explore more fully the issue surrounding a major public job creation program."

This statement brings me to the very root of one of the greatest questions of conscience, and I will be very frank about it, about even passing this legislation, and if I may, I will illustrate it, what happens with people when you go out and you say, "Well, we are going to enter you in job training so you can get a job," and you and I know realistically before we even start that the chances of their getting a job are practically nil.

Is it really fair to hold out the promise or at least the implied promise that there is a job at the end of the road, that they are in training for something which they can achieve, when, with the economic situation as it is today, I do not think personally that it is realistic that many of the marginally employable people, people with whom this legislation deals largely, are going to get jobs under the state of our economy, and aren't we in fact creating what some Englishman once described as a "generation of dissatisfied English clerks," who have been trained, and who have been further frustrated by their inability to secure employment?

I am torn, because I recognize the progressive nature of this legislation, the consolidation, the computerized job banks. I have been plugging for that now for 4 years, and a number of other good aspects of this job.

But at the same time, I have charged off on so many good missions only to find the money cut out from under me or the jobs go at the end of the trail, that I am getting a little tired of raising people's expectations only to have them dashed on our ability to come through. Mr. SVIRIDOFF. I think you are absolutely right, Congressman. Clearly more important than this legislation is the maintenance of high levels of employment. That ought to come first.

But, having said that, it is also clearly desirable to develop finally in this country some kind of rational system for delivering manpower services and training services, for the obvious reason that a better system of services will lead, first of all, to more employable members of the labor market and, second, because an effective system of training and education and employment services will serve to raise the level of productivity of our labor force, and will contribute to the creation and ultimately the maintenance of our high employment economy. But this is not to say that your first point is not the most critical point.

Mr. MEEDS. Ought we not, then, to be doing what the chairman and I and others in this Congress tried to do several years ago by amending the Wagner-Peyser Act, and coming forward with the computerized job bank and all the delivery system, without coming forward at this time with, in effect, promises of training and employment.

Mr. SVIRIDOFF. I would hope Congress could do both. I think they are both important, and giving some meaning to the Full Employment Act of 1946 is clearly important.

Mr. MEEDS. I would hope we would, too, but let us be realistic. When we have legislation such as the education bill, and I keep going back to this, in which there is a difference between our aspiration and the White House's aspiration, and the amount is ultimately $400 mil

lion, and the kind of programs we are talking about here and the maintenance of high levels of employment-you know, we are talking about $20 million.

So, being realistic, I don't see that the type of thing that you are asking the Congress to do is going to be done. Agreed, I would like to do it, and I am sure the chairman would like to do it, and maybe even the majority members on this committee, but you see, we can't even get a majority of members for $400 million, so it is not realistic. Mr. SVIRIDOFF. I have nothing but sympathy for the awkward position in which you find yourself.

Mr. DANIELS. With respect to the question Mr. Meeds asked, doesn't there appear to be an inconsistency between the main objective of this bill, which is guaranteed employment to everyone who desires to work, and the economic situation and the philosophy we see expressed in the country today?

Mr. SVIRIDOFF. Yes. But I don't think the best possible version of the bill can guarantee full employment. This is not a full employment bill. It is a manpower training and service and assistance bill. It is an important element in a full employment strategy, but it is not a full employment bill, and I don't think any of us should delude ourselves that this is what it is, or can ever be.

Mr. DANIELS. That view has been expressed here by some of the witnesses.

Mr. MEEDS. I think that is all, Mr. Chairman.

I think you see my frustrations.

Mr. SVIRIDOFF. All too clearly.

Mr. DANIELS. I want to thank you as chairman of the subcommittee. You have given us thoughts here to ponder over as to what we should do in reporting out some legislation along this line.

Your ideas have been most helpful.

Mr. SVIRIDOFF. Thank you for inviting us.

(Whereupon, at 12:05 pm. the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., March 12, 1970.)

MANPOWER ACT OF 1969

THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 1970

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR

OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:20 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lloyd Meeds presiding. Present: Representatives Meeds, Hawkins, Scherle, and Quie. Staff members present: Daniel H. Krivit, counsel; Charles Radcliffe, minority counsel for education; Sue Nelson, research assistant; and Cathy Romano, research assistant.

Mr. MEEDS. The Select Subcommittee on Labor will be in order for the further consideration of bills H.R. 10908, H.R. 11620, and H.R. 15472 and other manpower proposals.

We are honored this morning to have with us the Under Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Richard C. Van Dusen. We welcome you to the committee, and you may proceed as you wish. I see you have a prepared text. You may read it, or you may take from it what you like and testify extemporaneously, but in any event, your testimony will be made part of the record.

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD C. VAN DUSEN, UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES T. MUNTAIN, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE SECRETARY FOR LABOR RELATIONS; AND DAVID BLUM, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL

Mr. VAN DUSEN. I will be guided by whether you would like to hear the testimony, or proceed immediately to questions.

