The effect of this administration's proposed policy of austerity will most deeply impact Hispanics and other minorities, particularly minority youth. Hispanic youth are the least skilled and least experienced segment of the working force; therefore, they are inevitably the last hired and first fired. These policies of austerity will perpetuate this practice. The short-range consequences, massive layoffs of productive workers, is a cruel fate to bestow upon a labor force. The long-range effects would not only be brutal, but also irreparable. It is difficult, yet realistic, to conceive of a large segment of our youth population who will develop into adulthood without ever having held a job.

This disfranchisement of youth from our Nation's work force will reproduce the social havoc that almost wrecked our Nation in the 1960's, and perpetuate the economic decline that we have experienced since the mid-1970's. I propose to each of you, that we neither desire nor can we afford these consequences.

III. YOUTH EMPLOYMENT POLICY FOR THE EIGHTIES

Our national employment policy must reflect the needs of the Hispanic youth population of this Nation. Because of the diversity of Hispanic groups and the complexity of youth employment problems, it is essential that a variey of strategies be utilized to reduce Hispanic youth unemployment.

The employment strategies that SER supports are those that have been previously advocated by economist Dr. Richard Santos. Foremost, we propose the investment of financial resources in improving the supply of Hispanic workers through increased education, skills training, and job search information. The available demographic data consistently reveals an Hispanic labor force that has a lower educational attainment level than that of the general working population. We know that one out of every three Hispanic youth 16 to 24 years of age in our labor market is a high school dropout.

SER's experience with Hispanic youth has revealed a deficiency in career awareness, career preparation, and skills development on the part of those youths. More needs to be done to bring career awareness and training opportunities to these youths.

These measures will not be sufficient if discrimination against Hispanic workers persists, and there is ample evidence that it remains a serious impediment.

Because of the wide dispersion of Hispanics and the heterogenous nature of this group, SER-Jobs for Progress, the Nation's largest employment and training organization serving the Hispanic youth community proposes:

First, the development of multiple program approaches to address the divergent labor market needs of the various Hispanic youth subgroups.

Second, the implementation of multiyear funding mechanisms for the Comprehensive Youth Employment and Career Development Act.

Third, the deployment of mechanisms to insure the full participation of community-based organizations, neighborhood groups, and other institutions representing the structurally unemployed

and unemployable youth of the country in policy, research, and programmatic responsibilities.

Fourth, the implementation of the National Commission on Employment and Unemployment Statistics' recommendation to insure accurate, reliable, and timely data on Hispanic youth.

Fifth, the establishment of a National Hispanic Employment Policy Commission to advise the Secretary of Labor on Hispanic youth research.

Sixth, the development of stronger programmatic linkages between the education community and the employment and training system.

These six propositions will begin to address the employment needs of Hispanic youth.

Now, gentlemen let me turn to the President's youth legislation.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE PROPOSED YOUTH LEGISLATION

President Carter's Youth Act of 1980 proposes to meet the challenges faced by youth unemployment, given the present economic conditions and youth employment needs. SER recognizes the intent of the act and commends the administration on its action response to this critical issue. We find, however, that the act ignores the needs of Hispanic youth. In its attempt to recognize the need to attack the causal factors of youth unemployment-especially among minority disadvantaged in urban areas-we find that the act has some limitation. Recent studies reveal that race and ethnic discrimination continue to be among the strongest forces against youth as they attempt to enter the world of work. In an era when 90 percent of the employment opportunities in the United States require a high school diploma, and where the school dropout rate for Hispanic youth is up to 40 percent of that population, there is enormous need to address these facts in the bill. At no place in the proposed act is this addressed.

Far too much hope is placed on the public educational system to help minority youth get a decent chance at a career. The proposed legislation would in fact, reward the school systems that have treated minority youth with less fairness and invite them to continue to be left behind. As representatives of Hispanic youth, we are strongly opposed to such emphasis on the local educational agencies as the services deliverers of the act.

We find the need to address specific areas in title I of the act as follows:

The youth population being given priority in the act should include persons of limited English-speaking proficiency.

Skills and competencies for youth employment and training programs should include providing English as a second language training for youth lacking language proficiency for employment.

Prime sponsor basic programs should include an equitable allocation of funds for language proficiency training proportionate to the percentage of eligible youth in the population that would be considered persons with limited English-speaking ability.

Prime sponsors using equal chance supplemental allocations shall include persons with limited English-speaking ability.

Definitive means be provided to insure that the Secretary and prime sponsors will use nationally affiliated community based or

ganizations-such as SER Jobs for Progress, Inc.-to provide training and technical assistance to service providers.

Prime sponsors shall be required to publish summary reports on annual plans and program performance in daily newspapers with large circulation and to hold public hearings on annual plans prior to submission to the Secretary. Summary reports shall begin with a basic statement of purpose of programs, priority of population segments to be served, historical results of prior years' programsprojected services for: (1) age, sex, ethnicity of identifiable subgroups, (2) the measurable unemployment rate and school dropout rates and grades at which dropouts occurred, (3) types of training provided, (4) job placement and job retention rates, (5) incomes earned, (6) statistical design for comparison groups to demonstrate contribution to community, (7) program management performance criteria, and (8) prime sponsor administrative costs.

The following comments are made in reference to title II of the proposed Youth Act of 1980:

First, the use of 1970 data from the census will again negatively impact Hispanic youth due to the 17-percent undercount and the demographic growth of that population during the 1970's. Projections to account for the increase in Hispanic youth population and the most updated data from the census, must be used to adequately serve this segment of the youth population.

