Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. WEINSTEIN. Yes, certainly.

Mr. STEIGER. And you would also agree, would you not, that we ought to strive to try to decentralize the administration and the planning of those programs to the greatest extent possible?

Mr. WEINSTEIN. To the greatest extent possible consistent with making sure that national goals are met, yes, I do.

Mr. STEIGER. Thank you very much. Your testimony has been helpful.

Would you submit the recommendations that you have as soon as you can?

Mr. WEINSTEIN. Surely.

Mr. DANIELS. Dr. Weinstein, you did not read your statement, so I shall move at this time, if there is no objection, that your prepared statement will be inserted into the record immediately preceding your oral testimony.

Mr. WEINSTEIN. Thank you.

Mr. STEIGER. Mr. Quie asked a question to which I don't have an

answer.

Are there other regional CAMPS, administrative operations, going?

Mr. WEINSTEIN. I was the first. It is sort of interesting how it began. It was at our briefing session for the Middle Atlantic States. To be perfectly frank, the middle Atlantic CAMPS chairmen were so frustrated in terms of what we were supposed to be doing that we got together.

Now, North Carolina has broken away from region 3 and they are going to set this up as a Southern organization. I have talked to my Counterparts in Iowa and Utah. I think a number of people are talking about the same sort of thing. We find that we can pick up a great deal of information talking back and forth to each other. It has been a useful channel for me. In fact, I think it was a useful channel for the regional manpower administrator, because he found out a lot of what was going on at the State and local level.

We held the State CAMPS meeting in Prince Georges County, and we had people from the national office there. I think they got a lavor of what it was like to try to prepare a manpower plan under the sort of rules that are now existing.

Mr. DANIELS. We have no further questions, Doctor.

Mr. WEINSTEIN. I would like to say that I think the problems raised by the SMSA's and our positions are very difficult, where we have two manpower administrators, two Governors.

We have been trying to organize. Most people have the view of -uburbia as being a nice middle-class area without any manpower problems. I can tell you that Prince Georges County has problems which are fully equal to many that you have in most central cities, and we are very much concerned that if manpower planning and allocation is centralized under the mayor of the central city, that our own programs will not be met, our own needs will not be met. This Las been our experience.

Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to appear. Mr. DANIELS. On behalf of the committee, I want to thank you. Mr. Weinstein and Mr. Devlin, for appearing here today.

The next meeting of the subcommittee will be held on Tuesday, February 3, when the subcommittee will meet in room 2175 of this building, at which time we will hear OEO Director, a former colleague in the House, Donald Rumsfeld.

The subcommittee will meet at 10 a.m.

(Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m. the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday, February 3, 1970, in room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building.)

MANPOWER ACT OF 1969

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1970

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR

OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dominick V. Daniels (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Daniels, O'Hara, Hawkins, Steiger, and Esch.

Staff members present: Daniel H. Krivit, counsel; Sue Nelson, research assistant; Cathy Romano, research assistant; and Charles Radcliffe, minority counsel for education.

Mr. DANIELS. The Select Subcommittee on Labor will come to order.

This morning we will continue with hearings on various bills pending before this subcommittee with reference to developing and strengthening of a comprehensive national manpower policy and also to endeavor to provide opportunities for employment to every American seeking work.

Our first witness this morning is Mr. Wesley Hjornevik, deputy director, Office of Economic Opportunity, who is appearing on behalf of Mr. Donald Rumsfeld, the Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity.

Mr. Hjornevik, I extend to you a most cordial welcome.

STATEMENT OF WESLEY HJORNEVIK, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY

Mr. HJORNEVIK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DANIELS. I notice you have associates from your office with you. They are at liberty to come to the witness table.

You may proceed, sir.

Mr. HJØRNEVIK. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

I appreciate having this occasion to present the views of the Office of Economic Opportunity on H.R. 13472, the President's Manpower Training Act proposal.

The President has just submitted to the Congress his budgetary recommendations for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1970. The Manpower Training Act and Family Assistance Act are among the major social legislative proposals provided for in that budget, along with appropriation requests for the continuation of existing programs financed under the Economic Opportunity Act and other authorities. I am hopeful that the Congress will approve all of these administration proposals.

The business of the day, however, is the Manpower Training Act. To assist you in your consideration of this comprehensive legislation. I will address the need for its enactment and its importance to this country's 24.2 million low-income and disadvantaged people. I will also address myself to the future role of the Office of Economic Opportunity in our Nation's manpower programs.

