CIVIL RIGHTS COORDINATING RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE OFFICE OF MANPOWER ADMINISTRATOR

Mr. FOGARTY. The greatest percentage increase is in executive direction, from 20 positions to 34, and most of this increase seems to be aimed at overseeing other bureau and agency operations. This is on page 30 and 32 of the justifications. I don't know why you should do all of this coordinating at your level. It seems to me if some of this is necessary, it ought to be done by the Secretary. For instance, this which appears in your justifications:

The Office of Manpower Administrator has been delegated the responsibility to promote and direct the Department's Civil Rights Act program compliance activities. This includes directing and developing a program to achieve and enforce complete compliance with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and with the Department's nondiscrimination in federally assisted program regulations in (1) employment service program; (2) State and Federal unemployment insurance programs; (3) neighborhood youth corps programs; (4) Manpower Development and Training Act and other Government-sponsored training programs; (5) apprenticeship program; and (6) other manpower administration programs involving Federal financial assistance.

Somebody is making you responsible, really a coordinating outfit of this Department, it seems to me.

Mr. RUTTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, if I might point out, you see the only bureaus or agencies or offices of the Department of Labor that are affected by the title VI provision of the Civil Rights Act are all in the Manpower Administration. In other words, there is no contracting function, no grant-in-aid function, no grants involved to State agencies from any other office or bureau within the Department. They all are concentrated in either the Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training or the Bureau of Employment Security, or the

Mr. FOGARTY. The idea of you trying to coordinate all of these activities does not hit me right.

Mr. RUTTENBERG. The only thing I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that when one looks at the responsibilities that have been placed upon us in the Department to carry out the nondiscriminatory aspects of making sure that Federal funds are not used in discriminatory fashion by the people whom we develop contracts with, the responsibility that is placed upon us becomes pretty great.

The broader picture of the civil rights enforcement is that, in each of the two Bureaus, the Bureau of Employment Security and the Bureau of Apprenticeship Training, you will find in each budget provisions for the equivalent, of $212,000, or thereabouts, for 13 positions, 2 positions each in the Office of the Administrator of each of those 2 Bureaus, and 11 positions, 1 in each of the 11 regions. And the question here, in terms of staff at the Manpower Administration level, is to coordinate and integrate those activities.

Mr. FLOOD. I was interested in your reaction to Mr. Fogarty's last question, your instinctive reaction, not to the question itself, but your attitude.

In the old days we had a Department of the Army before we gave birth to what is laughingly called the Unification Act. That is the time I got into Defense, when the Unification Act was born, and I have been in it every since. What a can of worms that is.

You were in the service, I suppose?

Mr. RUTTENBERG. I was.

Mr. FLOOD. And you were a commissioned officer?

Mr. RUTTENBERG. I was.

Mr. FLOOD. Did anybody ever come in and salute you and hand you a yellow piece of paper which says, "In addition to your other duties, the following, 1, 2, 3, 4." And signed by some other joker with one more stripe? You didn't get promoted and you didn't get any extra appropriation, you didn't get any extra pay, nothing, just an order, "In addition to your other duties." Even the punctuation was bad. It should have been a semicolon, but it always was a comma, but then 1, 2, 3.

Now, this assignment you got here and this responsibility that you pinpoint puts you in the "Department of War on Poverty." Don't you know that? There is a war on poverty going on. You are one of the bureaus in the "Department of War on Poverty," so in addition to your other duties you have been bearing for the last several years, you have the following, 1, 2, 3, and that is that-period. And signed by Congress. So don't break down and cry about your burdens. This won't impress anybody up here at bit.

Mr. RUTTENBERG. I was hoping I wasn't doing that, Mr. Flood.

Mr. FLOOD. You were lamenting the tremendous burden under which you were laboring. We know that. You were having a tough time, as it was, until we thought of two or three other things. So what? That happens to us, too.

STRATEGY VERSUS TACTICS IN CURRENT MANPOWER ACTIVITIES

Now that I have used this analogy of the fact that you are a bureau of some kind or other in the "Department of the War on Poverty," I am concerned about your failure to recognize the difference between strategy and tactics. You are at the point now, my friend, of a tactical operation. Your long-range planning and your strategy is not over but must be set aside. You are in the field. You are not the highest level of the strategic command at the "Joint Chiefs of Staff," you are a field commander, you have an army or a corps in the field. You are a tactical commander. Take off the brass hat now and start fighting.

