We hold that statements contained in the "Imperatives" point to the use of local educational systems in providing expanded opportunities for adult learners, especially in fields linked to their occupational needs. It is also true the local systems cannot fund this immense task completely, even though they can provide the facilities and teachers to start the project.

We would like to commend the agencies cooperating with us in this endeavor, such as: Community Action, Texas Employment Commission, Texas Education Agency, United Fund, Fort Worth Council of Churches, Sheriff's Department, and other local agencies.

The Fort Worth Independent School District, through its extensive regular vocational and adult program, has always prepared to meet the needs of the community and will continue to do so in the future. We believe we have the expertise and capabilities to meet these needs and feel establishment of other training facilities would constitute a duplication of effort.

I appreciate the opportunity of submitting this information for your consideration, and will be glad to supply any additional material you feel will be helpful to you and the committee.

Yours very truly,

R. M. MCABEE,

Director, Vocational-Industrial Education.

PHARR-SAN JUAN-ALAMO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Hon. RALPH YARBOROUGH,
Senior Senator from Texas,
Senate Building, Washington, D.C.

Pharr, Tex., February 12, 1970.

DEAR SENATOR YARBOROUGH: Reference is herein made to the Senate Hearing on Manpower Development Training Programs held in Corpus Christi, Texas, on January 9, 1970.

It has been our pleasure for the last five years to participate in federally funded Adult Education programs under the direction of the Pharr-San Juan-Alamo Independent School Board. We have operated programs in Manpower Development Training, Adult Migrant Education, Adult Basic Education, and the Work Incentive Program funded from federal sources.

The effectiveness of these programs has been determined by an all-out effort between our individual district, the Texas Education Agency, and the Texas Employment Commission.

Under the supervision of the Texas Education Agency and the Texas Employment Commission we have found excellent leadership in guiding us as to the correct procedure for training and stipends of students. It is our sincere hope that in future funding we may have the opportunity to continue program training as it has been in the past.

If program results are a requirement for future programs, we would be satisfied in having our program reviewed and pass on any information available from these results to your office for future reference.

Yours truly,

C. W. LINN, Director, Adult Education.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, MANPOWER ADMINISTRATION

SUMMARY STATUS REPORT OF ACTIVE MANPOWER PROJECTS, AS OF JUNE 1969, CORPUS CHRISTI, TEX.

FEDERAL OBLIGATIONS FOR WORK AND TRAINING PROGRAMS ADMINISTERED BY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, FISCAL YEARS 1966-701-CORPUS CHRISTI, TEX.

ENROLLMENT OPPORTUNITIES AUTHORIZED FOR WORK AND TRAINING PROGRAMS ADMINISTERED BY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, FISCAL YEARS 1966-70,1 CORPUS CHRISTI, TEX.

Senator YARBOROUGH. This concludes the hearing. Thank you very much for your efforts in coming here and testifying.

(Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the hearing adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.)

MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING

LEGISLATION, 1970

FRIDAY, JANUARY 16, 1970

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT,

MANPOWER, AND POVERTY OF THE

COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE,

Milwaukee, Wis.

The subcommittee met at 8:45 a.m., pursuant to notice, in the auditorium, Milwaukee Technical College, Senator Gaylord Nelson (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senator Nelson.

Staff members present: Robert O. Harris, staff director; William R. Bechtel, and William J. Spring, professional staff members; John K. Scales, minority counsel.

Senator NELSON. The Subcommittee on Employment Manpower, and Poverty has the responsibility in this session of Congress of studying the administration's proposed bill, S. 2838, which would completely reorganize the various Federal programs which have been developed over the past 7 years to provide special training and remedial services, particularly to school dropouts and the disadvantaged. The bill would ultimately abolish about 30 existing national manpower training programs costing in the neighborhood of $2 billion a year. In the place of the system which has evolved since 1962, the bill would establish a system of manpower training programs operated by State manpower agencies.

For a long time, many concerned people have advocated a major overhaul for our Federal manpower training programs. We obviously need an improved system to guarantee that the programs reach the people who need help the most and provide them with the kinds of services which are necessary if they are to lead meaningful lives. We need much better coordination among the various programs and among the agencies which operate them. An ideal solution would be a single manpower system which would locate a person in need of manpower training, channel him into just the right kind of training program suited to meet his needs; provide him with the precise remedial services which he required; place him in a job and observe his progress in that job for some time to come; meanwhile providing factual data all along the way so that the program in its various elements can be evaluated at any stage.

The subcommittee is convinced that the administration and the distinguished Secretary of Labor, George Shultz, are earnestly seeking to develop a high quality, comprehensive manpower training program which will meet the needs of the Nation. However, the job is a difficult (597)

one and many competent persons have questioned whether the bill before us is precisely the answer which we seek. In hearings so far, concern has been expressed about abolishing existing manpower training programs, imperfect as they may be, before we have substi tute programs which we know are as good or better.

Concern has also been expressed about reducing the role of community action agencies in operating manpower programs. Questions have been raised as to whether the employment services in the 50 States are presently capable of taking on the major responsibility for serving the hard core disadvantaged in manpower training programs and remedial services. It has been suggested that, along with a major reorganization of our training programs, we should also introduce a major new program of job creation, to create new job opportunities in the field of public service not only to reduce unemployment but also to upgrade the level of public services at the municipal, county, and State levels.

Today, in a setting where vocational education has been developed to the highest standard found anywhere in the Nation, we want to explore these questions which I have mentioned, but also to pay particular attention to the role which the education system can and should play in any comprehensive manpower policy.

The subcommittee has received numerous communications from educators and educational agencies in various parts of the Nation expressing their views on the proposed Manpower Training Act.

For example, the New Mexico State Department of Vocational Education has raised a number of questions in telegrams to Senator Joseph Montoya as well as to the subcommittee. This agency asks, for example:

Will training programs be developed in cooperation with and approved by the State department of vocational education? Will existing State and local facilities be utilized where applicable or will new and additional facilities be established? What guarantee is there that this will not create a dual national education system in competition with existing public education? Is there any assurance that professional vocational educators will be full members of the proposed State and national manpower advisory committees? What will be the criteria used by the Secretary of Labor in determining whether a State has established a comprehensive manpower agency?"

Other expressions of concern have been received from the Council of Chief State School Officers; the Oregon State Superintendent of Public Instruction; the Oregon Farm Bureau Federation; the Manpower Training Service at Gate City, Va.; the Michigan State Department of Education; the City School Superintendent at Gainesville, Ga.; the Secretary of the Georgia Vocational Association; the Kansas City, Mo., Director of Vocational and Technical Education; the Oregon State Grange; the Nebraska State Department of Education; the Alaska State Division of Vocational Education; the Nevada State Department of Education; the Tennessee State Department of Education; and a number of others. The subcommittee staff is assembling the various telegrams and letters received from such individuals and public agencies and we will print these comments in the printed record of this hearing which we hope will be available in approximately 6 weeks.

I think I can say for all of the 12 Senators on the subcommittee that we approach this assignment with an open mind. I think all of us want to see the development of a really adequate comprehensive