turers to sieze upon these training subsidy programs or to start up small apparel plants, or to do the other thing that Industry is capable of doing to implement the National policy and programs. What will have to result is, first, the knowledge that these programs are available to the Industry and will have to be disseminated to the Industry. Secondly, some companies-not too many at firstwill undertake with local Employment Service people to attempt to develop these programs whereby they will be able to use the Federal training subsidies to give impetus to the program. Thirdly, these initial efforts will be watched and, if successful, the word of both the availability and usefulness of the programs will spread and there is likely to be, on a gradual, ascending scale, greater participation by the Apparel Industry in these programs with an increasing benefit to the achievement of the National goal of substituting payrolls for welfare rolls. Because of the nature of the Apparel Industry and because of the elements that are inherent in it which literally lend themselves to the implementation of the national Manpower policies, it is urged that appropriate action be taken by the Congress and by the Administrative Agencies to eliminate the "legislative history" barrier, as well as the administrative barriers, to participation by the Apparel Industry in those programs wherein the Federal Government provides subsidies to supplement training costs in sewing and other related operations. It is submitted that the end result of the elimination of such barriers cannot fail to be beneficial and in no sense will result in the harm erroneously forecast and improperly set forth as the basis of the "legislative history's" prohibition of such participation. AID COOP. Representative DOMINICK V. DANIELS, Los Angeles, Calif., December 2, 1969. DEAR REP. DANIELS: We are writing in behalf of the “Manpower Act” proposed by Rep. James G. O'Hara and at present before the Select Subcommittee on Labor under your chairmanship. For some time federal employment policy has directed its emphasis to the problems of the disadvantaged job seeker. The success of these job efforts in general within their scope has been well documented. Garth L. Mangum, for example, points this out with regard to MDT: ". . . MDT has made a significant contribution to the income of its poor enrollees." (p. 36: Contributions and Costs of MDT) But the Scathing criticism of government Manpower policy as well as the whole constellation of anti-poverty efforts is that they are not doing the job. These efforts are insufficient to eliminate the injustices of poverty And now day after day we hear about cutbacks in even these funds. The following quotation from the California Cooperative Manpower Plan for FY 1970 seems to typify what is happening around the country: . . . it might be generalized that the resources for these programs (specifically designed for the disadvantaged) approach the known needs of our citizens for an opportunity to begin the difficult task of achieving productiveness through job rehabilitation. But as meritorious as these programs are and as efficiently as they might be administered, the levels of funding, in most cases fall far short of the need for such programs. (p. 29) We think it is time for the government to pursue a policy which brings to bear resources on the problem of poverty measuring up to the need. Having revolted from Britain's reign because she would not permit us "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," it is fitting that we respond fully to our citizens' demand for the same. The "Manpower Act" is such a response in the area of job opportunities. The concept of public service employment for the disadvantaged on a large scale is also indicated in the "Manpower Act." This idea seems basically sound and quite exciting from results of studies reported by the Upjohn Institute for Employment Research and others. Thank you for your attention. Yours for positive change, MICHAEL P. GALLAGHER, SHEILA GALLAGHER, ROBERTALEE TRUMAN, DOROTHY M. TORRES. Hon. DOMINICK V. DANIELS, DES MOINES AREA (CAMPS), House Committee on Education and Labor, Cannon House Office Building. Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN DANIELS: The Des Moines Area C.A.M.P.S. Committee. representing manpower and related organizations in this area, wishes to go ca record as supporting the O'Hara bill now pending before Congress. We strive to make manpower programs in our area beneficial to everyone and not just to special interest groups. We feel that the O'Hara bill will come nearer to accomplishing this goal than either the Steiger bill or the administration bil Establishing more State and local control would probably be a detriment t manpower activities. Local politicians and special interest groups would be in a position to manipulate the manpower programs and would probably misdirect them, as they have already done with many programs under their administration A recent congressional hearing on manpower activities in this area is a god example of such inefficiency. The Des Moines Area C.A.M.P.S. Committee, which has been active for more than three years, was not even notified of the hearing None of the manpower agencies were aware of the hearing until after they read about it in the local newspaper. The testimony given at this hearing was from such individuals as a member of Future Farmers of America, an official of Bell Telephone Company, and a representative from Broadlawns Hospital in Des Moines. As far as we know, no manpower agency was called upon to testify at the hearing. It seems ridiculous that a volunteer committee, established specifically for the purpose of improving manpower activities in this area, was not even notified of the hearing. For this and other similar reasons, we favor the O'Hara bill, which places the ultimate responsibility for coordination of all manpower-related activities solely with the Secretary of Labor. ERNEST COMITO, Chairman. AUGUST 6, 1970. Mr. ERNEST COMITO, Des Moines Area (CAMPS), DEAR MR. COMITO: This is to acknowledge receipt of your statement