BES-16

APPENDIX I

Exemplary Rehabilitation Certification Program

Review and Operating Procedures

Receiving Applications

Requests for applications will be taken by mail at the national office, and packets of forms and instructions will be mailed to the interested parties. The applicant will accumulate all the material necessary, including statements from employers and local law enforcement agencies, and character references. He will also be asked to submit fingerprints and forward this information to the national office.

United States Employment Service staff will not make individual case investigations, nor accept oral testimony with the initial application. Such steps would require a great deal more staff than the plan we are proposing. Since the law stipulates the person may present oral testimony or be represented by an attorney, the procedure will allow for oral presentation when the applicant has been notified of a proposal to disapprove his request.

The application will be made on a standard form, and all of the items mentioned in the law will be required. However, we will provide the applicant an opportunity to present additional evidence of his good behavior since his discharge. The issuance of a certificate will be affected by the seriousness of the offense in the military service as required by the committee report. For that reason, we will also require the applicant to supply selected information on the discharge and the circumstances surrounding it, and we will made a small number of additional inquiries from the military records centers. For example, a person discharged due to drug addiction or a felony, and who continues such conduct up to the last three years, would be denied the issuance of a certificate.

Decision Making

When all the material has been accumulated in an individual case, a professional staff member in the processing unit will review the application and recommend a decision. At least one other person will review the recommendation before the applicant is notified of the results.

In case of denials, a letter will be sent to the applicant proposing to disapprove his request unless he notifies the Department of a desire to present additional evidence. The applicant will be advised that any additional information or new evidence could be presented orally or in writing. Oral Hearings Procedures

If the person requests, an oral hearing will be arranged. In the event the person did not want to come to Washington, he could present a sworn deposition or we will provide for oral testimony to be taken in a regional office by a regional office member or by the national office hearings officer.

TUESDAY, MARCH 26, 1968.

CLOSING OF DENVER REGIONAL OFFICE

WITNESSES

LEO WERTS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

STANLEY H. RUTTENBERG, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR MANPOWER AND MANPOWER ADMINISTRATOR

Mr. HULL. Mr. Werts, I believe you are fully aware of the reason we asked you and Mr. Ruttenberg to come up here this morning.

Mr. WERTS. The question has been raised about why we have proposed to close the Denver regional offices of the BES and the Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training.

The question has been raised by Congressman Rogers. The Secretary of Labor on the 6th of March sent a letter to Congressman Rogers.

Mr. HULL. Why are you closing Denver and Cleveland and not closing the Boston and Seattle offices? I understand the plan originally was to close all four.

Mr. WERTS. In the letter to Congressman Rogers, the Secretary states that in cooperation with the Bureau of the Budget, the Department of Labor, the Office of Economic Opportunity, and the Department of HEW, developed a uniform regional pattern in 1965. As a result of that, the Department of Labor established a seven regional pattern which did not include Boston. Later, in coordination with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the same group of agencies, we reviewed the seventh regional pattern and added Boston as the eighth region.

Our plan still provides for eight regions, which would provide for the closing of Denver, Cleveland and Seattle offices.

Mr. HULL. I might say the Secretary's memorandum does not suit Congresman Rogers at all.

Mr. WERTS. I understand, and I hope I can elaborate a little on his problem.

As I indicated, we planned to go to the eight region pattern, and the only question that remains is one of timing. The organization (the Manpower Administration) and the employees involved can absorb only a certain amount of change. I think we probably would not have moved on Denver and Cleveland at the present time if it had not been to take advantage of opportunity.

The two regional directorships became vacant. One director passed away and another retired. This seemed to be a good time to make a move on these two regions.

I think the Congressman has raised the question that there are 10 States in this region making it a large region, but in negotiating the regional pattern with the other agencies, as has been mentioned, it was our conclusion that communications and travel make it possible to have fewer regions.

We believe that fewer regions will make better use of staff by having a larger staff in each region. It is possible to have more specialists who can deal more effectively with some of the special problems.

In the case of Manpower Administration, Mr. Ruttenberg has in mind a high degree of decentralization of authority to the field for operation. This means in many respects the regional offices will be able to serve the States and the citizens in these States better than they are now being served out of Washington.

I might also point out that the direct services to the citizens in the States are not provided by regional offices, but they are provided by State and local offices. BAT has one or more offices in each of these States. The Bureau of Employment Security, working through the State employment security agencies, has a State office and several local offices in each of the States. The Bureau of Work Training Programs does not have the same pattern, but there is no attempt to reduce the service provided by BWTP.

So all in all, we believe this is in the interest of better program operations and in no way decreases the services to the States or to the people in these States.

We considered a variety of regional patterns. The five-State region which composes the present Denver region has a population of about 4.7 million. It seemed to make sense to us to add this 4.7 million population to the 12.3 million population in Kansas City region rather than to add it to the 26.9 million in the west coast region. So this accounts for combining that particular group of States as against some other grouping.

Mr. Chairman, I think this gives some of the essential reasons why we have moved in the direction we have.

There is one other point which I might make.

The reason it is important to have common regional boundaries and common regional cities for the Department of Labor, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and OEO, is because there are several pieces of legislation which require their close cooperation.

The Manpower Development Training Act assigns responsibilities to both the Secretaries of Labor and HEW. The Economic Opportunity Act assigns responsibilities to the Director of OEO and the Secretaries of Labor and HEW and others.

The Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 assigns responsibility to the Secretary of HUD and to the heads of several Federal agencies, including the Secretary of Labor.

And the Social Security Act amendment of 1967 authorizes the work incentive program and assigns this responsibility to the Secretaries of Labor and HEW.

With this shared responsibility, it is necessary to have common regional patterns and common regional cities. Mr. HULL. Thank you very much.

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD

LIMITATION ON SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Mr. HULL. The Railroad Retirement Board is requesting a supplemental appropriation of $1,624,000 for 1968. We discussed this when the Board was before us a few weeks ago in connection with their re

quest for 1969. Since it was discussed then, and since the details are well covered in the justifications, the committee has decided not to call them in from Chicago for another hearing.

Without objection, the justifications will be placed in the record at this point.

(The justification material follows:)

PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1968

(Trust Fund)

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD

LIMITATION ON SALARIES AND EXPENSES

For an additional amount for "Salaries and expenses, Railroad Retirement Board (trust fund)", $1,624,000, of which $1,609,000 shall be derived from the railroad retirement account, and $15,000 shall be derived from the railroad retirement supplemental account.