DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
Washington, D.C., November 7, 1969.

Subject: S. 2838, 91st Congress (Javits).

Hon. RALPH YARBOROUGH,

Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in further reply to your request for the views of this Department on S. 2838, a bill "To establish a comprehensive manpower development program to assist persons in overcoming obstacles to suitable employment, and for other purposes."

S. 2838 would combine in one statute the program authority now found in the Manpower Development and Training Act and Title I of the Economic Opportunity Act. An "Umbrella" manpower development agency would be established in each State along with local manpower agencies and Administrative leadership for these programs would be placed in the States and municipalities. Other provisions of the bill would establish a national computerized job bank, transfer all job corps functions to the Secretary of Labor, and authorize automatic expansion of appropriations (10 percent of the amount appropriated under the Act during the fiscal year) whenever the U.S. unemployment rate reaches 4.5 percent for 3 consecutive months.

The consolidation and decentralization of existing major manpower development programs proposed in this bill is especially desirable. It will encourage State and local governments to develop job training programs commensurate with regional and metropolitan needs. Decentralization should also promote State and local coordination of job development programs with related planning efforts directed towards creating a desirable urban environment.

This Department fully supports the general approach taken in S. 2838 and recommends its enactment. We would defer to the Department of Labor as to the relative merits of the many detailed provisions in the bill.

The Bureau of the Budget has informed us that it has no objection to the submission of this report and that enactment of this legislation would be in accord with the program of the President.

Sincerely,

GEORGE ROMNEY,

Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Hon. RALPH YARBOROUGH,

OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY,
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
Washington, D.C., January 13, 1970.

Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We appreciate being asked to comment on S. 2838, the "Manpower Training Act of 1969."

The proposed legislation is designed to carry out the recommendations of the President in his Message to the Congress of August 12 on Manpower Training. This proposal would utilize a constructive partnership of Federal, State, and local governments, and we believe it will be effective in providing manpower services to the unemployed, underemployed, and low-income groups.

Under the provisions of S. 2838, the Office of Economic Opportunity would retain broad authority to conduct research, experimental, and developmental activities focused on providing more effective means for solving the manpower problems of the economically disadvantaged. These activities will involve not only the development and testing of new approaches but also experimentation with refinements and variations of traditional approaches in dealing with manpower problems.

In summary, it is our view that S. 2838 will carry out the recommendations of the President in his August 12 Message, and we urge that it be enacted.

We are advised by the Bureau of the Budget that the enactment of this proposed legislation would be in accord with the President's program.

Sincerely,

DONALD RUMSFELD, Director.

Hon. RALPH YARBOROUGH,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., December 15, 1969.

Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for my views on S. 2838, the "Manpower Training Act of 1969."

This bill, introduced by Senator Javits, is intended to carry out recommendations of President Nixon in his August 12, 1969, Manpower Training Message to the Congress. Its intention is to consolidate and decategorize many existing manpower programs administered by the Department of Labor and to establish a system of planning and delivery of manpower and related services which places an increased emphasis on the role of States and localities.

As indicated in my testimony of November 7, 1969, to your Committee, this legislation would build upon past achievements and would markedly improve the effectiveness of our manpower effort.

I strongly urge your prompt and favorable consideration of this important bill. Please let me know of any way in which I can be of assistance to you in your consideration of the proposal.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program.

Sincerely,

GEORGE P. SHULTZ,

Secretary of Labor.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WElfare,
Washington, D.C., January 7, 1970.

Hon. RALPH YARBOROUGH,

Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in response to your request of September 2, 1969, for a report on S. 2838, a bill "To establish a comprehensive manpower development program to assist persons in overcoming obstacles to suitable employment, and for other purposes."

The bill would provide for the creation of a comprehensive manpower services system as proposed by the President's recommendations in his message to the Congress of August 12, 1969.

Building on the experience of recent years, the bill would provide for consolidation of specified existing authorities in the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962 as amended, and the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, as amended. The bill would decentralize responsibility to the States and local areas in planning and administering manpower programs while at the same time retaining Federal stewardship.

