« PreviousContinue »
Senator NELSON. Thank you very much, Mrs. Jackson.
Our next witness is Miss Rita C. Davidson, Secretary of the Maryland Department of Employment and Social Services, appearing for the Honorable Marvin Mandel, Governor of Maryland. STATEMENT OF RITA C. DAVIDSON, SECRETARY, MARYLAND
DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL SERVICES Miss DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Rita C. Davidson, Secretary of the Maryland Department of Employ. ment and Social Services. Our department encompasses 11 State agencies, principal among them the employment security administration, the social services administration and the Maryland Office of Economic Opportunity. As you can see, our primary concerns are the needs of the unemployed, the low-wage earners, and the destitute.
We have pinned our hope for a revitalized, more effective FederalState-local manpower development effort on the possibility that this subcommittee and finally the Congress will take the best portions of the bills pending before you, together with the best of the suggestions put to you during the hearings, to produce the best of all possible manpower programs. We are confident it can be done only if we are guided by our experience of the past, rather than the politics of the future.
There is scarcely an individual associated with a manpower training program-from the Labor Department down to the most disadvantaged MDTA trainee—who is not aware of the duplication, the overlapping, the wasteful competition for bodies and job orders that characterize the profusion of programs funded by the present manpower and other Federal acts.
Because of the waste inherent in such a disarray, I am of the view that the greatest contribution this subcommittee and the Congress can make toward manpower reform is to establish order where chaos now exists. This can be done by:
(1) Assigning to each State the responsibility for planning (in close cooperation with the localities), coordination and oversight; and
(2) Assigning to a single local manpower sponsor within each labor market area (as jointly determined by the Governor and the localities) the responsibility for administering the program.
In this way, debilitating competition among jurisdictions and among programs is eliminated and interjurisdictional cooperation is enhanced.
I am not unaware of the reluctance of many Members of Congress to lodge major responsibility with State government. I am also honest enough to recognize that the past performance of many States has sometimes been such as to destroy confidence in their responsiveness to the needs and aspirations of the deprived. But that indifference is rapidly vanishing in State capitals, thanks largely to a growing sophistication among the electorate, as one can verify by checking the list of dynamic new Governors of both parties, in the South, as in the North, the Midwest, and the West.
While States are moving toward greater responsiveness to the needs of the unemployed, the underemployed, the deprived, and the discriminated against, the Congress increasingly ignores the role of the State
as the level of government invested by the Constitution with the responsibility for the welfare of the citizenry within its jurisdiction. In fact, the Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the National Legislative Conference, in its final report of August 1971, expressed the belief that:
... Grare constitutional questions may be raised with regard to the powers of the Federal Gurernment to confer authority on the cities without regard to the States.
The manpower legislation which issues from this Congress should promote maximum planning, coordination, and accountability by establishing a procedure along the following lines:
The Governor, or the agent he designates, would be responsible for: 1
(a) Developing a comprehensive employment and manpower training plan for the entire State, incoraporating the plans for the WagnerPerser program as well as for the WIN program;
(6) Dividing the State into “local manpower planning areas," each encompassing an integrated labor market:
(c) Designating, after consultation with the affected political subdivisions, a "local manpower sponsor" within each area;
(d) Receiving and integrating into the State plan the local plans developed within each area;
(e) Providing technical assistance, ccordination of services, and oversight to each of the local sponsors.
The local manpower sponsors would be responsible for: 2
(a) Identifying the needs and developing the plan for their area. (We believe this responsibility belongs primarily to the localities, although responsibility for adjusting these plans to fit a coherent State
a design rests with the Governor.)
(6) Administering the moneys allocated to them. The State's total allotment would be computed in accordance with the State-to-Federal ratio of the number of unemployed and underemployed; the unemployment rate; the number of individuals living in poverty and the total population. The State's share would, in turn, be reallocated to each local manpower planning area in accordance with the same factors, as applied to the area-to-State ratio.
