This provision would disrupt the comprehensive programing from which States and local government are just now beginning to realize the full benefits. 4. Bypassing the planning system and arbitrarily assigning funds to vocational education is built-in fragmentation which is one of the problems we are trying to solve. Further, the designation of a rural concentrated employment program agency as prime sponsor will remove the initative from State and local government and preclude real decategorization or decentralization. In summation I strongly urge the Select Subcommittee on Labor to make changes in the Comprehensive Manpower Act to provide a meaningful role for States. This is essential for a fully effective Federal manpower policy. These changes should make the manpower policy compatible with the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968. I fully support the statement of manpower policy issued by the national Governors' conference in June 1973. Gov. WINFIELD DUNN, State of Tennessee. GOVERNOR'S MANPOWER PLANNING COUNCIL, Hon. DOMINICK V. DANIELS, DEAR MR. DANIELS: In my capacity as Chairman of the Virginia Governor's Manpower Planning Council, I have been requested by Governor Linwood Holton to outline his concerns and recommendations regarding H.R. 11010 (and H.R. 11011, the minority version), the "Comprehensive Manpower Act of 1973," which he has communicated to you by telegram. As Governor Holton stated in his telegram to you, he is unable to support this bill in its present form. The lack of a meaningful role for the Governor in the establishment of statewide manpower policy and coordination of statewide manpower planning is his primary objection to the bill. Attached please find a list of recommendations which I hope you will seriously consider in your future attempts to have manpower reform legislation passed during this session of Congress. Thank you for your attention to these recommendations. Yours truly, Enclosure. CHARLES A. CHRISTOPHERSEN, Chairman. RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE "COMPREHENSIVE MANPOWER ACT OF 1973" (Prepared by Hon. Linwood Holton, Governor, Commonwealth of Virginia) In order that the Governor assure effective planning and delivery of services for his State and perform the statewide functions specified in Sections 104 and 105 of H.R. 11010 (11011), the following recommendations are made: (1) It is recommended that each Governor have the authority to approve or not approve applications for prime sponsorship from prime sponsor applicants in his State which do not qualify under Section 102 (a)(1) (2) or (3). (2) It is recommended that of the amount of Title I funds apportioned among prime sponsors in the State, fifteen percent be available to the Governor for carrying out his statewide responsibilities specified under Sections 104 and 105, for encouraging voluntary combinations formed under Section 102 (a) (3), and for operating statewide manpower programs in particular areas of need. (3) The Manpower Services Council as structured in Section 105 has inadequate composition and functions to carry out the Governor's role as balance of State prime sponsor and as coordinator of planning and service delivery in the State. It is recommended that the Manpower Services Council be composed of(a) at least one representative of each prime sponsor (including the State) which has an approved plan, who shall be designated by the Chief Executive Officer or Officers of the unit or units of government of which such prime sponsor is composed, in the case of prime sponsors designated under Section 102 (a) (2) (3) and (4) and Section 102(c), or, by the Governor, in the case of a State's prime sponsorship area, with the number of represen tatives of each prime sponsor proportionate to the percentage of the total population of the State served by such prime sponsor: and (b) one representative each of the State Board of Vocational Education and the public employment service of such State. It is recommended that the Manpower Services Council, in addition to assisting the Governor in performing the functions described in Sections 104 and 105 (a) assist the Governor in the conduct of planning for the balance of State prime sponsor area. (b) assist the Governor in commenting to the Secretary on the comprehensive manpower plans of local prime sponsors. (c) assist the Governor in making recommendations to the Secretary concerning the coordination of the plans of prime sponsors and services of the State and other agencies. (d) assist the Governor in reporting the results of the monitoring of the operation of the programs of prime sponsors to the Secretary of Labor and in making recommendations about the continuation of such programs to the Secretary. (e) advise the Governor in the area of statewide manpower policy. (f) advise the Governor on the operation of statewide manpower programs. (4) It is recommended that each Governor establish a Technical Advisory Subcommittee to the Manpower Services Council, which shall consist of representatives of education, training, and social service agencies, community-based organizations, business, labor, significant segments of the population to be served, and the public at large. This Subcommittee shall assist the Council in the coordination of planning and all manpower services, program monitoring and evaluation, and other activities as described in Sections 104 and 105, and in number three above. (5) It is recommended that the Governor provide for planning areas which together shall cover all of the State and for area planning councils for each planning area. These area planning councils shall include one representative of each county and city in the area, and such additional persons as these county and city representatives shall elect, including representatives of education, training, and social service agencies, community-based organizations, business, labor, significant segments of the population to be served, and the public at large. These area councils shall prepare and submit to the State those portions of the balance State comprehensive manpower plan which affect those parts of the planning area which are not served by local prime sponsors. These area councils shall review and submit comments to the local prime sponsor(s) and to the Governor with respect to the plans of local prime sponsors within their planning