Page images
PDF
EPUB

I have been told by people wiser than I that this is a difficult thing for the Government to do, because it is always under pressure to pay out its money under equal formulas, so everybody gets an equal amount, but I won't stop trying.

I think there are examples of Federal programs where the Federal Government has put its money where there is evidence of the highest degree of capability, the highest degree of performance, the greatest desire.

I think this is the only thing that we can do to stimulate the kind of thing that you described, and which I agree with you is extremely important.

Mr. SCHRANK. I would like to add this: The MDTA experience has basically been run by the vocational education schools, and I think it has given the vocational education system a whole new experience in this field and has acted as a catalyst in many ways to make them begin to think about what the vocational education system does and doesn't do.

I would make a guesstimate that many of the local planning organizations, either city or State, would, in fact, in their local planning include the vocational education system as part of their training operation.

I would see no reason why they wouldn't, since that system is in many ways best equipped to begin to do that, and I think it has an effect on the system.

Mr. MEEDS. I recognize my question was very general, and purposely so to evoke general responses, but if I may become a little more specific, do you have the bills before you, do you have the O'Hara bill?

Mr. SVIRIDOFF. No.

Mr. MEEDS. I will read from page 9, subsection 13, beginning on line 4. These are things which the Secretary of Labor would provide: "Skill training centers wherever consolidation of occupational training and related manpower services would promote efficiency and provide improved services."

I am one of the people, I guess, that Mr. Steiger described as being concerned, not that vocational education must have a complete role in this, but that programs be so dovetailed and so interrelated and integrated that we not get away from this today, which I hope will occur in the future, when vocational and technical education is performing a larger role.

I am, therefore, concerned that if we are going to have a skill training center in an area, or provide for new skill training centers under this bill, that it be operated by the Secretary of Labor. I think I would rather see it operated by the local education agencies so that it could not only respond to the manpower needs and the manpower function, but could also be responding during the daytime to the local high schools' educational needs and be under control of the local educational agency.

I am not clear even in my own mind about this, except that I don't want to widen what I consider to be a presently occurring schism between education and manpower.

Mr. SVIRIDOFF. Why not, Congressman, both? That is, why not substantial amounts of responsibility for training in basic education

placed with vocational education and with other institutions in the community?

For example, in Philadelphia, why would you not contract or delegate some of that responsibility to Rev. Leon Sullivan's OIC?

Maybe you wouldn't do it in some other area, because there the OIC might not have so high a level of competency. The OIC in Philadel phia clearly has a healthy impact on the institution of vocational education in the city of Philadelphia.

There was a time-it is no longer the case-in New York when the Port Authority carried out under contract a rather substantial amount of vocational education for city agencies. It provided a kind of healthy competitive situation to the school system and to other instruments for vocational education.

I would leave that to the local sponsor, but I would provide again some carrot to encourage him to improve the vocational education system and not to try to create a competitive system.

Mr. MEEDS. Seemingly, we may be able to get more money for manpower programs, considerably more money, because the situation is acute, and we have legislation which under its authority at this time could be appropriating $1,250 million to vocational education.

But what happens? We in the Congress, through maximum efforts come up with, I think, around 399 million, which is chopped back down, and vetoed by the President, and we are nowhere near where we should be in vocational education, and yet the administration is pushing on and asking for more money-I agree, because I think we need it asking for money for manpower programs.

I just become very frustrated when I see a further divergence occurring. I think this young man wanted to respond.

Mr. WHITING. It is not automatically desirable to have a unitary school system.

It is one thing to mandate incorporation of vocational education systems in manpower systems, and that is probably undesirable. It is another thing to put the carrot up and provide incentives and guide lines to foster cooperation. This may change the older and somewha unresponsive organizations now providing services.

This is a far more desirable way to go than mandating in an act or in regulations, that certain services be provided by certain institu tions nationwide. It is much more desirable to foster diversity amon institutions according to the local situation.

The difficulty is setting up the standards so that you can make judgment that in this community the board of education is the plac to put the services, and in that community it is the CAP, and in a other the employment service.

But that is the desirable type of standard.

Mr. MEEDS. I appreciate all your comments on that subject. It one that really perplexes me.

Now, I would like to get to the second part of my question. You statement on page 8, at the bottom you say, "There is serious questi now over whether even an economy in inflation can provide enoug jobs for all those potentially able to work, and a recession could easi render most manpower programs rather superfluous. Hence, it is utmost importance to maintian a full employment economy and

explore more fully the issue surrounding a major public job creation program."

This statement brings me to the very root of one of the greatest questions of conscience, and I will be very frank about it, about even passing this legislation, and if I may, I will illustrate it, what happens with people when you go out and you say, "Well, we are going to enter you in job training so you can get a job," and you and I know realistically before we even start that the chances of their getting a job are practically nil.

