The Concentrated Employment Program (CEP) was The New Careers Program, created by an amendment Problems Under Present Manpower System Despite increased federal financing and control, most manpower programs are implemented at the state and local level through state vocational education agencies, state rehabilitation agencies, public welfare agencies, private industry, and state employment security agencies. Critics of the present system cite a number of problems. 1. There is a proliferation of manpower programs with different funding sources and eligibility requirements. Despite the wide variety of services these programs offer, there are many persons who do not receive the kind of training they need. Often efforts are concentrated on filling available slots for a particular program rather than developing an appropriate mix of services that individuals may need. 2. There exists wasteful duplication in terms of delivery of manpower services. Coordination of programs and agencies remains an administrative problem. Federal agencies have competed for control of programs. They are operated by public agencies, nonprofit organizations and still others by profit-making companies. The Department of Labor deals with over 10,000 different sponsors in operating programs under its jurisdiction. Moreover, the programs are accompanied by a variety of regulations controlling the rate of pay, eligibility criteria, and conditions of training. 3. There is a concentration of manpower programs in Washington. These programs have depended upon federal initiative and control for their On the other hand, state and local authorities have been given little opportunity to exercise initiative and have little control over resource allocation and program administration. success. 4. New programs were created on a piecemeal basis with little consideration of their interaction with existing programs. Manpower policy is complex in terms of administration, and there are complaints of duplication and conflicts among federal agencies over jurisdiction and a corresponding confusion at the state and local levels. 5. Federal agencies encounter serious difficulties in coordinating grant programs and their different requirements, in handling the mountain of paper work involved, and generally in making certain that program goals set by Congress are achieved. The Proposed Manpower Training Act of 1969 On August 12, 1969, President Nixon proposed a new manpower training act "that would pull together much of the array of Federal training service and make it possible for State and local government to respond to the needs of the individual trainee." The Nixon manpower proposal was introduced as the proposed Manpower Training Act of 1969 (H. R. 13472 and S. 2838). The bill reflected dissatisfaction with the complexity and fragmentation of the nation's manpower programs: 1. It emphasized state authority and responsibility. Each state could have secured administrative control over federal manpower funds by establishing a comprehensive manpower agency. 2. It contemplated more efficient use of resources by providing for flexible funding of manpower training service. 3. It sought to reorder manpower training programs by repealing certain other manpower legislation, such as the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962 and Title V-A of the Economic Opportunity Act, and incorporating the activities they authorized into the Manpower Training Act of 1969. 4. It proposed computerized job banks to match available jobs with workers in an effort to reduce unemployment and inefficient use of manpower. 5. It would have authorized the secretary of labor to undertake a comprehensive program of manpower research, and to initiate pilot programs through grants to public and private nonprofit organizations. 6. It would have authorized the creation of a National Manpower Advisory Committee to make recommendations to the secretary of labor concerning problems of policy relating to employment and manpower training. 7. It would have authorized a 10 percent increase in manpower spending whenever unemployment reached at least 4.5 percent for three consecutive months. The proposal of 1969 was not reported out of committee. An alternative proposal, the Employment and Training Opportunities Act of 1970 (S. 3867) was introduced by Senator Gaylord Nelson (D., Wisc.). The Senate passed the Nelson bill on September 17, 1970 and an amended version was adopted by the House on November 17, 1970. As passed by Congress, S. 3867 provided for a separate public service employment program. President Nixon objected to the provision of "as much as 44 percent of the total funding" for "dead-end jobs in the public sector," and on December 16, 1970, he vetoed the bill. At that time he observed: W.P.A.