This isn't just a war against the extremes of unemployment, ignorance, poverty; it is a full scale human resources development program.

The mounting of this program has meant the mustering of Federal, State, and local forces. It has involved combining the efforts of a number of Federal agencies, most particularly-but by no means exclusively-the Department of Labor, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Office of Economic Opportunity. This has created, inevitably, the necessity of taking special measures to assure the integration of these efforts.

In my judgment, this integration, although still in transition, is being accomplished. This has been partly because there was so much to be done so much waste of human resources to be stopped-that the prospects of fruitless duplication of efforts were slight. With so many people seriously disadvantaged, it didn't matter that some were approached on the basis of their being uneducated or untrained, others because they were poor, others because they were unemployed. The rest of the explanation of our achievement in moving toward a full integration of these programs is that there has been a complete and constant recognition of the necessity of this being done.

We have, at the same time, learned as we have gone along; and experience has proved a rewarding teacher.

Executive action by the President has provided the leadership in our pursuit of complete integration of these programs.

The Education and Labor Committee of the House of Representatives has also given particular attention to those aspects of this matter of coordination and integration which might appear to warrant legislative enactment. Its conclusions are reflected in part in H.R. 15111. There are also related proposals contained in other bills presently before the Labor Committees of the House and the Senate.

My particular concern as Secretary of Labor is with the effective integration of these programs so far as they involve what may be identified particularly as "manpower" programs are concerned.

You have asked particularly, Mr. Chairman, for comments about the proposals in H.R. 15111. In almost all respects I consider these proposals-so far as they relate to the manpower area-entirely constructive.

This is true, as I have indicated above, with respect to the House Committee's proposals regarding the various features of the Neighborhood Youth Corps program.

The proposal in H.R. 15111 for "programs to provide unemployed adults useful work training opportunities" would meet an unquestionable need.

The House Committee's provisions for administration of the "work experience and training programs meeting the criteria set forth in part D of Ttitle II of the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962” (see H.R. 15111, Title V and Title X) represent what are in my judgment constructive proposals for handling these programs. This has been a knotty problem which has had, and continues to have, the attention of both the Administration and the Congress. The ultimately "right" answer probably still awaits further experience, and there are different judgments regarding it at the present time. I think the House Committee proposal would provide additional helpful experience.

The other provisions in Title X of H.R. 15111, amending the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962, are similarly constructive. They accomplish a fuller integration of the MDTA and the EOA. The provision covering the referral of Neighborhood Youth Corps "alumni" to MDTA training programs, with appropriate training allowances being paid, reflects the necessity for such integration.

One of the vital and essential characteristics of this emerging human resources development program has been the establishment of a closer working relationship between the executive and the legislative branches of the Government. This is reflected in the almost annual amendments of these new statutes-and in my saying to this Subcommittee that these proposals in H.R. 15111 (even though they do not represent "administration" proposals) seems to me very much worth our common consideration. I welcome the opportunity to be as helpful as possible to the Subcommittee in this connection.

Thank you.

Secretary WIRTZ. You may consider I have already done that, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CLARK. Good for you. Perhaps you would introduce your colleagues.

STATEMENT OF HON. W. WILLARD WIRTZ, SECRETARY OF LABOR, ACCOMPANIED BY STANLEY RUTTENBERG, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR; JACK HOWARD, ADMINISTRATOR, NEIGHBORHOOD YOUTH CORPS; AND MARK C. BATTLE, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, NEIGHBORHOOD YOUTH CORPS

Secretary WIRTZ. I should like very much to. First, the new Assistant Secretary of Labor, Mr. Stanley Ruttenberg, whom you know very well, but not perhaps by that title.

Senator CLARK. It was a privilege to participate in his confirmation. Secretary WIRTZ. It was a very proud thing, as you know, for me and I know the members of this subcommittee. Then Jack Howard as Administrator of the Neighborhood Youth Corps, and Mr. Mark Battle as Deputy Administrator of the Neighborhood Youth Corps.

