We will recess for 5 minutes.

(Brief recess.)

Senator NELSON. We will resume the hearings now.
Senator Murphy?

Senator MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I would like the record to show that I was disturbed about a so-called report which was leaked to the press which had not been shown to the minority side. The ranking member of the minority side was told nothing of this until after Senator NELSON. Thank you, gentlemen.

it was leaked to the press. I was also disturbed by the fact that both sides of this matter had not been heard properly, and I am very pleased to know that today, or I guess as of yesterday, arrangements had been made to give the Department of Labor the opportunity to come back and be heard and tell their side in refutation of some of the statements that have been made, for which I congratulate the Chairman.

I think it is unfortunate that the staff did this. I am sure the Chairman had no knowledge of it. I would like to register my objection so that the staff on either side would not take this unprecedented, bad-mannered approach in the future. I think the least we could do is have both sides of the members of the committee to look at the reports before they become formalized. Sometimes they are misunderstood. The press thinks they are from the committee and very often it is not from the committee at all. I think if the staff writes reports it should stand for them.

Senator NELSON. I went through that yesterday, Senator. We will go through it again.

Senator MURPHY. I hope we won't have to.

Senator NELSON. I think you ought to have the information Senator Javits got yesterday.

Senator MURPHY. I will get it from the record.

Senator NELSON. I will put it in the record at this point.

First, you don't have to be happy about the Secretary of Labor being asked to appear. He was invited to appear long before the report was made. His appearance isn't scheduled based upon the release of any report.

Senator MURPHY. May I ask the Chairman, there was a report that was written, was there not?

Senator NELSON. There was a staff report.

Senator MURPHY. And it was leaked to the press?

Senator NELSON. Not that I know of.

Senator MURPHY. I saw an article that it was reported in the press before I had seen it. That was my objection.

Senator NELSON. I would like to give the Senator information on that. The staff did a report, the 12th one of this year of the Labor and Public Welfare Committee, following the tradition that has been followed in every committee in Congress before either the Sen

ator or I arrived here.

We had been scheduling these hearings as rapidly as we could to accommodate the administration, at the request of the Secretary of Labor, made personally to me. He had to cancel out his first appearance last year, and I have been scheduling them as rapidly as I

L

could in order to get the hearings completed on the manpower bill. At the same time, I asked the staff to get some figures on the JOBS program, which the staff did a very good job on. At the time it was going to press, I talked to Senator Javits. Senator Javits came to me, and I offered to hold up the printing of it if he wanted it held up. We held it up for the Labor Department to insert an answer. I would have held it up 2 or 3 weeks to give everybody a chance to look at it, except that that would have delayed the hearings, and it was my understanding that nobdy wanted the hearings delayed. So I am really not familiar with any intentional leaks of anything to the press, and the staff report, I think, is a very good one, and one I needed, at least. I am the only one who is attending all the hearings, and I wanted to gather together all the information we could, and the staff report is basically letters written to me, letters in response to a letter which I wrote to every contractor in this country who has a contract over $500,000, and I thought that the full committee would like to see what it said.

A representative of the NAB yesterday was critical of it. I hope he reads the GAO report, which is a lot tougher than anything the

staff said.

Senator MURPHY. May I say that this is all news to me, and I had no intention whatsoever in disagreeing that the Chairman should not have written these letters. I just merely state that I think that since this is a two-party committee, that it might be nice if the ranking member on the minority side had had a chance to see the letters and know about the letters and know about the report before the time.

As a matter of fact, I had called Senator Javits and told him I wanted to register an objection, because I heard the report had gotten into the press, and it was my concern that the report might be assumed to be the report of the committee, which it was not. It was actually the report, the personal report provided for the Chairman, which is perfectly proper.

This was my only concern, that there be a confusion created by the fact that the hearings had not been completed, both sides had not been heard, and there were some witnesses who still wanted to be heard. I was instrumental in having the Assistant Secretary of Labor's letter put in the report.

I am pleased that the Secretary of Labor will have a chance to appear, on Monday, I believe, to testify.

Senator NELSON. He was scheduled to appear long before the report was ever completed, and I asked him last-probably it was last year but anyway, I said I would like to have your testimony, and the questions that are raised we would like to have you respond to them, and he has been before the committee twice now since we started the hearings on the Manpower Act. This was scheduled way in advance and he has had a chance to come again. The problem was that I needed some report, and I think the committee did, too, about the JOBS program around the country before we had these hearings. Otherwise, the subcommittee staff report wouldn't be of much value. So I had a choice of having the report printed and available before the hearing started, or postponing the hearings which would

have delayed consideration of the Manpower bill that the administration has proposed.

Senator MURPHY. I think it was perfectly proper. My only concern was the fact that the report did get to the press and I am sure that some people at least thought this was the official committee report, which it was not.

Senator NELSON. I think the one instance you are referring to is that a very good reporter heard of one instance and called up a man who had worked for the company. His story was given to him, not by the staff, but by one who had worked for this company. The NAB fellow was upset yesterday. I pointed out that the biggest story in the country is the Dallas story. That is the one in which the contract was canceled. That was on the front page in Texas and across the country. Our committee had nothing to do with that. We knew nothing about it.

Senator MURPHY. I apologize for not being in attendance as often as I would like, because I have great interest in the work of the subcommittee. You know it is my custom to be present, but yesterday I had an executive, and the day before I had an executive, so that it is just not possible to make them all.

Senator NELSON. I understand that very well. I know how busy everybody is, and there are a number of subcommittees, but if I want to accommodate this administration, I can't hold up these hearings to accommodate all of the members, most of whom can't attend on any particular date. That has been the problem.

Senator MURPHY. I will do my best to see the administration appreciates your thoughtfulness.

Senator NELSON. Would you identify yourselves for the record, please.

