more interesting and creative ideas to be proposed in recent years. We compliment the members of this committee for having seen fit to do so.

In many ways, the proposal of Senator Domenici and others to provide $10 billion over 3 years in capitalization for State infrastructure is similar to structures advocated by the Conference of Mayors and others on the national level; namely, the Reconstruction Finance Corp. and the National Urban Development Bank.

Though some progress has been made in some areas, mayors do tend to be a bit wary in most cases of being excessively subject to State policy and administration in the development and implementation of our plans and programs.

In order for State infrastructure banks to work properly, particularly if they were funded with such a considerable infusion over Federal funds, a formal local role would have to be determined to ensure protection of local prerogatives to Federal funds on a direct basis.

The Conference of Mayors looks forward to working with you in refining this concept.

As to S. 871, the Regional Economic Development Act of 1983, we wish to voice our general support for S. 871 introduced by Senator Mitchell. This would be a rather straightforward reauthorization of the basic statute under which the programs of the Economic Development Administration in the Department of Commerce have been carried out.

S. 871 would streamline and coordinate existing EDA functions within an overall framework of increasing private sector participation and involvement in the local strategies carried out under these programs.

Mr. Chairman, as I previously noted, the mayors of this country believe that the city experiences under EDA have been a very positive one, and this proposed improvement, we view it with a great deal of promise.

As the committee moves forward in this coming period to more detailed consideration of its approach in infrastructure jobs legislation, we hope that it will be guided by these principles: Infrastructure/jobs legislation should be built on a foundation of Federallocal foundation; efforts which have worked demonstrably well in the past, such as EDA, should be expanded and increased; infrastructure/jobs legislation should be targeted to areas of need, whether that need is in cities of growth or distress; and infrastructure/jobs legislation should be based, to the maximum extent possible, on direct Federal/city relationships which, in our opinion, is the best way to get the job done efficiently and expeditiously.

The Conference of Mayors, Mr. Chairman, appreciates the opportunity to present our views this morning. We look forward to working with the committee in the days ahead toward speedy enactment of infrastructure jobs legislation.

Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STAFFORD. Thank you, very much, Mayor.

We are very grateful to you for helping us in our deliberations and for your excellent statement. It is now the committee's privilege to hear Carl S. Young, county executive for Broome County, N.Y. I believe, Carl, that you live in Binghamton; am I correct?

Mr. YOUNG. That is correct.

Senator STAFFORD. And from our conversation earlier, that you are a graduate of the same college I am, Middlebury?

Mr. YOUNG. Yes.

Senator STAFFORD. I might even ask what fraternity you belonged to there?

Mr. YOUNG. I believe we belonged to the same one, sir, DU. Senator STAFFORD. DU. I shall listen very attentively to what you

say.

STATEMENT OF CARL S. YOUNG, COUNTY EXECUTIVE, BROOME COUNTY, N.Y., ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, ACCOMPANIED BY MATTHEW COFFEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Mr. YOUNG. There was some hope on NACO staff that a common bond would lead to entire approval of the NACO position.

Senator STAFFORD. All right.

Mr. Young, we do have your full statement here, and we would appreciate it if, to the extent you possibly can, you summarize it. The entire statement will be placed in the record.

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you very much, Senator, for the opportunity to testify today. I am here not only as county executive from Broome County but also in the capacity as Vice Chairman of the Transportation Steering Committee of NACO.

With me, on my left, is Matthew Coffey, the Executive Director of NACO. Let me just identify the location of Broome County in as much as it is only slightly less well known than Burlington, Vt., or Middlebury, for that matter.

Broome County is on the southern tier of New York. It is roughly equidistant from the cities of Syracuse and Scanton. We have a population of 213,000 people, and it is a mix of rural, urban, and suburban. The city of Binghamton is both our county seat and our largest city with a population of 57,000. Among our points of interest that we are the birthplace of a number of industries, one small concern manufacturing computers, IBM continues to employ 17,000 people in our valley.

