SECTION-BY-SECTION COMPARISON OF S. 699 (INTERGOVERNMENTAL PERSONNEL ACT) AND S. 1485 (INTERGOVERNMENTAL MANPOWER ACT)-Continued Sec. 402(3). "State" is defined to mean a State of the The term "merit system" is not defined (but merit S. 1485 lists 6 merit principles under sec. 202(a) including S. 1485 does not specify "competitive examination." S. 1485 does not make a distinction between "metro- Sec. 901 (c). "Metropolitan unit of general local govern- Sec. 901 (d). "Nonmetropolitan unit of general local govern- Sec. 402(1). "Commission" means the Civil Service Sec. 402(2). "Federal agency" is defined to mean an Sec. 402(4). "Local government" is defined to mean a Sec. 403(c). In addition to other things already men- Consent to the modification of any contract entered Include in any contract made pursuant to this act Utilize the services and facilities of any Federal Sec. 411. Method of payment: Provides that payments Sec. 412. Effective date of grant provisions: Provides 1 The basic reason why S. 1485 does not make these 5 understandable statutory dis- 2 This provision is in addition to, and not a restriction on, the Commission's authority to waive this and other requirements under sec. 203 (b). 3 Definitions apply to all titles of S. 699. 4 Provisions of title IV (including definitions) apply only to titles I, II, and IV. Title III contains definitions applicable only to title III. 79-413-67-6 Senator MUSKIE. With that, we will get on to the more meaningful testimony. Our first witness-and we were delighted to welcome him last year to the hearing on the new Intergovernmental Personnel Act-has worked hard and I think effectively since that time preparing the administration bill, the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, the Honorable John W. Macy, Jr. TESTIMONY OF HON. JOHN W. MACY, JR., CHAIRMAN, U.S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION; ACCOMPANIED BY O. GLENN STAHL, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF POLICIES AND STANDARDS Mr. MACY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. With your permission, I would like to have associated with me this morning Glenn Stahl, the Director of the Commission's Bureau of Policies and Standards, who has been the strong right arm of the Department in the work on this program. Before presenting my statement, I would like to, once again, commend your leadership, sir, for the progress that has been made in this very important field. The statement that I have just distributed establishes a theme and a line of thinking which is most constructive and we hope that we can be effective in collaborating with you in bringing these goals to fruition. If I may, I will now present my statement, and then I will be at your disposal for any questions you wish to ask. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate very much this opportunity to discuss with you the need for legislation to help create a more effective working partnership among the different levels of American government, to improve the administration of grant-in-aid programs, and to assist State and local governments in meeting the manpower problems which they face today. Mr. Chairman, the work done by your committee over the past several years and especially the hearings you conducted last August have highlighted as never before the need for such legislation. The President's proposed Intergovernmental Manpower Act of 1967, S. 1485, builds on the pioneering work you have already done. As we are all aware, State and local governments of today are confronted with demands of a different order of magnitude and complexity from those they faced even a few decades ago. In a nation approaching a population of 200 million people, nearly two out of every three of our citizens live in metropolitan areas. In 1980, there may be as many as 190 million of us living in vast urban complexes. Along with the rapid growth in population and urbanization, this is also a period of major industrial and technological gains and increasing general prosperity. These factors, among others, many others, have given rise to massive problems. No one knows this better than the members of this committee and I do not think I need list these problems here. The research done by this committee has shown that the State and local governments, and not the Federal Government, will necessarily bear the major burden in providing solutions to these problems and the necessary services to the public. The mushrooming demands, however, generally have been beyond the financial capabilities of State and local governments to satisfy. In 10 years, Federal aid to State and local governments will have more than tripled, rising from $4.1 billion in 1957 to an estimated $15.3 billion in 1967. This aid, in recent years, has constituted about 15 percent of total State-local revenues. It covers a wide variety of activities embraced in over 160 Federal grant programs as of 1966. In addition to the need for financial assistance, States and local governments are also faced with a serious shortage of the highly qualified administrative, professional, and technical personnel necessary to carry out the needed programs. Between 1955 and 1965, total State and local government employment rose from 4.7 to 7.7 million persons. This is a 63-percent increase—a rate of growth four times that of the U.S. economy as a whole and seven times that for Federal employment. It is estimated that total State and local government employment will further increase from 7.7 million in 1965 to a