"Here is your program, and you will be consulted, but we will design the program and you may comment on it."

I really don't know. The city of New York has a greater capacity, if they use the capacity they have, to evaluate what the city needs than they do up there in Albany.

It seems to me you must have an input from the local level. The administration bill does not require a local manpower council. I think we have to have a local manpower council. I think the design of the plan must come from cities of certain size, whatever that is, 75,000 was passed before, and I would agree that the mayor ought to have the final word, and he must have a representative manpower council, and they must design a plan.

I would agree with the position of the administration on the point that the mayor should have the final word on the plan. I will agree with that. I don't know how you are ever going to get a plan designed at the statehouse for all these cities, with them only having a comment. I think you have to have a local manpower council. I think you have to have local participation, and I quite frankly don't see how State run programs would work.

I am for the concept of having services that can be performed at the State level performed there. I am a long-time States rights man in that respect, but not in the way the term has been misused for so many years. I believe that the most efficient regional government in America is the State government.

Problems are at a manageable size in most States, with the possible exception of two, and they can perform necessary functions in providing services to people in their States better than the Federal Government can do it.

I don't buy the argument that there are incompetent State governments and therefore you have to have the incompetent government perform the services for them. If you are going to have a system of States with constitutional responsibilities, you live with them, and if the people of the State want an incompetent State government, they get what they deserve.

I think in the long pull, the States that are performing incompetently and competently works itself out at the ballot box over a period of time, and to suffer with the incompetence of some of our States is better than to suffer with the incompetence at the Federal level.

The Federal bureaucracy doesn't work. That is all there is to it. They can't perform those functions. But I don't know what you do when you get a city of under a hundred thousand, under your proposal. Smaller cities do not even have a right to be consulted or make

a comment.

So under your bill, a State could go ahead and design a program for a city of 75,000, not consult them and not give them a right to comment. That won't work, either.

Mr. HEARTWELL. Senator, I think the entire concept is that the State is made up of individual units throughout and the entire concept we felt like the structure was there for input from local groups.

This concept was designed now in our plan to try to eliminate the

proliferation that has been existing in the past 5 or 6 years specifically on programs going out locally without State cognizance, without State coordination and ending up with programs being duplicated where States could provide this service already.

We had the question of maybe several agencies working the same side of the street, and putting out the same type of program to the same group of clients, and the coordination at the State level was what we were really working for.

I would like to, sir, if I may, introduce our President, Mrs. Hackel, who has just arrived. She is seated to my right.

I have utilized your statement.

Mrs. HACKEL. Senator Nelson, and gentlemen, I am really very sorry that I am so late. We had, not by way of excuse, but that is how it is in Vermont, 8 to 10 inches of snow in Burlington last night, and the airplane was two and a half hours late in leaving. I apologize.

I am Stella Hackel, president of the Interstate Conference of Employment Agencies and commissioner of the Vermont Department of Employment Security.

Bill, have you used the testimony I had?

Mr. HEARTWELL. Yes.

Mrs. HACKEL. Then perhaps much of what I would say would be redundant. It was all read through.

Senator NELSON. The committee is very pleased to have you back again. We apologize for not having a woman deliver your statement. The statement was read, and I was simply asking some questions before you got here about the question of prime sponsors, the question of how you design a program, if the manpower program is to be designed by a State manpower council with only the right of consultation and comment from cities of 100,000 or more, and what expertise did this council have to design a program for New York, Milwaukee, Seattle, or any other city of 100,000?

I don't think the expertise is there.

Mrs. HACKEL. In the bill introduced by Mrs. Green, there is a provision for a State manpower council, which would have representatives of the State government and of local government, too. Obviously now in the development of the comprehensive plan, you would have input from the elected officials of the localities who, after all, had designated the representatives.

It was the thinking of the interstate conference in that regardthe reason why our position statement took two separate groups, one to the State government, and the other to localities for public service employment is that we feel it requires a great deal of expertise to know what training programs to train people in, to provide employability services, and to put them in jobs.

