July 24, 1973
Page 25719
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the Job Training and Community Services Act of 1973.
The bill would provide $1.88 billion during fiscal year 1974 to State and local governments to meet one of our most basic public needs – job training and employment services for the unemployed and underemployed. It strikes a happy balance between local control and federal oversight by establishing the basis of an effective partnership between State, local, and Federal Governments in the field of manpower training.
The bill recognizes the importance of placing in the hands of State or local officials the authority for matching local training needs with employment needs, and it requires that local resources be used in the training programs.
Greater local control can also mean less duplication. Since the passage more than 10 years ago of the Manpower Development and Training Act, a broad range of special programs has been established to meet the needs of specific groups, such as veterans, older workers, the disadvantaged, the young, and others.
This legislation recognizes the special Federal responsibility to assure continuation of many of these programs, but at the same time it encourages local officials to find and eliminate the inevitable duplication and lack of coordination resulting from this proliferation of specific programs.
State and local officials are most familiar with both the needs of local employers and the needs of the jobless. They will have the power under this bill to match the two needs as much as possible and local officials are best able to enlist local help in preparing the jobless for the work available.
My home state of Maine recognized the value of such local initiative in 1967, when Governor Curtis established a system of State and local manpower planning committees to assess local needs and to recommend the most appropriate "mix" of training funds to meet those needs.
The passage of S. 1559 would assign funding authority, in addition to planning authority, to local and regional manpower councils. These councils, representing town and county government, industry, labor, and those who would be served by the job programs, would be equipped to make the best possible use of Federal job training funds.
The allocation formula contained in S. 1559, based on unemployment and family income, will also benefit States like Maine, which have suffered chronic high unemployment and which have income levels below national norms. For example, Maine's unemployment in June was 6.1 percent of the work force, still well above the national average, while more than 60 percent of households had incomes under $8,000 in 1969. States like Maine need the type of automatic "trigger" contained in the bill to release needed employment and training funds.
There are other aspects of the act which are noteworthy:
A new recognition of the importance of language is included in the bilingual manpower programs provision.
The bill recognizes the tragic effects of unemployment on middle aged and older persons, an important provision for Maine, which has a higher percentage of elderly than the national average.
Finally, I note with pleasure that the committee has adopted language which clearly states that Indian tribes under State jurisdiction, as well as those recognized by the Federal Bureau of Indian Affairs, are eligible to receive Federal benefits under the act. This is an important provision for Maine's Indians and Indians in several other States, who have often been denied Federal services in the past as a result of this distinction.
Again, Mr. President, I wish to commend the committee's efforts and hope that this legislation will serve as proof that increased local control does not necessarily mean a complete abandonment of Federal oversight.