STATEMENT OF HERBERT BUTLER, FRED ABERLIN, AND MICHAEL BARTELS OF MANPOWER SERVICE TRAINING DIVISION, MANPOWER, INC., AND WILLIAM PATTON OF PEOPLES DRUG STORE

Mr. ABERLIN. I am Fred Aberlin. On my left is Mike Bartels, national director of the MTS Division. On my right is Herb Butler, who is the city director here in Washington.

Mr. PATTON. My name is William Patton. I am secretary of Peoples Drug Stores.

Senator NELSON. Do you have a statement?

Mr. ABERLIN. Yes, sir.

Senator NELSON. You may present it however you desire.

Mr. ABERLIN. My name is Fred Aberlin. I am vice president for Corporate Planning at Manpower, Inc. We are an international company, operating through 626 offices in 35 countries. Our principal business is the employment of people with widely varying skills and degrees of proficiency, on temporary assignments-373,750 of them during the past fiscal year, to be exact.

It is precisely because we are in the business of matching up real people with real jobs that our company was an early pioneer in the field of personnel development. A major thrust of our business is proper and effective deployment of personnel in the work force of

40-963 0-70-pt. 4- -12

business and industry. Training and education are major components in the end result we term "work readiness." Where neglected, the result is employment of people in the work force who are unprepared for productive participation.

Manpower, Inc., since it was founded in 1948, has trained hundreds of thousands of people for temporary assignments.

As a company committed to the development of the human resources needed to fill the ever-growing labor needs of business and industry, we have also long championed the right of participation in our free enterprise system of previously neglected groups, such as the hard-core unemployed, the elderly, the housewives, and the young.

Indeed, we are no "fly-by-nighter" in this field. Our corporate president, Elmer Winter, was a cofounder and first president of the Milwaukee Voluntary Equal Employment Opportunity Council. This was a model plan to cope with the employment problems of blacks and other minority groups a plan which has been copied in many other parts of the country. Through it, several thousand disadvantaged people have found training and jobs.

Moreover, our company since 1964 has sponsored the Nation's leading nonprofit clearinghouse for summer jobs for young people. Called Youth power, it has helped place over 44,000 young people in summer jobs since its inception. Training clinics are conducted in many cities to give the youngsters at no cost to them-the skills and experience they need to fill specific job needs within a particular community.

I could go on and on and relate to you many more instances of the social commitment long made and practiced by our company. My intention here, however, is not to buildup Manpower, Inc., but merely to demonstrate how we happened to be early and deeply involved in the the areas of training and education and why we remain, despite some financial reverses, in these areas today.

Incidentally, I should note in passing that we are in no way connected with the Manpower Training Consortium of New York City, despite the extreme similarity to name. There have been several particular cases brought to the committee's attention through the staff's report which I would like to discuss, and two contracts in particular.

One of my company's earliest and biggest financial reverses was incurred in connection with one of the first MA-3 contracts let by the Department of Labor shortly after the formation of the $2.3 million commitment in Federal training funds, was setup so that Manpower, Inc. would be the employer for a year of training, following which the trainees would be put on the permanent payroll of our customer clients. The contract proposal, dated May 15, 1968, was executed by the Department of Labor on June 30, 1968.

The concept of the contract was that Manpower, Inc. was in a unique position to provide steady employment for trainees for 1 year through its customer clients. At the same time, through its newly formed division, Manpower Teaching Services, since renamed Manpower Training Services, the company could provide the training, educational, and supportive services necessary to support the trainee

during his first year on the job. The early experience of Manpower Teaching Services in the Milwaukee area had been quite successful in providing orientation, job-related basic education, counseling, job coaching, and other supportive services to disadvantaged workers for customer companies. These early programs had been executed under private contract with the customer companies with no Government subsidies. This new contract was an attempt to put the wide experience of Manpower, Inc., its ability to place workers with a wide variety of clients, and the experience of its newly formed division, together for the mutual advantage of companies who needed new labor sources and the disadvantaged worker who had difficulty maintaining steady work.

The key provisions of the contract were as follows: A total of 800 job slots were assigned to Manpower, Inc.; a total of $2,300,000 was allocated by the Labor Department to the execution of the contract. Funds were billable on a monthly basis for each day a trainee was on pay status.

Two hundred training slots were alloted in each of four cities: Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit, and Minneapolis.

In each city five general job categories were assigned, namely: clerk general, clerk receiving, machine operator, maintenance helper, and material handler.

Trainees were to be employees of Manpower, Inc., which would handle all payrolling and would, in turn, bill the customer company for actual hours worked by the trainee.

In each case the trainee would receive the following services from Manpower Teaching Services:

Orientation, job-related basic education, on-the-job training, some transportation allowance, allowance for some health care as necessary, job coaching and counseling as necessary, and supervisor sensitivity training.

The training, as called for in the contract, was to cover 52 weeks for each trainee, including orientation, 300 hours of remedial education spread over 50 weeks at the rate of 6 hours per week, and all skill training necessary to bring the employee from an entry-level job status up to the maximum job level he could reasonably achieve within 1 year consistent with company requirements. All other supportive services necessary to achieve the goal of permanent employment would be provided for.

In the months immediately after the execution of a contract, offices were setup in the cities subject to the contract and personnel were hired to implement the program. It is estimated that something in excess of $50,000 was expended in this implementation effort. Hundreds of calls were made on prospective companies, most of whom had pledged to hire employees under the NAB program, but, after several months of effort in three of the cities with no results Manpower Teaching Services requested the Labor Department to reduce the contract to the Detroit component alone where new personnel were assigned and a new effort made.

Since none of the efforts to implement the program proved successful, Manpower requested that the Labor Department deobligate the funds assigned to the contract with the exception of Detroit, as