Is it really fair to hold out the promise or at least the implied promise that there is a job at the end of the road, that they are in training for something which they can achieve, when, with the economic situation as it is today, I do not think personally that it is realistic that many of the marginally employable people, people with whom this legislation deals largely, are going to get jobs under the state of our economy, and aren't we in fact creating what some Englishman once described as a "generation of dissatisfied English clerks," who have been trained, and who have been further frustrated by their inability to secure employment?

I am torn, because I recognize the progressive nature of this legislation, the consolidation, the computerized job banks. I have been plugging for that now for 4 years, and a number of other good aspects of this job.

But at the same time, I have charged off on so many good missions only to find the money cut out from under me or the jobs go at the end of the trail, that I am getting a little tired of raising people's expectations only to have them dashed on our ability to come through. Mr. SVIDOFF. I think you are absolutely right, Congressman. Clearly more important than this legislation is the maintenance of high levels of employment. That ought to come first.

But, having said that, it is also clearly desirable to develop finally in this country some kind of rational system for delivering manpower services and training services, for the obvious reason that a better system of services will lead, first of all, to more employable members of the labor market and, second, because an effective system of training and education and employment services will serve to raise the level of productivity of our labor force, and will contribute to the creation and ultimately the maintenance of our high employment economy. But this is not to say that your first point is not the most critical point.

Mr. MEEDS. Ought we not, then, to be doing what the chairman and I and others in this Congress tried to do several years ago by amending the Wagner-Peyser Act, and coming forward with the computerized job bank and all the delivery system, without coming forward at this time with, in effect, promises of training and employment.

Mr. SVIRIDOFF. I would hope Congress could do both. I think they are both important, and giving some meaning to the Full Employment Act of 1946 is clearly important.

Mr. MEEDS. I would hope we would, too, but let us be realistic. When we have legislation such as the education bill, and I keep going back to this, in which there is a difference between our aspiration and the White House's aspiration, and the amount is ultimately $100 mil

lion, and the kind of programs we are talking about here and the maintenance of high levels of employment-you know, we are talking about $20 million.

So, being realistic, I don't see that the type of thing that you are asking the Congress to do is going to be done. Agreed, I would like to do it, and I am sure the chairman would like to do it, and maybe even the majority members on this committee, but you see, we can't even get a majority of members for $400 million, so it is not realistic. Mr. SVIRIDOFF. I have nothing but sympathy for the awkward posi tion in which you find yourself.

Mr. DANIELS. With respect to the question Mr. Meeds asked, doesn't there appear to be an inconsistency between the main objective of this bill, which is guaranteed employment to everyone who desires to work, and the economic situation and the philosophy we see expressed in the country today?

Mr. SVIRIDOFF. Yes. But I don't think the best possible version of the bill can guarantee full employment. This is not a full employment bill. It is a manpower training and service and assistance bill. It is an important element in a full employment strategy, but it is not a full employment bill, and I don't think any of us should delude ourselves that this is what it is, or can ever be.

Mr. DANIELS. That view has been expressed here by some of the witnesses.

Mr. MEEDS. I think that is all, Mr. Chairman.

I think you see my frustrations.

Mr. SVIRIDOFF. All too clearly.

Mr. DANIELS. I want to thank you as chairman of the subcommittee. You have given us thoughts here to ponder over as to what we should do in reporting out some legislation along this line.

Your ideas have been most helpful.

Mr. SVIRIDOFF. Thank you for inviting us.

(Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m. the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., March 12, 1970.)

MANPOWER ACT OF 1969

THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 1970

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR

OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:20 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lloyd Meeds presiding. Present: Representatives Meeds, Hawkins, Scherle, and Quie. Staff members present: Daniel H. Krivit, counsel; Charles Radcliffe, minority counsel for education; Sue Nelson, research assistant; and Cathy Romano, research assistant.

Mr. MEEDS. The Select Subcommittee on Labor will be in order for the further consideration of bills H.R. 10908, H.R. 11620, and H.R. 15472 and other manpower proposals.

We are honored this morning to have with us the Under Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Richard C. Van Dusen. We welcome you to the committee, and you may proceed as you wish. I see you have a prepared text. You may read it, or you may take from it what you like and testify extemporaneously, but in any event, your testimony will be made part of the record.

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD C. VAN DUSEN, UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES T. MUNTAIN, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE SECRETARY FOR LABOR RELATIONS; AND DAVID BLUM, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL

Mr. VAN DUSEN. I will be guided by whether you would like to hear the testimony, or proceed immediately to questions.

Mr. MEEDS. We would prefer to have you testify first.

Mr. VAN DUSEN. Good. In that event, Mr. Chairman, I will proceed with the testimony, if I may.

I certainly welcome the opportunity to discuss with you the proposed Manpower Training Act. The Department of Housing and Urban Development is convinced that this legislation is timely and extremely important if the Nation's manpower needs in all areas are to be met. We are particularly pleased with the structure for manpower program planning and operations set forth in the bill because it reflects the administration's policy of sharing with State and local

« PreviousContinue »