as well. We haven't done the kind of job development that is going to be required, you know, to make a significant indentation in the overall problems. That is going to be very crucial.

Senator MONDALE. One of the previous witnesses recommended a national program of public employment, like the WPA program. Do you see merit in a proposal along those lines?

Mr. SPRINKLES. I can see a merit in the program, but for how many people? You see, since the Watts riot, we have done an excellent job of priming our residents; paying them-some of them-paying some of our residents to do nothing and the kinds of jobs which are acceptable in many of our communities, are not the types that were acceptable prior to 1965 because of the ways that we have gone about operating our programs and because of the way we have gone about priming people and offering them promises that we have not kept; promises of the types of jobs-lucrative jobs that are going to be significantly higher than they had ever in their lives. I think such a project as a WPA program could be helpful if it led into something else, but not in itself.

Senator MONDALE. This is where a kind of combination of a WPA and new careers would be good

Mr. SPRINKLES. Yes.

Senator MONDALE (continuing). Which had both employmentmeaningful employment, and training along with it to try to upgrade the skills and move them up the employment ladder.

Mr. SPRINKles. Yes.

Senator MONDALE. I think it is significant to note that in 1939 when this nation had a gross national product of $90 billion, we had 4 million public service jobs in this country. Today, when the gross national product is $950 billion, we have fewer than 40,000 public service jobs and we are told we can't afford any more. I understand the reluctance to lay hold of the public service employment issue because we have now fooled around in Watts and every other place. with practically every kind of Mickey Mouse that we can think of, and it has helped here and there and there is no question about it. But we are as you observe back where we started from, apparently asking for another ride. And we've spent an awful lot of money-not nearly enough-because we spend a lot less on these programs than people think we spend on these programs. But a lot of money has been spent getting ready to do something that never happens. We are assuming the existence of jobs that don't exist.

I wonder if it wouldn't be just as fair, and far more effective in the long run, and less expensive to shift into a program of public service employment, as well as these training programs, than to try to have an enriched public service employment program to bring people along, rather than the way we are thrashing around today. When you realize we are spending close to $2.5 billion a year and we can't find a trace of it anywhere. Where is it going?

I don't want to be that categorical about it, but it is awfully hard. One of the witnesses this morning asked who was getting it and that is why I am pushing this point.

Would you react to that question?

Mrs. CARROLL. Well, if you would like me to testify, but one of the major problems and if you will bear with me, I will have to give

you examples-not really a hypothetical situation but a real situation-but it's in the past now and that is in the beginning even before the Watts riot, when we came into being, as YOB to work with school dropouts, we came up with two demonstration projects and the forerunners, these programs did a fairly good job and it was proven that they did but instead of expanding these programs and putting money in a concerted effort, with the merits for the community, industry, public service employment and the Federal Government, we then came along with a concentrated employment program, the WIN program and you name it. By the time you indoctrinate people to the bureaucratic guidelines and rules and regulations, you set back a program a year but you keep putting good money after bad, you know, instead of broadening and expanding into a comprehensive kind of program or what have you and using your past experience of what you have learned, you continuously come in with new programs, which takes at least a year to administratively understand let alone to administrate.

I have been asked to react to something, may I, Mr. Sprinkles? I have been asked whether or not in Los Angeles we have renegotiated CEP contract and asked to turn over all of our services by subcontract, selection, referral, accounting functions and what have you to HRD. Yes, we have. However, in Los Angeles it has always been pretty much that way and I can understand the question, because what do we really have left as prime sponsor. Are we indeed the prime sponsor or are we not the prime sponsor?

I would like to go a step further with that. Your report to the Congress by the Comprtoller General of the United States for the year 1968, brought to the attention of Congress that in fact the prime sponsor of the program were being subjected to what they called "conflict of interest," inasmuch as a person who is on HRD payroll, is then acting in the capacity as MAR which is the liaison person between the Department of Labor and the prime sponsor, but yet they are on the payroll of the ES. They are reimbusred by it, by the Federal Government.