The question of how the proposed Manpower Training Act will work has been exhaustively covered by the Secretary of Labor, the Honorable George P. Shultz, in earlier testimony before this subcommittee. I will not attempt to amplify his remarks on the details of the bill. Instead, I will comment on those aspects of the proposal which directly relate to the responsibilities and interests of our agency.

The need for this new legislation was well stated in the President's message on Manpower Training of August 12, 1969, in which he indicated that:

[The] confused state of affairs in the development of human resources can no longer be tolerated. Government exists to serve the needs of people, not the other way around. The idea of creating a set of programs, and then expecting people to fit themselves into those programs, is contrary to the American spirit; we must redirect our efforts to tailor government aid to individual need.

The President added that "the need today is to know together all the appropriate [manpower] services in one readily available system. By taking this step, we can better help the disadvantaged gain control of their own lives." This is the New Federalism in action.

The recent past serves us well as prologue to these manpower proposals. We have witnessed over the past decade a tremendous proliferation of federally designed and regulated efforts dealing with the work and training requirements of special segments of the population. Standardized program designs have been used, providing little opportunity for local sponsors to adjust either dollar resources or individual training activities to the economic realities and job develop ment potentials within the community. Because of this, disadvantaged persons have been confronted with a confusing array of manpower programs which in many instances are not adequately tailored to their special needs.

The first concerted effort of the Federal Government to train the unemployed in depressed areas was the Area Redevelopment Act of 1961. It was based on the experience of States like Pennsylvania and West Virginia in retraining former coal miners to meet the skill requirements of the new industries becoming established in mining communities.

That act was the precursor of the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962. MDTA is a national effort which was initially enacted to help equip already experienced but technologically unem ployed workers with new skills, so that they could obtain employment in expanding industries or occupations.

Since 1964, we have seen the rapid development of work and train ing programs under the authorities of the Economic Opportunity Act which focus on the chronic needs of low-income persons. These include the Neighborhood Youth Corps, Job Corps, Operation Mainstream New Careers, Concentrated Employment, Job Opportunities in the Business Sector, and Public Service Careers programs. In addition Manpower Development and Training Act resources and activitie have been increasingly concentrated on serving the disadvantaged.

From its establishment in 1964, the Neighborhood Youth Corps program has been administered by the Department of Labor under a delegation of authority from our agency. In 1966, the previous administration concluded that with the rapid growth and proliferation of manpower activities at the local level a need had arisen to transfer responsibility for the day-to-day administration of other Economic Opportunity Act manpower programs to the Department. By doing this, it was concluded, it would be possible to make the most effective use of available resources and to improve the delivery of manpower services to the poor. Accordingly, all of our remaining title I manpower programs, other than the Job Corps, were delegated to the Department under a revised delegation agreement. The Job Corps program, as you know, was likewise delegated to the Department a few months ago.

Under these delegation arrangements, there has been extensive involvement of local community action agencies and State employment service offices in the delivery of needed manpower services to disadvantaged persons in urban and rural communities. This arrangement has improved the flow of assistance to low-income persons, but it has not created total community planning and involvement in this critical business.

One mechanism created to achieve better State and local planning was the cooperative area manpower planning system. CAMPS was designed as a means for getting communitywide and statewide involvement and for avoiding wasteful duplication. It has been a useful device for bringing interested parties to the table, but it has not provided the answer to good manpower planning, coordination, and program execution at either the State or community levels. In our political system, that objective can best be accomplished through the auspices of elected public officials in a given community. Local and State governments have the capacity to pull together resources in a way which will provide maximum benefit to the individual. Under the proposed Manpower Training Act, public officials will have the flexibility and the responsibility to achieve that goal.

The Manpower Training Act does not establish a "no strings. attached" approach to the provision of manpower training. Secretary Shultz has pointed out the substantial role to be played by him in the process of planning and in the allocation of appropriations. An indiscriminate abandonment of Federal responsibility was certainly not intended by the President. In his address on domestic programs of August 8, 1969, he made the following statement:

What I have proposed is not a sudden dumping of these programs on unprepared local authorities, but rather a careful, phased transfer, with benchmarks of readiness and incentives for performance. If the localities decline to pick up the responsibility, the Federal Government will continue to manage the programs. If they try and fail, the Federal Government can resume the responsibility. We should trust the American capacity for self-government enough to try. The only way to bring about decentralization is to do it, and this is the place to begin.

That statement is an appropriate introduction to a discussion of the Office of Economic Opportunity's role under the Manpower Training Act. On July 1, 1970, JOBS, NYC, CEP, and other programs under title I-B of the Economic Opportunity Act would be transferred to the Department of Labor. Job Corps, which is authorized. under title I-A, would not be transferred until July 1, 1971, and it

« PreviousContinue »