cause when that has problems, we have problems, too. Those are basically the triagency agreements.

Mr. STEIGER. You undoubtedly recall the 1968 amendments to the Manpower Training Act. One said that there should be a priority given skill centers. I am biased, because I authored that.

Would you be able to give us an analysis of how well you think the Department of Labor and HEW are implementing that amendment? Dr. SULLIVAN. I don't want to be in a position of hurting anybody. Our skill-most of our skill training centers are very ineffective in our communities. Large resources are expended in them, but they are not reaching for the most part the target population which we expected that that would be intended for.

This was one reason that OIC programs are cropping up even around where you have skill centers, because the need on any kind of significant scale is not being reached. So I know everybody has problems, and the skill center programs have problems, and I know it. And they haven't had as much time, perhaps, to get themselves together, but the skill centers have a great deal left to be desired overall, generally, although there are some specific skill programs that I understand are very good.

Mr. STEIGER. The intent, however, was to also make sure that OIC was classified as a "skill center."

Dr. SULLIVAN. Is that right.

Mr. STEIGER. In the bill that I introduced, with which I know you are familiar.

I said that the priority given skill centers and other educational programs should operate through local educational agencies. I did that because I think we need to find a way to insure the success of the programs carried on. If we are not doing it by definition, that is the problem. And I have to know about it. If that is not working so far as you are concerned-is that what you tell me?

Dr. SULLIVAN. That is not working as far as I am concerned, to the extent that I wasn't informed that OIC was characterized in the minds of the triagencies as a skill center. Just the opposite is true. I seem to have been informed that I did not fit into that category. If I had known what you are telling me now, Mr. Steiger, you would have known it a long time ago.

Mr. STEIGER. I will have to go back and do a little more checking. Dr. SULLIVAN. One exception is Seattle, Wash. The OIC's, one not being regarded in the agencies as a "skill center" per se, to benefit from the produce of that legislation-that is the reason why, if it were possible-and I don't know if it is—we are hoping OIC could be named. If that is not possible, just the interpretation as a matter of congressional intent might be helpful to give us some support in that respect.

Mr. STEIGER. I will check on that and get back in touch with you, because unless my memory serves me badly, that was part of the intent.

One last question, and that relates to what you say in your question, and about which there has always been controversy.

We have created all kinds of programs, the job opportunities, the business sector, the Neighborhood Youth Corps, and all of these other kinds of essentially job oriented, supposedly, training programs.

You make a plea that there be a more positive role for HEW in the Office of Education, and I assume you make that plea on the basis that you believe very deeply that there is an important role for the kind of institutional training that your program offers.

Dr. SULLIVAN. Yes, absolutely.

Mr. STEIGER. I guess what I would like is two things.

One, if you had to choose, based on your experience, are we better off for the kinds of people with whom you work in OIC with, the high school dropout, of whatever age, to provide them with some kind of institutional training so that they get basic skills both in whatever you called it

Dr. SULLIVAN. The feeder program.

Mr. STEIGER. What is the great word you are using now, computational skills?

Dr. SULLIVAN. Computational skills.

Mr. STEIGER. Plus the job training.

Second, can you go a little bit further with your statement on page 12, where you talk about what you are doing to work with state education agencies?

Reverend SULLIVAN. It is my opinion that for skill training to be effective, there must be computation and communication skills, what we call the "prevocational" or "feeder" program.

To train a man with a skill and not the attitude and the basics of motivation is not training a person who is going to benefit, actually, in the total picture, his job, his employer, or even himself.

Skill training, therefore, must be coupled, as you put it, and as I see it in my opinion, with prevocational training, particularly for persons who have been shut out of the world of work and opportunity. It is an education process as much as it is a skill-training process. For that reason we even have to get into literacy preparation. We have to get into whole areas of heritage education. We have to get into the whole picture of what America is about, what the free-enterprise system is about, what the world of work is about. Just training a man is one part, but it must be coupled with the kind of thing we discussed here.

And for that kind of thing to be institutionalized, this means, then, that the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare should be more deeply involved and immersed in decisions pertaining to these kinds of educational efforts.

I think that the resources of the Department of HEW can be brought more into play in buttressing the kinds of program that we are trying to initiate here. It is an educational mechanism, as well as being a skill-training mechanism. It is the training of the whole

man.

With respect to the second question, already we are developing relationships through, and securing State certification to work more closely with departments of education in the States. We should like, for example, to develop arrangements whereby school dropouts in our high schools can have a closed linkage with the intake of OIC's.

Now, we have stayed away from this because we didn't want to interfere with the educational process. We didn't want boards of education to think that OIC was going to encroach into a province that was their own, to the extent that we have said that persons who

have discontinued school should wait awhile before they come to OIC. So we would not put ourselves in the position of interfering with educational areas of concern.

