other popular and worthwhile programs, to undertake massive new commitments to spending Federal resources when just the opposite is necessary.

I believe the action that should be taken at this time on the youth employment initiatives proposed by the administration and by other Members of the Senate is to have the subcommittee develop and authorize the best possible array of youth programs to serve this Nation's most disadvantaged population, but to specify that we are not committing the Federal Government to spend any additional dollars beyond current levels for youth employment and education programs in 1981. When the economy improves, and if additional resources should become available, then we can determine whether it would be appropriate to expend additional money on youth employment and education programs.

In this way this subcommittee and the full Committee on Labor and Human Resources, and the full Senate, can send a clear message that we are serious about controlling inflation while remaining fully cognizant of the problems confronting youth in American society.

I would hope, Mr. Secretary, that you will address the issues I have raised here, plus the question of how you cut back on CETA employment and how you balance off, if that is to be the fact, a reduction in the summer youth jobs which I think over the years have been very useful and very valuable, and substitute an increase of some $2 billion for a new initiatives program.

At this point in the record we will insert the opening statement of Senator Williams.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRISON A. WILLIAMS, JR.

Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I join you and the Members of the Subcommittee in welcoming Secretary Marshall to these chambers once again.

We are always pleased to have you with us, Mr. Secretary. I share the view of others that we are meeting at a difficult time. Under other circumstances, this might have been an exhilarating point of departure.

We have before us the President's proposal for a broad and promising initiative against joblessness among our youth-we will introduce the bill itself later today.

We also have before us the President's proposal for a program of jobs and training for welfare recipients and other low-income household heads.

Both of these proposals-particularly the elements that would modify CETA-are carefully crafted and worthy of serious and deliberate consideration by the Committee and the Congress.

You have every right to be proud of them, Mr. Secretary.

But this is our problem: with new budget cuts in existing programs, how can we go ahead with new programs without robbing Peter to pay Paul?

One answer, of course, is that existing programs often can stand revision-to streamline them and tailor them to emerging needs. I think this is the case with the youth employment authorities in title IV of CETA.

These authorities expire at the end of the current fiscal year-we have learned a great deal with them about the nature and extent of youth unemployment-so this is a good time to considering revision.

Another answer lies in the fact that we are an authorizing Committee and this is authorizing legislation, with no provisions at this point for direct entitlements.

As such, their implementation depends upon enactment of appropriations.

This is certainly the case with the welfare jobs legislation. From the beginning, the target date for funding and implementing these programs has been fiscal year 1982.

Perhaps that date will have to be delayed further, but a case can be made for pressing ahead with enactment of the authorizing legislation, if the Congress is willing.

As always, I rely on the keen judgment of the Senator from Wisconsin as to what is feasible so far as passage of employment and training legislation is concerned.

A final answer to our dilemma is that we don't have to be embarassed about asking for reasonable levels of funding for programs of high national priority and great human need.

We are all deeply concerned about the tragic consequences of inflation.

We are all aghast at a prime interest rate that exceeds 17 percent.

We recognize that fiscal austerity, leading to a balanced Federal budget, would help to break the inflationary psychology-the fatalism about inflation-that grips the economy.

But we also recognize that we are on the verge of a recession without a very good idea about how damaging it might be.

And in these circumstances, it is a dubious proposition at best that budget balance should be achieved at the expense of education, training, health, and social services programs which directly affect the ability of individuals to get and hold a job, to improve their productivity, and to expand their capacity for self-reliance. I will be interested in your own thoughts in this regard, Mr. Secretary.

So, subject to the judgment of the Senator from Wisconsin as to how far we can move with these initiatives, I think we should go ahead, and I am greatful personally to him for his commitment of time, effort, and leadership in these endeavors.

Senator NELSON. Senator Javits?

Senator JAVITS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, on a personal note-and I express my pleasure at your being here this morning on so critical a subject—I beg you to excuse me for about 20 minutes so I can keep another appointment. I will be back.

Mr. Secretary, I have heard the injunction given you by the chairman on the budget question. The fact is, this is the only new initiative in the whole of the President's budget. Secondly, the budget takes account of material inflation in this country, something in the area of 14 percent, and it looks like it's 18 now. And third, that public order is certainly as important as inflation.

Now, we have to have an eye to those additional considerations, as well as strictly money equations, as we go through this.

