UHLMAN. The program has been successful and is an essential element in every bill, Steiger bill, the Reuss bill, the Daniels bill and others being considered in the House and I know Senator Cranston's measure allows a permanent type of approach to this problem.

Mayor ALEXANDER. We don't have staff resources to train them for a job in the private sector while they are working and being trained in the public sector.

Mayor DRIGGS. If the experience with the PEP program shows it to be a good experience in transferring people into full, permanent civil service positions in the public sector then it could be a serious and very useful vehicle indefinitely, as one of the best possible approaches for entry level into government.

In other words, if it works, then what is good for 2 years could be good on a continuing basis.

Senator TAFT. I think you may find as some of the pressure is reduce that this could happen. The first thing that has happened in some of the community action agencies, that there has been movement off the payroll of the action agency itself into other agencies.

As mayors each of you has to obviously grapple with problems of drug, crime, and recidivism, as well as those of poverty. Do you see a role for manpower programs in contributing to these problems as well? I believe Mayor Gribbs, who had to leave, commented on that, but some of the others of you may wish to comment.

Mayor UHLMAN. I would add a hearty amen to his comments.

In our city, we have taken several of the PEP employees and put them into our drug program. These kinds of unmet needs in the cities are logically solved through the public programs.

Mayor MINETA. This is true of our city, and is probably the approach most of us have taken in areas such as crime reduction.

Mayor ALEXANDER. We have added 30 men to our police department. That is substantial, when you think that my police department is only

about 440.

Mayor UHLMAN. There have been valuable side effects. In the west coast cities, the fire service is basically an all-white service. There is a major city the size of San Diego without one single black fireman. We have been able to bring 47 black firemen into the fire department through the PEP program.

The same thing has happened in the police department. We went from seven black policemen up to 49 as a result of this program. It is a highly desirable social goal.

Mayor DRIGGS. Because of the rigid civil service classifications in so many areas this is extremely important. This public employment program has allowed cities to bring people into public service that could never have made the list otherwise, sir.

Senator TAFT. Thank you very much. We have one more question on behalf of Senator Javits again.

As you know, the Senator asks, he has been particularly concerned with the matter of summer jobs. Your organization and the National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, advises we need 947,000 10-week opportunities compared to the 607,000 9-week opportunities the administration plans to provide.

What are the elements in the city which contribute to this substantial need, and looking ahead, would you agree we need to establish some kind of special fund for the purpose of summer employment so that we are not too little and too late this year?

Mayor UHLMAN. Yes.

Mayor MINETA. Very definitely.

Mayor DRIGGS. These figures, Senator Taft, are based on surveys by the league and the conference, and I am sure they are not overstated. In fact, they may be understated because they do not represent the number of young people seeking summer employment but rather the number of young people the cities can effectively employ. For example, last summer in Phoenix, we had 7,000 qualified applicants for 2,000 jobs and we estimate that about twice that number did not apply because of the limited number of positions available. This summer we estimate that we can effectively use 17,000 summer NYC jobs.

Mayor UHLMAN. Senator I would add this. When you have a very hard economic problem in a community, and when you have a high unemployment rate, the last person on the totem pole is the young person. Dad is taking the job that he might ordinarily have had in the summer.

So the need this summer is perhaps more critical than it ever has been. We talk about long, hot summers. Certainly there are many indications that we could have a difficult summer in areas of high unemployment.

It is an old saw and I suppose it is trite, but I still believe it. "Idle hands are the devil's workshop."

Keep the young kids busy, and they are not going to get into trouble. I am convinced that this summer the need is greater than it ever has been.

Mayor MINETA. I think from that viewpoint the actual need is probably about 1.8 million, and this is the number we could actually use effectively.

I think as far as the summer youth employment is concerned, we don't receive notification of the number of slots available until the early part of June. Suddenly we are expected to put a crash program together.