Broome County government employs roughly 2,000 people, full time, and we have a wide range of responsibilities in both the human services area and in the infrastructure area.

We maintain 337 miles of county roads. We have an extensive network of bridges. We operate an airport. It would take a massive public works program, to make it more accessible in weather conditions, but we also operate a mass transit system, a community college, a number of parks, and a variety of public facilities.

Senator STAFFORD. Mr. Young, is Binghamton, itself a separate municipality?

Mr. YOUNG. Binghamton is a separate municipality.

In fact, there are 25 levels of local government for our 213,000 people. One of the phenomena that is taking place is a gradual evolution to the county of the provision of services at the local level. Many of our local governments are at or near their taxing limits. For instance, the city of Binghamton is within $200,000 of their taxing limits on property taxes. As a consequence, we are seeing a

real movement of the delivery of services from some of these local levels of government to the county.

To say that we are heading toward metropolitan government would be an optimistic statement on my part, but I do believe that the foundation is being laid for that direction. And I think this is not atypical in the northeast.

Like most of the counties in the Northeast, we are seeing a substantial decay in our infrastructure system. As I indicated, we are equidistance between Syracuse and Scanton and anyone who has driven Route 81 between those two points has been witness to the decay of that particular stretch of our infrastructure. Recently, our major newspaper is being compressed into a 20 page supplement articles on the decay of the infrastructure in Broome County. They put a price tag of $678 million on the repair of that infrastructure, breaking down into roads, sidewalks, guardrails of $284 million; sewers and storm drains of $197 million; bridges, $77 million; water systems, $48 million; garbage disposal, $40 million and public buildings, another $32 million. I can say with confidence that their figure is probably low. I know that the garbage disposal problem, which is a county responsibility in Broome County, will exceed $40 million.

This breaks out to cost of $8,600 per family in the county, and roughly six times our annual budget. So I think that helps to put in perspective the overall dollar impact. We are not helpless, and we are not sitting on our hands waiting for the man from Washington. We, in Broome County, have undertaken the development of an industrial park to help us develop more jobs and expand our tax base, and we are anxiously looking forward to a relationship with EDA to help us finance the construction of this park and sewer and the infrastructure within that park.

We are very concerned about this, because, as you know, EDA has been seriously curtailed in its capacity to be of assistance, and I would add our voice to that of the mayor in support of continued funding for the economic development administration. I think that efforts to curtail this activity or this agency are shortsighted and counterproductive, to be perfectly honest. In the late sixties and early seventies $11⁄2 a million was spent to develop an industrial park just east of the city of Binghamton.

Today, the facilities within that park employ over 4,500 people. They pay nearly one-half a million dollars in property taxes annually to local governments and school districts. That $12 million has been returned to the community many, many times over.

In that line, on behalf of NACO and Broome County, I would add our support for S. 871, as well. We just think that this is absolutely essential. While our current employment rate is at the 8.9 percent level, it is nearly 20 percent for youth and I would point out that only 8 months ago, our overall unemployment rate was under 7 percent. So, while, by comparison with some municipalities, we may seem in good shape, we are anxious that we not arrive at that catastrophic condition that has affected many municipalities. We feel that continuation of EDA and the avalability of those types of funds are essential for that.

Let me quickly summarize, and I will read this just to make sure that I do not stray from the intent of our formal testimony, the

NACO policy position which is our initial attempt to address the overall infrastructure problem. First, local government infrastructure needs are simply too large for local governments to handle soley with their own resources. For the most part, local government must rely on property tax-as I am sure you are aware-and regressive taxes, which are so heavily drained by school districts and other levels of local government, that-they are not a big enough base for many municipalities.

County governments have the responsibility for major portions of our Nation's infrastructure system, and we should be involved from the start in development and implementation of national policy.

We are very concerned that the counties achieve a little higher level of visibility in the whole process. As I indicated, more and more services are devolving to us.

