B-114868, JAN 28, 1975

B-114868, JAN 28, 1975

TITLE I FUNDS OF COMPREHENSIVE EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ACT OF 1973, PUB. L. NO. 93-203, 87 STAT. 839 (DECEMBER 28, 1973) MAY NOT BE USED TO SUPPORT INDIAN MANPOWER PROGRAMS WHERE STATUTORY LANGUAGE AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF ACT INDICATE THAT INDIAN MANPOWER PROGRAMS WERE CONSIDERED A SPECIAL FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY TO BE HANDLED EXCLUSIVELY AT NATIONAL LEVEL AND TITLE I FUNDS WERE TO BE USED BY STATES TO MEET THEIR GENERAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES.

USE OF TITLE I FUNDS OF COMPREHENSIVE EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ACT OF 1973 FOR INDIAN MANPOWER PROGRAMS.:

THIS DECISION TO THE SECRETARY OF LABOR CONCERNS THE LEGALITY OF ACTIONS PROPOSED OR ALREADY TAKEN BY THE LABOR DEPARTMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF TITLE I FUNDS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ACT OF 1973 (CETA), PUB. L. NO. 93-203, 87 STAT. 839 (DECEMBER 28, 1973), FOR THE SUPPORT OF INDIAN MANPOWER TRAINING PROGRAMS (I.E., MANPOWER TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR INDIANS ONLY).

WITH REGARD TO MANPOWER PROGRAMS FOR INDIANS, SEC. 302(B) OF CETA PROVIDES THAT "*** BECAUSE OF THE SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND MOST OF THOSE TO BE SERVED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, *** SUCH PROGRAMS CAN BEST BE ADMINISTERED AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL."

THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE CLEARLY CONTEMPLATES THAT INDIAN MANPOWER PROGRAMS, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM GENERAL MANPOWER PROGRAMS, ARE TO BE ADMINISTERED DIRECTLY BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. ANY DOUBT THAT MIGHT EXIST APPEARS TO BE CLARIFIED BY THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY. THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR IN ITS REPORT ON H.R. 11010 (THE HOUSE VERSION OF THE BILL THAT WAS ULTIMATELY PASSED AFTER CONFERENCE), STATED:

"THE COMMITTEE WANTS TO MAKE PLAIN THAT THE POPULATION REQUIREMENTS FOR TITLE I PRIME SPONSORS HAVE NO APPLICATION TO INDIAN TRIBES UNDER SEC. 302. IT IS THE INTENT OF THE COMMITTEE THAT THIS SECTION WILL BE CENTRALLY ADMINISTERED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND THAT INDIAN TRIBES WILL SUBMIT THEIR APPLICATIONS DIRECTLY TO THE SECRETARY, WITHOUT REVIEW BY THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE, TO BE PROCESSED BY PERSONNEL HAVING PARTICULAR COMPETENCE IN DEALING WITH INDIANS." H.R. REP. NO. 93-659, 93D CONG., 1ST SESS. 15 (1973).

IT APPEARS, THEREFORE, THAT CONGRESS UNDERSTOOD CETA AS GIVING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DIRECT RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE III FOR INDIAN PROGRAMS AND AS PROVIDING THE STATES WITH TITLE I FUNDS TO MEET THEIR GENERAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES.

SECTION 108(D)(1) OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT IF THE SECRETARY DETERMINES THAT A PRIME SPONSOR IS "***FAILING TO SERVE EQUITABLY THE ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED, UNEMPLOYED, OR UNDEREMPLOYED PERSONS IN THE AREA IT SERVES" HE SHALL REVOKE SAID PLAN AND MAY NOT PROVIDE ANY FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE. IT APPEARS, HOWEVER, THAT THIS SECTION APPLIES ONLY TO THOSE PROGRAMS AUTHORIZED TO BE RUN AT THE LOCAL AND STATE LEVEL BY PRIME SPONSORS UNDER TITLE I. AS CONGRESSMAN DOMINICK V. DANIELS STATED, IN REFERENCE TO INDIAN AND OTHER SPECIAL PROGRAMS:

"THE BILL ALSO PROVIDES A SPECIAL FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THOSE PROGRAMS NOT APPROPRIATELY RUN AT THE LOCAL LEVEL." (119 CONG. REC. H10223, DAILY ED. NOVEMBER 28, 1973.)

