homes and everything they owned. The first people to reach us were a crew from the CCC. With more storms on the way, they spent two weeks sandbagging our houses and clearing mud out of the streets. We put radios out for them to listen to the Super Bowl, but they worked right through it. They were like angels or elves. I don't know where they slept at night, but there they were every morning, out to save our houses." One day Clark Emch, director of the nearby CCC center, and I hike to the summit of Mt. San Jacinto, a 10,824-foot peak rising straight out of the desert. He wants to look at the work being done by Joe Schroeder and his crew. "We were sleeping on the job," says Schroeder, "but when we saw you guys coming up the trail, we quickly laid a mile of channels and runoffs." They are rebuilding a section constructed in the 1930s by the original CCC, and all along the trail we pass historic evidence of the old Tree Army at work: a boiler rusting in the woods, a mule-drawn scraper, a rescue shelter made out of rocks and moss chinking. "We've forgotten how to build like this," says Emch, studying the shelter. "This country has lost a sense of workmanship, and we're suffering for it." While the Corps members explain to me how they run this project, we look across the smog-filled desert. This vast stretch of ancient sea bottom is controlled by a patchwork of state and federal agencies, all of them vying for work crews. The Corps promotes a freewheeling system of swap and barter, where the National Park Service at Joshua Tree National Monument provides tents, and the CCC, in turn, builds them a radio tower, or the town of Yucca Valley gets a new playground for giving crews classes at night. "I just wish we could do more," one of them comments. "Like build a park from the ground up." The language of the California Conservation Corps is remarkably old-fashioned. It speaks almost a Biblical tongue full of words such as "character" and "responsibility." People talk earnestly about the integrity of work, even the art of it. But mainly what I see at the CCC camps are young people doing work. They restore parks in the Mojave Desert, cut trails in Yosemite and fight fires in the Sierra. With this physical labor as a backdrop, members of the Corps have earned the right, as few others have, to talk about the value of work. Senator STAFFORD. Now, if it is agreeable to you, Mr. Sommers and you, Ms. Whaley, we will take the liberty of treating you as a panel in the sense that we will ask you both to testify before we get to questions. The Chair, coming from Vermont, does not know about protocol anyway, but I am aware of what the protocol here would be in terms of seniority of the two panel members. Therefore, I would recognize President Whaley of the Washington Urban League first, if that is agreeable to you both. Mr. SOMMERS. By all means. Senator STAFFORD. I would remind you that time is of the essence and that we have your detailed statements. If you can summarize them, the committee would appreciate it. STATEMENT OF BETTI S. WHALEY, PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON URBAN LEAGUE Ms. WHALEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am Betti Whaley, president of the Washington Urban League. The Urban League thanks you for inviting us to testify today, and I do applaud this committee for scheduling these hearings to explore how best to create jobs and, at the same time, rebuild the Nation's infrastructure. The Washington Urban League has been in this community for 45 years. Over that period of time, we have been in the business of helping the unemployed, the underemployed and the unskilled. In fact, just last year, in our office we provided employment assistance to more than 8,000 people. Our approach is comprehensive. It includes both job counseling, referral, training skills and job placement. In the past, the Washington Urban League has operated a variety of federally funded programs, particularly the jobs programs. In the late sixties, we operated an on-the-job training program that eventually had more than 800 enrollees. Through the seventies and into the eighties, we continue to operate jobs programs to targeted groups including disabled veterans, adults with dependant employment program, CETA title VI public service/ work experience program, summer youth employment programs, and the word processing training skills center. It is important that I indicate that the National Urban League movement of the 108 affiliates has a good track record of sound fiscal management and professional implementation of jobs programs. In fiscal year 1981, over 100 urban league affiliates were operating jobs programs which collectively were funded at $25 million. More than 68,000 persons were employed in our programs across the country-were enrolled. Out of that number, 23,000 were placed in unsubsidized employment. I am very proud to say this was done for an average cost of participation of $2,200 as contrasted to the $6,000 participation costs that was quoted by the Department of Labor in a program they ran by a group of freely based organizations. My comments this morning will be restricted to S. 724, which proposes both job creation and targeted jobs for young people. I think it is laudible for this committee and the sponsors of S. 724 to be proposing ways to improve our infrastructure as well as creating jobs. You will get no argument from me that there is a need to rebuild this Nation's infrastructure. I think our major concern is that the whole concept of infrastructure be broadened to include community facilities and depressed neighborhoods. All of us are looking for ways to address the unemployment problem. Sometimes in our rush to do so, we lose sight of helping people get jobs and keep them. The most important ingredient, we feel, in any jobs program is skills training. Persons that acquiring meaningful skills training while enrolled in Federal-funded jobs programs are much more likely to be able to compete in the job market. Our experience with CETA-other speakers have addressed that confirms that the analysis that was made by the National Alliance for Business indicated that title VII was much more successful than title II because it had the additional component of the jobs training. Our efforts indicate that in this community alone, there are more than 30,000 unemployed persons who will need not only jobs, but skills training. I think that goes back to my concern about broadening the definition of infrastructure. The District of Columbia will probably need to have that definition to encompass the kinds of community revitalization that we talked about a little earlier. Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, could I break in a moment? Senator STAFFORD. Sure. Senator RANDOLPH. You are speaking of Washington as an urban area? MS. WHALEY. Right. Senator RANDOLPH. What would be the unemployment in the Washington area? MS. WHALEY. Specifically, one of our concerns is around the youth unemployment. Senator RANDOLPH. I am talking about the figure of unemployment in the area that you represent. Ms. WHALEY. About 10 percent, about 10.4. Senator RANDOLPH. Pardon? MS. WHALEY. About 10.4 is the unemployment rate. Senator RANDOLPH. I just wanted to establish it for the record. It is certainly high, and it's high throughout the country. But I simply wanted to be able to contrast that alongside certain of our States, not to diminish what you are saying, but only to place in perspective the unemployment of areas throughout the country. MS. WHALEY. Yes. And I would have to make sure that that figure is accurate. Anyway, I will get back to you shortly. I was focusing on youth unemployment, and I know that it is 7.4, and when we look at black unemployment in relationship to that, we are talking about 41 percent in this metropolitan area. And that is why we are particularly concerned about S. 724. In the interests of time, I am going to summarize and get specifically to our recommendations. We generally believe that in any jobs program, that we must move away from the simply labor sensitive programs that are almost exclusively skills oriented. We feel that the training effort must take into account not only the unskilled jobs sector, but the growing pool of untrained persons that need to reenter the labor force. In this particular area, the retraining is particularly acute. Our specific recommendations are, first, that title I be amended to require States to utilize local private industry councils as an umbrella for community based organizations engaged in and demonstrating the ability to conduct meaningful skills training programs. We believe very strongly that every jobs program should have a component of skills training and that skills training need not be related to the particular job being carried out, that there ought to be meaningful labor market analysis and ways developed to provide skills training in concert with the job being undertaken. We believe that the training should become the linchpin in title V and that emerging career areas be broadened to include the training effort; and finally, as I indicated, the definition of infrastructure as it appears in title V be broadened to allow for the fund to revitalize depressed neighborhoods. This would allow the inclusion of public housing projects, community shopping areas and recreation facilities. Thank you. Senator STAFFORD. Thank you very much, indeed. I note from your written statement and that of Mr. Sommers, who will be next, that both of you could qualify as speakers in northern New England where we believe in short speeches and support papers, and yours are commendably brief and to the point in both cases. Mr. Sommers, we would be glad to hear from you. STATEMENT OF ALBERT T. SOMMERS, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF ECONOMIST, THE CONFERENCE BOARD, CITY OF NEW YORK Mr. SOMMERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to have the opportunity to offer you the views of a generalist as those distinguished from the distinguished officers of State and local government that we heard from earlier and from the institution that is dedicated primarily and so effectively to the labor market. I will summarize my already very brief paper and take very little of your time, but I am at your service for discussion on these points as you wish. I am in total, unqualified, uncomplicated agreement with the objectives that appear in several bills before the committee. It is worth taking just a moment to expand on the reasons why I am so emphatic about the agreement. First of all, it is always argued, and quite correctly, that our productivity as a nation and our efficiency as a nation rests on infrastructure of public facilities and that the quality of those facilities is a limiting factor and the opportunities or productivity in the private sector. That hardly needs much elaboration. Second, it is always argued, and again quite correctly, that our public facilities have an extraordinarily large bearing on the quality of life in the United States, and I don't doubt that, either. There are arguments less frequently made but, I believe, probably in the end really far more important, first, this society gives a sense of utter lack of coherence when it allows a huge, demonstrable need to coexist with enormous unemployment of the resources required to meet the need. Pursuant to that, I suspect that that sense of incoherence erodes respect for the system as a whole. It is very difficult to maintain respect for an identification with a system that is in such an obvious state of decay. I think it leads to social ennui. I think the issue we are confronting is probably as important in the growth of the underground economy as any other much more identifiable measurable measure this system may be. It may be that one of the reasons for the growth in the underground economy is that it is very hard to maintain respect for, above ground, a public economy that nobody seems to really take an interest in or care about, and that condition would suggest to me a kind of impotent Government that is hardly deserving of support. In any event, to move more practically to the materials in the bills, I agree on the National Commission described in S. 23. I think it is superior to the Infrastructure Council described in 532, most particularly, I suppose, because the National Commission proposal envisages considerable membership by public members, including the chair. So one or the other, but a Commission with substantial public membership, I think, is very desirable. Second, I agree, for reasons that will be clearer in a few moments, with the instructions to the Comptroller General. I think this is S. 23-but I don't have it in front of me-to make further passes at efforts to distinguish capital investment in the Federal budget and to study the usefulness of capital budgeting. I think the mayor mentioned this, and I support that, and I will elaborate on it a bit. I agree with the stablishment of State infrastructure banks, presumably with a national counterpart, a sort of Federal Reserve System directed quite specifically at the infrastructure problem, and I agree with the principle of matching grants which I also agree to the 50-50-and I can't pretend expertise in this area-but 50-50 is far higher a State and local share than prevails in most other such programs. Turning attention now to S. 724 and the variety of titles, I have no objection whatsoever to title No. 1, which is the principal, and by far, the largest amount, and also the most general. I have less convictions about titles II and III, mainly because of the short-term focus of II and the cyclical focus of III, I think are more narrowly distractions from the very large job that lies ahead. With respect to titles IV and V, both V(A) and 5(B), which are more nearly job related than they are infrastructure related, I favor jobs programs, including training efforts that you placed on them, Miss Whaley. They are included in this bill, that doesn't bother me, although I think we the objectives really have to be infrastructure first and foremost. |