Mr. DANIELS. Then the statement on the State Employment Security Agencies will be incorporated in the record.

(The document referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF GEORGE J. VAVOULIS, PRESIDENT, INTERSTATE CONFERENCE OF EXPLOYMENT SECURITY AGENCIES (COMMISSIONER, MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF MANPOWER SERVICES)

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, my name is George J. Vavoulis I am the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Manpower Services, and the President of the Interstate Conference of Employment Security Agencies I am here today as a representative of the Intertsate Conference to urge your support of the Manpower Training Act of 1969. The majority of employment security State administrators join with me in support of the concept of the bill and its stated purposes, but would recommend several changes to the proposed legislation which I will outline later.

The Interstate Conference of Employment Security Agencies is an organization composed of the chief administrative officials of the State employment security agencies in the fifty states, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. As you know, these agencies are responsible for the administration of the whole host of employment service programs and the unemployment insurance program in their respective States. The ICESA has spent considerable time in the study and discussion of the aspects of the legislation before us today. As a matter of fact, the State administrators met for two full days in October, during which time the legislation was carefully analyzed and a number of recommendstions made to the Department of Labor. Today I will discuss with you those amendments which State administrators feel will strengthen the legislation.

At the outset, I wish it clearly understood that the Conference strongly supports the enactment of a Manpower Act which will eliminate the now existing duplicate and overlapping efforts of the myriad of agencies attempting to cope with employment problems. We believe that such legislation would not only strengthen manpower planning and programming in the Nation, but effect the delivery of far greater services at significantly reduced costs.

We also strongly advocate that the Federal-State system of employment security agencies be designated as the manpower agency at the State level to deliver or coordinate these services. Over the past 35 years or so, these State Agencies have built a network of local offices which reach into every area of the Nation. They have also gained the experience and expertise to accomplish the job. which I believe the Congress desires. The employment security agency of ten years ago is no more we have shifted gears, redirected our approach toward a greater emphasis on serving the disadvantaged, and now are the single agency in the community which can effectively provide a complete manpower service.

Following the meeting of State administrators in October, the Interstate Conference conducted a poll to ascertain the support of the proposed bill. The Conference has recommended five amendments to the existing proposal On the basis of the amended Act, 38 State Agencies, comprising over 65% of the workers covered under State unemployment insurance laws, and over 64% of the total employers covered under these same laws, voted in favor of the amended Manpower Training Act of 1969. Only four States having 11% of the total covered workers and 8%% of the covered employers were opposed. Ten States did not vote. I might add that only eight States were in favor of the original proposed legislation as introduced in H.R. 13472 and S. 2838.

The amendments that the ICESA proposes have been outlined in detail in the attachment to my remarks, of which you have a copy. I would like to briefly outline these recommended changes for you. The Conference advocates that Sections 102, 104, and other related Sections be amended so the decision of the Governor in approval of local plans is final. We also recommend that Section 106 be amended to preclude competition between Federal and State Agencies.

The majority of State administrators feel that the proposed four leve's of grants to States were excessive, and recommend that this be reduced to two. It is also the wish of the Conference that the reference to private job placement

ncies in Title IV should either be debted or modified to include only private, profit job placement agencies.

he final recommendation that we would make is that the programs financed er the terms of the Wagner-Peyser Act not be subject to the control of the ce manpower planning organization. I might hasten to add, however, that recommendation does not preclude the review by the State manpower ning organization of the plans of these programs. In summary, I would like repeat once more that based upon numerous discussions and study the vast ority of the States support the Manpower Training Act of 1969, including recommendations I have outlined above. We strongly urge that this bill be orted favorably by the Committee.

would now be pleased to answer any questions you may have regarding er my statement or the position of the Interstate Conference of Employment urity Agencies.

entlemen, I wish to thank you for allowing me to appear before your mittee today.

ATTACHMENT TO STATEMENT BY GEORGE J. VAVOULIS

Recommended amendments to H.R. 13472 and S. 2838

he following five amendments to the proposed Manpower Training Act of 1969 e adopted by the Interstate Conference of Employment Security Agencies à Meeting of State Administrators on October 28-29, 1969 in Kansas City, souri:

The Conference recommends that Sections 102, 104, and other related ions of the bill as may be necessary, be amended so that the decision of the ernor in regard to approval of local plans in SMSA's and other areas desiged by the Secretary as he deems appropriate, is final unless appealed by the lity to the Secretary; in that event, the decision of the Governor is final if Secretary finds such decision is supported by substantial evidence. The Conference recommends that Section 106 of the bill, defining the Secre's authority to provide manpower services in a State where there is nonpliance or absence of an approved plan, and other relevant sections as ropriate, be amended so that the authority of the Secretary to provide power services in the State be restricted, so that he may not perform, as ompeting Federal Agency, the manpower services referred to in Section 101 he bill which are being performed by the State Employment Service agencies. The Conference is of the opinion that the four levels of grants to the States rided for in the bill are excessive and would tend to create conflict with pect to the responsibilities of the States and the Secretary in carrying out the gram; and it also questions the practicality and validity of the concept of mplary performance as provided for in the bill. The Conference, therefore, ommends that the bill be appropriately modified to eliminate the exemplary formance concept and to provide that 80% of the funds appropriated under bill allocated to the States in two levels.

