and availability where categorical constraints may have created restrictive program limitations. And, in the process, we have striven to build a planning capability which would assure continuity and enhance the total accountability of each program. By supporting the "Comprehensive Manpower and Employment Act of 1972", S. 3346 as introduced by Senator Dominick, the Governors are not assuming what I would consider a parochial stance. On the contrary, we feel that these are important mechanisms and principles which should be considered. To that end, I should like to highlight a few key items contained in S. 3346: 1. Over the past few years, Governors have concentrated their efforts significantly toward the establishment of a truly comprehensive planning capability. While we have not fully achieved the objective, some remarkable strides have been made. In my own State. we have established ten planning districts and all of them are operational. These organizations are deeply involved in a wide range of activities, including economic development planning, law enforcement assistance planning, highway safety planning, physical development planning, and manpower planning. The utilization and development of these capabilities within naturally defined regions is integral to our proposals. 2. Another important feature of S. 3346 is that it does not contain presumptive roles for any institutional element in the manpower development process. It is our judgment that the assignment of respective roles must take place at the local level. Only within natural labor market areas can such decisions be made. Only at the local level can the effectiveness of individual functions be determined. Only at the level of delivery can plans be turned into reality. 3. We are also strongly in favor of mechanisms which support intergovernmental cooperation. Our experience teaches us that such mechanisms work effectively. Certainly there have been and there will be some problems, but the vast majority of such experience is positive. Our relationships with city and county officials are strong and they produce results. To cite but one limited example, shortly after the Emergency Employment Act was enacted, it was announced that in my state eleven general purpose governments were entitled to apply directly for funding and the State government was to be responsible for the balance of the State. Through mutual trust and cooperation, all eleven governments agreed to let the State serve as prime agent for this program. Today we are still serving in that capacity, providing management and planning services to over 500 local contractors. The key, however, is that final implementation decisions rest at the local level. As Governors, we are confident that this type working relationship can only be built as a state-local partnership. 4. One of the crucial topics today is public service employment, and since I have raised the subject, let me touch on the Governors' approach. We are keenly aware of the problems of unemployment. The presence of a trigger mechanism related to unemployment is a part of national manpower policy which we fully endorse. Our suggestions for implementing this effort, however, reflect our concerns for effective planning and delivery of services. We recognize that there is a clear need for job creation as an element of manpower reform. It is our feeling. however, that this should not be a separate action unto itself. Rather, it should be an option within a comprehensive planning system. We endorse public service employment as a part of manpower activities and services. In its simplest terms, if there is a determination at the local level that public service employment is the most effective tool available, then the plan should reflect this decision and it should be implemented. 5. Lastly, I would point out that S. 3346 reflects our concern that the development of a state comprehensive plan reflect all activities in the manpower field. Too often we rely on the vagaries of “coordination" when it simply stands as the code for bureaucratic protectionism. Such crucial aspects as the employability services provided under the Wagner-Peyser Act and the WIN program provided under Title IV-C of the Social Security Act, must be a part of our comprehensive effort. Likewise, the splintering efforts for public manpower development in all areas such as health, law enforcement, etc., must be reflected. Without these elements, including the Federal agencies and departments, our goals will not be achieved. In summary. Mr. Chairman, we Governors are deeply involved in the critical issues of manpower reform. We need desperately your assistance if our twin objectives of economic growth and human development are to be achieved. Our ultimate goal is that the investment in the development of human capital will achieve its maximum return. Senator NELSON. I think that, in order to be sure that we are able to meet our schedule, I would have the rest of the witnesses present their statements and then raise questions at that time. Our next witness is Mr. Richard Hemstad, legal counsel for Governor Daniel Evans of the State of Washington. Mr. Hemstad, your statement will be presented in full in the record. You will present it, however, as you desire. STATEMENT OF RICHARD HEMSTAD, LEGAL COUNSEL FOR HON. DANIEL EVANS, GOVERNOR, STATE OF WASHINGTON Mr. HEMSTAD. I will try to make my remarks quite brief, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to be able to be here today to present some remarks concerning S. 2346, which has been prepared by the National Governors' Conference. I will try to limit my remarks to the area of the planning process and, then, the delivery system. Perhaps it would be helpful if we, very briefly, went through the process that is seen in this bill for planning under this kind of legislation. This is considerably different, in some respects, from the other legislation that has been submitted to the Congress in the last few years. First, Governor West has already made reference to the planning areas. We see this as a critically important difference in this bill, from the other bills that have been submitted to the Congress. Under this bill, the Governor would actually define the planning district units in each State. That can vary substantially from State to State, depending on the idiosyncracies of that State and how the planning process is developed. Some of the other bills use SMSA's as the standard structure. That may, or may not, be logical or relevant within the system of that particular State. Flexibility to provide for the differences between States, such as Washington, Texas, Utah, or New York, is really required in order to