To be used effectively it must be programed earlier than it is now. Mayor UHLMAN. I would like to commend Senator Javits, for his real leadership in this area. This has been one of his major interests. He has forwarded the information you just read to the Secretary of Labor, and has carried our banner for us, and frankly without him we would indeed be in deep trouble.

Senator TAFT. I appreciate your remarks.

That completes my questions, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all very much.

Senator NELSON. I think all the witnesses mentioned decategorization. By that do you mean the money, under whatever formula that

comes to the prime sponsor, in this case the mayor in cities of certain size, have no strings attached at all, except that the money must be spent on manpower programs?

Is that what you are saying?

Mayor UHLMAN. We are saying for the utmost in flexibility, the mayors who are elected by the local public, ought to have the responsibility and ability to decide what programs are really meeting the needs of that community.

There is a vast spectrum from the Daniels bill to the administration bill. Our position, I think, is the most logical one. That is, who is better able to judge whether or not a training program is working in our community than the persons who are there on the scene?

Certainly some bureaucrat coming back from the third level of the. Department of Labor from Washington can't really, and does not really have the ability to judge what programs are working in our community as we do.

Every 4 years, everybody here has to go back and be accountable to the voters as to whether or not he has judged those programs correctly.

Mayor ALEXANDER. If we are still alive, you mean.

Senator NELSON. What puzzles me a bit, though is why have a manpower bill at all? That is to say, why not take the $2 billion and just give it to the prime sponsors?

Mayor UHLMAN. I think the Congress, which again has the responsibility of raising the money, which has the responsibility of voting tax increases, also has the responsibility of oversight, and I think that we should be forced to come on an annual basis or whatever to present to you what our stewardship has been, whether or not you feel we do need tighter controls.

The responsibility for oversight lies with the Congress.

Senator NELSON. What I am really trying to say is that if a manpower program has merit as a program that ought to be funded by the Congress, does the program have to be designed in such a way as to guarantee that it is in fact a good sound manpower program?

This is the kind of thing that Senator Taft raised the question on. Suppose a city decided that it would rather not spend any money at all on the very difficult problem of the disadvantaged youth who is a high school dropout-and it costs a lot of money to do something about that problem, if it is a Job Corps job, it is $4,000 a man a year.

Isn't it possible the mayors may decide under those circumstances that, "We want to spend it all on public service employment, with no training at all"?

If that were the decision, doesn't that mean you wouldn't really have what we are thinking about as a manpower training program?

Mayor UHLMAN. I think reasonable guidelines are certainly acceptable to us. I can so assure you, Senator, that my local OIC would never agree to our abandoning those programs and putting it all into public service.

I think it is reasonable to suggest a council as you have. I think it is reasonable that certain representations are guaranteed on that council. But we are locally accountable. We are not going to be able politically, if we wanted to, to do the kind of thing you are talking about.

It is a political reality for that kind of concern to be expressed. Mayor ALEXANDER. I think the programs establish goals towards which Congress believes we should proceed. But I would hope we could be sophisticated enough in the drafting of the legislation to give us the kind of flexibility to respond to an immediate problem that might be unique to our individual communities.

A situation may come up with this that might not be applicable to other communities, but could be reviewed. It would, of course, have to have the approval of our planning council, but it would also be reviewed by the administration in terms of our next application to see whether or not we are addressing ourselves to those goals.

Senator NELSON. Maybe nobody wants to answer it. I am not going to ask this question of anybody specifically, and maybe nobody wants to respond to it.

On the categorical question, as everyone here knows who has had any opportunity to become acquainted with Dr. Leon Sullivan-we recog nize him as an exceptionally talented, creative man who, without Federal funding initiated a program that is producing significant results in a number of communities around the country, including Milwaukee. Would the OIC in your judgment be one of the designated members of an employment of a manpower council?

Mayor MINETA. Mr. Chairman, they are in San Jose.

Senator NELSON. By statute, would you include it?

