arbitrator invariably reduces the likelihood of conflicts having to go to the top for solutions.

Here, however, I think it is not the Secretary of Labor who necessarily could serve impartially but rather a body established especially for that purpose, or the National Manpower Advisory Committee which might be converted into a National Manpower Council that could serve in this regard.

This process now has been refined and sophisticated in the labor

movement.

I suspect we are going to have a continuation of interests, conflicts, and desires to serve. What we need is machinery available that will militate against the continuation of the proliferation of programs.

I do urge, of course, consolidation of programs. I think this is very important. I have stated my position in the record. I would like to just say one or two things about delivery systems. We have spent a great deal of time in the proposed Senate bill talking about delivery systems. I would hope that the legislation would unfold so that it would not be a delivery system for the convenience of an agency or agencies but rather for the convenience of people.

In that regard, it is interesting to note that under the concentrated employment programs, perhaps especially in the north area here, we are discovering more and more the strength of these programs being built around the school systems. I would not suggest that HEW has a proprietary claim to all manpower problems any more than the Department of Labor has. However, if one were to put into the balance the services and the resources of HEW, I suppose it could very well exert a proprietary claim and say manpower is basically HEW. I can only comment in this respect: We are talking about citizens of the United States. We are not talking about members of the labor force per se. The full resources of Government ought to be available to those who are in need.

In that respect I think it is really terribly important to have the administrative mechanisms established with the appropriate appeal procedures to resolve disputes. This indeed will be a forward step toward sustaining manpower programs.

I would like to urge, of course, as I have in the past, that we eventually develop a bipartisan, strong, viable Manpower Act that receives the kind of support from both sides of the aisle as well as from the people themselves.

This can be achieved within the framework of democratic feedback through (a) the appeals procedure described above to resolve difficulties and (b) consolidation of programs and sound administration. Thank you very much.

Senator NELSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Tuma.

Mr. TUMA. Thank you.

Senator NELSON. Our next panel is Mr. Hall, manpower director, Milwaukee Community Relations-Social Development Commission; Mr. Salas, Milwaukee, United Migrant Opportunity Services; Mr. Bay, director, Northwest Wisconsin Community Action Agency on Concentrated Employment Program.

STATEMENTS OF MELVIN HALL, MANPOWER DIRECTOR, MILWAUKEE COMMUNITY RELATIONS-SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION; JESUS SALAS, MILWAUKEE, UNITED MIGRANT OPPORTUNITY SERVICES; AND WILLIAM BAY, SUPERIOR, DIRECTOR, NORTHWEST WISCONSIN COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY ON CONCENTRATED EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM (CEP)

Mr. HALL. Senator Nelson and staff members of the Subcommittee on Employment Manpower and Poverty, I have a position paper I would like to follow.

My first observation is that it is unfortunate we can't have members that are the recipients of manpower training programs to testify themselves as to how they feel about the State becoming the facility to coordinate all manpower programs.

Senator NELSON. Let me say, Mr. Hall, that this specific hearing is not aimed at that objective. We have had recipients of the services testify in Los Angeles, Corpus Christi, and will have in Cleveland, Ohio, and several other places.

Mr. HALL. I am speaking because I am concerned about Milwaukee, though. I have strong reservations about S. 2838, a bill to give the Secretary of Labor full responsibility for manpower training of the disadvantaged and operate the programs through new State agencies.

The traditional relationship between vocational education and manpower training programs has been closely coordinated and controlled primarily by the State, to the extent that both areas have restricted the relevant involvement of the minority, poor, unemployed, and underemployed.

Furthermore, the State vocational education department has not, to date, developed a meaningful and comprehensive program on the elementary or secondary level, nor have they related closely with the State department of public instruction concerning curriculum development of a quality that will provide disadvantaged minorities with job market entry-level skills.

