Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

1093

1053
1056

1042
1043

Kaplan, Herbert, chief, Employment Opportunity Division, Los Angeles

County, Calif.; Robert Krinock, director, Wayne County Office of Program Development and Coordination, Michigan; Lou Tempera, commissioner, Suffolk County Department of Labor, New York; Ralph L. Tabor, director, Federal Affairs, National Association of Counties, Page March 28, 1972, prepared statement.-

1083 Koval, John, appearing on behalf of the Honorable William G. Milliken, Governor of Michigan..

1030 Prepa red statement.-

1032 Nelson, Alan C., appearing on behalf of the Honorable Ronald Reagan, Governor of California--

997 Prepared statement...

1001 Newman, Mary, secretary, Executive Office of Manpower Affairs, appear

ing on behalf of Governor Francis W. Sargent, Massachusetts, with attachment

1026 Stevens, Hon. Ted, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska--

959 Prepared statement.

959 West, Hon. John C., Governor, State of South Carolina.

959 Prepared statement-

968 Zuniga, Santos, chief, Manpower Division, Department of Personnel, Los

Angeles County, ('alif., appearing on behalf of the National Association of Counties.

1078 Prepared statement.

1083 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Articles, publications, etc. :

JDTA: A Decade of Achievement," by Garth L. Magnum, March 16,
1972

1108 Communications to:

Nelson, Hon. Gaylord, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin,
from :
Sargent, Hon. Francis W., Governor, State of Massachusetts,
March 24, 1972

1027
Morgan, Ross, Administrator, Department of Human Resources,
State of Oregon, March 20, 1972-

1135 Evans, Hon. Daniel J., Governor, State of Washington, April 14, 1972

1138 Magnuson, Hon. Warren G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Washington, April 17, 1972

1140 Hardy, Eugene J., senior vice president, National Association of Manufacturers, April 12, 1972--

1143 Davis, Hilton, legislative action general manager, Chamber of Commerce of the United States.-

1151 Map:

Central Arkansas Manpower Area Planning Council-mayor's grant-- 984

COMPREHENSIVE MANPOWER REFORM, 1972

TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 1972

U.S. SENATE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT, MANPOWER, AND POVERTY
OF THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:05 a.m.,

in room 2.928, New Senate Office Building, Senator Gaylord Nelson (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Nelson, Cranston, and Taft.

Committee staff members present: Richard E. Johnson, majority counsel, and John K. Scales, minority counsel.

Senator Nelsox. The subcommittee will open hearings this morning. I would like to insert at this point in the hearing record Sen. Javits statement on S. 3421, the Community Manpower Training and Employment Act of 1972.

(The information referred to follows:)

(From the Congressional Record)

Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions

(By Mr. Javits (for himself, Mr. Boggs, Mr. Brooke, Mr. Hatfield, and Mr.

Schweiker) S. 3421. A bill to provide for a phased assumption by State and local governments in combination with other local institutions of the responsibility of planning and conducting programs providing manpower training and employment opportunities and related services to economically disadvantaged, unemployed, and underemployed individuals with emphasis upon persons most in need, to increase the availability of such opportunities, and for other purposes. Referred to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.

THE COMMUNITY MANPOWER TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1972 Mr. Javits. Mr. President, I introduce the Community Manpower Training and Employment Act of 1972, a bill designed to establish a community-based program of manpower training and jobs for economically disadvantaged, unemployment, and underemployed persons. I am joined by the following cosponsors: Senators Boces, BROOKE, HATFIELD, and SCHWEIKER.

The bill—which consists of two titles-Would authorize $10.6 billion for training and employment programs over a 4-year period, beginning in fiscal 1973; for the current fiscal year 1972, Federal expenditures total approximately $1.6 billion under existing authority. The administration proposes the expenditure of $2.0 billion in fiscal 1973.

THE NEED FOR REFORM

Mr. President, there is no area in the field of human resources where the gap between promise and performance is more keenly felt by the poor than that of manpower training programs.

A decade of experience under the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1942 and title I of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 and related authorities has taught us the importance of Federal commitment to assist individual

efforts toward seit 14001. but in tleir prent for the programs increasingly have failed to meet tbeir original objectives

As furds bare inread-frut. $) Lilion in fixal 1962 to more than $1.6 billion in the current is al gear, ad.inistration of programs directly from the Federal level has become an increasinzis ineffective manner of doing business.

Moreover, programs conducted under these autborities-so-called remedial manpower programshave been carried out to much in isolation on the one hand, from related rotational activities in the schools and, on the other, from porerty and other community-based organizations which represent the greater portion of persons to be served.

They have failed to pruride suffiient resources and direction to zero in uponand in fact hare often excluded the most in need of assistance, such as criminal offenders ex-addicts and particularly disadrantzed persons.

And, by too frequently concentrating upon training for its own sake, they have often failed to attain their most relerant objectives to get the participant into a meaningful and satisfying job.

These shortcomings in contrast to the tenets of the free enterprise system and the call for workfare in connection with welfare reform—have become a source of despair and frustration to the poor, who want to provide for themselves eren more than society-hit by rising welfare costs—urges or would require them to do.

It is not surprising that for a large segment of the economically disadvantaged, manpower training is reriewed as an empty promise thrown out by the "establishment" to keep people off the streets or forerer out of the mainstream of the economy.

Mr. President, the manporer erstem clearly demands reform-as much as the welfare reform to which it so closely relates.

President Nixon called for manpower reform as early as August 1969.

The Congress sought to achiere it-through enactment in 1970 of S. 3867, the Employment and Janpower Act of 1970.

But, the failure of the administration and the Congress to reach agreement on its terms and the resulting Presidential reto of that act in December 1970 have left this crucial matter of business unfinished.

THE ELEMENTS OF REFORM-AX ALTERNATIVE TO MAXPOWER REVENUE SHARING The President's remedy for the shortcomings of the current ssstem is: S. 1243, the Manpower Revenue Sharing Act of 1971.

It proposes, in short, to eliminate the existing "categorical" programs and to distribute each year beginning in fiscal 1973. all but 15 percent of approximately $2 billion in flexible funds directly to the States and units of general local government for use as they see fit, generally without Federal review or approval.

Mr. President. the day that programs can be said to be more effectively run directly from Washington has long passed, but the solution to our problems does not automatically call for throwing them almost completely and immediately at the States and the cities—which are only just now developing their capacity in this area.

Mr. President. this bill—which is designed as an alternative to the administration's proposal-has as its sole objective the reform of the existing manpower training system. It is not intended to meet the need for public serrice employ. ment-although such employment is an element which may be funded by States and other governmental prime sponsors as they assume manpower training responsibility. I consider the question of the amount of additional public service employment funds to be run through that system to be a separate one, properly considered in an economic context, and I expect to introduce in the near future my own separate proposal to that end.

I shall now indicate how the bill would meet each of the four deficiencies with the existing programs and manpower delivery system which I previously noted.

First, the bill would decentralize and decategorize existing programs, now conducted directly by the Federal Government, but on a phased basis-not all at once as the administration has proposed.

Under title I. State and local governmental and other prime sponsors would be given flexible funds for the conduct of a wide range of training and related employment programs.

In general, cities with a population of 75,000 or more, counties of 100,000 or more, and combinations thereof would be eligible to serve as prime sponsors under

« PreviousContinue »