HE CONSIDERED INDIAN PROGRAMS SUCH A SPECIAL FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY.

FURTHER, IN THE REPORT FROM THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS ON THE SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1974, ENACTED AS PUB. L. NO. 93- 305, 88 STAT. 202 (JUNE 8, 1974), IT IS STATED THAT $950,000,000 OF THE $1,340,000,000 APPROPRIATION RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMITTEE FOR THE CONTINUATION OF ONGOING MANPOWER PROGRAMS IS FOR THE SUPPORT OF STATE AND LOCAL MANPOWER TRAINING PROGRAMS. THE BALANCE OF $390,000,000 WAS EARMARKED FOR ONGOING ACTIVITIES NOW A PART OF TITLE III OF CETA - I.E., PROGRAMS FOR INDIANS AND OTHER SPECIAL GROUPS. H.R. REP. NO. 93-977, 93D CONG., 2D SESS. 61 (1974). THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT THE USE OF ANY OF THE $950,000,000 IN TITLE I FUNDS FOR INDIAN MANPOWER PROGRAMS (I.E., PROGRAMS FOR INDIANS ONLY) COVERED BY THE TITLE III APPROPRIATION WAS CONTEMPLATED.

ACCORDING TO THE DEPARTMENT, PURSUANT TO SECS. 103(A)(2)(B) AND (C), THE NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED AND LOW-INCOME INDIANS IN EACH STATE IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN DETERMINING ITS TITLE I ALLOCATION. BECAUSE OF THIS - AMONG OTHER REASONS - THE DEPARTMENT FEELS THAT TITLE I FUNDS MAY BE USED BY THE STATES FOR INDIAN MANPOWER PROGRAMS.

WE DO NOT AGREE. SECTION 302(G) SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT:

"FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING OUT THIS SECTION, THE SECRETARY SHALL RESERVE FROM FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR THIS TITLE AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO NOT LESS THAN 4 PERCENT OF THE AMOUNT ALLOCATED PURSUANT TO SECTION 103(A)(1)."

THE INDIAN MANPOWER PROGRAMS OF EACH STATE ARE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR BY THIS TITLE III ALLOCATION, AND IT WOULD APPEAR THAT TITLE I FUNDS GOING TO EACH STATE ARE NOT ALSO INTENDED TO BE USED FOR SPECIAL INDIAN MANPOWER PROGRAMS, EVEN THOUGH THE AMOUNT OF EACH STATE'S TITLE I ALLOCATION IS AFFECTED BY THE NUMBER OF ITS UNEMPLOYED AND UNDEREMPLOYED INDIANS. HOLD OTHERWISE WOULD GIVE INDIANS, AS A CLASS, FAVORED TREATMENT, IN THAT THEY COULD HAVE SPECIAL STATE PROGRAMS UNDER TITLE I AS WELL AS THOSE MANDATED FOR THEM UNDER TITLE III. CONGRESS, IN CALLING INDIANS A "SPECIAL FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY" COULD NOT HAVE INTENDED SUCH A RESULT.

IT MUST BE NOTED THAT SEC. 301(A) PROVIDES THAT:

"THE SECRETARY SHALL USE FUNDS AVAILABLE UNDER THIS TITLE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL MANPOWER SERVICES AS AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLES I AND II TO SEGMENTS OF THE POPULATION THAT ARE IN PARTICULAR NEED OF SUCH SERVICES, INCLUDING YOUTH, OFFENDERS, PERSONS OF LIMITED ENGLISH SPEAKING ABILITY, OLDER WORKERS, AND OTHER PERSONS WHICH THE SECRETARY DETERMINES HAVE PARTICULAR DISADVANTAGES IN THE LABOR MARKET. ***"