State-administered MDTA programs have lacked key ingredients from the beginning; such as: feasibility study of job market needs that won't become obsolete in several years; community residents as teacher aides and coaches; supportive services to enable trainees to get to and from classes from day to day; realistic training allow ances; lack of adequate job development and placement for the minority group disadvantaged enrollee that completes the program; bilingual instructors for the Spanish-speaking residents that desire Vocational training but have a problem with English communication. State laws regulating work and apprenticeship program entrance are often tools to block the disadvantaged from moving into jobs where there are existing manpower shortages, oftentimes having threefourths of the licensing boards made up of members who are practitioners in the occupation that the board regulates, yet the State finds no conflict of interest in this structure especially in the construction apprenticeship areas.

These boards are omnipotent in that they determine the qualifi cations of applicants, regulate the examination process, and determine the number of persons to be admitted to the occupation as well.

They also restrict eligibility through residence and age requirements, education, training or experience, fee payments, and performance on written tests.

Applicants are frequently rejected on grounds of previous arrest or convictions although these may not relate to jobs. Examinations, given only in English, are exclusionary devices to Spanish-speaking minorities.

The subjective nature of performance ratings among many local and State licensing and apprenticeship boards, facilitates the exclusion of minority group applicants who actually may be qualified.

Bill S. 2838 proposes to operate comprehensive manpower development programs through the vehicle of the State. The only present control or leverage factor that an urban city like Milwaukee has to help keep the State and its manpower empire honest, is the small amount of Health, Education, and Welfare/Office of Economic Opportunity, and Labor Department funds that are received by the Community Action Agency's individuals and organizations that are not hampered by the bureaucratic State restrictions that allow for innovative flexible programs that get at the heart of the manpower problems mentioned previously.

The act S. 2838 proposes to alleviate other Federal funding sources and supplant the 1964 Manpower Development and Training Act. Furthermore, the proposed legislation makes no commitment to insure the maximum feasible participation as spelled out by the Office of Economic Opportunity, and roughly the 80 CEP programs throughout the United States that are sponsored by the various Opportunities Industrialization Center, Neighborhood Youth Corps, and other manpower programs that are beginning to reach the underemployed, unemployed, young, elderly, female, and minority groups and individuals in spite of the institutionalized State restrictive boards, statutes, and policies.

I would be the first to admit the need for a more coordinated approach to comprehensive manpower development programs, but would argue that the State should not be that vehicle.

In responding to the question of how many persons are "un" and underemployed in the Milwaukee community, it has been shown that, because of the image of the State employment service in the eyes of the minority community, based on their traditional mode of operation, stereotypes of attitudes that relegate black and other minority persons to menial, dead-end "Negro" jobs; intelligence and aptitude tests geared to the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant cultural background and performance based on knowledge gained through experiences, that blacks and other disadvantaged have never had; refusal to assess the accuracy of tests as a measure of ability or potential performance on specific jobs; in the metropolitan Milwaukee area no less than 25 percent off on their manpower statistics at any given time.

Census, jobseekers at the State employment service, welfare rolls, the traditional measures of accounting, are not an accurate indication of the underemployed and unemployed universe.

One of five persons "un" or underemployed prefer not to be confronted by the State employment service "emasculators"-I refer to them as "emasculators" and seek employment on their own, through the various neighborhood service centers community serv

ices, or hustle, or live outside the system as the need arises, rather than surrender their human dignity to the State vehicles.

Some of the present manpower programs offer realistic hope to serve the needs of disadvantaged persons. The Opportunities Industrialization Center's self-help concept is more popular than ever, and the concentrated employment program has completed employability plans for roughly one out of three disadvantaged persons in a universe of 6,000 within a 1-year period.

Both of these programs are under the prime sponsorship of the Community Relations-Social Development Commission, the local Community Action Agency.

These two programs both employ almost 90 percent residents of the disadvantaged community, and both have upward mobility, career development systems.

However, only one of three could qualify for employment by the State employment merit system as established by the State personnel bureau.

