COMPREHENSIVE MANPOWER ACT OF 1973 MONDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1973 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR OF THE The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dominick V. Daniels (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Daniels, Gaydos, Esch, Steiger, and Quie. Staff members present: Daniel Krivit, majority counsel; Joseph Alviani, associate counsel, Alexandra J. Kisla, clerk, Laura S. Wyman, research assistant, and Charles Radcliffe, minority counsel. Mr. DANIELS. The Select Subcommittee on Labor will come to order. We continue with the hearings on the Comprehensive Manpower Act of 1973. There are two bills pending before the committee, H.R. 11010 and H.R. 11011. Both bills are identical except with respect to funding for the year 1975. I am pleased to announce that we have as our first witness this morning the Honorable William Kolberg, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Manpower. Mr. Kolberg, I welcome you to this hearing and we are pleased to hear what you have to say. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM KOLBERG, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR MANPOWER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM HEWITT, ASSOCIATE MANPOWER ADMINISTRATOR FOR POLICY EVALUATION AND RESEARCH Mr. KOLBERG. Thank you very much. I think you have a copy of the testimony and I will proceed to read that. I welcome this opportunity to present the administration's views on H.R. 11010 and H.R. 11011. Mr. DANIELS. Mr. Kolberg, I would appreciate if you would establish for the record the distinguished gentleman with you. Mr. KOLBERG. On my right is Mr. William Hewitt, the Associate Manpower Administrator for Policy Evaluation and Research. We are pleased that both bills have bipartisan sponsorship, and I congratulate the subcommittee on continuing the tradition of a bipartisan approach to manpower training that began with the enactment in 1962 of the Manpower Development and Training Act. I am further pleased that the subcommittee shares the administration's desire to work toward a federally supported manpower system along the lines of the manpower revenue sharing approach. As you (77) 26-483-74- -6 know, the Senate recently passed S. 1559, also with bipartisan support, which they described as manpower revenue sharing. The President, in his March 1, 1973, Human Resources Message to Congress, expressed the belief that the answer to many of the present problems surrounding manpower programs lay in instituting manpower revenue sharing. In his message the President described this approach to be "uniting several previously fragmented manpower activities under a single umbrella and then giving most of the responsibility for running this effort to those governments which are closest to the working men and women who need assistance." In short, the foundations of manpower revenue sharing are rooted in two principles: decentralization of authority and decategorization of programs. With reference to these two principles we think that the basic approach taken by the subcommittee in drafting these measures is consistent with the objectives of the President. The Senate-passed S. 1559 moves part way toward these goals, but we believe the bills which are before the subcommittee today come much closer. Although we are in accord with the direction that the subcommittee has taken in drafting its proposals, there are some specific points of concern. The bill needs to be improved to avoid unacceptable restrictions which would prevent State and local government from designing effective programs. Let me emphasize, however, that these comments are intended constructively. I feel that if these points can be accommodated, we are then within easy reach of full agreement on a comprehensive manpower bill. PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT FUNDING The sole difference between H.R. 11010 and H.R. 11011 lies in the provision of funds in section 502 for title II, Public Service Employment. The administration must oppose the reservation of funds approach of H.R. 11010. We believe that it is unreasonable for the administration to concur with a specific dollar amount prior to the submission of the fiscal year 1975 budget. You can be assured that as soon as an acceptable comprehensive manpower bill is enacted, the administration will request an appropriation to provide at least $250 million for public service employment. Mr. Chairman, the administration deems it essential that the more flexible approach contained in H.R. 11011 be adopted. Since the two bills are identical except in the funding provision for title II, which I have just reviewed, the following discussion will consider them as a single proposal. These issues are presented in the sequence that they appear in the bill. STATE MANPOWER SERVICES COUNCILS We agree that there should be adequate advisory and coordinative services for the integration of State and local activities. However, we do not believe that the structure for providing these services should be mandated in the law. The rigid and restrictive form of organization of the councils proposed in section 105 of the bill is inappropriate. For example, consider the required presence on the State council of at least one representative of each unit or combination of units of govern ment which have a comprehensive manpower plan and of proportional representation of such units on the council. The result is that in several States the number of such representatives alone would bring the membership of the State council close to 100. In other States there would only be one representative of local government serving on the State council. The requirement of section 105 that the State councils shall review the plans of each prime sponsor might very easily, given the large membership in some States, operate as a serious impediment to the prompt consideration of these plans. We feel that advisory councils can be effective at both the State and local levels. In some areas past experience in manpower planning has proven their worth. However, there should be flexibility in the nature and use of these councils. We agree that prime sponsors should seek advice which represents the broad manpower interests of the community. Our primary concern is twofold: when States and localities already have adequate advisory mechanisms, we should not add superfluous requirements for additional ones; and since every area has unique features, we should not preempt local judgment as to who is best positioned to lend advice in the manpower field. Mr. DANIELS. Mr. Secretary, if I may interrupt at that point. Would you leave the structure of the council, whether on a State or local basis, up to the State and local governments. Mr. KOLBERG. I think we could do that with confidence, Mr. Chairman. I think we ought to trust the Governors and the prime sponsors at the local level to design the kind of advisory body that they would find most appropriate. Mr. DANIELS. It was the intent of the committee to see that certain people who have been interested in manpower programs in the past and who have aided inmeasurably in the handling of manpower programs, that they ought to be included on the council. We do not want to be overlooked. Mr. KOLBERG. I would agree with you regarding the State manpower services council. The local prime sponsors must have a voice. In addition, I