And in the identification of these associates, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I have also indicated what seems to me the proper scope of my testimony.

We have the statement which I understand you have made a part of the record and I will limit my summary really to two points. One is the administration of the Neighborhood Youth Corps, which is a part of the economic opportunity program and the antipoverty program, which is administered by the Secretary of Labor under the authorization, delegation from the Director of ŎEO. That is handled by Mr. Howard and Mr. Battle and by their associates.

And then the second point to which I refer only briefly is this matter of the relationship I do not like the word coordination-rather the integration between the program under the Economic Opportunity Act and the Manpower Development and Training Act, pertaining particularly to the manpower programs of the Government.

Very shortly, then, summarizing the statement, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I would express these two views:

First, with respect to the Neighborhood Youth Corps, that we have the satisfaction of having participated in what we think of as one of the great human resource development programs in the country. And secondly, that with respect to the matter of integrating the antipoverty program, economic opportunity program, and the manpower program, I think I can fairly report to you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, that although there are still wrinkles in this problem, we are moving very effectively, I think, very actively and very successfully toward the-if not complete-at least substantial integration of these two programs.

So, first with respect to the Neighborhood Youth Corps, that is a story which is at this point fairly well known to the members of this committee, which is summarized in the statement which I have filed and which is, in short, the story of over half a million-at this pointyoung men and women, boys and girls between 16 and 21, actually having participated in this program.

I am not talking about human futures, I am talking about human facts, and the human facts are that in the period of the last 18 months to 2 years over half a million have actually participated in this program. There are a good many other figures about the number of

rojects which are involved, the number of areas of the country, which s all of the areas of the country. The real figures, the success, the ardunetic of the success here, has to do with the number of these peopie who are now staying in school who would not otherwise have Sayed in school, or who are now working where they would not otherwise have worked.

And I can only say that recognizing the impossibility of measuring anything of this kind in terms of statistics, I think that someplace in Ce neighborhood of a quarter of a million young Americans are either relay in school or at work who would not have had that opportunity

t had not been for the Neighborhood Youth Corps program. And g that is right, and it is in the area of being right, Mr. Chairman, we are all entitled to a good deal of pride and satisfaction from the fact at there has been this recovery rate in this short a period of time. that record is reflected in the reduced number of dropouts, it is reflected in the reduced unemployment rate for these people in this country today; it is reflected in the reduced juvenile delinquency rates; and it is reflected in every statistical record we know. And I shall be ad to go into the details about the record.

I have in the statement included some suggestions reflecting the recommendations of Mr. Howard, Mr. Battle, and their associates, and reflecting in substantial part the deliberations in the House committee about some improvements in this program, the principal one of which would involve the addition of supplementary services-training services of one kind or another.

If there is a single change in the prospective emphasis which we have in mind during the next year in this program, it is that where we have been concentrating on getting the people who need this help into this program, we are now going to concentrate on seeing that they get while they are in it what they need for the future and that they move out from this program into an effective kind of longer range opportunity, either educationally or as far as employment is concerned.

We think that there is great need for supplementary services here. We think there is a need for emphasizing the transition from this program into the other program. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is not going to do the country a bit of good if we pull these boys and girls into a warm room of opportunity for about 6 months and then just drop them out through a trapdoor back into nothing. That is no good.

We will take no satisfaction in the number of enrollees we have. We will measure our success from here on in the qualitative terms of what it means as far as seeing that they move on to something worth while is concerned.

The House committee has, in my judgment, in H.R. 15111 made some suggestions for the improvement of the Neighborhood Youth Corps programs with which we are with one exception in complete accord.

I think it is a mistake to suggest, as it has been in the House bill, that there be simply a welfare standard for qualification for this, but we have not enough money to live up to that and we want to pick out the worst cases. We are going to take the hardest cases we can findthat standard is too general-but aside from that I think that the sug

gestions for the Neighborhood Youth Corps contained in that bill are good.

