December 22, 1970
Page 43230
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, S. 11, the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970 represents the culmination of 5 years of continuous legislative activity by the Congress. Enactment of this bill will be a major step in the strengthening of our State and local governments through improved personnel administration and more efficient recruitment and training of personnel, particularly in the administrative, professional, and technical categories.
S. 11 can be traced back to the views and recommendations of the Municipal Manpower Commission, whose 1962 report pointed up the need to revitalize local governments through better use of vigorous, capable, and dedicated public servants.
Increased citizen demands for more and better public services have placed extraordinary strain upon State and local governments. We have delayed much too long in acting on the critical need of properly qualified public service personnel and in assisting State and local governments in meeting this need. Presently, too many positions at the State and local level requiring highly specialized personnel are filled by unqualified persons, because of a lack of funds and proper recruitment and training programs. It is this problem of governmental manpower needs which S. 11 would meet.
The real beginnings of this legislation stem from studies conducted by the Senate Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations during 1965 and 1966. In its report, "The Federal System as Seen by Federal Aid Officials," the subcommittee found the basic problem to be one of tension among administrators and officials at various levels – tension created by the failure of State and local governments to upgrade the capability of their civil employees.
As a followup to this report, the subcommittee proposed S. 3408, the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1966. Extensive hearings were held on this proposal during the 89th Congress, and on S. 699 the same proposal, during the 90th Congress. S. 699 was passed by the Senate with a substantial majority, but the House never acted on the legislation.
S. 11, the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970, which passed the Senate on October 27, 1969, is a strengthened version of the 1968 bill. It combines the best elements of the original legislation with improvements resulting from hearings held in the House earlier this year.
The principal provisions of S. 11, as passed by both the Senate and the House, will accomplish the following purposes:
First, the bill calls for the establishment of an advisory council on intergovernmental policy, whose members will be appointed from all levels of Government by the President. The purpose of this council will be to study and make recommendations concerning personnel policies and programs with a view to improving the personnel administration and training programs of State and local governments, and improving the coordination between all levels of government in the area of employment policies and practices.
Second, the bill would authorize the Civil Service Commission to make grants to State governments – and under certain circumstances to local governments – to cover a portion of the cost of developing and implementing programs to improve State and local personnel administration, to recruit and train State and local employees, and otherwise to carry out the purposes of the legislation. The Federal Government would bear up to 75 percent of the costs of these programs during the first 3 years after enactment, and up to 50 percent thereafter.
Third, the bill would authorize the Civil Service Commission to make grants to State and local governments to provide fellowships for graduate-level study to professional and technical employees of State and local governments. These fellowships would cover up to one quarter of the salary of persons selected for training under the programs as well as part of their tuition and fees for study at educational institutions.
Fourth, the bill authorizes the Civil Service Commission to establish joint recruiting and examining programs, on a shared-cost basis, under agreements with State and local governments.
The bill would further authorize the Commission to prescribe regulations covering the training programs established under the legislation, and to make appropriate provisions to avoid duplication among Federal programs providing for the training of State and local government employees.
These are the basic provisions of the bill which were acceptable to both the House and the Senate. The differences between the Senate and House versions of S. 11 are minimal, and reflect agreement on behalf of all of the objectives sought through the Senate version. The basic issues dealt with in the House version of S. 11 are as follows:
First. The bill authorizes such sums as are necessary to allow requests for specific amounts consistent with budgetary requirements. The authorization is open-ended as to amount and duration. The Civil Service Commission estimates a request of $20 million for the first year of operations under the act, $30 million in the second year, and $40 million annually thereafter.
Second. With regard to State and local government relations, the general effect of S. 11 is to place the Governor of each State in a strong executive position with respect to implementation of authorized programs, although without absolute veto authority. All applications under title I and II must be submitted to the Governor for review, comments and recommendations. At the same time, a city is assured that its application will reach the Commission with or without the Governor's recommendations and comments. If comments are made by the Governor and the Commission does not follow them, an explanation in writing must be given to the Governor. This permits full opportunity to develop a State plan with agreement of the local governments, while at the same time permitting local governments to apply for Federal assistance to local programs under certain circumstances.
