Page images
PDF
EPUB

title I, with States responsible for other areas and for insuring coordination and the effective use of resources over the entire State ; under these provisions approximately 700 sponsors would deal directly with the Secretary, as in the case of the Emergency Employment Act. The Secretary would review local plans, or program statements, but principally from the standpoint of national criteria related to priorities, objectives and procedures, as opposed to programmatic content.

Title II authorizes the Secretary to continue to fund existing "categorical" programs of special importance-for example Job Corps, Neighborhood Youth Corps, and opportunities industrialization centers, and to provide support, technical assistance, and job matching services.

Of the basic amounts authorized-$2.5 billion for fiscal year 1974, $3 billion for fiscal year 1975, and $3.5 billion for fiscal year 1976—the amounts allocated to title I would increase from 65 percent in the first year to 85 percent in the third Fear, with the remainder applied to title II.

The substantial amount of new funds each year should act as a real incentive for improrements in performance at the local level : assuming full appropriation of the amounts authorized, the funds for title I would increase from $1.6 billion in final year 1974 to $2.9 billion in fiscal year 1976, while the Secretary's account would decrease from $900 million in fiscal year 1974 to $500 million in fiscal year 1976.

The Secretary, in allocating among State and local sponsors the amount added to local programs under title I in each subsequent year, is directed to take into account past performance, in accordance with objective criteria established in consultation with an independent interdisciplinary committee, as well as such factors as the number of unemployed persons in the area.

The Secretary would fund programs until title II directly to public and nonprofit private agencies and organizations, or if he wishes, through prime sponsors designated under title I; in so doing the Secretary would be governed by criteria relating to particular categorical programs and to the specific purposes of the act, as well as to allocation provisions to assure equitable coverages of States and other areas.

Mr. President, in vetoing the Employment and Manpower Act, the President stated that the bill's continued categorization of programs would “hamstring efforts of communities to adjust to changes in their local needs." Although this bill proposes a different timetable for decategorization and would identify the programs specifically in the legislation, I do not believe that it should be subject to that criticism. What is contemplated is a transitional period in which the Secretary, through his use of title II funds, will act as a catalyst weaving past efforts of demonstrated effectiveness and relevancy into the local fabric. As the Secretary's funds to do so decrease over the 3-year period, sponsors of categorical programs, having established a role in the new system, may look more securely to State and local prime sponsors for funding.

Second, it would provide for the involvement of educational, community action and similar agencies by insuring their eligibility for direct assistance under each title, their reriew and comment on the program statement, and their participation on Employment Councils, which each prime sponsor must establish; under the administration's bill they would not be given such a direct role.

Mr. President, the doctrine underlying revenue sharing—that those on the local level are in the best position to determine what is in their interest-must be applied beyond traditional units of government to various other institutions of the community which share interest in the objective of making it possible for more persons to obtain meaningful employment.

The bill contains unique provisions under which special funds are set aside on the one hand, divided equally between governmental prime sponsors and commanity action and similar anti-poverty agencies and, on the other, between governmental prime sponsors and educational agencies, for cooperative programs on the local level, in each instance these funds would be available only if the governmental prime sponsor and the other agency reach agreement on cooperative programs otherwise they would be redirected to other governmental prime sponsors and agencies who are able to agree upon such programs.

In respect to the schools, this is particularly important in light of the fact that about 10 percent of young people in poverty drop out of junior or senior high school without earning a diploma.

Third, it would give clear priority to economically disadvantaged persons with specific reservations of funds for migrants, Indians, older persons and other persons with particular needs, provisions for poor youth including the establishment of a summer youth employment fund and a new program and provisions to meet the employment and training needs of heroin addicts and other drug-abusing persons.

Mr. President, at the current time, inanpower programs cover approximately 1 million of the more than 12 million persons which the Department of Labor estimates could benetit therefrom.

Therefore, although we must fight for more funds, hard decisions must sometimes be made with respect to the allocation of existing resources.