Furthermore, because of their certification, redtape on the State level, there has never been a full component of Wisconsin State Employment Service staff to fill some 25 job positions in the program, both paraprofessional and professional for the duration of the 1 year that the concentrated employment program has been in existence.

With the recent Manpower Administrative Order 14-69 issued on the part of the Labor Department which was a mandate which designated the State employment service as the major provider of manpower services within the concentrated employment program, the structure and effectiveness of the complete system has been threatened.

If it were not for the fact that the Community Action Agency is still the prime sponsor of the concentrated employment program, all the credibility that has been established over the year would have been destroyed with the advent of the MAO 14-69 mandate.

If the State, with all its rigidity, had become the prime sponsor of the concentrated employment program at a time when flexibility and ability for program innovation have the greatest potential in a new comprehensive manpower concept that has its flaws with effectiveness, the whole manpower field would suffer a setback of several decades.

In attempting to develop an effective system of public service, employment, improving the economy and the service while reducing unemployment, we first have to seriously look at the restristive measures of the public personnel bodies that tend to complicate meaningful attempts to develop career plans in the public service sector of employment.

It is very unfortunate, however, that the State, among all public bodies, employs the least number of minority persons, disadvantaged and otherwise.

Of the total number employed, almost 80, 5 percent are in the nonprofessional service, clerical, and custodial and maintenance areas of employment; with little, if any, opportunity for upward mobility. The present State relationship in various areas does not reflect that it would be in the best interest of the disadvantaged minority, with basic human needs to be met, in addition to specific manpower service needs, if the past year is any indication of things to come from an insensitive legislature and bureaucratic conglomeration of naive or bigoted staff that have cut back on everything from manpower

training programs, to fair practices staff, to prohibitive legislation for minority group youth in educational institutions, from elementary core area schools to land-grant colleges.

At the same time, enabling legislation has been passed to subsidize private schools. If the State contributed $50 a person to the non-State-operated manpower programs, it is my feeling that the local manpower service delivery systems for disadvantaged and minorities presently operating without further intervention, that both the State and the manpower programs would be better off as a result. Thank you.

Senator NELSON. Thank you very much.

Has the employment service, Mr. Hall, taken over the manpower aspects of the program here in this State now?

Mr. HALL. No; we are still negotiating for our 1970 contract with the Labor Department for CEP and it has not been finalized.

However, it has been stated that the State employment services will be the major provider as a subcontractor. That is our present

Mr. SALAS. I would like to say that I am happy to be here to have this opportunity to react to the proposed Manpower Training Act of 1969.

I am a little distressed to note that on the list of people here today, not many are likeself, administrators or directors. And although I may be an administrator, I am still close to my people. I have worked with them. Most of the people here are professors, or heads of depart

ments.

Senator NELSON. May I interupt, Mr. Salas?

Mr. SALAS. Yes, sir.

Senator NELSON. The specific and sole purpose of these hearings was to deal with the educational aspects. We are holding hearings all over the United States. This one has been limited specifically to that purpose.

Elsewhere, in Washington and Cleveland, in Texas, in Los Angeles and subsequently on the west and east coasts, we will be hearing from from administrators and recipients of the services.

We elected for this particular purpose to hear only the educational, Vocational-educational aspects. We are hearing at great length from those who are managing programs, those who are recipients of programs, all over the United States.

Mr. SALAS. I wasn't able to deduct that from the list that I received of people invited but I appreciate that.

Senator NELSON. I just wanted to clarify that for you, that that was the sole purpose of this particular hearing, to concentrate on this particular area.

Mr. SALAS. I know that Senator Nelson believes in helping the poor, in solving the problems of the poor. One of the big questions of poverty, in solving its problems, is to know whether you are continuing to be in touch with it, to hear the people themselves. There are some very fine men here, some of them my friends. And I feel that they, too, would be happy to see more men like myself, indigenous members of the community, take part in the testimony in this hearing. This is not to offend, but since the heart is in the