Whereas, in public service employment, I don't think it requires the same kind of talent to just place people in jobs in municipalities. There the elected officials with whatever kind of administration they might have could handle that well.

That is where we took a position that for professional manpower training programs, all the funds should go through State government.

You would have much better coordination that way and much more efficient administration of the programs statewide, including programs for the localities.

Senator NELSON. It does not strike me that it really helps X city to have a representative of city Y on the State manpower council making decisions about city X.

I don't think the representative that you are going to have on the State manpower council, the representative from San Francisco and the one from Los Angeles, I don't think they know as much about the manpower problems of the cities where they don't come from as the people who live there do.

Mrs. HACKEL. We assume it would be something-it would be somebody who lives there.

Senator NELSON. You are not going to have representatives from every single city of 100,000 or more?

Mrs. HACKEL. Insofar as possible, yes.

Mr. ROTHELL. May I respond to the question of whether the State people would have knowledge of what goes on in the city, the problems there?

In our State, we have been called on by the mayors of the large cities to make skills surveys in their areas to see what the skills needs are, to see what the unemployment situation is.

They don't have the information that they called on the State agencies to get. I think we know more about what the skills needs are in a city of 100,000 or more in Texas than does the mayor, because he is the one who has been asking us to make these surveys.

I think we have developed a tremendous amount of expertise. We have been running this manpower program now for over 30 years, and we have some very capable, very skilled employees in the State agency and have had year after year of service.

They work with the State education agency and the State vocational rehabilitation agency. They help us to develop the information needed for the manpower program and I think there is a tremendous amount of expertise in the State agencies because the State agencies do the same things in their field that we do in the employment security field. In our State, the State education agency has no control over the independent schools. They are completely separate and apart. The State agency can suggest that the local school districts actually do. It is imperative that we have a coordination of our training program, unless we want to have a tremendous amount of duplication and inefficiency in the training programs.

We think it is highly desirable, and I think this may exist in other States other than our own.

Senator NELSON. Well, you state the employment security agencies have had 30 years experience, but the experience of the employment security agencies has not been in manpower training programs.

Mr. ROTHELL. In the past 10 years, Mr. Chairman, we have been very active in most of the manpower programs that have been set up. Senator NELSON. Mr. Scales?

Mr. SCALES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am John Scales, minority counsel. One of the things, of course, that the committee members would consider in connection with the

76-736 - 72 - pt. 2 - 8

advisability of a State plan is the experience and performance of the employment service.

Now, I do not wish to take sides on that issue, but there have been a number of studies done of the employment service, most recently by the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, which was quite critical of the employment service.

I believe you have materials that respond to that study, and I thought that you should have an opportunity to place those in the record where the study appears.

Mrs. HACKEL. Thank you very much. We would like to do that at this time. We have a statement of position prepared by the conference on which a poll was taken of all the State agencies. The number of State agencies adopting this position voted yes, 48, representing 83.1 percent of the workers and 79.2 percent of the total covered employers. Voting no, none, not voting, 5, representing 16.9 percent of the total covered workers and 20.8 percent of the total covered employers. We would like to at this time offer this document, the State position just described.

Mr. SCALES. Very good. We hope to have the Labor Department comments on this study also.

(The information referred to follows:)

Results of Poll on November 1971 Reply to The Lawyers' Committee Report

On November 30, 1971 the State agencies were polled to determine their position on a revised response to the report of the Lawyers' Committee on Civil Rights Under Law, "Falling Down on the Job."

As of this date two States have not acted on the poll and have therefore been counted as not voting and three States elected not to vote. Forty-eight States voted in favor of adopting the response to the report. There were no States opposed to the reply.

The tabulated results of the poll are as follows:

1.

Do you favor adopticu of the November 1971 reply to the report,
"Falling Down on the Job: The United States Employment Service
and the Disadvantaged," made by the Lawyers' Committee for Civil
Rights Under Law and the Urban Coalition?

1/ Total workers covered under State Unemployment Insurance Laws as of March 1971.

2/ Total employers covered under State Unemployment Insurance Laws as of September 1971.

3/ Includes the District of Columbia, 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 per cent of covered workers and covered employers.