INDIANS, AS A CLASS, ARE NOT MENTIONED IN SEC. 301(A). INSTEAD, PROGRAMS FOR INDIANS ARE PROVIDED FOR IN SEC. 302, WHEREIN IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT "*** SUCH PROGRAMS CAN BEST BE ADMINISTERD AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL." IT IS OUR VIEW, THEREFORE, THAT ALTHOUGH ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS WERE MADE FOR GROUPS MENTIONED IN SEC. 301, INDIAN PROGRAMS UNDER SEC. 302 WERE TO BE EXCLUSIVELY ADMINISTERED AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL. NOTHING STATED HEREIN SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS EXCLUDING INDIANS, AS INDIVIDUALS, FROM GENERAL STATE TITLE I PROGRAMS FOR THE UNEMPLOYED. RATHER, IT IS OUR POSITION THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THAT ALL MANPOWER PROGRAMS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED TOWARD INDIANS, AS A CLASS, BE OPERATED UNDER TITLE III.

DURING HEARINGS ON THE PREDECESSOR BILLS TO CETA, SEVERAL INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS INDICATED THAT DIRECT FUNDING NOT DEPENDENT ON STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WAS REQUIRED FOR INDIAN MANPOWER PROGRAMS. SEE HEARINGS ON S. 1559 AND S. 1560 BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT, POVERTY, AND MIGRATORY LABOR OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE, 93D CONG., 1ST SESS. 663 ET SEQ. (1973). FURTHER, THROUGHOUT THE FLOOR DEBATES IT WAS UNDERSTOOD BY THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS THAT THE BILLS DID IN FACT PROVIDE FOR DIRECT FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION OF INDIAN PROGRAMS. FOR EXAMPLE, SENATOR GAYLORD NELSON (OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE, WHICH WAS REPORTING THE SENATE BILL TO THE FLOOR) STATED THAT:

"THE LEGISLATION WOULD, THEREFORE, CONTINUE SECRETARIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR INDIANS." (119 CONG. REC. S14550, DAILY ED. JULY 24, 1973.)

IN SUMMARY, THEN, WE BELIEVE IT IS CLEAR THAT SEC. 302(B) SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES FOR ADMINISTRATION OF INDIAN PROGRAMS AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL. FURTHER, THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY ESTABLISHES THAT CONGRESS UNDERSTOOD INDIAN PROGRAMS TO BE A FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS OUR DECISION THAT ONLY TITLE III FUNDS ARE TO BE USED TO MEET SPECIFIC INDIAN MANPOWER PROGRAMS AND THAT TITLE I FUNDS ARE TO BE USED BY THE STATES TO MEET THEIR GENERAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES.

IN REACHING THIS CONCLUSION WE ARE MINDFUL OF THE FACT THAT SEC. 101(12) OF CETA LISTS MANY PROGRAMS AUTHORIZED BY PART A OF TITLE III (WHICH OF COURSE WOULD INCLUDE THE INDIAN MANPOWER PROGRAM OF SEC. 302) AS THOSE WHICH MAY BE INCLUDED UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE MANPOWER SERVICES PROVIDED FOR IN TITLE I. WE ALSO APPRECIATE THAT STATES WHICH HAVE A LARGE UNEMPLOYED AND UNDEREMPLOYED INDIAN POPULATION BENEFIT MORE UNDER CETA THAN THOSE STATES WHICH DO NOT. THIS IS TRUE BECAUSE WHILE INDIANS ARE INCLUDED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE POPULATION BASE FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPLYING THE TITLE I FORMULAS - AND WE DO NOT FIND SUCH INCLUSION AS PRECLUDED - TITLE I FUNDS ARE NOT TO BE SPENT ON SPECIAL INDIAN PROGRAMS, WITH THE CONSEQUENCE THAT MORE TITLE I FUNDS ARE LEFT AVAILABLE FOR THE NON-INDIAN MANPOWER NEEDS OF SUCH STATES. THESE FACTORS, WHILE RECOGNIZED, DO NOT DISSUADE US FROM THE VIEW THAT THE LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE AND HISTORY HEREIN DISCUSSED CLEARLY MANIFEST AN INTENT THAT THE SPECIFIC NEEDS OF INDIANS AS A CLASS ARE TO BE MET BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT UNDER TITLE III RATHER THAN THE STATE GOVERNMENTS UNDER TITLE I.

WE ARE TODAY ADVISING THE MEMBER OF CONGRESS WHO REQUESTED OUR VIEWS ON THIS MATTER OF OUR DECISION.