The provision of the bill would assure appropriate participation of this Department with the Department of Labor in the overall direction of the system. I urge that early and favorable consideration be given to enactment of this legislation. We are advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the presentation of this report and that enactment of this bill would be in accord with the program of the President.

Sincerely,

ROBERT H. FINCH, Secretary.

Senator NELSON. Yesterday a communication was received from Mr. Andrew J. Biemiller, Director, Department of Legislation, AFL-CIO. I order the material inserted at this point in the record.

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND
CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS,
Washington, D.C., November 3, 1969.

Hon. GAYLORD NELSON,
Chairman, Employment, Manpower, and Poverty Subcommittee, Senate Labor and
Public Welfare Committee, U.S. Senate, Old Senate Office Building, Washington,
D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The AFL-CIO is pleased to note that your Committee is opening hearings on the need for comprehensive manpower training programs. A national manpower policy consolidating the multiple and varied federally

supported programs under a centrally-directed administration has become a necessity. Your hearings should play a major role in helping to obtain this goal. While the Administration has recognized the need for such a comprehensive program, it has—unfortunately-failed to provide the means for developing new jobs. This unrecognized need for jobs-employment with good pay and the honest opportunity for advancement-must be considered a key weakness in the Administration proposal.

The AFL-CIO has a further major disagreement with the Administration plan. We strongly oppose the suggested system of block grants to the states. Such a system ignores the national scope of the unemployment problem and places too much emphasis on state employment agencies as the basic operating agencies for all manpower activities.

We look forward to spelling out the AFL-CIO views during future hearings before your Committee. In the meantime, for your information, we are enclosing: a copy of the "Manpower Policy" resolution adopted October 6, 1969, by the AFLCIO Convention; a copy of George Meany's comments on the President's "Manpower Training" message; and a copy of the AFL-CIO Legislative Department's "Manpower Training" fact sheet.

With best personal regards,

Sincerely,

ANDREW J. BIEMILLER, Director, Department of Legislation.

[Text of resolution adopted at the eighth convention of the AFL-CIO
in Atlantic City, N.J., October 6, 1969]

MANPOWER POLICY

The development of a Federal manpower policy has been evolving since the passage of the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962 and the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. Under these acts, as well as other legislation, the Federal government has initiated a number of programs designed to help the poor, the young, the hard-core unemployed and members of minority groups, to improve their employability and career prospects. Expenditures for Federallysupported manpower programs have risen from $245 million in 1961 to $2.2 billion in 1968. The number of people serviced by manpower programs has risen from a negligible number in 1961 to perhaps one million in 1968. And yet this has not met the nation's needs.

There is an immediate need for a comprehensive national manpower policy that would consolidate the multiple and varied Federally-supported manpower programs under a centrally-directed administration. In the past 8 years, programs have grown up helter-skelter. New agencies-public, private and quasi-publichave come into being with conflicting and overlapping jurisdictions among themselves as well as with existing agencies.

As part of this consolidation, it is important that the U.S. Employment Service be federalized. As currently constituted, it is 50 different state systems and, as such, handicaps the development of an effective national manpower policy. Its activities are patterned on state and local boundary lines and do not offer the fullest possible service to the worker.

Programs have been funded at inadequate levels. In too many instances, manpower activities have been viewed as a substitute for welfare programs with the result that neither need-manpower nor welfare-has been adequately met. At the same time training allowances for trainees entitled to such allowances have been inadequate.

Too much emphasis of these federal training programs has been directed towards placing workers in entry-level, low wage jobs which require little or no formal training. In too many instances, manpower activities have been viewed as a substitute for welfare programs, with the result that neither manpower nor welfare needs are adequately met. The main thrust of training must be directed toward helping individuals develop their maximum potential skills for employment opportunities in the job market-to upgrade the skills of the work-force. A major difficulty arises because there are not enough jobs for the nation's hard-core unemployed and under-employed. If there were full employment, more employers would as many are doing, today-hire untrained workers for entrylevel jobs and other jobs, as well, and train them without government financial assistance. The entire thrust of the various training efforts, under such conditions, would make for a much more meaningful manpower program.

