STATE OF ARKANSAS, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, Hon. CARL D. PERKINS, DEAR CONGRESSMAN PERKINS: I understand the House Committee on Ed: cation and Labor is preparing to consider a comprehensive manpower refor measure. The Senate approved Job Training and Community Services Act 1973 contains several provisions which I feel are vital to assure a meaningfu participation for Governors and states. I would like to mention one or tw key issues for your consideration in the House bill. The National Governors' Conference Committee on Human Resources, of which I am a member, has developed a strong position for Governors in rela tion to planning for manpower programs. Particularly, I feel that manpowe should be coordinated with other human resource programs administered by the State. As Governor of Arkansas, I have continually stressed that all state agencies should coordinate planning in coterminous sub-state planning areas and I have requested federal agencies to assist us in this effort. Fragmentation and duplication of services can be eliminated only through carefully developed linkages among programs and agencies. I feel this is clearly a state role, and federal agencies should suport this effort to provide better utilization of existing resources. Along this same line, I would urge the Congress to carefully consider any feature of legislation which would franchise small units of government below the 100,000 to 150,000 population to plan and operate their own manpower programs. The recognition of local units of government for prime sponsorship must be considered in light of their capabilities to administer programs. I feel governors should have a role in determining other types of recognition such as consortium. multi-jurisdictional arrangements within the state to assure that planning and administration of manpower programs are taking place at the appropriate level of government. This is particularly true if the state is to be held accountable for activities of local governments within its jurisdiction. Finally, I would like to ask your support for the 15% Governor's set-aside in the Nelson-Javits measure. In Arkansas for this FY 1974 planning year, this reserve could have been applied to statewide projects which are appropriately state and not local in nature. To fund our two training projects within our penal institutions, provide for Public Service Careers training within state government, and fund a proportionate share of the Arkansas Skill Center in Little Rock, together with our current planning grant, required more than $900,000. This sum was projected for only our current effort with no program expansion. At least another $300,000 would be needed to provide any program expansion, staff support for the areas, technical assistance to local government, or fund impact projects. These sums represent more than 15% of our present funding allotment. I urge you and your colleagues to pursue the passage of a manpower reform bill as soon as possible. I think the time has long passed for such action and I will support your efforts with a great deal of enthusiasm. Sincerely, Hon. DOMINICK V. DANIELS, Chairman, Select Subcommittee on Labor, DALE BUMPERS, Governor. OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, Indianapolis, Ind., October 30, 1973. DEAR CONGRESSMAN DANIELS: It is obvious to all who have had to plan for, or implement, employment programs at either the state or local level that an overhaul of our manpower programs is long overdue. We were pleased when Senators Nelson and Javits undertook that task and even more pleased to learn that you and your colleagues on the Select Subcommittee on Labor would also develop legislation to reform the present fragmented system. We applaud your efforts and those of your fellow committee members. The legislative features which we anticipated most eagerly were those which would enable state government to assume the planning for, and coordination of, newly designed manpower resource programs on a statewide basis. In Indiana we have spent several frustrating years in the painstaking development of a statewide capability to analyze local area needs, to assess the viability of programs to meet those needs and to judge the ultimate effectiveness of the programs. We are very proud of our ability to deliver significant technical assistance to Indiana's cities and counties throngh our Office of Manpower Planning and to stimulate areawide local involvement through the increasingly effective Area Manpower Planning Boards. We believe that we have done a far better job in each of these activities than has previously been accomplished by the Federal Government. Considering the great effort which has been expended in developing our state planning network and in securing the cooperation of local officials, we were dismayed to learn that House Bills 11010 and 11011 fail to entrust us with either the authority or the responsibility to continue our task. Our dismay is centered in relatively few sections of the legislation, and we request that several amendments be made : (1) We believe that the planning council provisions in S.B. 1559, while not ideal, are far preferable to those in the House bills. We urge that you adopt the Senate language concerning both the structure and functions of Planning Councils. We strongly support the statewide planning role of the State Council because we believe that there must be one point at which the coordination of programs is centralized and that this catalytic function can best be performed by a responsive state government. It is understood, of course, that the exercise of this function must accurately reflect the thinking of local elected officials. (2) Funds must be provided in the legislation to insure that this planning and coordinative role can be adequately performed. To create the responsibility and to then require that funds for its accomplishment be drawn only from "balance of state" programs is both inequitable and unrealistic. Similarly, we believe that the funding of manpower programs which will have a statewide impact (e.g. correctional institutions, mental health facilities, state vocational/technical post-secondary institutions, youth resource councils, etc.) should be shared equally by all sections of the state. For these reasons, we urge you to earmark an appropriate sum to be expended by the Governor's Office for statewide responsibilities. (3) To insure that vocational education programs are closely correlated with all other manpower efforts, we request that the amount designated for vocational education incentives