Mr. MEEDS. We would prefer to have you testify first.

Mr. VAN DUSEN. Good. In that event, Mr. Chairman, I will proceed with the testimony, if I may.

I certainly welcome the opportunity to discuss with you the proposed Manpower Training Act. The Department of Housing and Urban Development is convinced that this legislation is timely and extremely important if the Nation's manpower needs in all areas are to be met. We are particularly pleased with the structure for manpower program planning and operations set forth in the bill because it reflects the administration's policy of sharing with State and local

government a meaningful role in the development and implementation of domestic programs.

There are a number of broad areas where HUD concerns are affected by manpower training needs.

1. METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT

We know that we must expand opportunities for lower income and minority people to live outside of central cities, in some cases in entirely new communities. Increasingly, it is in the areas outside of the central cities where we find not only the new housing, but also jobs, including many of the new kinds of better paying jobs. Access to these jobs and to housing in the same area will often depend upon whether a person has, or has ways of acquiring, the skills that the jobs require.

2. URBAN SERVICES

In such fields as health, housing, transportation, welfare, and general government, there is a great gap between the skills that are available to our State and local government and nonprofit agencies, and the skills which modern systems of operation require. Many of the people who might provide these skills are excluded because of basic educational deficiencies or racial discrimination that has prevented them from acquiring relevant employment experience. Modern training programs can help us expand the manpower needed to perform vital urban services.

3. CITY REDEVELOPMENT

Manpower and manpower training programs are an essential element in any effort to improve and rebuild our central cities. For example, model cities programs simply cannot work without manpower training components that are both large enough and effective enough to enable neighborhood residents to secure and hold meaningful employment.

4. HOUSING

Our Department's current interest in manpower training is perhaps clearest in the field of housing and it is this area which I would like to discuss first.

It is hardly news that the Nation is currently falling far short of the production levels necessary to meet the housing goal which the Congress has established-26 million units over a 10-year period. Mr. MEEDS. I would agree.

Mr. VAN DUSEN. Many actions must be taken to catch up, but this morning we are particularly concerned with the necessity-as pointed out in the President's Economic Report-of increasing significantly the supply of skilled and semiskilled construction manpower.

We have estimated, for example, that by 1975, we may need an increase in excess of 1 million man-years of skilled labor over what we have today, without regard to retirements or withdrawals.

There are, unfortunately, severe obstacles which are currently preventing an adequate flow of manpower into the construction industry labor pools-obstacles which must be overcome. There are simply too

many people and particularly too many minority group individuals who are being denied entry into the building trades. They are often unable to secure access through the formal apprenticeship route because of age and examination requirements. In some cases, the length, the training techniques, or other characteristics of apprenticeship programs make them unnecessarily restrictive or operate as racial barriers. Nor have significant numbers secured entry through the more rapid, so-called "informal" route which, it is generally believed, has been followed by most construction workers in the industry.

Plainly, we must make entry into construction employment possible for many more people, especially for the minority groups. This means, among other things, that existing training systems must be improved. Vocational education programs emphasizing construction skills should be expanded and made more effective. Training periods should be shortened, wherever possible. Preapprenticeship recruiting and training must be provided where needed to provide manpower ready to enter upon apprenticeships. New programs to parallel traditional apprenticeship programs should also be established whenever and wherever they are useful.

And I would stress that we will have to address ourselves to new, as well as conventional, construction skills. Through our Department's Operation Breakthrough, we are making an all-out effort to accelerate innovation and progress in a field that has fallen far behind in applying modern systems of production and modern technologies. The coming of age of industrialized building techniques must be accompanied by suitable manpower training programs.

Next, Mr. Chairman, I would like to turn to areas of our Department's interest in manpower training programs other than housing as such. This interest is heightened by a number of specific statutory provisions the Congress has enacted in recent years. These include provisions which require that HUD programs provide employment and training opportunities to lower income persons living in the areas where our programs are carried out.

Under our model cities program, for example, we are charged with assuring that programs provide:

Maximum opportunities for employing residents of the area in all phases *** and enlarged opportunities for work and training.

This is in addition to the requirement in section 103 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act that city governments participating in the model cities program-which includes practically every major city in the Nation-create mechanisms for the comprehensive planning and coordination of all services impacting upon the model neighborhoods. Among these are the services provided through manpower training programs. This, of course, makes especially welcome those parts of the proposed Manpower Training Act which would expand the role of mayors and elected officials in relation to manpower planning and programing at the local level. Another statutory requirement involving HUD in manpower training is set forth in section 3 of the Housing Act of 1968, as broadened by the Congress only last year. It requires us, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, to assure to the greatest extent feasible that lower income residents have opportunities for training and employ