Senator MONDALE. Has there been an analysis, or a sophisticated appraisal of the so-called matching job thesis that shows this sort of thing?

In other words, an analysis of geographical availability? Just how many of these jobs that are reported are really available to an unskilled black kid in the ghetto as a practical matter?

Has there been an analysis of that, that you know of?

Mr. CONWAY. Well, not of the kind that I would like to see, but I think Phil Rutledge, when he speaks here, can speak to this. He was working with the community action program there, and was trying to crack the problems of the relation of people to jobs 14 or 20 miles away. If you put all your chips in the training basket, as soon as the unemployment rate starts going up, and as soon as the economy begins to get a little shakey, everything stops. You take on the obligation of additional hard core unemployed people, you may have to cut back your number of employed people, and the whole thing backs up.

The only way, it seems to me, that you can make sure you are doing something about unemployment and problems related to unemployment is to create jobs, and build around job creation. To the extent that the economy is vigorous, healthy, and moving, you minimize the number of jobs you have to be creating in the public sector area, because the private market should be able to compete and take the people into the larger employment pool.

It is when people fall through the grid and are out of the private market effectively that you have to take aggressive steps to provide employment, provide training, broaden the skills, give them the educational back-ups necessary to enable them to compete successfully. If you give them the jobs and they can move out to where another job is that is better, and they need an automobile to get there, they may be able to buy the automobile, a used car, if they have the employment and the income first.

All these things work against each other, or for each other, and it seems to me what we ought to be doing is stressing the things that provide the base on which you can get additional activities that mutually reinforce all the efforts.

It is a very difficult problem. We have never solved this problem of unemployment in this country, except by war.

Franklin Roosevelt didn't solve the unemployment problem in the late 1930's. It was World War II that solved that problem, and that is an awful way to solve problems. I don't advocate it.

What also happens in wars is apparent in the present situation. You get terrible distortion in the country. We can't afford to do the things we know we should be doing because we are spending the money some place else.

The time comes when we have to face that, too, and put the resources of this country where the problems are.

I think we are at a crisis in the domestic problems in this country. If we don't start solving them, and but good, this country is going to

blow up.

That is an awful note to end on.

Senator NELSON. Yesterday, I raised the question with the Secretary which bothers me very much, and I wonder if you might com

ment on it.

Under the proposal the State governments and the mayors develop a State plan, and then, as I understand it from the bill, the State plan is submitted to the Secretary.

The community action agencies at the local level have for the first time brought into participation people who are to be affected by the program. We know that some CAP's have been very effective. Some haven't. Many of the most effective ones have been the ones that have upset the power structure the most at the State level and at the community level.

But for the first time people affected by the program have had a voice in the development of the administration of the program.

It seems to me that has been the most creative part in the long pull in the whole business. Instead of telling people, "We will give you this whether you want it or not," the people have been brought into the management and formulation of programs.

We saw what happened on the floor of the Senate with the amendment to give the Governor veto power over the legal services. Everybody had watched this, I think. For the first time, poor people had had an attorney, and they raised troublesome problems about their rights, because they had no other way to do it, and this upset a lot of people.

Then the Murphy amendment was offered and passed on a close vote, to give the Governor complete veto power over OEO legal services programs.

I said to the Secretary of Labor at yesterday's hearing, "Supposing a State plan comes up and you have a number of very good community action agencies, but whoever is in the power structure, the city council, the mayor, the Governor, at that stage in history want to get rid of this troublesome group, and they have a State plan which abolishes all community action agencies from participation?"

I am sure he wouldn't approve of that. In my judgment he wouldn't like that. But isn't that the kind of problem you face? All of a sudden you have a plan, and all CAP's are phased out of the picture.

What kind of problems do you think that creates?

Mr. CONWAY, As I said earlier, and maybe I didn't make it clear enough: I think the community action organizations whether they are CAP's or private organization, which are operating parallel with the community action agencies, would be in serious jeopardy as a result of this proposed legislation.

That is not saying that the motives of the Secretary are such that he would want to see them eliminated. I have known him for years, and I have high regard for him.

But I think the effect of this legislation, in the short pull, in a year or so, would be to effectively snuff out the community action programs in this whole area. I think they have enough battles on their hands as it is, and so I hope you don't follow this path.

Senator MONDALE. What we are saying, I think, is the backlash that is developing against listening to the poor. We hear about a silent majority. Now we would like to silence the minority.

We see it in the OEO legal services. When people protest against the war in Vietnam, they are referred to as demonstrators in the streets who want to impose their will.

I think it is a very disturbing trend.

Senator NELSON. I just want to say that I am satisfied myself that the Secretary is conscientious toward the manpower programs. I expressed to him my concern about how this transition would work and whether it would wipe out the role of community action agencies and other private ones, and whether some of the now tested national programs would go by the board because they may not fit into the concept of the State plan by the mayors and Governors.

Nevertheless, I think that this issue is going to be before us, and I can't predict what this committee will do or what the country will do, or much less what the House might do, but I think that we have to recognize that there is a very strong thrust toward the concept of returning administration of many programs to the State level.

If that should be the result at some stage in the manpower program, whether it is next year or the year after, it does seem to me that we need some careful analysis, if that is going to happen, on how we protect the creativity of the local organizations, CAP's, and the integrity of those organizations that are good at the local level, and the national programs that have been tested and which work.

Have you given any consideration to that?

Mr. CONWAY. The original legislation that set up the employment service was a national program that said that we were going to do this, and set forth the employment system idea.

The States, if they will adopt State programs that meet these standards, can then take over the administration of the employment service in their particular State.

So the whole idea was to set something nationally and say, "Now, the States ought to be doing this, and if you do do this, then you can get some funds to do it."

So the reward was there to the States to do certain things.