concerning the manpower legislation pending before this Subcommittee and to assure you that it will be incorporated in the record of hearings on these bills. This Subcommittee held 27 days of public hearings, including hearings in Des Moines, Iowa; Los Angeles, California; Detroit, Michigan; and Seattle, Washington. When the field hearings were planned, I asked Congressmen who were members of the Subcommittee to assist by contacting witnesses who represent a cross-section of opinion and experience in manpower programs to present testimony before the Subcommittee. One of the members of the committee who is from the State of Iowa prepared the list of witnesses for the morning of hearings in Des Moines. I regret that due to time limitations, more witnesses from Iowa could not appear personally to give their views. However, at the hearing I announced that anyone wishing to make a statement should submit it in writing to the Subcommittee and it would be included in the record of the hearings and made available to all members of the committee. Since that date, one other Iowa organization besides yours has submitted comments for the record. Thanking you for your interest in this most important legislation, I am Sincerely, DOMINICK V. DANIELS, Chairman, Select Subcommittee on Labor. TRANSPORTATION OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM, INC.. HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR. GENTLEMEN: Enclosed you will find some information about the Transportation Opportunity Program, Inc., which is operating on the third year of an E & D Contract with the U.S. Departments of Labor and Health, Education and Welfare. (Information referred to available in Select Subcommittee on Labor). As the enclosed letter will indicate, there seems little likelihood that TOP will be able to secure funds from the state for operation of the program past October 31, 1970, the expiration date of the present contract. On the other hand, since we have had three years of E & D funding. National funding will not be available in the future. As the placement and retention figures indicate, ours has been a very successful program and I believe that if a fair evaluation were made, TOP would compare favorably with any other program in California. In terms of earnings of graduates (average $3.87 per hour), I believe TOP will compare favorably with any other program in the nation. Yet we are denied funding! No one has offered a valid reason as to why our program has been denied future funding. I cite the following facts: We are not duplicating training of any other program in California. Our placement record is well over 90% of our graduates. Most of our graduates are placed in jobs covered by union contracts at good rates of pay. We have trained a higher percentage of ex-convicts than any other MDTA program that I know of. We have no educational requirements for admission to our program. There is a growing need for qualified diesel truck drivers in this area. Almost 50% of the heavy-duty drivers presently working will be retiring in the next 10 years. TOP has been instrumental in helping the trucking industry to solve its equal employment opportunity compliance problems. We have trained the following number of entry drivers, broken down by ethnic group: In addition to the entry program, TOP also conducts an upgrading program on evenings and week-ends. These figures indicate that TOP has done a good job of recruiting minorities for the upgrading program, since the minority percentages of trainees are far higher than the percentage of minority employees presently working in the trucking industry. In view of our record, we cannot understand the reluctance or the refusal of state agencies to grant us funds for the continuation of TOP. The very purpose of E&D Programs is to find new ways to conduct or organize training programs with the end goal that, if they are successful, they be included as part of the regular state programs. How, under proposed legislation, will problems like ours be handled? We have four (4) recommendations to make: 1. Any proposed legislation should include an evaluation procedure to assist CAMPS in determining which programs most merit the limited funds available. 2. Maybe the time limit on E&D funds can be extended if budgetary problems limit a state's ability to pick up funding for a successful E&D program. 3. In situations similar to TOP, the Secretary of Labor should be given discretionary funds to continue successful E & D programs. 4. National contracts to private organizations should be made available on other than a year to year basis. Since the Committee has had only a limited time to hear testimony in Los Angeles, and I was not able to appear as a witness, I respectfully request an opportunity to meet with the Committee at some future date to discuss these serious shortcomings on the present planning and funding systems. Respectfully submitted, DONALD D. S 3. Project Director. DONALD D. SANBURN, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, Transportation Opportunities Program, Inc., Pico Rivera, Calif. DEAR MR. SANBURN: I am writing at this time to inform you of recent acties pertaining to Fiscal Year 1971 MDTA funding of the Transportation Opportar ties Programs, Inc. (TOP). As you know, TOP has always been directly funded by the national offices of the U.S. Departments of Labor and Health, Education and Welfare out of the unallotted reserve. Aware that continuation of that method of funding is usertain we, in the Department of Human Resources Development, explored the possibility of including your training program in the Southern Region DHRD estimated allotment of the Fiscal Year 1971 MDTA State apportionment of tran ing slots. Accordingly, the matter was included on the agenda for the Southern Region DHRD MDTA Planning Committee meeting held in February. The findings and recommendation of the Committee were that owing to the critical reduction (approximately 20%) in MDTA training slots for FY 7 in comparison to FY '70, it would not be possible to fund TOP out of the cur tailed slot allotment without further cut-backs, over