be assigned directly to the Governor's Office. While we question the wisdom of this funding in light of the relatively adequate funds already available for vocational education under other pieces of legislation, if earmarking is ultimately deemed necessary, we urge that these funds be dispensed through the Governor's Office. (4) The entire section regarding prime sponsorship needs serious review. While we agree that communities of more than 100,000 population are best able to prepare for their own operational needs, we do not share the belief that counties in this state are similarly able. Indiana's day-to-day personal services delivery system is basically community based. County government, while quite capable in many fields, has neither the history, nor the present interest, to assume a major manpower role. Accordingly, we request that the eligible county population level be raised to at least 250,000. We further urge you to limit the geographical boundaries of any proposed combination of local governments to a functional labor market area and to define carefully what will constitute such an area. Under your present bills, a single city could ultimately encompass an entire state if that city's persuasive powers were adequate. We believe this to be a very serious, and ultimately divisive, oversight and request that you correct it. (5) Since the legislation is obviously designed to treat the malaise of those who cannot cope by themselves with economic, social or cultural barriers, we believe strongly that one of the factors upon which fund allocations are based must be the number of individuals and families who are existing today in a condition of poverty. As you know, the terms "unemployment" and "poverty" are not necessarily interchangeable and are based upon entirely different criteria. Thus we feel that both factors should be included. We agree wholeheartedly with the inclusion of the previous year's funding level as a factor to ease the adjustment by communities and states which historically have been more aggressive in their pursuit of Labor Department funds. However, we reject the argument that further safeguards are needed in the form of "hold harmless" clauses and urge you to resist any attempt to insert such inclusions in the final legislation. (6) Since the intent of this legislation is obviously to delegate to state and local governments the major responsibility for the planning, funding and operation of manpower programs, we cannot understand the logic of reserving such large portions of Title I and Title II funds for use by the Secretary of Labor. We urge you to decrease these amounts significantly and to reallocate the funds to the statewide activities outlined previously in (1.) and (2.) above. I am sure you will agree that, considering the vast scope of the proposed legislation, our suggestions are modest. They do not disagree with the basic intention of the bills nor do they question, to any substantial degree, the major provi sions. Rather, they are designed to enable state government to function as a productive partner with local government in the operation of programs and to furnish, in the most professional possible manner, those coordinative and suppor tive services which can only be performed by a serious and responsive state government. We can assure you that, in Indiana, we are willing and anxious to assume the important responsibilities contemplated in House Bills 11010 and 11011. We are confident that the systems which we have designed and which have already begun to function will insure an effective manpower program. We only request that you provide us with reasonable authority and funds to carry out our mission. Kindest personal regards, OTIS R. BOWEN, M.D., Governor. BISMARCK, N. DAK. Representative DOMINICK DANIELS, Washington, D.C.: As a member of the 92nd Congress I regret unable to attend hearing on H.R. 11010 and H.R. 11011 by your subcommittee Monday, October 29. I propose three changes: (1) deleting reference to Wagner-Peyser programs (sec. 104B4, p. 9; (2) delete provision for largest unit of local government even if population below 100,000 (sec. 102A2); and (3) regret no provision for minimum funding (title 11, sec. 504). Hon. DOMINICK DANIELS, ARTHUR A. LINK, Governor, North Dakota. HELENA, MONT. Chairman, Select Subcommittee on Labor, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CHAIRMAN DANIELS: I regret I was unable to participate personally in today's hearings on H.R. 11010. I want to reiterate my strong support for legislative reform for manpower rather than administrative reform. Further, I commend you and your committee for your tremendous efforts in getting a bill considered before this session of Congress. I would be remiss, however, if I did not call your attention to certain parts of H.R. 11010 which would have a disastrous effect on manpower efforts in my large, rural, and sparely populated State of Montana. As Governor of Montana, I welcome the challenge and added responsibilities which I will face under a manpower revenue sharing approach; however, this would be a most difficult task under certain provisions of the Comprehensive Manpower Act of 1973. First it is essential if we are to have a truly comprehensive manpower effort in Montana, that I be given a set percentage to be used for planning, evaluation, monitoring, and special statewide programs; e. g., corrections program. In my judgment a 15 percent set-aside for Governors would be necessary. Second, I would urge you to give serious consideration to the language in S. 1559 with regard to eligibility for prime sponsorship. This language would allow us to involve the local governments at a more reasonable population level, and prevent such wide distribution of program sponsors that we could not conceivably deliver a meaningful manpower effort in Montana. Thirdly, I would ask you to reconsider the membership of the Manpower Serices Council as outlined in H.R. 11010. We have in place a broad spectrum of representation at both the State and local level, which has proven extremely effective. The makeup of these State and sub-State councils is very similar to that outlined in S. 1559. Finally, I know your committee will give these suggestions the consideration they deserve, and I commend you again for the progress you have made toward the development of a meaningful manpower reform bill. Sincerely, THOMAS L. JUDGE, Governor, State of Montana. [Telegram] DENVER, COLO., October 25, 1973. Hon. DOMINICK DANIELS, As Governor of the State of Colorado, I wish to protest the provisions of H.R. 11010 and H.R. 11011 