areas. In addition, the area councils shall assist the Governor and the Manpower Services Council in providing coordinated statewide planning. (6) It is recommended that the Governor appoint a staff director and other necessary personnel to assist the Governor, the Manpower Services Council and the Technical Advisory Subcommittee, and the area planning councils in performing their functions. The staff shall be responsible to the Governor or the Chairman of the Manpower Services Council, who shall be appointed as specified in Section 105(a) (2) (A). (7) The Secretary of Labor has been granted a disproportionate amount of responsibility in this bill, which has contributed to an inadequate role for State and local prime sponsors. To ameliorate this situation, it is recommended that the amount of monies available for Title III activities be reduced from twenty percent to fifteen percent of funds available to carry out the Act. This five percent would be absorbed into total Title I monies. In addition, the five percent of Title I monies available to the Secretary to encourage voluntary combinations formed under Section 102 (a) (3), should be shifted to the Title I monies to be allocated among the States. This recommendation is in keeping with my previous recommendations to grant to the Governor the authority to encourage voluntary combinations formed under Section 102 (a) (3). (8) While I recognize the needs for coordination of vocational education services with the programs of all prime sponsors, a separate grant to the State vocational educational boards as specified in Section 110, is unnecessary and counter to the philosophy of decentralization of Title I monies to the prime sponsors for the activities available under Title I which the prime sponsor requests in the comprehensive manpower plan. It is therefore recommended that the five percent of Title I reserved in Section 503 (a) for such grants be shifted to the total Title I monies to be allocated among the States and that Section 110 be deleted from the bill. (9) The formula in Section 503 (a) for distributing the Title I funds among the States does not adequately reflect the need of an area for the services available under Title I. It is recommended, in accordance with previous recommendations, that Section 503 be changed to read: Sec. 503. (a) Ninety per centum of the amount available for Title I in any fiscal year shall be allocated among the States so that equal proportions are distributed on the basis of: (1) the relative number of unemployed within the State as compared to all the States; (2) the relative number of adults who or whose families have a total annual income below the lower living standard budget within the State as compared to all States; (3) the manpower allotment of the State in the prior fiscal year compared to the manpower allotment for all the States in that year: Provided, however, That at least 1 per centum of the funds shall be allotted among Guam, American Samoa, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and the Virgin Islands according to their respective needs. The sum available to each State shall be allocated among areas within the State on an equitable basis based upon the same factors. (b) The remainder of the funds shall be available in the Secretary's discretion. In exercising that discretion the Secretary shall take into account the need for continued funding of programs of demonstrated effectiveness. (10) It is recommended that the rate of unemployment to be used as the basis for the allocation by the Secretary of Labor of the funds under Title II for public service employment should be reduced from seven percent to six percent. JOBS FOR PROGRESS, INC., Hon. DOMINICK DANIELS, U.S. House of Representatives, ESTIMADO CONGRESSMAN DANIELS: Enclosed is language being submitted to the Select Labor Subcommittee for review and consideration by the Subcommittee when they finalize H.R. 11010 markup. We submit this language in hope it can assist staff members in negotiating a compromise bill which will carry substantial bi-partisan support for its quick enactment by the House. The incorporation of the suggested language will help in achieving a compromise which will assure support of the bill by many concerned groups and interested Congressmen. The term "disadvantaged," along with the terms "unemployed" and "underemployed", is used in seven critical sections of the bill which describe the persons who would qualify for services under this Act. The terms "unemployed" and "underemployed" are defined in Title IV, Sec. 401, but no definition is given for "disadvantaged." We urge that: (1) the term "disadvantaged be defined in Sec. 401, and (2) that the definition include, but not be limited to, "persons who suffer in the labor market because of their limited speaking, reading and writing abilities in the English language." Title III, Part A, Sec. 301, which reads: "Sec. 301. The Secretary shall use funds available under this title to provide additional manpower services as authorized under ttiles I and II to segments of the population that . . .", we urge be amended to read, "Sec. 301. The Secretary shall use funds available under this title to provide additional manpower services as authorized under Titles I and II with due consideration of current programs of proven effectiveness to segments of the population that .. Title III, Part B, Sec. 311., which reads, "Sec. 311. The Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, and other appropriate officials, where appropriate, shall provide, directly or through grants, contracts, or other arrangements, preservice and inservice training for special ized, supportive, and supervisory or other personnel and technical assistance which is needed in connection with the programs established under this Act.", we urge be amended to read, "Sec. 311. The Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, and other appropriate officials, where appropriate, shall provide, directly or through grants, contracts, or other arrangements, with due consideration of current programs of proven effectivenes, preservice and inservice training for specialized, supportive, and supervisory or other personnel and technical assistance which is needed in connection with the programs established under this Act." CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. DOMINICK