Mayor MINETA. No, not by statute. I guess it would be going back to giving that responsibility to the local prime sponsor, because he must deal with local interest groups. On our manpower area council, we have specifically included OIC, since it is an integral part of the MDTA training program.

Senator TAFT. Mr. Chairman, if you would yield, I think that makes the problem. In Cincinnati, for instance, the OIC has been long established and quite effective, and it would very properly belong on the planning council.

However, in a number of other areas, it is really almost just on a beginning basis, and I don't think they would want even to purport to speak as a major planning, manpower planning factor until they get better established.

Mayor DRIGGS. Perhaps you could include specific language in the statutes to describe such organizations at a specified stage of maturity, or effectiveness, and then include them in the council.

Senator NELSON. We had Malcolm Lovell testifying Monday. He commented on the question of the national emphasis programs. Specifically on Mainstream, and in some detail on the Job Corps.

Under the administration's proposal, those categories would be eliminated. Now, if you assume, as the Congress has, that the Job Corps does answer a particular kind of problem for certain youth in the country, how does the Job Corps get funded, or does it just disappear?

If the Congress feels strongly that it is an important part of a manpower program, the only way it is going to be protected is to guarantee its funding and to review the activities on an annual basis.

However, Mr. Lovell's response to that was that it would be funded by local manpower group prime sponsors, purchasing so to speak, a certain number of slots in a Job Corps program.

I raised specifically the question of the Job Corps Camp, one of the two in Wisconsin, of Pine Lake, in which I think I am correct then in saying there were probably not more than three or four residents of the State of Wisconsin in the Pine Lake camp.

No State program is going to spend money to sustain that Job Corps camp with only 2 or 3 or 4 percent of the total camp being from that State.

He felt that that would be taken care of because local sponsors would say in developing their manpower program that, "We think we ought to purchase 25 slots in the Job Corps camp in Timbucktoo." Do you think that is a practical way to support the Job Corps?

Mayor UHLMAN. It certainly sounds logical. In our area, for example, it may very well be that we have disadvantaged youth that we would like to contract for services in eastern Washington, or in Idaho, or someplace else for a summer program of sorts.

It certainly seems logical that the responsibility for Seattle area youth ought to lie with us, and with our priorities.

Senator NELSON. If, again, the Congress as a matter of policy thought the Job Corps was an important program how could you operate a Job Corps program on the guess that enough prime sponsors will in each succeeding year purchase enough slots to keep the Job Corps program operating?

Mayor UHLMAN. I suspect it is a matter of planning and coordination. If you determine your priorities ahead of time, then to that extent insure with the contracting agency that you are going to want a number of slots.

Senator NELSON. But you as a prime sponsor might think Seattle needs 50 slots or 100 in the year 1972, and then as you reviewed manpower problems of the city next year, you might decide that you don't need any. The competition for dollars to meet problems can get pretty stiff, and the Job Corps is not inexpensive.

How do you run a program on the expectation that each year hundreds of independent sponsors will in fact elect to spend x amount of dollars on Job Corps slots.

Mayor UHLMAN. In the majority of cases of local changes in priorities, there would be very little difference, regardless of changes of priorities on a Federal level.

How do you plan when OCM decides to freeze hundreds of millions of dollars in a particular program? They make that decision, and they simply have to change their own local plans on the basis of that.

Senator NELSON. But I am raising a different question, I think, and that is to say, how can you run a Job Corps program, if that is what the Congress wants, on the whimsey of a group of prime sponsors who are asking for flexibiltiy to run their own programs at the local level. I think local flexibility is a sound idea, but how do you run a national Job Corps program that way?

Mayor MINETA. I think, Mr. Chairman, that is the point. Job Corps is a national program, and it is not a local situation to the extent that it is the Department of Labor that contracts with X, Y, Z firm to operate a Job Corps center in a certain locality.

We now have the Job Corps center in San Jose. It is operated by the Singer-Graflex Corp. under contract with the Department of Labor. It has 143 training positions for residents. The Job Corps