The Conference recommends that the reference to private job placement ncies in Title IV of the bill either be deleted or modified to include only prinonprofit job placement agencies.

The Conference recommends that the administration of programs financed er the Wagner-Peyser Act not be subject to the control of the State manpower ning organization which is established by Section 104 of the bill and, for this pose that Section 104 and any other relevant sections be amended so as to te the reference to programs financed under the Wagner-Peyser Act. This ommendation is not intended to preclude review by the State manpower ning organization of any State plan of service or portions thereof developed connection with programs financed under the Wagner-Peyser Act.

5. On January 22, 1970 all State Agencies were polled to determine their ition on the proposed Manpower Training Act of 1969 as (1) introduced in Congress as H.R. 13472 and S. 2838, and (2) with appropriate amendments carry out ICESA recommendations 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 adopted at the Meeting of te Administrators in Kansas City, Missouri, October 28-29, 1969. The results the poll are as follows: 1. H.R. 13472 and S. 2838 as introduced in Congress.

1 Total workers covered under State unemployment insurance laws as of June 1969, excluding the District of Colunte 2 Total employers covered under the State unemployment insurance laws as of September 1969, excluding the Dutc of Columbia.

Includes Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. The Virgin Islands has a vote as a member of the Conference but does ra have an approved State unemployment insurance law and therefore has no basis for inclusion in percent of covered workers and covered employers. The District of Columbia is not included in this poll since only the District Unemployment. Compensation Board is a member of the Conference.

2. H.R. 13472 and S. 2838 with appropriate amendments to carry out ICESA recommendations 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 adopted at the meeting of State Administrators in Kansas City, Missouri, October 28-29, 1969.

1 Total workers covered under State unemployment insurance laws as of June 1969 excluding the District of Columbia. 2 Total employers covered under the State unemployment insurance laws as of September 1969 excluding the District of Columbia.

3 Illinois voted in favor with amendments 6 and 7 only.

• Includes Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. The Virgin Islands has a vote as a member of the Conference but does not have an approved State unemployment insurance law and therefore has no basis for inclusion in percent of covered workers and covered employers. The District of Columbia is not included in this poll since only the District Unemployment Compensation Board is a member of the Conference.

Mr. VAVOULIS. Let me ask first that the record show that William R. Ford, director of Employment Security Commission, State of Michigan, was unable to be here this morning because of illness.

STATEMENT OF A PANEL COMPOSED OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY AGENCY OFFICIALS: GEORGE J. VAVOULIS, CHAIRMAN OF THE PANEL, DIRECTOR, MINNESOTA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY AGENCY, AND PRESIDENT, INTERSTATE CONFERENCE FOR EMPLOYMENT SECURITY AGENCIES; MRS. MAXINE DALY, COMMISSIONER OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, THE STATE OF WASHINGTON; WILLIAM C. DIOSEGY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. VAVOULIS. I would like to express our appreciation for the opportunity to appear before this committee, and to point out that the testimony that we will present represents actual experiences as employment security agencies that we are now having in our respective States.

his is not a philosophy or a matter of opinion, but statements that going to be made in behalf of each employment security agency. would like to first call on Mrs. Maxine Daly, who is a commiser from the State of Washington, to present her statement. [r. DANIELS. Please proceed, Mrs. Daly.

TEMENT OF MAXINE DALY, COMMISSIONER OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPARTMENT, STATE OF WISCONSIN

rs. DALY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Steiger.

am very pleased to be here. My name is Maxine Daly. I am a missioner of the Washington State Employment Security Departt, and I do want to speak today about how our State is meeting manpower challenges of the 1970's.

will attempt to keep my remarks as brief as possible and sumize them to the greatest extent necessary in the interests of time. do want you gentlemen to know, however, that we in the great e of Washington have addressed ourselves to the challenges of the and I believe that very successfully we are meeting them.

r. DANIELS. If the gentlelady would yield, her statement will be rporated in the record in full at this point.