V. DANIELS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., November 7, 1973. Chairman, Select Labor Subcommittee, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand that hearings were held on H.R. 11010, the "Comprehensive Manpower Act of 1973" on October 24 and 29, and request that the attached telegram from Mr. Louis Ridle be included in the record of these hearings. Mr. Ridle is the Director of Vocational and Adult Education in Alaska. He is concerned, as am I, about certain conditions of this bill, and has made some excellent suggestions for possible modification. I hope you will give consideration to his comments in your progress with this legislation. With warm regards. Sincerely yours, Enclosure. DON YOUNG, Congressman for all Alaska. JUNEAU, ALASKA, October 29, 1973. Representative DON YOUNG, Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C.: Our office has reviewed quite thoroughly House bill H.R. 11010 that is up for hearing October 24 and 29. There are several things within that bill that we feel are very undesirable for the State of Alaska. They are as follows: 1. One prime sponsor concept: Indications from the bill are that 5 percent of the funds appropriated under title 1 are to be made as grants to vocational education boards. We recommend that the language of that portion of title 1 needs much more clarification in order to provide administrative support at the State level. 2. Youth programs: It is our feeling that the part-time employment for students from low-income families in grades 9 to 12 is a repeat of the work-study aspects of the Vocational Education Act and at the present time we see no place in this legislation for youth employment programs. We recommend that this portion be stricken from the bill. 3. The proposed legislation creates a national institute for manpower policies and it is our strong feeling that vocational education is not well written into this section. We recommend there be a greater role placed on the part of vocational education. 4. Prime sponsors: This now includes 100,000 people or more or a combination of local governments serving rural areas for a high level of unemployed. It is the feeling of this office if that provision of the bill should pass that a large portion of the appropriation that would come to the State of Alaska would go to one area of the State and the rural areas of Alaska would suffer tremendously because of the lack of provisions that would be available for rural Alaska. We also feel that under this existing bill only Anchorage could possibly benefit from that legislation. We recommend that this provision be stricken from the bill and instead read that if a State does not have 100,000 in a particular area or borough that the State be responsible for statewide planning and implementations. 5. Minimum appropriations: We are of the opinion that now minimum appropriations are provided for small States such as Wyoming, Nevada. Montana, Alaska, and so forth, and that in these seven to nine States that fall into this small population areas will end up with all of their total appropriation going to the one area of local government with 100,000 or more or a combination thereof and that no provisions will be made for statewide programs. We recommend that there be no minimum appropriation to each State. 6. Consultation with HEW: At the present time in the State of Alaska all educational facilities under vocational education are either administered or funded through the State division of vocational education. Under the act it says that the Secretary of Labor shall consult with the Secretary of HEW with respect to arrangements for basic education and vocational training; also that the advice and comments of State educational agencies will be solicited. We see that the way the existing bill is written that if they so desire that the Department of Labor could develop dual educational training facilities which again would be very detrimental to the State of Alaska and its activities in relation to vocational training. On a statewide basis it would be our recommendation that the language be changed to read that all training as it relates to institutional training be conducted through the U.S. offices of HEW as well as the State offices of vocational education in each State. LOUIS RIDLE, Director of Vocational Education. SOUTHEAST TENNESSEE (CHATTANOOGA) Hon. DOMINICK V. DANIELS, DEAR CONGRESSMAN DANIELS: The Southeast Tennessee (Chattanooga) Manpower Planning Council in its regular quarterly session November 2, 1973, unanimously adopted the enclosed resolution expressing their feelings on proposed Manpower Reform Legislation. The members of the council took this action to formally state their deep felt conviction that, those among us living in poverty must not be neglected in legislation which could mean so much to the indigent of our state and nation. On behalf of the council and its members, I am enclosing the official resolution of the council for your consideration. I and the council members trust that you will give this your deepest consideration and support the principals as espoused in the resolution. Sincerely, FRANK OREND. Director. A UNANIMOUS RESOLUTION OF THE SOUTHEAST TENNESSEE (CHATTANOOGA) MANPOWER PLANNING COUNCIL Whereas HR 11010 and HR 11011, "Comprehensive Manpower Act of 1973" is being considered by the Congress; and Whereas the factor of poverty is not included in the criteria for distribution of manpower program funding; and, Whereas the fact of poverty and per capita income is the most crucial manpower problem in economically depressed areas; and, Whereas this omission discriminates against and adversely affects the capabilities of State and local governments to serve low income and poverty status persons who need these services most: Now, therefore, we the members of the Southeast Tennessee (Chattanooga) Manpower Area Planning Council do hereby Resolve and recommend to the Congress of the United States, the Secretary of Labor, the President of the United States, and all concerned public officials to amend these bills in committee or conference to insure that the final legislation shall include a poverty factor of equal weight to labor force and unemployment for the distribution of funds. Given under my hand and seal this second day of November, 1973. ROBERT KIRK WALKER, Mayor of Chattanooga, Chairman. 26-483 0-7413 |