I hope very much, with the chairman, that we can hold the line, but the inflation factor is a very serious question on holding the line, because you will cut this whole program 14 percent if you stay where you were in 1979. They're not doing that with anything else. Personally, I believe that the only way to deal with balancing the budget is an across-the-board cut, and that if we start to cut youth and cut health and education, and they suffer, it's completely out of proportion, because that's the record, unfortunately, of the Congress. If we cut across-the-board, everybody has got to take their lumps. That's what I'm going to fight for.

Now, as to your programs, may I say this: I think there's a great identity between your program and the administration's, which is being introduced by Senator Williams, and the program which I myself have introduced. I think the big difference-and I hope you will zero in on this difference, very seriously-is the question of the 22 percent set-aside which relates to the link between education and work, especially in the CETA program. That was a program of Hubert Humphrey's and my own, with which our chairman was very sympathetic and greatly facilitated, and I am very grateful to him.

But I think for me, the burden of proof is going to be on the administration to prove to us, or to prove at least to one Senatorto wit, myself-that we're not going to cheat the program by dispensing with a set-aside in order to build some power base, whether it's in your department or in any other. I really think the burden of proof is on the administration. Just like the administration is for block grants, for that reason, as against a particularized grant. The burden of proof has always been to show that the function will not be cheated but, on the contrary, advanced.

I go with the chairman on the proposition that money is the major consideration and that we have got to substitute brains, to sacrifice, and to dispense with the frills in order to meet our national responsibilities, which is to hold the budget line. I will vote that way. As I have just indicated, I have never voted for an across-the-board cut in my whole public life, but I'm going to now because I think it's the only way to do it in order to keep a fair balance between human needs and security and economic needs. Lastly, Mr. Secretary-and again, we have an unusual chairman in this regard—we have had great success in a tripartite approach, of House, Senate and administration, in trying to fashion a bill. I hope very much that's exactly what's going to happen here. We cannot afford in this particular field to hang anything up by some long struggle. I hope again we will reason together and everybody will yield what he may consider is unyieldable, or she, and get together. It's the only way to do it, and that's the most patriotic of any. I hope we will all think that way.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Senator Javits follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR JAVITS

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to welcome Labor Secretary Ray Marshall and our other distinguished witnesses-Dr. Eli Ginsburg of Columbia University, Chairman of the National Commission for Employment Policy, Dr. Sar Levitan, who is Direc

tor of the Center for Manpower Policy Studies at George Washington University, and former Secretary of Labor Willard Wirtz, of the National Manpower Institute. We are beginning four days of hearings on youth employment legislation and the Jobs Training Component of the Admininstration's Welfare Reform proposal, two critical areas for public policy.

The country and the Senate should be very anxious to have the benefit of the testimony during these hearings on remedying the shocking problem of youth unemployment in our country and on affording household heads of public assistance recipients the means of escaping out of the syndrome of welfare dependency through the opportunity for employment and training.

The scourge of youth unemployment continues to be in my judgment an economic and social calamity in our country. The officially recorded unemployment statistics, which most observers agree grossly understate the magnitude of the problem, are themselves so astonishing as to strain credulity. Unemployment among youth between the ages of 16 and 21 is estimated officially at more than twice the national average, 14 percent, and according to a recent report by Ohio State University, could actually be closer to 20 percent. For black youth aged 16 to 21, unemployment is recorded officially at 30 percent, but Ohio State reports black youth unemployment is actually closer to 40 percent in the United States. And for young blacks who are enrolled in school and who are looking for work the new data indicate that unemployment could be as high as 55 percent.

Mr. Chairman, even these shocking statistics could be on the conservative side. In many of the inner cities of our country, such as in the South Bronx in my own City of New York, youth unemployment easily approaches 50 percent.

I shudder to think what could happen in our cities this year if the long expected 1980 recession materializes in full force. A severe economic downturn, which would strike the older less resilient cities the hardest, could wipe out even the scarce job opportunities that remain for poor and minority youth, and deny them any reasonable chance of breaking out of poverty any time soon.