TOTAL APPROPRIATION REQUEST

What is the total overall request here for (1) experimental and demonstration projects, (2) manpower research institutional grants, (3) planning, research and evaluation vis-a-vis for the purpose of my analogy, manpower development and training activities. What is the answer to that?

Mr. RUTTENBERG. Manpower development and training activities

Mr. FLOOD. That is not the way I asked the question. I said what is the total appropriation for three activities and I recited them. Did you hear me?

Mr. RUTTENBERG. Experimental and demonstration projects is $20million, the same as the current fiscal year.

Mr. FLOOD. What is manpower research and institutional grants? Mr. RUTTENBERG. The total research funds are $3.8 million in the current year. It goes to $6,590,000 in 1967.

Mr. FLOOD. And what is planning, research and evaluation?

Mr. RUTTENBERG. The only request in that area is for staff, and the staff increase in planning, research and evaluation is for $312,500, and 27 positions.

Mr. FLOOD. I have no quarrel, as you know, with these activities. I consider them in the area of basic pure research in the Department of Defense for the purpose of developing weapons of the future. Sometimes those basic research and scientific projects amount to nothing, but you have got to try, you have got to leave your feet. You can't take out that play if you don't leave your feet. Did you ever play end? You have to leave your feet if you are going to take out that play. If you don't, two laps around the track. You have to leave your feet.

Mr. RUTTENBERG. I was a center in football.

Mr. FLOOD. You must have lost an awful lot of weight, didn't you? Mr. RUTTENBERG. Yes, sir; I used to weigh 200 pounds.

Mr. FLOOD. During the war we had a whole series of research and development operations go on in the area of aircraft, and every week somebody had a new plan and a new design for an aircraft, and next we had a modification of that, and then some other company came in with a new aircraft, and we had types and kinds and styles of fighters and fighter bombers modified coming out of our ears. This was all right up to a point, but then all of a sudden we had to say: "Look, boys, you jokers with the long hair, this is great, but where the hell are the aircraft? We need them in France. We ain't got no aircraft. Let's stop this R. & D. business, build airplanes and put them on the line."

This became a very serious problem. We had to do it. "Yes, but we will have a better one on Thursday."

"Never mind Thursday. I need 350 fighters last night in London." Now, after a number of very successful and commendable years of strategy and planning-I am speaking now with specific reference to manpower development and training activities-that 212 years is over. You have had a lot of help that you get no credit for. We have now reduced the enemy and his shock troops and his strong points to a hard core of unemployed, the juvenile, young unemployed, and the minority unemployed. We have now driven them back to the seacoast. He has three strong points, and there is no doubt about it, that is all that is left. Destroy those sectors and you win.

A lot of things have happened. The economy is booming, everybody is eating high on the hog. The unemployment rate is down to unbelievable national figures for the heads of families-unbelievable and even for the nonwhite the rate is an extraordinary achievement.

Now you wiped out all of that type of problem we have been talking about across this table for years, and that gave birth to the question of the war on poverty, and we backed the enemy into these three hard points. Now, what do I do-take you over to the Pentagon and teach you tactics? This is no longer strategy now. You throw everything you have got. You take casualties beyond reason which you wouldn't take 3 years ago. You exhaust and waste ammunition and money is no object. In Vietnam today money is no object. If there is a sniper in a tree and the 1st Cavalry Division sees him, and they are frustrated because they haven't been able to shoot at

anybody all day, the order is "Let them shoot a hundred rounds per man per minute. Who cares?"

Now, I am trying to draw an analogy for you. Who cares? You got this enemy backed up against the seacoast. Now you should hit him with everything. It's the first time ever in history that you got him there. You don't have to worry about all the other problems of unemployment. Somebody else or something else, or some combination of persons or things, are taking care of that. That is good. There is the enemy, what is left of him. Now go in there and hit him; land, sea, and air with everything in the book. Throw everything you have got at him.

Well, we are not apparently going to do that. We are going to conduct another medieval war, with time out on holidays, holy days, and Sundays, and nobody fights after half past 5. Remember the Middle Ages? That is the way they fought a war. I am against that. I would raise the skull and crossbones-no quarter. Get in there and kill them. I am shocked to see this is not the philosophy of the attack at this point. Do you want to say something? Don't volunteer, but if you want to say something, talk.