On the second point, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, as far as the integration of the manpower, the antipoverty, the education programs of the Government and in the country today are concerned, I have this general reaction, that integration is not complete. There has been, in my judgment, an admirable avoidance of ways, of overlapping, of duplication during the first 2 years of the development of this program.

Part of the reason for that is there was so much to be done that it would have taken a genius for us to duplicate each other's effort. We have not. There has been such a job that it didn't matter if some of us were approaching it from the standpoint of a person being poor, some of us from the standpoint of his being unemployed, some of us from the standpoint of being uneducated or untrained, but it had to be done. And the very breadth of the problem was insurance against duplication.

In the course of the last 2 years, as the result of the working people involved, as a result of the manifestation of repeated interest of the committees in the House and Senate, as a result of the President's insistance that there be no duplication in these programs, I think we have moved very far from any possibility of duplication.

There are provisions in H.R. 15111 which relate to the relationship between the manpower, the antipoverty programs. I have, in my statement, indicated my feeling that, although in some respects those may present problems, they are on the whole constructive proposals for moving ahead with this program. They have given very careful attention in the House committee to the desirability of integrating the manpower, the antipoverty, the educational programs, and although there is no official administration position because, as a matter of fact, that bill has not even been passed over in the House.

I do think that the suggestions that the House committee has made warrant in most cases, as far as the manpower aspects are concerned, favorable consideration.

That feeling does not extend to some of the suggestions there about the community action program, but I assume you may not want to go into those here.

As far as the proposals for tying in manpower and antipoverty administration, I think they are all to the good, so, in general, Mr. Chairman, this statement is one of satisfaction in the development during these last 2 years of the program which centers in the Economic Opportunity Act. It is a feeling of very real progress that has been made; it is a feeling of recognition there are improvements which can be made; it is a feeling of very great gratitude for the kind of approach which the Senate and the House have taken to this problem as reflected in their constant attention to the possibility of its amendment, and as reflected in the hearings of which we are a part here today and, of course, in which I would like to be as helpful as I can in response to your questions.

Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary, for that skillful summing up which is very helpful to the subcommittee. I understand that you and your staff will be available for help on technical matters as we move from the hearing phase into marking up the bill.

མན

MAY

"

red to be of help.

ve will be calling on you, both the wn staff, for assistance in that

we will impose the 10-minute rule

Lisetts. I would like to wait a few

ke to congratulate the Secretary on his at the operation of the Neighborhood been one of the most successful. I have

school program to cost was assessed at trese in 1966 to $1.620 a pupil, and in 1967 rondered if you would explain the reason for

Torment would be in general, if it is all right, 'd like to ask Mr. Howard to respond to the

r, the first figure related to the fiscal 1965 operaa 6-month operation in that part and, thererespondingly low. This year's figure, then, repod of time for the enrollees plus a slight improvein terms of supportive services.

er 1967 adds on more counseling and some training o improve the program in its services to the youth er period of time, the full period for these enrollees. . In the future, would it be proper to assume that crease each year, or would we hopefully arrive at some would level off or maybe, more hopefully, decrease? now about the cost per pupil, because it would be my at the number of pupils involved will probably inortion to the population.

For the in-school and the summer programs we do not ncrease of any substantial nature, because in the in-school e expect the supportive services to be provided by the school the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and on or programs much the same pertains.

og of school program we would see a leveling off within a w It would level off as we reach a sophisticated program, and helping the youngsters enrolled in it. We do not see the year increase. This is an almost tooling-up phase. We ather low; we think we are seeing the limits of what we can in the next year or two.

ator Merry. One of the most frequent questions I receive from onts is in regard to the cost. A fellow says, "Well, I have my efers to send to school and I find myself advancing tax dollars to chor youngsters to school who do not have the privileges of mine, Actually it is costing more to send the fellow who does not have the Age" This is the reason I asked for the explanation. valge.

Scrotary WIRTZ. In general terms, Senator, we are doing the sharpcost accounting we can. I would agree completely with Mr. How