The economically disadvantaged--those persons who live below the poverty level of approximately $1,000 for a family of four-must receive special attention not only because they are the major recipients under existing authority, but because of the welfare problem. In the category of families on welfare alone, the Department estimates that there are approximately 2 million persons who would be subject to the work requirements under H.R. 1, the proposed Family Assistance Act, who will be difficult to place without further training or employment opportunities. In comparison, the President's Family Assistance Act, in its present form in H.R. 1, will provide only 200,000 employment and 412,000 training opportunities per year, against these overwhelming needs.

We should give special attention to the needs of poor youth—who constantly experience unemployment levels of four to seven times the national norm, and whose lack of opportunity is aggravated particularly in the summer months, according to the most recent statistics, unemployment in poverty levels is at 25.7 percent, with a rate of 34.7 percent among black teenagers.

The bill provides continued authority for the Job Corps, insures that youth, like their campus counterparts, have a voice on advisory councils, establishes a special youth employment assistance fund for the summer months and authorizes special model youth programs on a neighborhood basis.

Without this emphasis I am concerned that the priority given to youth, who constitute approximately 73 percent of those now served under existing authority, will be lost; preliminary results from the Emergency Employment Act show that where States and cities hired without such priority, youth constituted less than 14 percent of persons covered by the act.

Mr. President, no facts are more startling in combination than that there are as many as 560,000 drug addicts in the Nation-half of which are in New York City--and that expenditures of the Department of Labor in fiscal year 1972 for manpower training programs for such persons is at $728,356—less than onetwentieth of 1 percent of the Department of Labor's manpower budget; there is much we do not know, but clearly much niore must be done.

The bill would establish a special national emphasis program of employment and training for heroin addicts and other drug-abusing persons, require State and local prime sponsors to coordinate their activities with programs providing methadone maintenance and other treatment, and insure that such persons are not "screened out” of existing programs.

Any comprehensive program should give attention also the employment needs of criminal offenders. During this fiscal year, Department of Labor manpower programs will reach only 4,000 defendants, approximately three-tenths of 1 percent of the total of one and a quarter inillion individuals who are under the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system at any one time. With respect to correctional institutions, the Department of Labor programs will reach 6,000 inmates nationwide while 400,000 persons–60 times that number-are not incarcerated in correctional institutions in the Nation.

S. 2962, the Correctional Manpower Training Act, which I introduced on December 7, 1971, with 18 cosponsors, as an amendment to the Manpower Development and Training Act, would establish a special program for that group; I hope that this subject will be considered by the Subcommittee on Employment, Manpower, and Poverty, as a part of manpower reform.

Fourth, it contains new provisions to insure that training leads to jobs and that public service employment opportunities, which sponsors may fund under the act, lead transitionally to nonsubsidized job opportunities, as well as provisions to encourage the greater involvement of the private sector.

Mr. President, there is a growing disenchantment with training programs as such and an increasing desire for the allocation of available resources to public service jobs.

This is understandable in light of the fact that training too often has failed to lead to a job.

But this does not mean that we should drop training and pour all of our re sources immediately into public service employment.

The use of training programs will still represent a sound allocation of resources since so many jobs continue to go unfilled, for example, in January 1972 there were 87,000 jobs available in manufacturing firms. We must, however, link training to the jobs that are or will become available.

The bill I introduce today authorizes training programs only where the Secretary determines that there is a reasonable likelihood that they will lead to employment.

And it provides 100 percent Federal matching, in contrast to the 90 percent which would apply usually under the bill, in cases where prior to training arrangements are made for a job upon the completion of training.

Mr. President, just as we need training to match unemployed or underemployed people with available jobs, we need to create additional jobs since even at socalled acceptable unemployment–in the 4-percent range—there are approximately 3 million persons who are unemployed.

We therefore need--and I support-an enlarged public service employment program: this proposal, like the adıninistration's would permit State and local prime sponsors to use their allocated funds on a flexible basis for such programs, which would be permanent in the sense that they would be operative irrespective of the unemployment rate.