and above those already dictated by the 20% reduction. These cut-backs will have to occur in effective programs traditionally funded out of the State MDTA apportionment. The Planning Committee therefore recommended that TOP should not be in cluded in the Southern Region's allotment of that apportionment. The question of locally funding TOP was also put before the March 12, 1970 meetings of the MDT Operations Committee and the MDT Advisory Courï. along with the recommendation of the Planning Committee. After being pre sented with the local MDTA funding picture for FY '71 both groups reluctanty determined that your program, along with others must of necessity, be excluded from the regular California State MDTA FY '71 funding. TOP has performed a valuable service to the community, and we sincerely hope will continue to do so. We are genuinely sorry that circumstances, some of which have been noted herein, preclude inclusion. I hope that this letter will serve to give you sufficient time to arrange alternate funding. Our association in the past has been meaningful in terms of service to the diadvantaged, and I hope that we may continue to work together in the future. Sincerely, LOUIS J. JOHNSON, Regional Deputy Director, Southern Region. PARIS JUNIOR COLLEGE, Hon. DOMINICK V. DANIELS, DEAR CONGRESSMAN DANIELS: The attached summary of the proposed Manpower Development and Training Act of 1970 has come to my attention. As ar educational institution offering MDTA programs, we can give wholehearted sup port to the provisions of this proposal. I would like to suggest that you consider introducing a bill in the House similar to S3878 recently introduced in the Senate. Thank you for your splendid support of junior college education. LOUIS B. WILLIAMS, President. KEY PROVISIONS IN THE PROPOSED MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING ACT OF 1970 The Bill, $ 3878, has been introduced by Senator William Prouty of Vermont. Prouty was one of the primary sponsors of the Act of 1962 and also one of the sponsors of one of the Comprehensive Manpower Training Bills on which hear ings have been conducted. § 3878 is designed as an effective compromise between pending manpower bills and the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962. Below in brief outline form are the key provisions in Senator Prouty's Bill A National Manpower Advisory Committee of 15 members. A special Manpower Assistant to the President. Computerized labor market information system-local, State, and National. Health Services, including child care for trainees. Basic set of tools for each trainee where tools must be furnished by the trainee where he is to be employed. Work experience program for grades 9-12. A two-weeks allowance bonus for each trainee completing training course. State approval of all training proposals after the State Plan has been approved. Secretary of Labor and Secretary of Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to retain basic responsibilities as in Manpower Development and Training Act, 1962. Training arranged by Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in consultation with the Secretary of Department of Labor. Evaluation of training arranged by Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare in consultation with the Secretary of the Department of Labor. Loans and grants made to trainees for relocation purposes. Grants or contracts for training personnel needed to render technical assistance to Manpower Training. Work experience in socially useful work in public and private agencies in fields of health, public safety, education, recreation, etc. Training in correctional institutes, in transition, in Rural Area Redevelopment areas as before. Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and Secretary of the Department of Labor jointly enter into agreement with the Governor of each State under which a State Manpower Advisory Council will develop and administer a comprehensive manpower plan for the State-the committee to be appointed by the Governor. Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare will enter into agreement with the appropriate State Education Agency to provide training. Repeals certain amendments to the Economic Opportunity Act. Extends Manpower Development and Training Act of 1970 to June 30, 1975. Joint approval of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Department of Labor on National CAMPS Issuances. Eighty percent of funds go to the States before NABS-JOBS, and similar programs get their funds. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Department of Labor jointly decide how Unapportioned Account (the 20%) will be utilized. Overall, the bill gives much more authority to the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and to the various States. FAMILY AND CHILD SERVICES OF WASHINGTON, D.C., Hon. DOMINICK V. DANIELS, Chairman, Select Committee on Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Washington, May 27, 1970. DEAR MR. DANIELS: I hope that the following statement may be inserted in the RECORD of the recent hearings on Manpower Legislation held by the Select Subcommittee on Labor, of which you are Chairman. Family and Child Services, the largest voluntary family service agency in Washington, D.C., would like to strongly endorse and associate itself with the testimony presented by Mr. Markham Ball, representing the National Capital Area Health and Welfare Council, on April 23. We work with many families whose major problems stem from an inability to find appropriate fully self-supporting employment. We deplore the serious inadequacies and ineffectiveness of existing programs, which with their frequent lack of follow-through, proper coordination, and supporting services are not only an actual waste of funds but act as a disincentive to seeking training and employment. We particularly urge the Committee to provide for adequate programs for day care, without which no manpower legislation can be more than partially successful, counselling and other supportive services. We believe that specific jobs must be available to those enrolled in training programs. |