Third. Provisions authorizing grants to train personnel employed in Federal grant-in-aid programs – set forth in the Senate bill – have been deleted by the House. The House feels that these provisions are objectionable inasmuch as they might appear to authorize Federal interference in State and local affairs. In large measure however, this capacity can be obtained under the terms of the many functional grant programs already established.
Fourth. S. 11, as passed by the Senate, provided for a revolving fund with which to finance programs. This provision has been dropped from the House version inasmuch as subsequent legislation enacted by this Congress, Public Law 91-189 provides for such a fund.
Fifth. S. 11, as passed by the Senate, also provided an exemption from conflict of interest requirements for public employees. This was to permit former Federal agency employees to seek employment in similar work with State and local governments. The Justice Department requested that this exemption be stricken from the bill since they saw no justification for exception to what are Government-wide policies.
Sixth. The House has amended the Senate bill to prohibit duplication of programs available under titles I and IX of the Higher Education Act of 1965, and has added provisions which would authorize training programs for nonprofessional employees, through use of on-the-job techniques.
S. 11, as thus modified by the House, is an improved bill. It has been endorsed by the National Governors' Conference, the Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, and by the administration.
Before concluding, I should like to stress the cooperative and completely bipartisan spirit in which the legislation has been developed and brought before the Senate for final passage. Many, in both Houses, have worked together over a period of years to produce a bill which would be responsive to the personnel needs of our State and local governments, today and in years to come. Special recognition should be given to the senior Senator from South Dakota (Mr. MUNDT), who is the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations and the parent Committee on Government Operations, for the deep interest he has taken in this work and for his proposals now incorporated in the measure we have before us.
Special mention should also be made of Chairmen John Macy and Robert E. Hampton of the Civil Service Commission who were most helpful in shaping the bill into its present form, and of Dr. David E. Walker, Assistant Director of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations and Mr. Albert H. Aronson, Director, Office of State Merit Systems, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, for their innovative suggestions.
Mr. President, I urge that the Senate agree to the House passed version of S. 11, the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970. Its passage will mark a significant stride forward in the improvement of public administration in the United States.
Mr. President, I now move concurrence in the House version of S. 11.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, this is a very interesting bill which the Senate should know about. The bill proposes to train and help improve the quality of State and local governments' personnel, by offering the assistance of the Federal Government – both in terms of funds and actual technical assistance.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. Even the Chair has difficulty in hearing.
The Senator may proceed.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I speak in connection with the bill only because the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. MUNDT), the ranking minority member of the committee, is ill, as we know, and I rise now only because I rank immediately after him. During the 90th Congress and the beginning of this Congress, the Senator from South Dakota had a very important hand with the Senator from Maine in working out this bill. I speak only because the Senator from South Dakota cannot be with us.
This is a very worthwhile effort to do something about upgrading the quality of training received by State personnel. This is a constructive bill and it took a long time to work out the problems. I gather the problems have now been worked out and that the Senator from Maine is now prepared to have the bill passed.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I wish to add one further point. The bill not only helps in connection with the existing conditions but it looks ahead to the future. State and local governments would be growing at such a rapid rate that they will have to recruit 2.5 million additional employees. This bill will supplement and implement the training of those people. Certainly, if we go into revenue sharing we will have to have skilled people at the State and local levels, and this bill will help in that regard.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further for a question?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. JAVITS. I wish to ask the Senator if he is satisfied with the bill as it now stands and with what he wants the Senate to do; and that it meets the compromise view of himself and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. MUNDT).
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. I would like to express my appreciation for the work which was done in connection with this bill during two Congresses by the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. MUNDT). In addition, we have had the full cooperation of the Civil Service Commission in both administrations and support from the Conference of Mayors, the League of Cities, and the National Association of County Hospitals. Everyone concerned has made an input and we have an excellent piece of legislation. I am delighted to accept the recommendations of the Senator from South Dakota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Maine.
The motion was agreed to.