which, I feel, would be disastrous for manpower in this State. The role of the Governor is basically undefined responsibility, authority, and the appropriation of vital discretionary moneys to this office have virtually ignored as Governor of the entire State, not merely of the 20 percent rural population. My intention to maintain a leadership role in manpower planning and operation is severely threatened by near-total autonomy for cities and counties that will constitute the other 80 percent of population. I urge the immediate adoption of amendments to H.R. 11010 and H.R. 11011 which would provide a meaningful role for Governors. JOHN D. VANDERHOOF, Governor, State of Colorado. FRANKFORT, KY., October 19, 1973. Hon. DOMINICK V. DANIELS, Democratic Governors are vitally interested in the manpower reform legislation pending in the Committee on Education and Labor. Governors adopted a strong policy position on this issue at the 1972 National Governors Conference. The Nelson-Javits Job Training and Community Service Act grants Governors an appropriate role. The House bill should do no less especially in view of the fact that Governors were instrumental in stopping the administration's efforts to usurp the powers of Congress by implementing manpower revenue sharing administratively. I urge your support of manpower legislation which grants the 31 Democratic Governors a significant role in the implementation of this program. WENDELL H. FORD, Governor, Commonwealth of Kentucky. DOVER, DEL., October 26, 1973. Hon. DOMINICK V. DANIELS, Urge passage of comprehensive manpower legislation which affords Governors be necessary authority to create the comprehensive State plans which bill provides for. Bill should not assign responsibilities without providing necessary authority to Governors. It is necessary also that the bill provide for appropriate funding for a Governor to carry out his responsibilities. Specifically no less than 15 percent of a State's allocation taken from the Federal share should be for that purpose. Hon. DOMINICK V. DANIELS, House of Representatives, House Office Building, Washington, D.C.: SHERMAN W. TRIBBITT, Governor, State of Delaware. ST. PAUL, MINN., October 26, 1973. I regret that I will not be able to personally testify at the hearings on the House comprehensive manpower bill, H.R. 11010 and H.R. 11011, before the Select Subcommittee on Labor on October 29, 1973 However, as I did by letter to you dated September 13, 1973. I wish to express my concerns on manpower legislation. While I am pleased that the House is moving swiftly on manpower reform legislation, I am very concerned about the diminished role of States in this vital area of public policy as now contained in the House bills. Governors need a strong role in planning, coordinating, and evaluating manpower programs on a statewide and substate basis. Since manpower needs and problems are not restricted to county and city lines, the current camps system of relationships between the State council and substate regional boards should be retained. It is both effective and popular in Minnesota without veto power at the State level. However, to be successful in coordinating manpower policies and programs, it is necessary that staff support be under the jurisdiction of the elected official at all levels. The House bills would destroy our Minnesota State mandated manpower planning system and superimpose new multijurisdictional planning areas within our State by Federal law. To do so would be inconsistent with the stated purpose of the House bills, the concept of revenue sharing and the legitimate roles of the Federal, State, county, and city governments. Continuing funds are needed at the State level to support coordinated planning. Governors should be allowed, directly from the Secretary of Labor, a 5-percent setaside of funds for State and substate planning, coordination, and evaluation. Governors should also have coordination responsibility for an additional 5 percent for consortium incentives, and another 5 percent of incentive funds for maintaing statewide vocational education resource utilization in training and other manpower activities. I am pleased that the House bills incorporate an option for the continuance of a public employment program. The program is one of the few job creation programs available to areas of high unemployment. I strongly urge you to take these concerns into consideration during the markup of the bills. If a complete and integrated manpower system with an effective State role cannot be federally legislated to meet the situations of the various States, then the law should be made flexible enough to allow each State to work out the best system for its own problems and needs. I will make my recommendations for specific amendments through National Governors' Conference representatives. With warmest regards, WENDELL R. ANDERSON, Governor. State of Minnesota. NASHVILLE, TENN., October 30, 1973. Hon. DOMINICK DANIELS, MR. CHAIRMAN AND DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THE SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR, I regret that sufficient time was not available for my representatives to testify personally before you on H.R. 11010 and H.R. 11011, Comprehensive Manpower Act of 1973. Therefore, I respectfully request that the views contained in this message be considered and included in the record. 1. The State must play a major role in manpower development if its vast assistance in the education, corrections, transportation, health, economic development, et cetera, are to be effectively coordinated or utilized in solving a manpower problem. For the reasons below I do not believe that H.R. 11010 and H.R. 11011 include adequate authority planning procedures, and funds for the States to efficiently meet their responsibilities. 2. The absence of funds in a job 11010 and 11011 for use by the State is not realistic and does take into account the responsibility the State has to (1) plan and coordinate manpower programs and (2) provide manpower services to the large number of dependent persons in State correctional, educational, and mental health institutions. I support the provisions and S. 1559 which provides that 15 percent of Federal manpower assistance be earmarked for the States. 3. Selection of prime sponsors and establishment of delivery areas entirely by the Secretary of Labor completely disregards the functions assigned to State government under the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act. States have created and used uniform planning and service delivery areas for a number of years. |