-type jobs are not the answer for the men and The Emergency Employment Act of 1971 When the Emergency Employment Act of 1971 (S. 31) was introduced by Senator Gaylord Nelson, it was widely regarded as an alternative to the Manpower Revenue Sharing Act. On April 1, 1971, the Senate passed the Nelson bill and on June 2, 1971, the House version of the bill (H.R. 3613), by Representative Dominick V. Daniels (D., N.J.), was passed. On the same day the House rejected a motion to substitute the text of the manpower revenue sharing bil1 (H.R. 8141) for that of H.R. 3613. The compromise version of the bill finally agreed to by the Senate and House conferees was acceptable to President Nixon. The conference report stipulated that jobs created under the Emergency Employment Act must be transitional and lead to permanent positions in the public and private sectors. The report further noted that this requirement was "intended to make it crystal clear that public service employment shall not be the 'dead end, makework' sort that is feared by the critics of public service employment." The conference report was adopted by the Senate on June 29, and by the House on July 1, 1971. As cleared by Congress, the Emergency Employment Act of 1971: 1. Authorized $750 million for fiscal 1972 and $1 billion for fiscal 1973 to provide transitional public service jobs at the state and local level. Like the proposed Manpower Revenue Sharing Act, the funds for transitional public service jobs may be released when the rate of unemployment has been 4.5 percent or more for three consecutive months. 2. Provided $250 million for both fiscal 1972 and 1973 for a "special employment assistance" program to be used in localities where the rate of unemployment exceeds 6 percent, irrespective of the national rate of unemployment. 3. Provided that applicants for funds must assure that jobs offer opportunities for advancement and continuing employment. 4. Provided that veterans of the Korean War and Vietnam should be given preference in filling jobs, and that no more than one-third of the jobs can be in the executive or professional classification. 5. Provided that only 15 percent of funds could be used for training or administrative purposes, and required that 85 percent of funds be used for wages and other direct benefits to individuals employed under the act. 6. Provided that not more than 90 percent of funding for jobs be provided by the federal government unless the secretary of labor determines that the local agency can not afford 10 percent of the costs. 7. Provided that 80 percent of the funds must be apportioned among the states according to the percentage of unemployed persons in a state as compared to the national rate of unemployment; the remaining 20 percent of funds are to be distributed at the secretary of labor's discretion. President Nixon signed the Emergency Employment Act into law on July 12, 1971. At that time he announced that the leaders of the Senate and House labor committees had agreed to hold hearings on his manpower revenue sharing bill and to report out a bill by the end of the year. The President urged "early and favorable action" on the measure. MAIN PROVISIONS OF THE MANPOWER REVENUE SHARING BILL Overall Approach The proposed Manpower Revenue Sharing Act is part of an overall program designed by the Nixon administration to create more jobs, raise family incomes, and expand public services. This overall program basically consists of four elements: 1. A full employment federal budget which calls for expenditures of $229 billion in fiscal 1972. 2. General revenue sharing which would allocate $5 billion in unrestricted funds to state and local governments during its first year of operations. 3. A $4.5 billion welfare reform measure which would place a floor under the income of poor families, and provide new manpower service jobs for welfare recipients. 4. The Manpower Revenue Sharing Act. The Pending Bill The main provisions of the administration's manpower measure can be summarized as follows: 1. The bill would give state and local governments broad responsibility to carry out manpower programs. To facilitate this responsibility, $2 billion would be provided during the first full year of the Manpower Revenue Sharing Act's existence. Of funds distributed, 85 percent would go to the states and to cities and counties in metropolitan areas with populations greater than 100,000. These funds would be allocated according to statutory formula: Each state and locality's share would be determined by the proportion of the nation's workers, unemployed persons, and low income adults who live there. (See table, p. 15, for estimated allocations to the states.) The remaining 15 percent of the funds would be used by the secretary of labor to finance special activities: support and assistance for state and local programs through staff training and technical assistance, research, and experimental and demonstration programs designed to develop new manpower techniques. 2. Recipient units of government would have broad discretion in using funds for manpower purposes. The act specifies that the programs must be developmental and essentially transitional for each participant, and prepare the unemployed and underemployed to hold self-sustaining public |