Mr. KELLY. Are you talking about the community action programs? Mr. FOGARTY. Anything in the OEO.

Mr. SHRIVER. We are not funding the maximum that people ask for which we could fund if we had unlimited resources. Would that not be a fair statement?

Mr. BERRY. That is correct. In answer to the Congressman's question, during the first fiscal year we funded some 315 program development grants, for all communities, but during the 21/2 months since the beginning of the new fiscal year, we have funded 107 communities, smaller communities, rural communities, with program development grants.

Mr. FLOOD. I am not speaking so much of rural communities as the smaller cities.

Mr. BERRY. These include smaller cities, all program development. We have funded a total of 258 grants during the new fiscal year which in total number indicates we are servicing the small communities as well as the large.

On the question of Congressman Fogarty, we had at the end of the fiscal year a considerable number of applications. I cannot say that any of them have not been funded for lack of funds. They are being processed in an orderly manner, and of course we will be able to accelerate that when our level of monthly allocations is increased. We therefore have been leveling off monthly obligations to be consistent with the continuing resolution. It averages approximately $20 million.

Mr. FOGARTY. Your continuing resolution means a cutback in funds for this program.

Mr. BERRY. This is correct. We are therefore delaying rather than expanding.

Mr. FOGARTY. I knew there was some delay, or else a lot of people we have been hearing from are wrong. In dollars, what is the backlog of approvable projects that can be funded as soon as your 1966 appropriation is available?

Mr. SHRIVER. I think we would have to get that for the record later. We would have to add it up by programs.

(The information referred to follows:)

There are approximately $251 million in grant requests currently pending in the community action program.

SALARIES OF OFFICIALS AT STATE AND LOCAL LEVELS

Mr. FOGARTY. We have heard so much about the so-called high salaries being paid State and local officials administering this program. I was quite surprised at the table you furnished on this. Only 35 in the entire Nation are paid $18,000 or more, and several of these are paid partially or totally from other funds.

Do you want to say anything about these criticisms we receive from time to time?

Mr. SHRIVER. I think they are unjustified. I would be happy to say that. I have said many times that you cannot expect, in my judgment, to run an effort of this type at the local or national level with people who are paid less than the going rate in the community. We have made studies, one after the other, of what these communities are ac

tually paying the people that they employ, using our money, to run the war against poverty in those communities. In no case that I know of is the amount of money disproportionate to the job and to the level of salary in that community. Each application that comes before us in the community action area has to have in it the salary that is proposed for the people working in that community and a comparison of that salary to other people working in the same community in comparable work. Each one of our analysts look at that. If there is a guy out there getting paid more to work on our program than a fellow doing comparable work in the community, we knock it down, and we have done a lot of that.

Mr. FOGARTY. Put that chart in the record at this point.

Mr. SHRIVER. This is one chart we can put in the record right here. (The chart follows:)

TABLE II.-Annual salaries of community action program directors, comparison with salaries of other city officials

TABLE II.—Annual salaries of community action program directors, comparison with salaries of other city officials-Continued

Source: CAP memo 4 of June 30, 1965, requesting salary information from all CAP applicants.

LOCAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO INCREASE SALARIES OF OFFICIALS AT STATE OR

LOCAL LEVELS

Mr. SHRIVER. There have been a couple of cases where people have tried to make a mountain, in my judgment, out of a molehill or they have tried to generalize from inadequate facts. Let me give you an example. There was a mayor of a particular town in northern New Jersey who came out with a statement criticizing the amount paid to the director of the war against poverty in that town. He got a lot of publicity because the fellow running the war against poverty ended up with a salary $1,000 in excess of what the mayor was paid. This came about by a combination of unusual circumstances. First of all, we were only paying a proportion of that fellow's salary, and the local community, in order to get a particular man, raised money locally and added it to what we were paying him, and the local addition brought his salary above the mayor's salary. This was something we had nothing to do with. They wanted to get a particular guy and they were willing to pay the man an additional sum of money to get him. I did not see why that should be ruled out.

The Governor of New Jersey decided to pay the man in charge of the war against poverty in New Jersey more than members of his own cabinet get. That was a decision of the Governor of New Jersey. I did not feel there was any responsibility on our part to say that the

Governor of New Jersey should not do this. Those two cases received a lot of publicity.

Mr. FOGARTY. These are difficult cases to explain. I know in my State some of the cabinet people get more salary than the Governor of the State gets. In many cities it happens that people with longevity get more than the mayor does.