Well, what happened is that all 48 of the States set up employment services, and the system worked quite effectively in the early years. Then, eventually, the erosion process started, as you know, and there were a whole series of activities undertaken through legislation and so on where the system was diluted.

You can't legislate perfection and then expect to have it stay perfect for 20 or 30 years. I see nothing wrong, Senator, in saying to the States and to the cities, "We are in favor of developing a manpower program and manpower policy in this country which will go substantially to eliminating unemployment, and will improve the skills of people so that they can compete successfully in the private market. If you will do these things we will provide these funds for you to do them," and to hold out reward for action on their part.

When you have the program, and say you have funds, inadequate through they are, and we are going to give the States control of them, provided you have a State plan and work out the problems with the mayors, it seems to me you are giving away the ball game.

If you will flip the thing over on its back and look at it from that point of view, you may be able to figure out a system of rewarding the States for doing what is right, and rewarding the cities for doing what is right-right being in terms of the objectives of the manpower and job creation program. If you combine the job creation of public

sector employment with rewards for the States and the cities to carry these things out, I think you might have a good answer.

But I think the path laid out in the administration bill, if you follow it, can lead to disaster.

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Conway, for taking the time to come today.

We now have a panel of the National Association for Community Development. This is a panel on the Manpower Act, Mr. Philip J. Rutledge, secretary-treasury of NACD; Mr. Robert A. Aleshire, executive director of NACD; and Wallace Fletcher, board chairman, Western Metropolitan Boston Regional Opportunity Council, Inc., Waltham, Mass.

The committee welcomes you here today. For purposes of the reporter keeping track of the comments for the record, would you gentlemen identify yourselves each time you speak?

STATEMENT OF PHILIP J. RUTLEDGE, SECRETARY-TREASURER OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: ROBERT A. ALESHIRE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF NACD; AND WALLACE FLETCHER, BOARD CHAIRMAN, WESTERN METROPOLITAN BOSTON REGIONAL OPPORTUNITY COUNCIL, INC., WALTHAM, MASS.

Mr. RUTLEDGE. I am Philip J. Rutledge. With me is Mr. Robert Aleshire and Mr. Wallace Fletcher.

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the proposed Manpower Act. Our presentation will be in four parts.

Mr. Aleshire and Mr. Fletcher and I would like to state the overall policy views of NACD with respect to the proposed legislation.

Following that, inasmuch as many of the concepts which we feel are embodied in this legislation are now being implemented as part of the concentrated employment program under Manpower Administration order 14-69, we would like to have a panel of CEP directors speak to some of the concerns they have about the implementation of those sections.

In addition, the Neighborhood Youth Corps has been in operation for a number of years now. This legislation proposes certain changes which will affect the way the Neighborhood Youth Corps is operated, and a panel of directors who have been administering Neighborhood Youth Corps programs would like to speak to that point.

Lastly, Mr. Chairman, there is considerable concern that in the drafting of this manpower legislation, the special needs of the rural communities were not fully considered, and we would like to present from the fourth group some concerns of the NACD membership in this area.

Let me review for the record the nature of NACD and its posture in testifying before this committee.

NACD is a private, nonprofit corporation with offices in Washington, D.C. It was incorporated in March of 1965 for the purpose of stimulating and assisting the national effort to provide all citizens with the opportunity to realize their full human and economic potential through education, job training, community organization, agri

cultural and business development, and programs of special social

services.

Several hundred local community development agencies of all types and over 1,300 community development professionals and nonprofessionals from every State in the Union are members of NACD.

Thus, we appear here today to provide this committee with information based on the day-to-day experiences of our members and conclusions reached through the various committees and meetings of NACD.

We hope these statements of professional views and programmatic opinion will be helpful to the committee as it attempts to fashion effective manpower legislation.

Mr. Chairman, it is the feeling of NACD that the Manpower Training Act essentially attempts to achieve three goals which we support.

The first is full employment, a goal set by the Employment Act of 1946, which committed the Nation to provide employment of all persons willing, able, and seeking to work.

The second goal we support, is that of economic growth. As the Nation expands, a different mix of job skills become required, and by providing those skills, manpower programs assist in the creation of our Nation's wealth.

The third is that of economic opportunity; that is, as the economy expands, those persons who have been left out are not automatically brought in by the simple fact of that expansion. All of our manpower programs must specifically address this problem of those who have been left out, and seek active ways of designing programs, implementing programs, and delivering services that will bring the disadvantaged groups in.

With those goals in mind, Mr. Chairman, we would find it difficult not to support the objectives of the proposed Manpower Act.

In fact, NACD does support the objectives and goals of this legislation, as we understand them. Briefly, I would like to mention a few specific things in the bill which we strongly support. I might also add, Mr. Chairman, that we are filing with the committee a detailed statement of our position and our views. I will not take the time to read that statement, but rather will attempt to touch in my remarks some of the key points which we feel most keenly about.

Senator NELSON. Mr. Rutledge, your statement will be printed in full in the record.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Rutledge follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. PHILIP RUTLEDGE, SECRETARY-TREASURER, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

My name is Philip J. Rutledge. I am Secretary-Treasurer of the National Association for Community Development. I am accompanied by Robert A. Aleshire, Executive Director of NACD; and Mr. Wallace Fletcher, President of the Western Metropolitan Boston Regional Opportunity Council.

Let me first express our deep appreciation for having this opportunity to bring to the Subcommittee's attention our views and recommendations on manpower legislation. We consider this invitation a distinct honor and hope the testimony we will present today will be helpful to this Committee as it begins consideration of what may well be a major landmark in domestic legislation.

Before presenting NACD's statement on the Manpower Training Act, let me briefly explain the fashion in which we have organized testimony for your consideration.