"Setting the elimination of poverty as a national goal is a huge and complex ndertaking. The nation has the economic capacity, the technological capability, nd the intellectual resources to accomplish this goal before the end of the next ecade. But the most difficult task will be sustaining the determined commitent of the nation to the American promise: Full and equal opportunity for all > share in the good life that can be offered by a dynamic, prosperous, democratic ociety.

"TABLE 1.-NUMBER OF PERSONS IN UNITED STATES BELOW POVERTY LEVEL, 1968

"Source: Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 28, Aug. 12, 1969, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the

ensus.

"TABLE 2.—PERCENT OF POPULATION IN UNITED STATES BELOW POVERTY LEVEL, 1968

Mr. QUIE. Let me ask you a question. When you talk about the Congress developing a policy for those three areas, I find the same thing in the administration. We really have no national policy in many of these areas. I have introduced a bill for a Department of Education and Manpower Training to bring those together. What do you think of revising the executive branch so that they can address themselves to the totality of the problems?

Mr. COHEN. I think there are appropriate ways to revise it, but I don't know that any one revision is the sole answer to it. But I do see bringing training, education, and the poverty programs, or at least some of the poverty programs, together in the total configuration.

Mr. QUIE. Do you think a super cabinet position similar to what they did with the Department of Defense for the various branches of the service could bring those together?

Mr. COHEN. Yes, I do. Let me say why my answer to that question is that. During my 8 years in Washington, at least with two Presidents, I feel and I feel this way now, even with all the problems that President Nixon has, I think that expanding the number of Cabinet officers is not wise. I think the President has too many people reporting to him. I think President Nixon probably has fewer people reporting to him than, let's say, President Roosevelt had, and I think that is good.

But when I see these bills in Congress to create a new cabinet department for every single new thing, whether it is consumer interests, which I happen to think is important, whether it is science, which I happen to think is important, then I start thinking about the President. I don't think the President can have more Cabinet officers reporting to him. He really needs fewer Cabinet officers. He needs some mechanism, and I don't have the answer to that, in the way he deals with major matters of policy, without this fractionated departmental organization.

One reason I favor taking the Post Office out of the Cabinet is that the President really shouldn't have to deal with most of the problems that are in the Post Office. Those are managerial problems. Of course, voters want to get their mail on time, and I know that is a problem to you. But my answer to your question is based on this: Don't proliferate departments so much, even if it sounds good, that really overtax the President's ability to allocate time to what is a major priority to the President.

Mr. QUIE. The result of my recommendation could be a consolidation. President Johnson tried to put Commerce and Labor together. I think that would be more feasible if we put manpower and education together.

When President Nixon first came into office and they spoke of the super-Cabinet positions

Mr. COHEN. President Nixon has a committee-is it the ASH Committee that has been working on this.

I discussed with the staff some of my ideas on the point that you mentioned, including this kind of a super-Cabinet, Defense Department approach, with three hybrids, having a Secretary of Health, a Secretary of Training, and a Secretary of Welfare, say under a Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. That is one possibility, and I think it has merit at this time. I think there are other alternatives that have merit, too. But I would hope that when the ASH Committee, which I understand has either already reported to the President or will, that you would have a chance to take that up. I think it is important.

If you can get some better way to interrelate these programs, it would be fine.

That comes to my final recommendation.

I have been exploring with a number of people throughout the country, including some businessmen and some academic people the possibility of creating a corporation which would be a combination of the public and private sector that would run the Employment Service, Vocational education and the Manpower Development and Training Act.

Let's look at this matter now, in a sort of a different way. What are you faced with in the manpower program? You want eventually for the man to get a job in private enterprise.

You want to train him, you want him to get some experience, you want to get a personnel profile that will enable that person to get, by and large, in private enterprise at an economic level that is supported by the productivity of what he or she does.

The more you think about it in that sense, the more you have to think about some new kind of cooperation between the public sector and the private sector.