respond to the needs of those particular States and the localities within that State. Once those planning districts are defined, then, at the local level, local sponsors would be selected-not by the Governor, but by the heads of the principal units of general local government in the area representing 75 percent of the population of the area. If that approval and consensus cannot be reached, then there is a mechanism whereby the Governor would designate-but even that designation would require the approval of the heads of local government representing 50 percent of the population of the area. I think it is quite probable that under that kind of a process, those local government heads would be able to come to an agreement. That is, as a fact, occurring right now in the State of Washington. For example, in the metropolitan area of Seattle, we have Seattle and King County with the suburban ring cities surrounding the central city. The process of forming a consortium that will address the problems of manpower planning in the area, and will represent those various interests in that area, is underway. That process will go on, really, all over the country, and it will serve to resolve their problems locally, as it fits local, peculiar needs. Once that local manpower sponsor has been selected, then local manpower planning councils-as are presently being created around the country-will proceed to prepare a local manpower plan for how the decategorized funds would be applied, and what kinds of priorities would be pursued in that particular area. Once the manpower plan has been developed and approved by the local sponsor, it would then be submitted, along with others from the remaining areas of the State, to the State manpower planning council which would then prepare an integrated State plan. This is of sig nificance. The bill provides that that State advisory council would have the authority to modify those local plans. If a local sponsor, or a head of a local government, feels aggrieved by the final form of that plan-this would be, really, developed in close consultation back and forth-a mechanism, then, is provided for appeal by those local sponsors to a regional intergovernmental structure composed of Governors and mayors, or county executives, within that Federal region. The planning process is there to allow for the development of local priorities; to provide for the development of a comprehensive State plan, and then for the field mechanisms to really protect the interests of everyone. Then, second, the delivery system-how does it work in that regard? At the State level, the Governor would be designated as the State manpower agent. Of course, in practice, he would delegate that authority to a State agency. That State agency would also be responsible for the fiscal administration for the WIN program and the WagnerPeyser Act. That is an important feature: to tie in the State employment security departments within an overall structure-to provide a single manpower agent mechanism. At the local level, the local sponsor would be responsible for fiscal administration of the funding in his area. He would be responsible for the design and administration of the delivery system of manpower in his area. That is critically important. In other words, the local sponsor would be able to control how the manpower sources would be delivered in his area. He would be responsible for monitoring and administration. With regard to funding, the bill provides that 90 percent of the total money provided would be required to be distributed by the Department of Labor to the States. In turn, the States would be required to distribute 90 percent of that funding to the local sponsors. The Governor would be able to use 5 percent for incentives, in order to encourage the use of a comprehensive basis for the planning and delivery systems. The criteria are spelled out in the bill, as to how that money will be distributed between the States, based on total unemployment, underemployment-which I think is a new factor-the population of each State, and the total number of persons in poverty in that State. The local sponsor in turn would be required to use 90 percent of the total funding for program concerns and, also, would be entitled to use 5 percent in order to encourage incentives that would provide for better linkages between the various programs within the communitv. There are triggers in the bill whereby additional funds will be provided, as the unemployment rates in the country escalate, going up in increments of 5 percent. In other words, if the unemployment rate is 4.5 percent on a nationwide basis, then there would be authorized for 76-736 72 pt. 3-4 appropriation an additional 10-percent funding. If it were 5 percent it would jump to 15 percent; 52 percent would go to 20 percent; and 6 percent would authorize an appropriation of 25-percent additional funding. There is, also, a mechanism in there, where a State which has a grave economic problem that is different from the rest of the country. If the unemployment rate nationally is at 412 percent, but the particular State has an unemployment rate in excess of 6 percent, then that particular State would be authorized to receive 25-percent additional funding. That particular mechanism is important, for example, to a State like Washington, where we have had extremely high unemployment rates for the last couple of years now, that are quite different from the national average and the national pattern. A breakout to meet the needs of a particular State is highly desirable. Some of the advantages of the system: It will provide for a true planning opportunity at the State and at the local level, where priorities can really be addressed. It will get away from the so-called "numbers game" which has developed with the other kinds of bills that are presently before the Congress, that is, how small a unit is a desirable unit for planning purposes and, therefore, for an autonomous kind of sponsor? Is it 100,000; 75,000; 50,000; or 30,000? Pressures will inevitably be to reduce that level to whatever is the lower amount, with the result that a balcanization of the planning process at the local level and the disintegration of any kind of concerted approach to manpower planning will occur. This bill attempts to address the problem on a statewide basis. It does not differentiate between the metropolitan areas and the rest of the State. It places them, really, on the same status and allows each area, in each State, to address its problems and resolve them. We think this bill deserves your serious consideration. Thank you very much. Senator NELSON. Thank you very much. (The prepared statement of Mr. Hemstad follows:) |