Let me go a step further. In 1469-and if you are not familiar with it-1469 is the Manpower Administrative Order for the refunding of CEP-1's and CEP-2's. Calling your attention to page 8, where in paragraph 2, it indicates there is to be a State ES respresentative fully and completely administratively responsible for the complete manpower delivery system in each CEP where the subcontract is the State ES. However, that person is on our payroll and he is employed. It is needless to say we are very happy about the situation, I don't think I have to elaborate, it stands to reason that we are not, but we are in a bind here, you know, we are in between.

Senator MONDALE. Thank you very much for your most useful contribution and I regret we don't have more time, but we do have a rather busy schedule. We do have more questions for you which we submit for the record and if you could respond in writing.

Thank you, very much.

Our next witness is Mr. Ted Watkins of the Watts Labor Community Action Council.

Mr. Watkins, if you will come forward to the witness table please.

STATEMENT OF TED WATKINS, WATTS LABOR COMMUNITY ACTION COMMITTEE

Senator MONDALE. Mr. Watkins, we have talked a lot about Watts. Are you from Watts?

Mr. WATKINS. Yes, I am.

Senator MONDALE. Will you proceed as you wish?

Mr. WATKINS. I have a letter here that I have addressed to Senator Nelson: I am sorry to advise you that I am unable to testify before your committee at the present time; as project administrator of the Watts Labor Community Action Committee, I do not want to jeopardize one of our critical funding resources-namely, private foundations.

The Tax Reform Act of 1969, page 29, section 49-45 D & E, makes it illegal for any organization receiving support from private foundations to, in any way, influence legislation or legislative bodies. I am sure that you gentlemen are very much aware of this legislation and can appreciate the need for my declining to participate in these hearings.

I also am requesting that you return to me the two copies of the written statements we supplied to the committee, as I do not wish these statements to become part of the record of the committee. Senator MONDALE. We will tell them we've never read it.

Mr. WATKINS. It is indeed very tragic that legislation prevents an organization like the Watts Labor Community Action Committee from participating in such critical issues as the Manpower Training Act of 1969. I am sure, however, that you can understand that it would be irresponsible to jeopardize critically needed funds that my organization receives from private foundations, therefore, I must decline to testify before your committee and withdraw the material that we had advanced to you.

Senator MONDALE. Thank you, Mr. Watkins. I understand that you are not allowed to volunteer help, is that correct, but we can ask for help.

Mr. WATKINS. If you want to help me break the law. You are a legislative body and the act itself, states you know, that we cannot help or hope to influence legislation and that is what this committee hearing is about.

Senator CRANSTON. Have you been advised that you couldn't testify as an individual and not in your capacity

Mr. WATKINS (continuing). I have been advised that I can testify as an individual but I came here as a representative of the Watts Labor Community Action Committee. I have been advised by the attorney that this act, I would be putting myself in jeopardy, and the foundations that support me in jeopardy, to testify.

Senator CRANSTON. Could you proceed as an individual and give us your thoughts on the problem that we are considering today? Mr. WATKINS. Let me put it this way, Senator Cranston.

I will be willing to answer any qeustions that you might have, but I will not try to influence this legislation.

Senator MONDALE. With the understanding that we won't be influenced by your response.

Mr. WATKINS. You see, as an individual, you know, I receive my salary from the Ford Foundation, we have support from the Alliance

for Labor Action, and we have sizeable grants from the Rockefeller Foundation and I do not want to jeopardize that.

Senator CRANSTON. I would like to say that both Senator Mondale and myself were opposed to those provisions that hamper foundations and impair their ability to contribute to our society. We succeeded in eliminating some of the worst aspects but not all of them.

Senator MONDALE. Can you tell us a little bit about your organization and what it does, what it seeks to do?

Mr. WATKINS. The Watts Labor Community Action Committee is basically an organization that was formed in the latter part of 1964 by a group of trade unions. We have an executive board and an advisory board that is made up of some 16 different international unions. I am an international representative of the United Automobile Workers Union and was assigned in Watts by Walter Ruether to begin to try to do some of the things in the community that we had done in the shops-the major things we had done in the shops were to organize workers for better conditions and we felt that the same kind of job that we had done in the shops could be done in the community to improve conditions in the community. We embarked upon some plans like better housing, street lights, medical facilities, jobs, and all these things, and then in 1965 the Watts riot came and we had to begin to redirect some of our efforts. We felt that one of the major problems in the community was the youths who were deprived of gaining from the programs that had been presented in the OEO Act and some other acts. They are major programs, Headstart and the Neighborhood Youth Corps programs, and there were job programs, peoples' programs. None of these programs took in kids from 7 years old through the 15 year olds.