But if, somehow, OIC could be a central point in this whole educational mechanism, where you have public education, at one end, and technical schools on the other, this big mass in the middle of underemployed, uneducated, often people who can hardly read or write, this big mass of Americans-something must be put in this center to help these, our people, to get skills, attitudinal development, and a sense of relationship with the whole order, so that we can be beneficiaries of the whole system, rather than on the outside.

The problem has been, with all the noise and disturbance, it has been so much like that because we are outside the benefits of the whole system. We can't understand it, and we fight it.

Once a person becomes one of the beneficiaries of the system, and there is a door in the center, it will be better. They are not going back to public school, and they can't go to technical schools and universities, because they don't have the diplomas and qualifications, and some don't have the money.

So some institution in the center to provide educational services to the broad mass of our people has to be provided. And I can see a linkage, therefore. A program like OIC might become institutionalized, hooking into the public education and ultimately into the technical education. I think we would be able to spread the base of our educational needs more.

Mr. STEIGER. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say this has been a great experience.

Thank you, Dr. Sullivan, for coming. And congratulations on a fantastic job.

Mr. DANIELS. I would like to thank you and Mr. Booth and the two students who testified here this morning for your testimony. It has been most interesting and informative. This has been one of the finest hearings that this committee has held on manpower, and I want to mention that I regret that there are not more of us around who take an interest in programs of this nature.

The committee stands adjourned. [Applause.]

Mr. DANIELS. Our next hearing is scheduled for March 3, 1970. (Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m. the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, March 3, 1970.)

MANPOWER ACT OF 1969

TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 1970

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR

OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:15 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, Gaydos, and Erlenborn.

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

Mr. O'HARA (presiding). The Select Subcommittee on Labor of the Committee on Education and Labor will come to order.

The purpose of today's hearing is to continue taking testimony on H.R. 10908, H.R. 11620, and H.R. 13472, and related bills dealing with manpower development and training.

Our first witness today is Mr. Clarence Mitchell, the director of the Washington Bureau of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Mr. Mitchell, I am very pleased you are here. I am going to hear a few words of your testimony, and then I am going to get back to work on the matter I discussed with you.

STATEMENT OF CLARENCE MITCHELL, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON BUREAU, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you, Congressman O'Hara.

It is vital, and you have done a vital job in protecting the interests of people.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Clarence Mitchell, director of the Washington Bureau of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. I appreciate this opportunity to present views on behalf of our organization in connection with your consideration of manpower bills H.R. 10908, H.R. 11620, and H.R. 13472.

(At this point Mr. Daniels assumed the chair.)

Mr. MITCHELL. Of these three bills, it appears that H.R. 11620, introduced by Congressman O'Hara and other sponsors, is the most

likely to accomplish the desired job of eliminating duplication among Federal agencies in the manpower field, and at the same time, accomplish increased training and job opportunities for all Americans.

There is some confusion and duplication in the programs designed to assist what are called the "hard-core unemployed" and/or the "underemployed." Unfortunately, the proposal offered on behalf of the administration, H.R. 13472, would compound existing confusion, because it would transfer the responsibility for implementing the manpower programs to the same political entities that have caused the trouble in the first place. The U.S. Employment Service, State gov ernments, county governments, and municipal governments have a notorious record of racial discrimination. Most of them have an equally bad record in discriminating against the groups in the low-income category, regardless of whether they are white, black, or other minorities. In most instances, local governments are so busy trying to keep the salary scales of program employees at a low level that they fail to understand the importance of paying a decent wage in order to get an efficient employee. Frequently, if the State and local political figures and unable to scale down the wage paid those operating desirable programs, the next move is to claim such jobs as political patronage This means that there is established a standard of political affiliation first and ability to do the job second.

Many State and local officials seem to be interested in frustrating rather than promoting imaginative programs. For example, in ore program where the sponsors sought to make a facility used for the program more sanitary and efficient, the city officials attempted to have the pastor of the church sponsoring the program indicted for misuse of public funds.

I left out the name of that individual, Mr. Daniels and other members because I didn't want to embarrass the minister who was involved But it was an incredible experience. He was the pastor of a church that was in an old building, and he sought to have a nurseryschool program in order that working mothers might take job training Well, it turned out that the health department came in and sal "You have got to have small laboratory facilities for the children." The fire department came in and said that the wiring in the play was bad, that had to be improved. Somebody else came in and s the kitchen facilities had to be improved.

He did all these things, and I think the cost, for which he had r ceipts and that sort of thing, came to around maybe $10000. He i this. And then somebody in the city government actually went to the prosecutor and said that he ought to be indicted for misuse of f... Fortunately, the prosecutor was a sensible man, and be did no an indictment. But it is interesting to me that this kind of thing w happen, because the President's welfare program, as he sent it Congress, has a proposal in it that in these places where you a ing with old buildings for the purpose of trying to set ng schools, there would be Government expenditure to try to imp them so they wouldn't be health hazards or fire hazards.

In other words, what this minister had already done was the kind of thing the President is proposing in his new welfare but the local officials wanted to indiat-wanted to in fiec

use of Government funds