Page images
PDF
EPUB

In view of these two statements, what is going to be the role of the disadvantaged on any State or local council keeping in mind that under the Office of Economic Opportunity operation now, the disadvantaged have one-third representation. Will this representation be continued?

Will it be diluted? Will it be increased? In what way are you going to accomplish the objective of at least the stated goal of giving the disadvantaged greater control over their lives?

Mr. HJORNEVIK. The representation of clientele and I think in any service program then it ought to be important that the people served have a voice in how well the service is given-is provided for both at the local and State levels in an advisory mechanism. That advisory mechanism is also required to give an independent judgment to the elected officials of how they view the program that has been put together by the State comprehensive agency or the local agency.

It does not provide, and cannot, if you are going to work through elected officials, for putting an elected official under a board or management group of clientele people.

The system basically works the other way around. The elected offirials are elected by the people and represent the people.

The agencies within that structure that give service are increasingly following the example of community action agencies and model city agencies of providing the appropriate mechanism for the voices of those served by the service agency.

We think it is not a service to disadvantaged people to create such a welter and confusion of bureaucracy that they can't find which button to push to get help.

Mr. HAWKINS. Under the Economic Opportunity Act now which you administer, the disadvantaged have one-third representation on a body-local community action agency-which makes decisions concerning the lives of poor people.

Under the proposed manpower act that you are supporting today as an agency, the poor will be given, as you indicate, the advisorypurely advisory role-not a role in making a decision.

Therefore, as one agency representing the poor in which they do have legal representation in decisionmaking agreeing to pass over to another agency that which you yourself enjoy or at least an agency which does have that safeguard, are you willing to trust it then to a Lew agency in which the poor will not be as adequately represented? Mr. HJORNEVIK. I don't think that is quite the case, sir. Mr. HAWKINS. What is the case?

Mr. HJORNEVIK. I think what would happen is that in addition to he one-third representation on the boards of the CAA's-which will ontinue to be active in manpower programs-in addition to that, the lientele group would have an opportunity to advise and really to preent recommendations to the highest elected officials in the SMSA on ow they feel about it. It is an additional input for the disadvantaged. Mr. HAWKINS. I don't think anybody can refuse to deny them an pportunity to advise their public officials now. We don't need legislaon for individual citizens to advise their officials. We are now talking bout participation in making a decision. I think there is a vast differne between advising and being in a position to make a decision. You have not yet clarified for me just in what way the poor are going

to be involved in making decisions, or, as the statement on page 2. says, "gaining control of their own lives."

Specifically on a council, let's say there is a statement and a State plan and it creates a State council, and let's say the State council consists of 24 persons, in what way are the poor going to be represented, on this council?

How many will be represented? Will they be given two, three, or one-third or any specific number of that council in order that they will have some meaningful representation?

What about the local councils? Is there any mandatory provision that they constitute a certain percentage of a local council?

Mr. HJORNEVIK. No, sir; there is not. The legislation talks generally of the types of representations that are required.

Mr. HAWKINS. So that using the definition, a broad definition then as a representative of a poor district, I could then be included as a representative of the poor, I suppose, on a State council?

Mr. HJORNEVIK. The legislation is general on this score, in terms of creating, I am sure, a reasonably sized body that has adequate representation of the people interested.

The bill does require explicitly that the clientele groups be represented and the disadavntage be represented. It does not specify the proportion.

Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you. I will be glad to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. STEIGER. You made passing reference sometime ago to the provisions on pages 60, 61, 62, and 63, of the administration bill, which amends title I, part B, of the Economic Opportunity Act.

In your statement, you don't refer to that. I wonder if by your failure to have mentioned this specifically in your statement you are not interested in this section, or rather, am I correct in assuming that you believe very strongly that the amendments to part B of the act as proposed in the administration bill are absolutely essential for the operation of the Office of Economic Opportunity?

Mr. HJORNEVIK. I feel the latter. It was an oversight on my part that I had not included it in my prepared statement. I believe when I read the statement I actually referred to them quite strongly as amendments and action that we wanted.

It was one of our inputs into the design of the administration bill It makes clear that this agency will continue to have the capability o going in the field with a new idea and demonstrating it, and we thin this is important to the role of this agency in assuring that manpowe training programs are in fact responsive to the needs of the poor. Mr. HAWKINS. Any manpower bill that comes out of this committe that proposed to transfer those programs now found in title I the Economic Opportunity Act language ought to include this ne language insofar as your research capability is concerned.

Mr. HJØRNEVIK. Yes, sir; we would explicitly want that.

Mr. DANIELS. There being no further questions, the Select Su committee will adjourn. I want to on behalf of the committee tha you, Mr. Hjornevik for your testimony.

I wish to announce that the next meeting of the Select Subcommitt on Labor will be held on Wednesday, February 18, 1970, at 10 o'clo in this room, 2175 of the Rayburn Building, and that the witnesses w

are scheduled to appear are Mayor Walter Washington of the District of Columbia and Joseph Duffey, National Chairman of the Americans for Democratic Action.

The committee stands adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m. the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, February 18, 1970.)

44-425-70-pt. 1-15

MANPOWER ACT OF 1969

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1970

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR

OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 9:15 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dominick V. Daniels (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Daniels, Meeds, Hawkins, Gaydos, Scherle, Quie, and Steiger.

Staff members present: Daniel H. Krivit, majority counsel; and Marty La Vor, minority legislative assistant; Loretta Bowen, clerk; and Sue Nelson, research assistant.

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

This morning we continue hearings on the subject matter of manpower. There are several bills pending before this committee with this ubject matter.

I am pleased to announce that our first witness this morning is the Honorable Walter Washington, Mayor of the District of Columbia. extend to you, Mayor Washington, a welcome.

TATEMENT OF HON. WALTER WASHINGTON, MAYOR OF WASHINGTON, D.C.; ACCOMPANIED BY HORACE R. HOLMES, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MANPOWER ADMINISTRATOR

Mayor WASHINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have submitted a statement. Would you like me to summarize or shall I read it into the record?

Mr. DANIELS. Mr. Mayor, you are at liberty to use your own judgnt on whether you want to read it or summarize it, in any event will be put in the record.

Mayor WASHINGTON. It is probably short enough to read.
Mr. DANIELS. Yes.

Mayor WASHINGTON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: welcome the opportunity to discuss with you the proposed manver bills now pending before the Congress. If my reading of the ee bills is correct, all of them have a basic similarity in that they mpt to consolidate a number of separate existing pieces of maner legislation and to eliminate the program categories that now t.

here is one thing I might say parenthetically, that as I talk to ors throughout the country, I find that this is probably a most.

« PreviousContinue »