Mr. RUTTENBERG. Having been a GI during World War II, I learned my lesson, Congressman Flood-never volunteer for anything. Mr. FLOOD. Yes, I know all about that.

Mr. RUTTENBERG. You would know it better than I, having devoted the time you have to the problem of defense. But I am tempted to comment, if I might, about your remarks.

I think, first of all, with regard to the question of strategy and tactics, I do not think in the war on poverty and the war on disadvantaged and untrained, poorly educated people it is an either/or proposition as yet.

Mr. FLOOD. As yet?

Mr. RUTTENBERG. I don't think so.

Mr. FLOOD. May I interrupt to point out you don't know how long all these other problems are going to be taken care of by somebody or something else. It's a very delicate balance. You should hit when you have an opportunity. In a year you may not have it, and you will be back where you started, with all of the rest of these problems hung around your neck like an albatross. Now somebody or something else in the last year has removed it, the millstone is no longer around your neck. Your freedom is here. Start killing.

Mr. RUTTENBERG. Of course, the whole concept of the Manpower Development and Training Act appropriation is to move after just those people in the war on poverty-the disadvantaged, the minority group, the older workers.

Mr. FLOOD. That is not the whole point of the manpower training program and never has been. It has become now, in the language of your own statement, because of the things that have happened that you had nothing to do with, to what you call a shift in emphasis. Now the shift in emphasis I have used to draw the analogy. Now what are you going to do about the shift in emphasis? Let's talk about that.

For the next year there is a shift in emphasis. The analogy I drew is this hard core of enemy strong points. Now that is the object of the shift in emphasis. That is all there is left this next year.

PROGRAM FOR THE UNDEREMPLOYED

Mr. RUTTENBERG. I wouldn't say, Mr. Congressman, that is all that is left, because, as indicated in the statement and in the justification, there is still going to be a considerable number of skill shortages developing.

Mr. FLOOD. I will talk about that in a minute. That's what I prefer to call underemployment.

Mr. RUTTENBERG. That is right, exactly.

Mr. FLOOD. This is the upgrading of existing employees under either on-the-job training programs or vocational training in schools and programs in technical institutes to upgrade a guy who wants a better job.

Mr. RUTTENBERG. Precisely.

Mr. FLOOD. Now you are not going about that properly. Somebody is not. If a man walks into a USES office and says: "I am a truckdriver and I want to be foreman," the policy now is to say: "We have nothing to do with you. That is not our business in the USES. We have got nothing to do with upgrading jobs." The USES, as a matter of policy, has that position. Or don't you know that?

Mr. RUTTENBERG. I think

Mr. FLOOD. What do you think?

Mr. RUTTENBERG (continuing). This is one of the big problems. The Employment Service does not take the position that it deals only with the unemployed. The Employment Service does provide help and assistance to those who are underemployed when they come in voluntarily and are interested in being referred

Mr. FLOOD. Are you sure of that?

Mr. RUTTENBERG. Oh, yes.

EMPHASIS OF THE PROGRAM IN 1967

Let me just state what the facts are. I think 97 percent of the referrals that are made by the Employment Service are with and do deal with the unemployed.

Mr. FLOOD. I know.

Mr. RUTTENBERG. Three percent of the referrals, if I am not mistaken, deal with other than unemployed.

Mr. FLOOD. If what you say is so, and if there is a shift of emphasis for the next year, and if the unemployment caseload and percentage of those who want to or can work is where you say it is, and the Labor statistics people report every month that it is, then the shift of emphasis should be the other way around in the employment offices.

Mr. RUTTENBERG. But you don't equate, do you, Mr. Flood, the disadvantaged with being underemployed.

Mr. FLOOD. "Underemployed" was my term.

Mr. RUTTENBERG. Yes. The disadvantaged and the unemployed are one and the same.

Mr. FLOOD. Plus the unemployed minorities.

Mr. RUTTENBERG. Right.

Mr. FLOOD. Plus the juveniles, male and female.

Mr. RUTTENBERG. These are the people whom we hope, through the Manpower Development and Training Act activities, during the coming year to have the Employment Service concentrating on. They are part of the 97 percent-the disadvantaged.