Perhaps that was the situation, though I doubt it to have been the case in North Carolina. But today we are talking about a new generation of manpower programs. And I urge you gentlemen to realize that you are dealing with a new generation of governors particularly Southern governors. this generation of Southern governors, is proving daily that we will serve the poor, the black, the disadvantaged, the rural This generation of governors, particularly we will if we can get the resources and the other help we must have to deliver what is needed. I can't think of a more opportune time to make this point than after having heard the comments of my friend, the distinguished Governor John C. West of South Carolina. I don't think I need to belabor the points that could be made about decategorization and decentralization for manpower funding. Decategorization and decentralization are implicit in much of the pending legislation. The need is obvious. We have been fortunate in North Carolina in our manpower programs - despite the many problems that remain. Since 1967, we have had the benefit of the work of the North Carolina Manpower Development Corporation, a private, non-profit organization that has done research and operated experimental programs as demonstrations of what might be accomplished. In fact, it was as a result of the Manpower Development Corporation's studies that I asked the 1971 General Assembly to create the North Carolina Manpower Council and to assign that council the duty of developing and planning manpower policy for TESTIMONY BY GOVERNOR SCOTT Page Seven our entire state. That council went to work in January of this year, under the chairmanship of Mr. Luther H. Hodges Jr. This month and next, it will be producing its first manpower plan Year the one for Fiscal '73. For the moment, we are using the same seventeen planning regions I mentioned earlier, and we are using ancillary manpower planning boards in each of those regions for advice and help in developing plans. Let me say here, incidentally, that I hope the process, even now, is flexible enough for the U. S. Department of Labor and other funding agencies to pay closer attention to local and state plans than has been the case in some instances in the past. In this process, we welcome participation and initiative on the part of local manpower planners, particularly on the part of local elected officials. We see no conflict between the state's role and local government's role in manpower in North Carolina. We need local help, we know it, and we solicit it. We look forward to legislation that will encourage local initiative so long as it takes into account the needs of an entire state. My point in all this is that we in North Carolina take manpower planning and delivery of services seriously. We do all we know how to do under existing restraints. We would like to do more, a lot more, and decategorization and decentralization will permit us to do more on the basis of need rather than on the basis of our particular share of a particular, narrowly-defined program. We want to make our Employment Security service more flexible and more responsive to local needs, too. That agency is very much a part of the manpower picture. It needs to become TESTIMONY BY GOVERNOR SCOTT - Page Eight - an even more integral part of our overall approach. Again, if governors have the authority and, admittedly, the concern they can bring these agencies into the mainstream of manpower services. Gentlemen, we have come a long way since MDTA of 1962. We must go farther. We are ready in North Carolina. We don't expect to be handed bundles of money and be permitted to spend it without state equipped with a good planning mechanism as North Carolina is equipped - is the logical point of initiative and decision in making manpower programs less duplicative, less wasteful, Carolina you will get far more than an adequate job in manpower. I am firmly convinced that the same is true in most other states as well. Thank you, very much. Senator NELSON. Thank you, Dr. Hammond. Our next witness is Mr. Alan C. Nelson, assistant director, Department of Human Resources Development, who is appearing for the Honorable Ronald Reagan, Governor of California. STATEMENT OF ALAN C. NELSON, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF HON. RONALD REAGAN, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA Mr. NELSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express the appreciation of Governor Reagan to be present today with Governor West and the other panel members. We have submitted for the record a 23-page statement, which we would appreciate being incorporated into the record. Senator Nelson. It will be printed in the record as though read. We have a summary of the points of the complete testimony. I will primarily rely on those, at times going on to a few pieces of the text. I will run over some of the general points that have been covered by Governor West and the other witnesses, and will try to concentrate, specifically, on public service employment, and the interrelationship of welfare and manpower as reflected in Senate bill 3346. As pointed out by the other witnesses, there are four basic elements, as we see it, in manpower reform: decentralization, decategorization; public service employment; and the relationship between welfare and manpower reform. As pointed out by Governor West and the others, we believe that S. 3346 provides a better decentralization than any of the other pending bills. It avoids the confusing population "numbers game" that appears in too many bills, or many of the bills, and does concentrate on the labor markets. I think the other testimony has gone to the value of the labor market approach as a more effective planning and delivery mechanism. For example, in California there are 66 cities with over 50,000 population. There are 20 cities over 100,000 population. We submit, if these criteria were used, we would have a real danger of fragmentation in the planning and delivery of services. In Los Angeles County alone, one single labor market, there are 23 cities exceeding 50,000 population; five cities exceeding 100,000. So, again, this really points out, we believe, the danger of using such criteria. A key feature of the Governors' Conference-supported bill, S. 3346, is that we believe it exceeds the other bills in decentralizing and moving decisionmaking power from the Federal Government to the State and local areas. So many of the other bills really talk mainly about a direct Federal-local funding and power arrangement which, we believe, leaves most of the power remaining with the Federal Govern ment. We have that, really, now. In California, three-quarters of all manpower moneys are handled directly from the Department of Labor to local, city, county, and that type of agency. Only one-quarter are under the State system. So a lot of the bills don't accomplish that. It is important to put all the money, and all the funds, into one pool that can then be used through the State and local system. The Federal Government-in Senator Dominick's bill-does play a very key role, but one of assuring that the legislation is carried out properly, not in dictating all decisions. We propose a structure up where the decisionmaking is left at the State and local government level. We believe the same bill avoids the other danger that I mentioned, of bypassing the State government. Another danger that is reflected in many bills is the balance-ofState concept. Again, in most States, following the theory that we have, you have the Governor only having control of a small part of planning. Again, we think this is a fragmentation, and not appropriate. We believe that Senator Dominick's bill does provide adequate balance between the State and local governments. It would be easy for Governors to come before the committee and ask for all power in this area. The planning group of the Governors' Conference-prior to approval by the full conference-consisted of Governors' manpower planners from 21 States. It had the benefit of looking at many other bills, and spending many hours in deliberations, in trying to put together a bill which would be meaningful, and one which could accomplish the results and, at the same time, have the proper balance. The State has the key role in designating the planning areas; developing a statewide comprehensive plan which ties together the Employment Service, and other manpower activities, and the operation of statewide programs for welfare recipients; and the overall monitoring responsibility. The local government participation consists of the ability to designate and act as local sponsor. Of course, the local sponsor has a key role in the planning of services. They have a significant role, therefore, in the development of the overall State plan and, of course, the bill assures that funding will reach the local level. Another provision of this bill is for advanced funding, and all State and local areas seek to avoid the problems of delays in appropriations, so they may have the ability to plan in advance. As stressed by the other witnesses, in decategorization, we believe this bill provides for full decategorization. Section 101 of 3346 reads partly as follows: State Manpower Agents and Local Manpower Sponsors shall have broad discretion as to the various uses of funds under this Act for Manpower Program purposes. It concludes as follows: The activities authorized under this title, among which funds may be used at the discretion of State Manpower Agents and Local Manpower Sponsors are: Note the words "full discretion" in there, making it clear they have st authority. her follows, in the Governors' supported bill, a listing of some 30 es of manpower activities. Many of these conform to the subject my of the existing categorical programs, but they don't ate titles, any special guidelines, or any specific fund |