level of approximately 11.4 million by 1975-an increase of 48 percent. Significantly, recruiting needs for administrative, professional, and technical personnel-other than teachers-are estimated at a total of around 2.5 million persons over the next 10 years. Thus, an average of a quarter of a million people, 250,000, of this caliber must be found each year to cover both replacement and growth needs. Nothing quite like this manpower situation has ever been faced before by State and local governments. It is heartening to see that there has been a growing awareness of these manpower and related program administration problems in recent years. The interest and work of your committee, in my opinion, has been the greatest single influence in making clear to everyone the nature and importance of these matters. The Municipal Manpower Commission study in 1962 was also very helpful. It was dedicated to the problem of revitalizing local governments through better use of vigorous, capable, and dedicated administrative, professional, and technical people. The coverage in this study was comprehensive. The Municipal Manpower Commission staff interviewed over 600 local officials and civic leaders and received questionnaire responses from 1,700 municipal executives in 125 cities. The study noted two major obstacles impeding the efforts of local governments to attract the needed manpower. One major obstacle was the working environment in metropolitan area governments. The other was the ineffective personnel systems of local governments. The Committee for Economic Development, in a report published last year, said that American institutions of local government are under a severe and increasing strain. Well designed, by and large, to meet the simpler needs of earlier times, they are poorly suited to cope with the new burdens imposed on all governments by the complex conditions of modern life. The CED report particularly pointed out that specialized skills are increasingly essential to the solution of most governmental problems and concluded that persons with the necessary high skills must be recruited, trained, developed, and effectively utilized by local governments. The Federal Government has also conducted studies of the problems in this area. They have provided additional data and insights and have led to the development of the proposals you are considering in these hearings. In the legislative branch, the extensive research conducted by your committee has revealed that high talent manpower is one of the most critical factors in the sound planning and successful conduct of the complex programs now engaging the attention of the Federal Government and of State and city governments. Administrators of Federal grant-in-aid programs have reported to your committee that the success of their programs depends largely on the talents of State and local program administrators. A majority of them agreed that the operation of their programs would benefit from the establishment of a Federally supported in-service training program. In the executive branch, too, we have carefully studied these problems. Your findings and those of the Municipal Manpower Commission and Committee for Economic Development, as well as other investigations of these problems, were of the greatest assistance to us. We consulted with people outside the Federal Government who were experienced in this area and obtained their views and recommendations. We also obtained the views and recommendations of many other knowledgable persons through correspondence over a period of several months, including State Governors, mayors, city and county managers, people in private business, students of public affairs and of municipal problems, and others. We have critically reviewed our own experience in the executive branch in administering the major grantin-aid programs over the past several years. Our examination of these problems led us to certain conclusions. The work of the public servant of today is of great importance in improving the quality of our life. He seeks to advance scientific knowledge, make effective use of new technology, help rebuild the cities and reclaim the beauty of the countryside, promote justice for all our citizens in the courtroom and beyond, and make education, health, and economic opportunity the equal birthright of all. He works to keep the Nation strong and secure, to protect its vital interests, to help maintain necessary stability and order and public safety in the process of growth and change, and to assist in building peace based on man's hopes rather than his fears. In brief, he is involved, with his fellow citizens, in bringing about an ever-fuller realization of the American concept of a great people living in freedom, equality, justice, peace, and prosperity at home, and as a good neighbor in the world at large. There is, Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, no more demanding calling and none which requires more able and dedicated men and women. This is equally true in Federal, State, and local government. More than ever before, therefore, today's public servant is dependent upon up-to-date education and knowledge, and upon the breadth and vitality of his own personal experience, his access to the fruits of the relevant experience and thoughts of others who are facing the same problems, and his continuous development and sharpening of the insights, attitudes, and skills necessary to coordinate his plans and actions with those of his opposite numbers in other governmental units and |