just one skill, for instance, maybe in marketing or service areas or vocational agriculture, but they are not broad enough to provide the training for more than one particular vocation.

Such a program as described in this proposal, we believe would help West Virginia materially to set up a type of vocational technical training for a number of young people who need a skill to be gainfully employed when they graduate from high school.

With no prepared talk, that is my general statement.

Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to follow this up a bit. I have supported the manpower retraining program because it seemed to me this approach might be a way to solve some of this Nation's problems. Now, after we passed the manpower retraining program and it started in effect, I occasionally checked up with the Department of Labor on how some aspects of it were working and found that sometimes in viewing a specific course in training they have really made an accurate analysis of the need for the kinds of training they were giving and therefore were able to place practically all the students they were giving the retraining program to, but once in a while they didn't do such a good job of estimating the need so, in some cases, the retraining program did not produce jobs in which to place these students, at least nowhere near completely.

Now, if my understanding is correct, in some of these mining areas, mining has been in the past perhaps the major and almost sole source of employment.

I suppose the question at issue really is whether if a retraining program is given in such an area you feel you will actually be able to place these people who take this program in that area or whether even after the retraining program is given you may lose them? This is also a problem in some of our agricultural areas where we have gone into a different kind of agriculture and, therefore, don't need as many people.

Have you made sufficiently detailed surveys in some of the strictly mining counties to determine whether, if you give these retraining programs, there will be jobs in which to place these people after they have completed these programs?

Mr. SMITH. I believe Mr. Crabtree has some information here.

Mr. CRABTREE. I would like to comment on the fact that, under the Area Redevelopment Act, we have launched 34 retraining programs at various points in the State. We have placed 2,647 people in these programs and the cost has been, I think, moderate, only $996,000.

In addition, under OMAT and the various other local vocational training programs, such as Mr. Smith has described, we have trained approximately 6,000 workers.

Now our placement rate is running just at the national average, which is 70 percent. We feel that this placement rate certainly is a good one, it is proving the value of the retraining concept, and regardless of the geographic location of these people, it has done what President Johnson suggested in one of his recent statements, it has turned them from tax eaters into taxpayers.

We are very happy with the various retraining programs which have taken place in West Virginia. They are not large as vet, but they have had a significant impact on the labor force and on the unemployment

rate

Mr. BALDWIN. Now let me ask one further question on that same point. Of course, up to now the manpower retraining program you have been giving is on a level comparable to what the other States throughout the Nation have been giving since the Manpower Retraining Act is nationwide in scope. Now, if we accelerate the manpower retraining in West Virginia, because it falls under the qualification of this bill and, therefore, could get further funds for that purpose, and, therefore, you establish more courses and retrain faster, do you feel that that placement rate of 70 percent will still continue, or do you feel you might actually run way ahead of the available jobs in some of these areas?

Mr. CRABTREE. I think that is a highly complex question that would involve the health of the national economy as well as the State economy. I believe that certainly at some highly distant point you would run into a point of diminishing returns, but in the beginning phase we have run to 70 percent. We see no reason that the placement of these people in jobs for which they were retrained or in a closely allied field, would not continue.

Mr. BALDWIN. Thank you.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Schwengel.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Smith, I am glad to see an educator here. I think we should have more of you people with us and have you talk to us and let us visit with you about the vocational training problems. They are very serious problems.

One thing that bothers me is that educators have not come to grips with this problem a lot sooner than they have. You have made a fine statement. I would like to ask further questions about the school system in West Virginia. You have a system of State aid support by local taxation?

Mr. SMITH. That is correct.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. What percent of the school expenses is paid for by the State?

Mr. SMITH. On the average, it is about 55 percent.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. About 55 percent?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Do you have two formulas that apply, such as we have in Iowa, one called general aid and then supplemental aid, those who need it most?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir; but we do have a formula that provides aid as a part of the formula based on the ability of the county to support a program.

That is based on their taxes per capita, but there is just one general State aid program.

Now, we do have other programs provided for, for instance, for special education, and those are allotted to counties on the basis of need. Mr. SCHWENGEL. What percent of your State aid to your school expenses go for vocational training, do you have any idea?

Mr. SMITH. That would be difficult to say. I would hesitate giving you an answer. I can find that out, but I don't know. If I can mention in respect to that, West Virginia having dropped in population, as a result we have suffered in Federal aid for vocational education in order to maintain the same type of program, the same services. The State has taken that into account. In the last session, they raised the

amount by some $50,000 in the State aid for vocational education to take care of the drop in Federal aid.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. But that is just a drop in the bucket for your need.

Mr. SMITH. True, we need much more.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. How does your State rank with some of the other States based on ability to pay in the schools?

Mr. SMITH. On ability, we rate fairly high. If you take the per capita income of the population of West Virginia and compare it in that manner with the number of pupils, we rank high. But the income overall is rather low and, of course, that means we don't have the money that some States would have.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Now, you have read this bill that deals with vocational training?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Is it satisfactory the way it is written? Does it give you the right kind of authority that you should have as superintendent of schools to see that it is orderly developed in your State?

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir, I find no fault with the draft of the bill. I think it will provide the help as in the case of vocational education primarily for construction purposes and that is what we need.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. I raised the question because I know as an educator some of our Federal aid programs have been too inflexible, they have not been able to adjust. I am talking now particularly about the Smith-Hughes Act. We have a lot of Smith Hughes departments in our school that are training boys for agriculture and we have less need than we used to have. It might have been better to have the law more flexible so that you could use some of that money for other vocations. Do you find that a problem in your State also?