I think what has been done in the past few years by the National Association of Businessmen, their jobs program, has a lot of merit. But what is happening is that you have got two separate wings. You have the public sector and the private sector, and when I think about my suggestion, Mr. O'Hara's suggestion, and others, about public service employment, then my mind gravitates to the point: Couldn't we have Congress create a corporation that, let's say, had six or five board members, two from the public sector, two from the private sector, maybe a chairman designated by the President. Give this corporation an opportunity to be outside the civil service, so they have more flexibility on employment, so they actually could employ people in their name. They would be covered by social security, by unemployment insurance, by workmen's compensation.

If, after a period of training, these people were not really earning the minimum wage, there would be a supplement or a subsidy from the Federal Government to the corporation to make it up to them.

They would be earning the minimum wage, and when they reached the point of productivity, you would pay them that minimum wage partly from the corporation and partly from the public subsidy.

I think the more I approach the bills pending before this committee and these various considerations, the more I think you ought to try to ee if there isn't some new way to enlist the private and public sectors together in this corporate enterprise.

I would even be willing to go so far in exploring whether you shouldn't give them the authority to issue bonds guaranteed in interest and principal by the Federal Government up to a certain limit, which they could use to finance employment projects that would not otherwise employ people, and with some subsidy from the Federal Government and some cooperation from business. Maybe many of these people could be trained, and you have to build the on-the-job training proram somehow in there. And I think the on-the-job training program, as far as it has developed, has been good. But it is too little and too late. And I just leave you with the thought that, as I look over your bills, I think that we are not going to be eminently successful unless we try out some radically new relationships that we haven't fully explored.

That concludes my comments, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MEEDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Cohen. I am not going to ask any questions, because you have touched on almost all of the things which I consider to be of importance.

Mr. QUIE. Thanks for coming. I appreciate your testimony.
Mr. COHEN. Thank you.

Mr. MEEDS. If there is a lesson to be learned from your testimony, it is clearly that all these things about which you have spoken are very interrelated, and the success of any kind of manpower program is dependent upon a lot more factors than just pushing a button and suggesting that that will solve it. It is dependent upon the welfare programs of the Nation, upon education, upon job placement, upon vocational education, preschool education-all the things that you have mentioned.

Clearly, your testimony, I think without question, is the kind of testimony that points up to us the diversity of any manpower program. As always, Wilbur, it is a pleasure to have you testify. I just wish we had about 3 more hours to listen to you further.

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MEEDS. The committee is adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene March 17, 1970.)

MANPOWER ACT OF 1969

TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1970

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR

OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2175 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dominick V. Daniels (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Daniels, O'Hara, Burton, Hawkins, and Scherle.

Also present: Representative Carl Perkins, chairman of the full committee.

Staff members present: Daniel H. Krivit, counsel; Sue Nelson, research assistant; Cathy Romano, research assistant; Charles Radcliffe, minority counsel for education.

Mr. DANIELS. The Select Subcommittee on Labor will come to order. We continue with hearings on H.R. 10908, H.R. 11620 and H.R. 13472 dealing with Manpower Act.

Our first witness this morning is Mr. Andrew J. Biemiller, director of Department of Legislation of AFL-CIO.

We extend to you, Mr. Biemiller, a most cordial welcome.

STATEMENT OF ANDREW J. BIEMILLER, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATION, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR & CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. BIEMILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DANIELS. You may proceed in any manner you desire. I know you have a statement.

Mr. BIEMILLER. It is reasonably short, and I think we will go with it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am accompanied by Mr. Goldfinger, Department of Research, AFL-CIO.

At the outset, let me make it clear that we in the AFL-CIO believe that the problem with which this committee is wrestling ranks with the major domestic issues that will come before this Congress.

In essence, that problem is jobs-good jobs, at decent wage levels, for every American able to work-in order to achieve full employment in America.

That's how we view manpower legislation, and we quite frankly say to you: Manpower legislation that does not include job creation is not manpower legislation at all. It serves no other purpose than to delude the public.