While one million people per year are helped by current manpower programs, this is but a fraction of those who require help. An expansion of existing 40-963 0-70-pt. 1- 6

programs, through the creation of additional training opportunities in private industry is clearly indicated, but it has been demonstrated that the private sector has not met the job and training needs of all of the disadvantaged.

A comprehensive manpower policy must include, as one of its basic elements, a federally subsidized, large-scale public-service employment and training programto create jobs for the hard-core unemployed and seriously under-employed. There are job and training opportunities to provide badly needed services in hospitals, schools, fire and police departments, recreational and sanitation facilities and other federal, state, local government and private, non-profit facilities.

The Nixon Administration has recognized some of the problems and the need for a comprehensive approach. However, it does not recommend a federally financed public-service job-creation program. Moreover, the Administration proposes a system of block grants to the states, which would rest responsibility for development and administration of manpower programs in the hands of the states, with provision for a small share to be allocated to metropolitan areas. But the problems of employment and unemployment cut across state lines and do not lend themselves to individual state solutions.

Moreover, the Nixon proposal would use the state employment agencies, as the basic operating agency for all manpower activities. The past record of many of these state agencies hardly suggests that they would be an effective instrument, as currently constituted, to press for job placement or job advancement for the poor or members of minority groups. Therefore, be it

Resolved: 1. All manpower programs should be consolidated into a comprehensive, coordinated administration under the Department of Labor to eliminate overlapping and conflicting interests.

2. The employment service should be federalized, because only then can it adequately function as an agency to meet the needs of workers and employers on a national basis.

Until federalization is accomplished, we urge the following steps be taken immediately: (a) assure that the public employment service will pattern its operations according to economic boundaries and not be hemmed in by community and state boundaries: (b) induce the states to increase the salaries of employment service personnel: (c) require all government contractors, although free to hire from any source, to list all their job vacancies with the public employment service, providing, however, where jobs are made available to workers seeking employment through union hiring halls or other union-management arrangements, such arrangements shall be acceptable in lieu of listing with the public employment service: (d) increase federal financing, including appropriations from general revenues: and (e) strengthen the ability of the United States Employment Service to set and enforce higher standards of performance by state employment services. 3. A large-scale federally subsidized public-service employment program in the public sector should be enacted, so that the government can be the employer of last resort for the hundreds of thousands of hard-core unemployed and seriously under-employed.

4. Federal relocation allowances must be developed to assist unemployed workers who wish to move to areas of job opportunities.

5. Public funds should not be used to reimburse employers for costs which previously had been considered a normal operating expense. There is a very real need to strengthen a wide variety of supportive services in order to move the severely disadvantaged into the job market successfully. In order to accomplish these twin objectives, reimbursement to employers should be made only for what might be regarded unusual expenses connected with hiring the disadvantaged and only in cases where the worker is certified by a public agency in accordance with criteria developed by the Manpower Administrator-as requiring such services to be employable.

6. Federal programs to provide training for low-wage, entry-level jobs, as well as jobs with a high rate of labor turnover, or jobs for which workers have not historically been required to possess any skill at the time of hire, should be sharply curtailed. The prohibition on government training programs which in any way help employers to shift locations should be rigorously enforced.

7. The Manpower Administration should continue to develop regional manpower advisory committees and should utilize the Cooperative Area Manpower Planning System to the fullest extent. Advisory committees should be representative of all major interested groups, including organized labor.

8. The Congress should immediately enact legislation proposed by Representative James G. O'Hara. H.R. 11620, which recognizes the urgent needs of America's disadvantaged and minority groups and most nearly meets the standards for an effective and comprehensive national manpower policy.