MANPOWER ACT OF 1969 MONDAY, MARCH 30, 1970 U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Detroit, Mich. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to call, in the Federal Building, Detroit, Mich., Hon. Dominick V. Daniels (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Daniels, O'Hara, Ford, Hawkins, and Steiger. Staff members present: Daniel H. Krivit, counsel to the Select Subcommittee; Loretta Bowen, clerk; Marty LaVor, minority legislative coordinator, and Will Henderson, assistant minority clerk. Mr. DANIELS. The Select Subcommittee on Labor will come to order. We meet today for the purpose of considering H.R. 10908, H.R. 11620 and H.R. 13472, bills to establish a revised national comprehensive manpower program. The Employment Act of 1946 adopted as a national policy the commitment to strive to maintain a total supply of jobs in the Nation. Since that time numerous legislative enactments have implemented this important goal. Originally it was widely believed that the fault in being jobless rested almost exclusively with the unemployed. But experience has revealed that if people were deficient, so too was the system. The unemployed or underemployed not only lack basic job skills and education, but also are often trapped in the slum-ridden core of inner cities and poverty-stricken rural areas. Ironically the most disadvantaged of our citizens are those least likely to know about manpower services. Thus, many of the present unemployed and underemployed are disillusioned. Their training and placement in jobs are compounded by many obstacles such as family and child care problems and legal and credit questions, and transportation to and from places of employment. According to the President's 1969 Manpower Report, about 11 million people were jobless at some time during 1968. Of this great pool of unemployed about 4.5 million are nonwhite. Half are women. Four million are youths under 21 years of age. Three million live in urban slums and 3 million live in rural depressed areas. About 2.8 million persons were without jobs in an average week. The purpose of these field hearings is two fold; first, we want to learn from the administrators of manpower programs and from elected officials how to coordinate and improve the delivery systems of manpower services; and secondly we want to question the recipients of manpower services to learn how to make manpower programs more responsive to the individual needs of the unemployed and/or underemployed. The three proposals under consideration by this subcommittee are similar in the respect that they all propose to consolidate authority for the wide variety of manpower programs and their related activities under the Secretary of Labor. A significant difference among the proposals lies in the degree of responsibility to be given to the Federal, State and local levels of government in program development, administration and operation. H.R. 10908, the Comprehensive Manpower Act, has been introduced by my colleague, the Honorable William Steiger of Wisconsin. Mr. Steiger's bill would require the States to develop a comprehensive manpower plan which would be submitted to the Secretary of Labor for final approval and funding. These plans would be operated by the Governors of the respective States according to the guidelines and standards prescribed by the Secretary of Labor. Of the three proposals before us only the Steiger bill authorizes specific funds to be dispersed beginning with fiscal year 1971 through fiscal year 1974. The Honorable James O'Hara of Michigan is the sponsor of H.R. 11620, the Manpower Act. This bill would vest ultimate responsibility for the development of a comprehensive manpower services program and for the coordination of all manpower related activities solely in the Secretary of Labor, and would not require him to seek concurrence in program administration and operation from any other State or Federal department or agency. Unlike the other proposals, the O'Hara bill would also authorize the Secretary of Labor to contract with any Government agency or private nonprofit organization to provide public service employment for the unemployed. H.R. 13472, introduced by the Honorable William Ayres of Ohio, is the administration bill. This proposal, referred to as the Manpower Training Act, consolidates all federally assisted manpower programs and their funding sources under the authority of the Department of Labor, but places the primary responsibility for program operation and implementation with the States and local government units. Governors would have to establish a comprehensive manpower agency for administration of unified manpower activities, as well as a comprehensive manpower planning advisory body for coordinating manpower plans and policy. The Governor and communities would designate prime sponsors responsible for regional coordination and community plans. A novel feature in the administration bill is the mechanism for automatic additional appropriations of 10 percent to the appropriation for any year in which the national unemployment rate reached or exceeded 4.5 percent of 3 consecutive months. The subcommittee has already held 13 days of public hearings in Washington, D.C. before e ing on this field trip, and will continue to receive testimo ngton upon our return. The manpower bills before us, along with the proposed welfare reforms, are among the most important pieces of domestic legislation before this Congress. Therefore, I pledge, as chairman of this subcommittee, that we will move forward and try to pass a national manpower bill this year and that in our efforts to streamline and rationalize the myriad of manpower services, we will not overlook the unique individual capabilities and needs of each American. Neither training nor employment is an end in itself. Our goal is to make it possible for all who wish to be employed to work at an occupation of their choice with complete dignity. This morning, before we call our first witness, I would like to introduce to the witnesses as well as the guests, in the audience my colleagues who have traveled from Washington to conduct this hearing with me. To my immediate right is the Honorable James O'Hara, a Representative in Congress from your own State, who serves with me on this subcommittee. To my left, Mr. William Ford, also of Michigan. Immediately in front of me to the right is Mr. Steiger, a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin. Alongside him is Mr. Augustus Hawkins, a Representative in Congress from the State of California. Our first witness this morning, whom I am pleased to welcome as the leading citizen of this great city of Detroit, the Honorable Roman Gribbs. STATEMENT OF HON. ROMAN GRIBBS, MAYOR, THE CITY OF DETROIT, MICH.; ACCOMPANIED BY LEON SHEARER, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF MANPOWER AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT; MILTON ROWHER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR; AND JOSEPH TUMA, COMMUNITY RENEWAL PROGRAM, WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY Mayor GRIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Distinguished colleagues and Congressmen