The document referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF MAXINE E. DALY, COMMISSIONER, WASHINGTON STATE
EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPARTMENT

name is Maxine Daly and I am commissioner of the Washington State oyment Security Department.

vant to speak today to the problems of manpower and how government, in orm of the federal-state employment security system, has responded to these ems. More specifically, I want to speak of the Washington State EmploySecurity Department and how this agency has risen to the manpower enge of the 1970's.

roughout the history of our nation government has been subject to an everging array of challenges. In recent years, these challenges have increased in o and intensity. They have been directed at all levels, federal, state and but more usual at the local level. The reason is clear: That is where the s of government are most noticeable; that is where the impact is felt; that ere the individual measures the worth of government services. my judgment, the actions of government can be evaluated properly only in ontext of the times in which they occur. For this reason, I believe it importo take a brief moment to call attention to the concept of manpower service a was developed, through national policy, over the 30 year period following reation of the public employment service in 1933, now an integral part of ederal-state Employment Security system. Meaningful and effective change y agency will occur only with change in the basic concept of service as apto that agency, and as directions are enunciated by the demands of the and expressed by the will of our elected leaders.

1960 the public employment service had developed an intricate informasystem designed to accomplish one principal task-that of finding qualiworkers to satisfy the requirements of employers. The highly qualified er was eagerly sought. Employment offices went to great lengths to entice applicants and employers. The competition for quality applicants and qualb orders was severe. Because of the way the job market operated, the wellied job seeker had little need for the employment service and, in fact, made al use of it. Nevertheless, promotional efforts were directed toward inng this usage, and success measurements included evaluations of the s of these efforts. Why? Because national policy directed this thrust and stem responded.

Then, beginning with the Manpower Training Act of 1962 and much more forcefully with the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Economic Opportunity Act in 1964, strident demands for change were reflected in public policy. Govern ment had, in effect, admitted that all was not right with the world. The invisible American-the poor American-was no longer invisible and no longer mute. Among the cries of the poor, or more accurately of those who claimed to represent them, were these: "Existing agencies of government have not been responsive to the needs of the poor!" "Old line public agencies cannot and are not willing to change!"

In all candor, we must admit to the first-but we as practitioners in the field stoutly disclaim the second. Existing public agencies of government can change! More than that, they are willing-even eager to change. And most importantly, they have changed. The record needs to be set straight, and my purpose will be to do this.

Washington State, with a population of some 3 million people, has one of the most diverse social, economic and geographic structures of any state in the Union. Often known as the "land of contrasts" our state encompasses a land area of some 68,192 square miles, covering areas of industrial density, rast timberlands and open spaces, extensive farm lands and agricultural enterprise. intricate waterway systems and hydroelectric projects, all tied together by a network of small towns and sparsely settled rural areas. So then, in addressing ourselves to the manpower problems of a population living in this environment, we must be responsive to the needs of the individual wherever we find him.

In doing so, the Washington Employment Security Department was one of the first to adopt and implement the philosophy of human resources development. The time had come to examine traditional concepts, to identify fallacies and truths, strengths and weaknesses, and to create a whole new philosophy of service based on individual needs.

To implement the new philosophy, we did not set up separate units within local offices to provide special treatment to a special segment, the socalled disadvantaged, while carrying on business as usual elsewhere. We reordered our priorities.

It became our objective that those whose need for service was the greatest would get our first attention; those whose needs were less would have the information they needed available to them. Inherent in this philosophy was the belief that our professional staff ought to have the capability of providing services to any individual to the extent those services were needed. We adopted the operating principle that the delivery system be tailored to provide, within the limitations of available resources, a personalized service based upon individual need.

One thing quickly became evident-that we could carry out our mission only to the extent we were able to lead, and other elements in the community responded, by becoming aware of, and getting involved in the whole array of manpower problems.

Approximately one hundred management and key administrative staff were brought together for a seminar on mobilizing the community to meet manpower needs. A fictional city became "our town." Our management personnel were the leaders of the community. Problems plaguing the city became their problems: differences of opinion, which could have led to stalemate, were their differences: solutions developed were their solutions; failures to solve problems were their failures. Our experience clearly demonstrated that our local office managers must be and could be effective in bringing community resources to bear for the resolution of manpower problems.

At about the same time we embarked on an extensive and intensive training program to sharpen the basic management skills of our supervisory personnel at all levels. Over a period of several months we trained all our managerial and supervisory staff in the principles of management.

Our commitment to serve the citizens of Seattle's "inner city" can be demonstrated by our readiness to provide staff to the first year Concentrated Employ ment Program in that city. We felt that our commitment must be substantial to be meaningful so we reassigned our regular staff to fulfill our part of the contract, without requesting additional federal funds. Although this action was looked upon by our federal partners as an overcommitment, we proceeded with our plans. Later when additional funds were made available, we received replacement resources.