Mr. Chairman, a number of bills have or will soon be introduced in the Senate to remedy the problem of widespread youth idleness. Bills have been introduced by Senators Metzenbaum, Kennedy, Hatch and myself (S. 2218). And I understand the President's own proposal, the Youth Act of 1980, a two title bill, has or will be introduced very shortly by Senator Williams, the Chairman of our Committee. As in 1977, when the underlying legislation was first enacted-the Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects Act, Public Law 95-93-we will no doubt have a number of bills before us. I have looked at the various proposals that have been introduced and I have seen nothing in any of these bills that cannot be cranked into the final version that is reported from the Committee. I have every expectation that we will have the best thinking of the Administration and the Congress before us embodied in the various measures that have been submitted and referred, and we will draw from them the elements that will comprise what will no doubt be an amalgam of the various approaches.

One thing can be ascertained at this time and that is that we share a common purpose: The statement of purpose of the Administration's bill is very similar to my own and to that of other bills that have been introduced and I would like to read from it to indicate the commonality which we share as we embark upon consideration of this vital domestic initiative. Sec. 102 of the draft of the Administration bill reads as follows: "It is the purpose of this Title, in coordination with the Youth Education and Training Act set forth in Title II of this Act, to increase the future employability of youths most in need by increasing their basic educational competency in work-place skills through a carefully structured combination of education, training, work experience, and related services. This Title is designed to help achieve these objectives through providing the optimum mix of services focused upon disadvantaged youths. Additional purposes of this Title include improving local accountability for program performance, simplifying reporting, increasing local decision-making on the mix and design of programs, providing extra resources for distressed areas, providing incentives for promoting special purposes of national concern, improving access by youths to private sector employment, assisting and improving staff and program capacity for those who provide the services, and providing trust-worthy job references for participants.”

So it is clear, Mr. Chairman, that the purposes embodied in the Administration's bill are similar to the purposes that have been included in the other measures that have been submitted. In my own bill, S. 2218, I have focused upon the following five

purposes:

(1) that youth employment and training programs operated under CETA should concentrate upon employability development and remedial education and training as opposed to work experience;

(2) that legislation should encourage, to the extent feasible, community collaboration among the various deliverers of services, including community based organizations, so that we can harmonize the mix of services for idle youths;

(3) that we must endeavor to promote a strengthening of the linkages between the schools and CETA at the local level so that inschool youth would have the opportunities to be exposed to employment and training services;

(4) that me must try to provide somewhat greater concentration of federal resources on areas with the highest unemployment among youths; this will be very important in the present enviroment of budget restraint;

(5) that we should seek to bring about some consolidation of the existing youth programs in order to facilitate easier implementation and administration at the local level.

In short, Mr. Chairman, I believe we already have a consensus in this Committee on the objectives of the legislation that will be before us. We may disagree on the approaches that should be taken to reach those objectives but in essence there is consensus, in my judgment, on the objectives-and this is the critical point as far as I am concerned. We will work out the differences; as I say there is nothing in any of the bills that have been introduced so far that cannot be accommodated to some degree in the final product of this committee. As in 1977, we are eager on our side to work with the Administration in the development of an acceptable bill. I am hopeful that can be accomplished and I welcome this initiative from the Administration.

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Senator Javits.

Mr. Secretary, the committee is very pleased to have you here today. Your statement will be printed in full in the record and you may present it however you desire.

STATEMENT OF HON. RAY MARSHALL, SECRETARY OF LABOR, ACCOMPANIED BY JODIE ALLEN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, POLICY EVALUATION AND RESEARCH; CHARLES KNAPP, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, EMPLOYMENT TRAINING ADMINISTRATION; RICHARD JOHNSON, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF POLICY EVALUATION AND RESEARCH; AND ROBERT SCHWARTZ, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION

Secretary MARSHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Javits.

What I would like to do, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, is to summarize both of the statements, one dealing with the new Youth Training and Employment Act, which is the Labor Department's portion of the new youth education and training legislation, and the work and training opportunities program, the jobs part of the administration's welfare reform proposals.

Mr. Chairman, I am accompanied today by Jodie Allen, on my immediate left, who is Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Evaluation and Research in the Department; Dr. Chuck Knapp, on my immediate right, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training; Dick Johnson, the Acting Administrator of the Office of Policy Evaluation and Research in ETA, on Ms. Allen's left; and Bob Schwartz, the Assistant Director of the National Institute of Education, on Dr. Knapp's right.

I would like to briefly summarize my statements, Mr. Chairman, and then permit as much time as possible for questioning.

As you have said, this is a very important problem, youth_employment and unemployment. There are too many young people in our country who cannot find jobs, who cannot hold jobs, who cannot progress toward a life of productive contribution and economic independence. This is a major failure of our society, and it's