HIGH SALARIES FOR OFFICIALS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. FOGARTY. The thing that surprised me was that about 25 percent of the total for the Nation paid $18,000 or more, are working for the District of Columbia, and there is no matching for any of them. Does that not seem a little bit out of line to you?

Mr. SHRIVER. No matching funds?

Mr. FOGARTY. No.

Mr. SHRIVER. Perhaps I do not understand the question.

Mr. FOGARTY. This statement your office submitted at our request shows there are eight positions, about 25 percent of all such positions in the States, receiving $18,000 or more.

Mr. SHRIVER. Do you want to make any comment about the salaries in the District specifically as compared to the salaries of other community action operations around the country?

Mr. HAYES. Just a few comments on this. There is matching in the District of Columbia. Of course, it comes from District funds which go through the regular appropriation process at the present time where there are governmental funds involved.

Mr. FOGARTY. Are you familiar with this breakdown we have here? Mr. HAYES. Yes, I am.

Mr. FOGARTY. You have in some areas "paid by Ford Foundation," and so forth, but in the District of Columbia you have under "Remarks" no notation of any kind.

Mr. HAYES. I think I can explain a portion of it. Some portion of the salaries of the executive director are being paid out of Ford Foun dation and other funds. We are not paying the total of those salaries. I think the other comment on the character of the District of Columbia program is by virtue of starting 14 months earlier than practically anything else in the country, the program is larger. A good example of this is the Director of the manpower program. We are making a major experimental effort on manpower in the District of Columbia, and we were as responsible as they were for insisting that they be put at a level so they could get a man who was competent to run it. Essentially, it is program size more than anything else.

Mr. FOGARTY. Does that mean this is a bigger program than you have in Chicago?

Mr. HAYES. They are very close to the same size. It is smaller than Chicago.

Mr. FLOOD. How is that responsive to the chairman's question? He said a certain percentage of these employees at certain salary levels are very high vis-a-vis the entire Nation. That is the question. What is the answer to that?

Mr. HAYES. I think there is one last point on it. Local comparability in the District of Columbia.

Mr. FOGARTY. When you come back tomorrow try to have the complete details on this, including who the people are, what their backgrounds are, and so forth.

Mr. SHRIVER. Could I make one clarifying comment? You have, for example, one man from the city of Chicago, one man from New York. If you had all the jobs that are now in the city of Chicago, Cincinnati, or New York, there would be a list of people somewhat similar to the list you have for the District of Columbia. Is that not true, or is that wrong?

Mr. BERRY. Depending on the size of the operating staff.

Mr. SHRIVER. You have eight jobs in the District of Columbia. If you did the same thing for Chicago, Cincinnati, and New York, they also would have eight jobs.

Mr. BERRY. They would have additional jobs. The exact number I do not know.

Mr. GARNER E. SHRIVER. You mean for the other cities there is not a breakdown?

Mr. SHRIVER. We can get that.

Mr. FOGARTY. That is not the question I asked. The information you have given to us is in the special statement "Economic opportunity programs, officials of cooperating organizations earning salaries of $18,000 per year or more." I assume this is a complete list. If it is

not, you ought to get one to us.

Mr. SHRIVER. This is a complete list.

Mr. FOGARTY. You have one person in this category in Chicago. In the District of Columbia you have eight, from $25,000 down to $18,000. Mr. FLOOD. I have heard no answer to the chairman's question. Mr. SHRIVER. You are right. You have not gotten an answer. We will have to supply it this afternoon. I am sorry.

Mr. MICHEL. Did you also ask whether or not the District of Columbia was contributing to the salary of those individuals? Is that amount included in the District of Columbia request for Federal funds in our appropriation for the District of Columbia?

Mr. FOGARTY. I did not put it quite that way. I said the eight positions, which are 25 percent of those being paid $18,000 or more, are in the District of Columbia, and there was no matching funds, according to the chart presented to us.

(NOTE.-See p. 474 and immediately succeeding pages for further information on this subject.)

COMPETITION FOR TRAINED PERSONNEL

Mr. FLOOD. To keep all this in one package instead of scattering it through the record, there is a second count to this indictment. On this subcommittee we have sat for years and we hear the protests from the HEW people about the appalling lack of trained technicians, trained sociologists, trained specialists of all kinds, to meet this fantastic HEW program separate and distinct from your program. It is true and we know it is. Great sums are being appropriated and scholarship programs are being initiated. A widespread attack is being made on this problem. It is a bad problem in all areas. Now the indictment is that with all this going on, this mill is grinding out fodder for your program and that your people at your level, State