and guests: I welcome the opportunity to appear this morning and to present a few remarks. I would like, Mr. Chairman, to thank you for this opportunity and to also introduce briefly if I may the persons to my left and to my right. I have with me Mr. Leon Shearer on my left, director of the Bureau of Manpower and Career Development in the Mayor's Committee for Human Resources Development, who is serving as my adviser and to my right, Mr. Milton Rowher, assistant director of our community renewal program, and Mr. Joseph Tuma, from Wayne State University, both of them serving as consultants for me on this major problem and are here to assist me if there are some questions that require some technical answers. I would like to express my sincere apreciation for the opportunity to appear before the Select Subcommittee on Labor. Your presence here in Detroit is very timely. Although I am one of the newer mayors, having taken office on January 6 of this year, I have had a chance to observe and experience the strengths and weakenesses of various manpower programs in the Detroit area. On the strength of these initial observations I would urge this committee and the Congress to consider and create a manpower system including these points: 1. Consolidation of specific accountability and responsibility at the national level, 2. Centralization of control for planning and implementation of manpower efforts at the local labor market area, 3. Provision for the mayors of the large central cities to play the key role with respect to manpower programs in their labor market areas, and 4. Provision for federally financed public service employment to utilize our unused human resources to meet community needs. Turning specifically to the matter of employment let me say that the picture in Detroit is bleak. Even in good times, residents of the central city suffer, and in 1968 the average unemployment rate in portions of Detroit's inner city was 12.2 percent for the city as a whole, 6.7 percent-in contrast to 3.9 percent for the counties of Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb. At the same time industry continued its exodus to outlying areas. In human terms these statistics indicate wasted lives and potential for the individuals, their families and the Nation. More recently the situation has become much worse. Unemployment in the Detroit area has shown an erratic but serious increase. This has affected blue collar workers, and white collar workers. It has affected youth, and persons with as much as 15 to 20 years seniority. Official figures reveal that unemployment has more than doubled within the last 5 months to a rate of 6.2 percent, over 100,000 people, in the counties of Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb. I am informed that for the United States the figure in February was 4.2 percent. And my staff estimates that in the city of Detroit in the month of February, the rate is 10 percent. That is an estimate that is passed upon past history and ratios. These statistics are only part of the picture. We have new entrants coming into the labor markets from schools as graduates and dropouts, in-migrants, and those who are employed but who are no longer actively seeking work. In the face of all this, I am gravely concerned by the implication contained in the administration's manpower bill, which would trigger in certain funds for training at 4.5 percent levels of national unemployment. This would mean, in an economy such as Detroit's an unemployment level of 6.5 percent or higher before additional funds would become available. This is intolerable and unfair. In a country as affluent as ours, with as many unfilled needs as ours, anyone who can work and wants to work should have an opportunity to do so. As I have indicated, we find repeatedly that local efforts are hampered by multiagency administration, funding, and regulatory patterns and by the absence of consolidation of programs at the Federal level. This failure is borne out by the findings of the Committee on Administration of Training Programs, established under Public Law 89-787, which found that "some waste, duplication, and inefficiency existed in the nearly 30 separate federally supported training programs By the same token, specific accountability and responsibility are required at the labor area level. As mayor of the city of Detroit, I welcome the opportunity to provide a leadership for this significant economic unit in the United States in order to make some order of proliferation and fragmentation. As I have indicated, our major central cities must be given the key role with respect to manpower programs. These cities currently have little say as to what money is spent within their jurisdictions, or how that Federal money is to be spent. Yet, the citizens look to the mayor to do something about unemployment. The mayor is caught in the middle. He has no control over guidelines and decisions, yet he is forced to accept the responsibility for the effectiveness of these programs. National and State considerations are important, but in the final analysis we at the local level must decide: Training for what jobs? Who needs the training? What will the quality of that training be? I have serious doubts regarding the role of the State as described in the proposed administration bill. Our most recent experience under the Safe Streets Act reveals that allocations through the State are all too frequently made without reference to need. For this reason, a direct relationship between a responsible and accountable agency at the Federal level which contracts with a prime sponsor in an identifiable economic unit at the local level is both desirable and sufficient. I wish to make two final observations: The first deals with the adequacy of manpower and occupational training at the present time. Regrettably and primarily for financial reasons, not every educational institution is now responding adequately to the needs of the unemployed and underemployed. Because of the action of Congress, some schools are beginning to respond through the use of relatively modest Federal financial aid that is directed toward employability skills. We cannot afford to allow the public and legitimate private educational institutions in this country to abandon or escape this responsibility. I have faith, that with the proper language in manpower legislation, we can create a broader base of responsibility for education in both the remedial and the preventive processes. Secondly, I am very encouraged by the feature of Congressman James O'Hara's bill providing for public service employment. I think I can speak for the mayors and city officials throughout this land when I say we will vigorously support legislation which provides for a federally financed public service employment program. The U.S. Conference of Mayors has urged enactment of such a public service employment program directed toward health, sanitation, transportation, public safety, fire protection, and other basic community services. We need more jobs in our city, and we desperately need more public services. A Federal program providing jobs in the local public sector begins to solve both these problems. |