PUBLIC SERVICE JOBS
The creation of public service jobs is a necessary element of any serious effort to integrate the unemploved—whether disadvantaged or dislocated—into a sluggish economy. Such a program is vital at all times, for at any given moment in time there are geographical areas whose indicators point to heavy unemployment while the national indicator may be pointing to full employment. We therefore support the concept of a permanent program of public service jobs, funded at a level sufficiently high to substantially affect the problem. As urgent as we consider the need for such a program, we wish to emphasize our belief that it represents only one part of manpower reform, that it must be a component of and not a substitute for a new comprehensive manpower program. It is our further belief that States should have the freedom to determine how to spend the funds allocated to them, including what proportion should be channeled into public service jobs and what proportion into manpower training. In this regard we particularly commend to you the public service jobs provision of Senator Dominick's bill, S. 3346, which grant States this latitude. At the same time, we find attractive the funding levels proposed in S. 3311 by Senator Cranston and 15 other Senators and therefore express the hope that we find the more liberal provisions of both bills in whatever measure this subcommittee finally drafts.
1 Local and State manpower planning councils would be appointed and would serve as advisers to the local and State sponsors.
2 Ten Regional Intergovernmental Arivisory Committees on Mnrower would be named by the Secretary of Libor, in consultation with the heads of HEW, HUD and OEO, to advise him on the assignment and coordination of manpower responsibllities among Federal. State and local units of government and to help resolve interjurisdictional disputes within the region. The Committee would be composed of the Governors and local elected officials within the relevant region as selected by the Secretary.
A National Intergovernmental Advisorv ( onnel on Manromer would be established by the Secretary, after consultation with the Secretaries of HEW, HID and the Director of OEO. In addition to its advisory function, this Council would serve as the final appeals body in disputes involving local manpower sponsors' dissatisfaction with a State plan. Members of the Council would be selected by the Secretary from among the Nation's State and local elected officials, of whom at least six would be Governors, six mayors, and 12 would be other elected State or local officials.
Programs directed to the special needs of population groups should fit naturally into the State and local plans. Except under unusual circumstances such as the neglect by a local sponsor of a particular group--a situation which would normally be noted and corrected by the Secretary prior to approval of a State plan—there should be little occasion for direct funding by the Department of Labor of categorical programs other than those needed for research or demonstration purposes. Some like to call this approach decategorization. I think of it as defragmentation. The categories would continue in the operation of local programs. We would continue to conduct programs for the young, for the elderly, for the career-minded, for whatever ethnic groups need help. But we would eliminate piecemeal funding without regard to a plan or the coordinating mechanism.
RESEARCH, LABOR MARKET INFORMATION AND COMPUTERIZED JOB BANK
S. 3346 provides for a number of research programs for which our Department is in perennial need-continuing research and development on manpower techniques; sophisticated labor market information; and a national computerized job bank network. All of this information is essential to a successful manpower development system.
As a final word, I wish to express my hope that this subcommittee will draw up a blueprint for an orderly, efficient system in which every trainee is assured a job; the trainee will be able to receive maximum value for every dollar spent—and enough dollars will be spent to enable every person in need of such help to become a trainee.
Ms. Davidson. We also support the concept of decategorization. We support the concepts as set forth in S. 3346 concerning research, labor market information, and the computerized job bank.
We certainly wish to express our hope that this subcommittee will draw up a blueprint for an orderly, efficient system, in which every trainee is assured a job; that the trainee will be able to receive the maximum value for every dollar spent; and that enough dollars will be spent to enable every person in need of such help to become a trainee. Thank you very much.
96-736 0 - 72 - pt. 3 - 5
Senator Nelson. Thank you very much, Miss Davidson.
Our next witness is Dr. Leigh H. Hammond, Deputy Secretary, Department of Administration for the State of North Carolina, appearing for the Honorable Robert W. Scott, Governor of North Carolina.
STATEMENT OF DR. LEIGH H. HAMMOND, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF HON. ROBERT W. SCOTT, GOVERNOR OF NORTH CAROLINA
Dr. HAMMOND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am very pleased to have the opportunity to discuss this manpower legislation with you. I will read a statement by Governor Robert W. Scott of North Carolina.
You gentlemen probably have heard more than you want to hear about the need for manpower reform legislation. I am pleased to see that the discussion seems no longer to question the "need” for reform. In my mind-and, I take it, in yours—the case for reform is well documented.
Senator NELSON. I would like to add to that: The committee has recognized in the past the need for manpower reform legislation. We are attempting to draft another reform bill, but the previous bill was vetoed after we had the agreement of the mayors, and the Governors, and the manpower people all over the United States.
Frankly, the President, being misadvised, vetoed the bill. The reason we don't have manpower reform now well underway—and for the past 2 years—is the misadvised Presidential veto.
Dr. HAMMOND. We are as concerned about that at the same level as you are here, I am sure.
(The prepared statement of Governor Scott follows:)