Mr. SMITH. This act of 1963, this Vocational Education Act does correct some of those problems that did exist. I think it is quite true that there was too much interest in our State, for instance, on vocational agriculture and maybe not enough in comparison, but this new act does provide and take care of that situation to a great extent.

If I could mention also that in my opinion, occasionally at least, the manner in which a State writes its plan for these programs determines how much flexibility or inflexibility there will be. I cite that particularly in the case of the National Defense Education Act. We have found it to be quite helpful. I think primarily because our plan submitted to the authorities in Washington has been flexible enough and acceptable.

I think sometimes when States find that they can't do certain things perhaps it is the fault of the planning, their own State planning. Mr. SCHWENGEL. I know this is true.

Do you agree with many educators that this whole question of vocational training in all its phases, indeed the entire Federal aid program ought to be reviewed to see if we can't eliminate some duplications, some wrong emphasis, eliminate some of the frills and make it more effective, in other words? Make it more satisfactory to see if we cannot come up with a better coordinated plan to meet more need? Mr. SMITH. I would also say that is true. Any plan that they review I would hope they would not eliminate some of the programs in the course of that review. I think any program should be revised to

see if it is properly administered and it is the type program you really need because times change as we recognize.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. I raise these questions because I am afraid with this new program now we might complicate things more than they are complicated in many areas in the United States today. Some States have the problem because of their own laws. In some cases, they have been declared unconstitutional.

Mr. SMITH. That is true.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. This study should involve all these facets.
Mr. SMITH. That is right.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. That is all.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Let me suggest, Mr. Crabtree, that we listen to your commissioner of natural resources.

Mr. CRABTREE. Yes, sir; I will be happy to call him forward.

For the record, this is Warden M. Lane, director of the Department of Natural Resources, State of West Virginia.

Mr. DAVIS. Now, Mr. Lane, following the summary made by these other gentlemen from your State, will you touch the high points where the natural resources of the great State of West Virginia would be improved by the passage of a bill, in principle, such as we are discussing?

STATEMENT OF WARDEN M. LANE, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF

NATURAL RESOURCES, STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

Mr. LANE. Mr. Chairman, West Virginia is composed of some 16 million acres of surface land, of which 74 percent is covered by some type of forest vegetation. Therefore, any program dealing with the improvement of forest lands would be beneficial to the State of West Virginia. Through the timber development sections of this bill, our State could profit from the tremendous technical services that could be rendered to the landowners.

There is a great need for research in the utilization of forestry products. There is also a great need for improvement of quality through disease control, through fire control, et cetera.

West Virginia ranks fourth in the Nation in the production of hardwood timber. Properly utilized, it can be of tremendous help in alleviating unemployment in West Virginia.

While West Virginia perhaps recently has enacted the most progressive reclamation law in the Nation, our State still has a tremendous number of acres of surface land which has not been reclaimed and revegetated.

Through this program of aid to fish and wildlife service much of this land could be reclaimed, not only put into agricultural and forestry uses, but much of it could be used for fish and wildlife programs. I feel through the timber aspect, through the game and fish programs, as well as the water programs which will provide better recreational facilities in our State, this bill would help us a great deal. Mr. DAVIS. Thank you.

Mr. Baldwin, do you have any questions?

Mr. BALDWIN. As I understand it, your testimony has covered both timber and fish and wildlife generally. Could I ask what steps the

State of West Virginia is taking, itself, on this difficult problem of acid drainage from mines and its impact upon fish, particularly, and also, upon clarity and use of the streams for any other related purpose? Mr. LANE. Due to a shortage of funds, not too much work has been done in West Virginia on the problem of acid mine drainage by Government, since the days of the WPA program, in which we had a program. Underway presently, the Federal Government is working with the State on this problem. Much needs to be done. It is a problem that will not be cured overnight. It is a long-range program that involves millions of dollars, and fishing in West Virginia will not be, perhaps, what the fishermen would like it to be until the mine acid drainage problem is solved.

Mr. BALDWIN. Thank you.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much. And, Mr. Crabtree, thank you. I should like for the record to show that we have our colleague, Mr. Hechler, with us. He was here throughout the entire hearing and he is a student of the problem in his State. He attends strictly to business and is proving a very valuable member and we are delighted to have him with us.

Senator, again I want to thank you for being here. And, Governor, you have been so long chairman of this whole study, I want to thank

you.

Senator RANDOLPH. May I interrupt, not your continuity of praise, but I think, Governor, that we would want to have recognized the former commissioner of commerce of West Virginia, Stuart C. Smith, who is in the room, who has worked so vigorously in helping to rejuvenate our industrial concept in West Virginia and strengthen our economic base by the issuance of new plants. While he is here, I wonder if he could not stand?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes; Mr. Smith, we are appreciative of your presence and interest here.

I will say, Mr. Crabtree, that your service with Congressman Hechler has proven very, very beneficial to us because he educated you up to the point where you have made a fine aid to the Governor. Mr. CRABTREE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DAVIS. Now we are getting it all in today.

Now, Mr. Wilson, will you come around? I want to express most genuinely and most sincerely your very courteous cooperation in standing aside until the Governor could present his testimony so that he

could return.

I wish you would express to your own Governor our regret that he was unable to attend personally but we are delighted that you have already made a fine presentation and we would like you to conclude.

Mr. Schwengel had some questions, but, of necessity, he had to leave, but Mr. Baldwin may have some questions.

Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, before Mr. Schwengel left he asked if I would ask permission of the chairman for him to write a letter to the Governor of Ohio asking certain questions that occurred to him in connection with the testimony and to insert the answers in the record of the hearings.

Mr. DAVIS. Without objection, he certainly may.

Are there any other questions?