Second, the role of community-based organizations is completely absent from the partnership with local educational agencies, employment and training officers, and the private sector. Communitybased organizations must be added to the act as full partners. Third, the proposed bill does not sufficiently stipulate the particular differences and needs of Hispanics for employment and training and back-to-school programs, that are based on bilingual education and culturally relevant curricula. This approach obviously should include the role of parents and of community-based organizations.

In closing, allow me to leave you with these thoughts in mind, as we enter the most important decade of our existence as a multicultural nation. We ask that you join us in enhancing the opportunities for economic growth and prosperity for America's youth.

Thank you.

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Garza.

Who is the next witness?

Ms. COOPER. Maudine Cooper.

We at the National Urban League have long advocated youth programs. While the majority of youth in this country move smoothly from school to the workplace, we are deeply concerned about the steadily increasing number of poor and disadvantaged black and minority youth who bear what we believe to be a disproportionate share of youth unemployment rate.

Last year-well, not last year-1977, we testified before this committee and the House subcommittee on the introduction of YEDPA, the Youth Employment and Demonstration Act.

In preparing for this hearing, we looked back at that testimony and nothing has changed since the introduction of YEDPA. Granted, it was a demonstration program.

I looked at the language in there, and I would like to insert a paragraph out of the 1977 testimony:

Public educational institutions, private entrepreneurs, vocational education facilities, labor et cetera, are all suddenly concerned about the plight of black youth. While there is admittedly a need for partnership among these groups, they have traditionally ignored the plight of black economically disadvantaged youth. If unemployment rates among white youth were as high as black youth, it is quite possible that an all out war on youth unemployment would have been declared.

The figures are pretty much the same for 1980, and we still have no war, declaration of war.

Jobless rates among minority youth are usually two to three times higher than that of white youth. For example, while white teenagers had a jobless rate of 14 percent in 1978, the unemployment rate for Hispanic and black teenagers was 21 and 39 percent, respectively.

Today the jobless rates for black youth exceeds 70 percent in some of our urban centers. We know that they are, for the most part poor and concentrated in impoverished neighborhoods in central cities and rural communities. And I was very interested in the last witness' comment about how difficult it is to find and/or locate these young people.

We in the Urban League, and I would suspect in the other community-based organizations know exactly where they are.

We commend this committee for its recognition of the complexities of the problem and the need for a systematized and comprehensive approach. I think the records of both Senators here present exemplify that sensitivity.

In specific terms in addressing the administration's initiatives, we recognize the fact that the argument that there is a lack of skill among these unemployed youth has been a key argument for the problems of high youth unemployment.

We believe, however, that contrary to that belief, persistent high unemployment among minority youth is not primarily due to education and skills deficiencies, as again the previous witness reinforced.

Job opportunities are greater for white youth with lower educational attainment-white high school dropouts, for example, have lower unemployment rates, 16.7 percent, than black young people with some college education, 21.4 percent. It's about the same jobless rate as black college graduates.

That, to me, Senator, would indicate that there is something wrong with the lack of skills argument. It is true that a lack of basic skills leads to unemployability among many disadvantaged youth and this certainly needs to be addressed. But these skills are useless if jobs are not available because of racial discrimination, periodic recessions, and ineffective targeting.

The league is seriously concerned about the administration's weighty and perhaps inappropriate emphasis on the educational system. We are understandably skeptical about a bill that proposes to inject $900 million into a historically unsuccessful network. We agree that the unreadiness of high school graduates and dropouts significantly contributes to unemployability among too many disadvantaged youth, and we recognize the need for and welcome the initiative to increase Federal spending to enhance employability. But we suspect the educational system may be so permeated with

functional shortcomings in this area that the mere infusion of additional moneys into the system will be largely ineffective as a means to increase employment among disadvantaged minority youth.

Our public schools have continually failed to equip many youngsters with the requisite communications and comprehensive skills. We would like to address some specific concerns about the labor section of the administration's bill. In the testimony that has been submitted, I would like to have the entire document submitted for the record, and go on to the new initiatives.

The administration has deemed the new initiatives the most comprehensive youth training and employment effort ever accomplished or envisioned and its proposal to serve more youth is evidenced by DOL's expanded eligibility criteria.

We contend that in order to successfully accomplish the projected goals, the administration must rethink current levels of appropriations so that the program may be fully implemented in fiscal year 1981.

We recognize the fact that in this budget crunch that Congress is facing along with the administration that these programs will probably be the first to face the ax.

We are also concerned about the presence of the current ethnic provisions in the new bill. Again, with the tightening of the budget, we are afraid that the appropriations level for this program and the existing youth initiatives will also be cut, bringing again hope to young people-hope that will be dashed by the absence of appropriate funding levels.

We support efforts to consolidate and streamline the complexities of the YEDPA program; however, we are not certain that the proposed consolidation is a change for the better. The percentage of funds outside the basic grant formula is too large. This results in a $200 million reduction from current funds from the youth employment training program.

If I may conclude, we have some very specific concerns again about the educational system and the availability of alternative school systems. We are pleased that DOL has included some necessary components in the educational cooperative incentive plan. Section 423 should go further to specifically mandate CBO and alternative school input at the planning and approval levels. As you may know, the National Urban League did at one time operate several alternative schools. Those schools were models and have since been turned over to the existing school systems, and are still being carried out.

I want to do something that is not often done on the Senate side, and that is give a little plug for a bill that is on the House side. When we began to analyze all of these bills, we looked very carefully at not only Senator Javits' bill but Congressman Hawkins' bill as well.

H.R. 4425 amends CETA for the purpose of providing work and training opportunities and to assist families to become economically self-sufficient. We applaud that initiative and the retention of the youth entitlement incentives. We also applaud the expansion of the eligibility within that legislation to ages 16 to 24.