In 1966 we embarked upon a program to include these kids in some kind of meaningful activity. Since that time our operation has grown extensively. We have today the only urban educational residential center in the country with inputs from the county, the State, Federal Government and three different foundations. It is on a 581 acre site that was leased to us for $1 by the city of Los Angeles with some commitments to spend approximately $4 million at that site in the next 10 years.

We have embarked upon economic development things in the community. We are operating at the present time more than 500 acres of agricultural land. We have two filling stations in the community. We have one grocery store; a poultry ranch; and at the present time we are negotiating to buy a chain of super markets with 150 employees in them.

We have a transportation project for which we bought 10 small buses-12 passenger vehicles-that we carry workers back and forth to jobs.

We have presently a general contracting operation with the State of California to relocate housing from the freeways that are coming through. I guess you heard about the freeways-there is 17 miles of freeway. We have a contract with the State of California to be the relocator with the prime interest of getting community involvement in jobs in that effort. These jobs will be jobs paying from $4 to $10 per hour to the workers that are involved.

We just opened up a small model market. We've got two contracts, one with the retail clerks union and one with the butcher's union for

journeymen to teach young people in that market to become clerks, butchers, cashiers, in order to go into other supermarkets that are opening up in the community.

We have at the present time a contract for a Grant in New York with the Rockefeller Foundation to set up a complete paramedical training program in Saugus to be ready for the jobs in the hospital.

I have heard some of the statements here about the hospital. Let me say, at the present time, the hospital started out to be a $22 million project; it is now a $35 million project; and we hope that before it is finished it will be a $90 million project.

The job opportunities in the hospital are varied. In Los Angeles County there is a 33% percent turnover in hospital services.

The need for adequately trained paramedical personnel is acute, and will be acute for some decades, I guess, to come.

There are at the present time-the outlook is that there will be approximately 1,400 jobs in that hospital at the opening in 1971. We are hoping that we can begin to involve the people in the community to be ready for those jobs that are not below skills and underpaid jobs, but jobs that require some technical training and we have some commitments from doctors and psychiatrists and hospital administrators that not only will we be able to train the people at the Saugus site, but we will be able also to train the people in the county hospital of Los Angeles.

The major thing to guarantee in these hospitals is a person responsible for the training and the upgrading of these people and that they not be tied down to washing the dishes and emptying the bedpans.

Basically this is what we are about. We have done extensive work in the community in building vest-pocket playgrounds and some of the public service things we talked about here today.

Senator MONDALE. I believe you have an experiment underway, or hope to have one underway, for a day care center which has several unique elements; one, it is open 24 hours a day-not just daylight hours, so that mothers who work the night shift can leave their children at the center. It includes children up to the age of 12 or 14. Could you comment on that a little bit?

Mr. WATKINS. Let me say this. I guess after 25 years of living in housing projects and in Watts, I have heard many proposals, you know, for child care in that area. Campaigns have been put on, by the way, to raise money for these child care centers. So what we finally decided in the Watts Labor Community Action Committee, that this service was one of the most needed in the community, not a day care center, but a complete child care center including residence of kids. We felt child care centers had to be flexible enough to where mothers who may have to go to a hospital in Watts-when you talk about Watts you've got to understand, this is not southeast Los Angeles and Watts is not Willow Brook and most of the things that people get into a bag trying to relate the whole southeast black community as Watts and this is not the case. Watts is buildings, and within those boundaries of Watts, there are four housing projects that exist there; a concentration of one-third of the people in Watts live in public housing projects and 75 percent of the families in those housing projects do not have a man in the house. So if a mother has to go to the hospital or anything else, there is no place for her to leave her kids in Watts. If she has a job at 3 or 4 o'clock in the evening and has two