10

1

2

he ceases to be an employee before the end of such

year.

3 The preceding sentence shall not apply with respect to a 4 disadvantaged employee who ceases to be an employee of the 5 taxpayer because of death or disability.

6 "(e) REGULATIONS.-The Secretary of the Treasury or 7 his delegate shall prescribe such regulations as may be neces8 sary to carry out the purposes of this subpart.”

9

10

TECHNICAL AND CLERICAL AMENDMENTS

SEC. 204. (a) The table of sections for subpart A of 11 part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal 12 Revenue Code of 1954 is amended by striking out the last

13 item and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

14

"Sec. 40. Wages of disadvantaged employees.

"Sec. 41. Overpayments of tax."

(b) The table of subparts for part IV of subchapter A

15 of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by adding at the end

16 thereof the following new item:

"Subpart C. Rules for computing credit for wages of disadvantaged employees."

17 (c) Section 381 (c) of such Code (relating to items 18 taken into account in certain corporate acquisitions) is 19 amended by adding at the end thereof the following new

20 paragraph:

222

"(24) CREDIT UNDER SECTION 40 FOR WAGES OF

DISADVANTAGED EMPLOYEES.-The acquiring corpora

1

2

3

4

5

11

tion shall take into account (to the extent proper to carry

out the purposes of this section and section 40, and under such regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary or his delegate) the items required to be taken into ac

count for purposes of section 40 in respect of the distributor or transferor corporation.'

6

7

EFFECTIVE DATE

8

SEC. 205. The amendments to the Internal Revenue

9 Code of 1954 made by this title shall apply to taxable years

10 ending after the date of the enactment of this Act.

90TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION

S. 2938

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 7, 1968

Mr. CLARK (for himself, Mr. BREWSTER, Mr. BYRD of West Virginia, Mr. CANNON, Mr. COOPER, Mr. Fulbright, Mr. GRUENING, Mr. HARRIS, Mr. HART, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. JAVITS, Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts, Mr. KENNEDY Of New York, Mr. LAUSCHE, Mr. LONG of Missouri, Mr. McCARTHY, Mr. MCGEE, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. MAGNUSON, Mr. MONDALE, Mr. MONTOYA, Mr. MORSE, Mr. Moss, Mr. NELSON, Mr. PELL, Mr. PROUTY, Mr. PROXMIRE, Mr. RANDOLPH, Mr. RIBICOFF, Mr. SCOTT, Mr. TYDINGS, Mr. WILLIAMS of New Jersey, Mr. YARBOROUGH, and Mr. YOUNG of Ohio) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare

A BILL

To extend certain expiring provisions under the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962, as amended.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 That the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962 4 is amended as follows:

5

6

(1) Section 104 (a) of the Act (LABOR MOBILITY DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS) is amended by striking

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

out "1968" in the first sentence of such section, and

inserting in lieu thereof “1970";

(2) Section 105 of the Act (TRAINEE PLACEMENT ASSISTANCE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS) is amended by striking out "1968" in the first sentence of such seetion, and inserting in lieu thereof "1970";

(3) Section 251 of the Act (PART D-CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS) is amended by striking out "1969" in the first sentence of such section, and inserting in lieu thereof “1970";

(4) Section 304 (d) of the Act is amended by striking out "1968" and "1969", and inserting respectively in lieu thereof "1969" and "1970":

(5) Sections 310(a) and 310(b) of the Act are amended by striking out "1969" wherever it appears,

and inserting in lieu thereof "1972".

EVALUATING FEDERAL MANPOWER PROGRAMS

(Paper delivered by Garth L. Mangum* to Industrial Relations Research Association December 28, 1967)

Summarizing two years of effort in 3500 words indicates either low output or high discipline. The task can best be accomplished in summary form with a few generalizations about the state of manpower policy and a brief evaluation of specific programs. References are given for data and details.

A. NATURE OF FEDERAL MANPOWER POLICY

1. There is no federal manpower policy in the dictionary sense: "a definite course of action selected from among alternatives, and in light of given conditions, to guide and determine present and future decisions." However, there are programs and practices which can be analyzed in aggregate and from which policy emphases can be extracted.

2. Legislation in the 1950's such as the National Defense Education Act and practices of agencies such as the Atomic Energy Commission emphasized manpower as an economic resource, with particular concern for the development of scientific and technical manpower. Spending for such purposes increased during the 1960's and now totals over $5 billion annually. However, the focus of public manpower efforts during the 1960's shifted in another direction.

3. The thrust of the manpower programs of the past five years has been to aid those who face various disadvantages in competing for jobs. This emphasis is attested to more by legislative and administrative efforts and public discussion than by expenditures of less than $2 billion per year.

B. OVERALL CRITIQUE OF FEDERAL MANPOWER POLICY

1. The relevant manpower programs which emphasize in varying degrees services for the competitively disadvantaged are the Manpower Development and Training Act, the Vocational Education Act of 1963, the Vocational Rehabilitation program and the several manpower components of the Economic Opportunity Act. The EOA programs are not evaluated in this paper since they are considered in Sar Levitan's contribution. However, they do figure in these generalizations about the state of manpower policy. In addition, the United States Emlopyment Service is included, not as a program but as a major deliverer of services.

2. This array of programs did not emerge as part of any systematic effort to identify and provide each of the services needed by various disadvantaged groups or by all the disadvantaged. Instead individual acts were written, considered, and amended in rapid succession to meet current crises, real or imagined, with little attention to their interrelations. Though overall objectives are reasonably clear, the objectives of some of the individual programs are not.1

3. The resources and enrollments in all of these programs are too small relative to the size of the labor force and the magnitude of needs to have had an appreciable impact on the problems they were intended to "solve." Remedial programs for the disadvantaged currently enroll an average of only 300,000 people at any point in time-this in an economy where in prosperous 1966, 2.5 million persons were unemployed 15 weeks or more, 850,000 were unemployed over half the year, 1.3 million looked for but did not find any work, 1.3 million males 25 to 64 years of age did not seek work and more than five million persons worked for less than the federal minimum wage.

4. The 1961-67 period is most appropriately viewed as an experimental one during which many things were tried with varying degrees of success and failure. A positve contribution of these efforts was the identification of a number of services which have proven useful in lowering the obstacles to employment and retention of the disadvantaged. A few of these are:

(a) Outreach to seek the discouraged and undermotivated and encourage them to partake of available services;

Garth L. Mangum is Co-Director of the Center for Manpower Policy Studies at The George Washington University where he is evaluating federal manpower programs and policies under a grant from the Ford Foundation.

Sar A. Levitan and Garth L. Mangum, Making Sense of Federal Manpower Policy, Policy Papers in Human Resources and Industrial Relations, No. 2, Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations, the University of Michigan, Wayne State University, 1967.

94-753-68- -6