think it would be wise for Governors as well as sponsors at the local level to include on their councils a voice from the employer community, from the poverty groups, if there are such, from other community groups, from organized labor, and from the many other groups that have a legitimate interest and an important role to play in designing programs. Again our point is that the councils could vary at the State level and at the local level and we want to allow for appropriate variance. Mr. DANIELS. Would you support this provision in the bill provided we limited the membership to a certain number of members? Mr. KOLBERG. Yes; we would. Mr. DANIELS. What would you suggest as an appropriate number? Mr. KOLBERG. I suppose after 15 or 20 it gets unwieldly. I don't think that is the best way to go about it, but that is one way. Rather I would prefer to see specified the groups that should be included or should be represented on a group such as the Manpower Services Council. Mr. DANIELS. Do you anticipate that there would be more than 25 or 30 prime sponsors in any particular State? Mr. KOLBERG. No; I cannot imagine that, although California may have that many. Mr. DANIELS. The provision of the bill provides for at least one representatives from each prime sponsor, so if you have States as large as California and New York, I could envision a situation where you might have a vast number of members on the council in order to have broad representation. Mr. KOLBERG. I understand your purpose. What we are trying to do is point out that there may be problems in some of the larger States in achieving those purposes. We are not suggesting that the committee not prescribe that such a body exist at the State level. I think for a Governor to do his job he will need an advisory body. But I think we need to provide for flexibility so he can adopt to his own situation. Clearly the situation in South Dakota and California will differ and I think we can write some general language that would accommodate those different situations. Mr. DANIELS. Your views will be given consideration by the committee. Mr. GAYDOS. I would like to ask the Secretary. If I might have missed something, as I don't understand what your position is. You say you recognize the particular groups that should participate, but yet you would not want to make it mandatory. I would like to ask you about those States that have persistently and historically ignored participation in a group such as that? Do we forget about them and leave it a matter for their own discretion? Mr. KOLBERG. I would have no problem with the legislation saying that the Governor must have representation on his advisory body from community groups, prime sponsors, organized labor, and employer communities. What I have problems with is specifying in some detail what the membership and the precise functions of such an advisory body should be. Mr. GAYDOS. In order to understand your position so that we would be able in a realistic fashion ask and hopefully obtain your support in this legislation, are you saying that you would support language which would name at least the participating groups, name them, and then would you also support language which would at least provide for a minimum participation of these named groups? Mr. KOLBERG. Yes, I would, Mr. Gaydos. Mr. DANIELS. You may proceed. Mr. KOLBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT THE ROLE OF THE SECRETARY It is critical that we reach a clear understanding on a key element of this legislation-the Federal role. It would be a misreading of the intent of the administration to imply that manpower revenue sharing means abdication of necessary Federal responsibility. We are and always have been concerned that funds available for manpower program purposes be put to the most efficient and effective use. It is our best judgment that State and local governments can most effectively carry out manpower planning and program delivery responsibilities. The Federal Government would retain re sponsibility for the ultimate stewardship of the appropriated funds. If a prime sponsor is misusing the funds, the Secretary must be empowered to bring about corrective actions. We find that the Federal involvement stipulated in the current proposals is excessive. In too many instances we find heavy burdens of factfinding and determination required to be made by the Secretary of Labor that will lead inevitably to the intrusion of Federal staff into the local decisionmaking process. In fact, the impression received from a review of the variety and depth of determinations required of the Secretary is that virtually no plan of a prime sponsor or the sponsor of a public employment program could be developed locally without some degree of onsite participation by a representative of the Department of Labor. The heavy involvement of the Secretary with regard to what are essentially programatic aspects of local plans is hardly consistent with the stated purpose of the bill-"... a flexible and decentralized system of State and local programs. ." It would result in substituting Federal staff judgment on day-to-day programing for that of elected local officials. This is exactly what we are trying to get away from by conversion to a system of local responsibility through manpower revenue sharing. We believe that all of the requirements in the bill should be the subject of positive determinations prior to grant approval. However, in the first instance almost all of those determinations should be the responsibility of the prime sponsor who would certify to the Secretary that the requirements have meen met. We do feel, however, that if a prime sponsor violates or has failed to comply with any provision of the bill, including any gross misfeasance in the conduct of its responsibilities, the Secretary should have the ultimate authority to terminate financial assistance under the bill in whole or in part. The balance of the unused fund should revert to the Secretary for him to carry out the purposes of the bill in the prime sponsor's jurisdiction. Let me pause there, Mr. Chairman, and explain that a bit. I want to make clear what we are trying to say in the first paragraph of page 7 of my statement. In a number of places in the bill there are rather lengthy lists of things that the Secretary should take into consideration and, as I recall, in most if not all instances the bill says, "The Secretary shall not provide any financial assistance unless he determines ***" What we would like to see down here is to turn that responsibility around at least in the first instance and ask that the prime sponsor certify that those particular requirements under the bill have been met in the plan that he is submitting. Now clearly at some stage along the way we are not going to accept certificatons if information comes to us that, in fact, the prime sponsor has not complied with provisions of the bill. However, we would rather shift the burden of proof to the prime sponsor and not have the Secretary actually making on-site inspections in the first instance to see whether the prime sponsor has complied with the act. We would rather let the prime sponsor proceed on the basis that he understands what the law says and that, in fact, he will comply with the law. Mr. DANIELS. Isn't it true the bill also provides for the prime sponsor to certify that he has fully complied with the law when he submits his report? |