Rural and urban needs should be taken into account in an equitable manner in the development of national policy and programs. Furthermore, local developments should qualify for public works grants and loans primarily on the basis of their infrastructure needs, but also including unemployment factors.

Federal Government should move to consolidate infrastructure grants and loan programs with the goal of maximizing local government flexibility, decisionmaking, and priority setting.

We have found that the block grant concept is much more workable for us in terms of letting us identify whether we need roads rather than bridges or sewer systems rather than roads and bridges.

The tax exempt status of municipal bonds should not be changed in any aspect of infrastructure financing legislation. Local government matching requirements should be minimized, especially for economically depressed areas with a demonstrated inability to pay. Additionally, Federal seed funds for infrastructure banks should supplement rather than replace existing programs.

At this time, we do not endorse any specific proposal, any one legislative proposal over another, but we are supportive of an increased Federal role in assisting all levels of Federal Government to meet our infrastructure needs.

The Federal approach to infrastructure problems is generally quite fragmented, in our perception, at this time. We look to a broader basis of coordination and cooperation.

We generally support Federal efforts to survey our infrastructure needs on a State-by-State basis, particularly assuring the involvement of local government officials, city, county, and so forth.

We also support increased Federal funding of infrastructure projects; we support better coordination of public works programs at all levels of government and a voluntary program of infrastructure banks again at the State level, again, assuring actual real local participation.

In addition to the rural and the urban emphasis mentioned above, the Federal Government should develop policies which take into account the infrastructure needs of different regions. Certainly, the needs of New York, Vermont, and the Northeast, in general, are quite different from those in the Sun Belt. We need legislation that recognizes that. It is so obvious, that we seem to overlook that in the actual legislation.

19-870 0-83-2

We favor a proportionate process within each State for grant or loan programs involving Federal funds. Too often, the targeting of specific funds for particular projects has resulted in a better system of roads than you really need, but the money was there for roads when you really needed it for bridges or airports.

Mr. Chairman, NACO could not agree with you and Senator Randolph more on the overall goals relating to our infrastructure needs. This is long overdue. I would point out that in New York State, Speaker Fink, who is speaker for the assembly, has also called attention to the needs within the State. The State will have a bonding issue on the ballot this fall.

There must be a long-range, sustained effort coordinated among all levels of government to meet our infrastructure needs if we are to continue to prosper as a Nation. We do believe that the passthrough provisions of title I should apply to cities and counties over 200,000 rather than limiting it to those of 250,000 or more. Again, I think this reflects the direction in which services are flowing, and I know it, as I said, in Broome County. We are only 213,000 people, and yet the provider of services is more and more coming to be county government.

Title II of the bill appears to us to be a positive program very similar to the EDA and, as I indicated earlier, we feel very, very strongly in support of that proposal. Rather than summarize the rest of that testimony or specific points, I would be glad to respond to any questions you may have. Again, thank you for this opportunity.

Senator STAFFORD. Thank you very much, Mr. Young, for your help this morning.

The Chair would say that at least as far as the chairman is concerned, we are well aware of the location of Binghamton. It is on one of the airline routes that we fly between Burlington and Washington, and it is on the preferred route from here to Vermont by car, which we do not do anymore often than we have to because of the time involved. We do go through Binghamton and take the new interstate to Albany.

Let me ask you both to respond to this observation to whatever degree you wish.

If the Federal Government were to create a program such as in S. 724, which is the one Senator Randolph and I have joined in sponsoring, how would you spend the money? What work would you envision for the youth jobs portion of the program, for example?

Mr. YOUNG. In Broome County, first off, the administration of the youth jobs program, we would put it under our employment and training office. CETA was a much handier acronym because it is a whole lot easier than JTPA or whatever, but we feel that this is the proper location for the administration of it, and we have had good success in tying in with the private sector in a variety of job training programs, and we would see this supplementing what is in place now.

In addition to the job creation construction, for instance, the sewer construction, road construction, those areas have been hit pretty hard by the recession recently. I think that there is real potential for younger workers, particularly those right out of high