Mr. President, training for its own sake is clearly poor policy, but so, in my view will be job creation for its own sake.

We need a carefully honed policy of job creation in the public sector which focuses on individual needs, with attention to those most in need. And we need a program which supplements training in some instances and complements it in others and which proceeds in cooperation with rather than in isolation from the regular public and private sectors.

The bill I introduce extends priority to the economically disadvantaged for participation in public service employment programs.

And importantly, it is designed to view public service employment, although permanent as a program, as transitional as to the individual—that is to lead wherever possible to nonsubsidized job opportunities in the public or private sector.

This does not mean that mobility shall be the rigid rule, but that it, rather than permanency, shall be our starting point, assumption, and goal.

The bill directs the Secretary to establish procedures for review of other opportunities on a regular basis, and grants full Federal payment to the cost of programs in which prior arrangements have been made for nonsupported employment in the public or private sector, thus providing an incentive for the public sector to review and upgrade participants for regular public opportunities and to seek arrangements with the private sector for other participants.

I reject as arbitrary and unrealistic the administration's proposal, which would place a 2-year limit on an individual's participation in a public service job program.

Mr. President, it is important to emphasize the continued need for involvement of the private sector in meeting the manpower training and employment needs of the disadvantaged. Despite great past contributions--for example the provision of more than 700,000 jobs over the past 5 years by the National Alliance of Businessmen under the JOBS program—there is danger, with all the talk of public sector employment, that the private sector will not contribute to its full capacity.

The bill authorizes private sector programs on the local level and contains a new authority for a 2-year demonstration program to test the use of certificates of vouchers in the provision of training and manpower services. This proposal, which is described more fully in materials which I shall place in the Record, would apply in the manpower field the approach which has been a success on a trial basis in the housing field, upon the urging of Senator Brooke, a co-sponsor of this bill.

Of course, we must learn also from the experience with tax credits under the recent amendments to the Social Security Act, and improve those provisions if necessary.

Unfortunately, attention on H.R. 1, the Family Assistance Act, has elevated the promise of "workfair” far above our ability to deliver the resources which

individuals require to cut their own road out of porerty and unemployment. Most Americans want to work; indeed statistics provided by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare to the Senate Committee on Finance show that 70 percent of family heads on welfare work to some extent, but in jobs that are inadequate to provide for their families.

We should not assume that the poor do not want to work-because they dom merely because we as a Nation have failed tv provide the opportunity for training and related employment.

There will soon be a Senate-House Conference to deal with the interim extension of the Manpower Developinent and Training Act; the House has voted to extend the Act for one year, through June 30, 1973, while the Senate has voted | to extend only the contract authority to permit funding of programs lasting for as much as a year beyond this June 30 if entered into before that date. An extension of the authority under Title I of the Economic Opportunity Act, proposed by Senator Nelson and myself in S. 3010, is now before the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. If the Conference does not deal adequately with the problem of extension of the Manpower Development and Training Act then I shall add the one-year extension of the MDTA authority, which this bill contains, to the extension of the Economic Opportunity Act.

Mr. President, with these basic elements in mind, I hope that we will move quickly to establish a new direction in training and related employment programs for the 1970's.

Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that in addition to the bill itself, the following documents be printed at this point in the Record : a section-by-section analysis of the bill; which includes a summary of funds authorized thereunder; a comparison of the bill with S. 1243, the Manpower Revenue Sharing Act and S. 3867, and with the vetoed Employment and Training Act of 1970;

There being no objection, the bill and material were ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 3421 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the l'nited States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as "The Community Manpower Training and Employment Act of 1972".

STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND PURPOSE

SEC. 2. (a) The Congress finds and declares that

(1) millions of economically disadvantaged persons, including youth, continue to suffer from lack of opportunity for employment and training, resulting in hardship to such individuals and in increased welfare dependency;

(2) there are many millions of other persons who are unemployed or are employed below their capacity who, with appropriate employment and training opportunities, could make a greater contribution to the national economy and share more fully in its benefits;

(3) at the same time, the prosperity, economic stability, and productive capacity of the United States are limited by a shortage of workers to perform many tasks in the private sector, and substantial needs in the public sector, in fields such as environmental quality, health care, education, public safety, and other areas, which remain unfultilled ;

(4) It is within the capability of the United States to attain the objective of the Employment Act of 1946 "to provide maximum employment, production and purchasing power” by assuring to every American seeking work a full opportunity, within the framework of a free society to prepare for and obtain employment at the highest level of productivity, responsibility, and remuneration within the limits of his or her abilities;

(5) experience under programs conducted under title I of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 and the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962 and related programs have demonstrated the importance of the application of substantial Federal resources to attain the objectives of maximum employment:

(6) at the same time, experience under such programs has identified the need to increase the responsibilities of State and local governments and other local institutions in the conduct of such programs, to give greater attention to the employment-related objectives of such programs and to apply more substantial resources for such programs, with particular emphasis upon persons most in need.

[ocr errors]

(b) It is therefore the purpose of this Act to establish an increasingly flexible and decentralized system for the provision of employment and training opportunities, by providing Federal funds for such purposes on an increasing basis to State and local governments in combination with other local institutions, to increase the availability of such opportunities, with emphasis upon persons most in need, and to insure that training and other programs lead to employment.

AUTHORIZED APPROPRIATIONS Sec. 3. (a) For the purpose of carrying out this Act, there are authorized to be appropriated $2,500,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, $3,000,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975, and $3,500,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976.

(b) For the purpose of providing training. technical assistance, planning and such other activities as the Secretary deems necessary and appropriate to prepare for the implementation of this Act and for the purpose of programs authorized pursuant to paragraphs (6) and (7) of section 202 and section 205 and section 206 of this Act, there is authorized to be appropriated $100,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973.

(c) The amounts appropriated under subparagraph (a) to carry out this Act for any fiscal year shall be allocated among the titles of this Act in such a manner that of the amounts appropriated

(1) there shall be allocated for Community Training and Employment programs pursuant to title I of this Act an amount equal to 65 per centum of the amounts appropriated for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, 75 per centum of the amounts appropriated for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975, and 85 per centum of the amounts appropriated for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976; and

(2) the remainder in each fiscal year shall be allocated for Special Federal Responsibilities under title II of this Act.

(e) In order to make funds available to complete any grant or contract entered into prior to the effective date of this Act under the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962, or title I of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, the Secretary may transfer sums newly authorized under this Act for that purpose.

(f) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, unless enacted in specific limitation of the provisions of this subsection, funds appropriated to carry out this Act which are not obligated prior to the end of the fiscal year for which such funds were appropriated shall remain available for obligation during the succeeding fiscal year, and any funds obligated in any fiscal year may be expended during a period of two years from the date of obligation.

ADVANCE FUNDING Sec. 4. (a) For the purpose of affording adequate notice of funding available under this Act, appropriations under this Act are authorized to be included in the appropriation Act for the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which they are available for obligation.

(b) In order to effect a transition to the advance funding method of timing appropriation action, the provisions of subsection (a) shall apply notwithstanding that its initial application will result in the enactment in the same year (whether in the same appropriation Act or otherwise) of two separate appropriations, one for the then current fiscal year and one for the succeeding fiscal year.

DEFINITIONS

Sec. 5. As used in this Act, the term-
(1) "Secretary" means the Secretary of Labor.

(2) “State" means the several States and the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

(3) "Local service company" means a community development corporation or other corporation, partnership, or other business entity organized to operate an employment or training program or component thereof and owned or operated in substantial part by economically disadvantaged, unemployed or underemployed, residents of the area to be served.

(4) “Health care" includes, but is not limited to, preventive and clinical medical treatment, family planning services, nutrition services, and appropriate psychiatric, psychological, and other services.

« PreviousContinue »