Mr. GALLOWAY. Yes, you're absolutely correct. There is an important distinction there.

Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you very much, Mr. Hufford and Mr. Galloway, for your contribution this morning. Certainly we will continue to communicate with you and try to work out what we consider to be one of our greatest concerns.

Mr. HUFFORD. Thank you very much.

Mr. GALLOWAY. Thank you.

Mr. HAWKINS. Our next witness, Mr. Alexander Pope, the county assessor, has requested an opportunity to speak, and, at this moment, we would ask you, Mr. Pope, to kindly proceed as you desire.

STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER POPE, ASSESSOR, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Mr. POPE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Alexander Pope and I am the assessor for the county of Los Angeles.

At long last the controlling majority of the board of supervisors appears to be acknowledging the failure of their employment and training program. It's too bad that the majority members of the board are not here this morning to learn something directly about the problems with the program. Better late than never. Others have been critical of the board majority's approach from the beginning, as you've already heard from Supervisor Edelman. This was not some noble experiment for which the board majority deserves high marks for a good try, nor was it a well-intentioned effort to address our welfare problems in a business-like manner as they would have us believe. This brainchild of the doctrinaire board majority has squandered millions of dollars of county and Federal money. A business run the same way would be filing for bankruptcy.

We were promised that the county employment and training program would save $4 million. Instead it is now $6 million over budget and counting.

The program has failed because the board is led by those who have a simplistic view of the world that simply does not jive with reality. They wanted quick, easy solutions. They were not concerned with the human costs or the long-range impact. A poorly planned and ineptly administered program was the result.

First, there was the thought that Federal job training dollars could cover welfare expenses, thus saving money for the county, but Federal law prohibits such substitutions, as Congressman Hawkins has pointed out.

Then it came out that the real savings would come from welfare participants dropping out of the training program and not being able to go back on welfare. It was anticipated that people would give up rather than suffer through the frustrations and inequities of a program not really designed for them.

The county never realistically expected that people would be trained and get jobs. By its own admission, only one in five persons were expected to complete training and secure a job.

And, in all the haste, adequate termination and appeals procedures were not provided for. This was a fatal mistake. Without

such procedures, participants could not be terminated and the savings from reduced welfare rolls never materialized.

Given those mistakes, is it any wonder that there have been overruns, not savings?

But there is another and more basic issue. I am speaking of human costs. There are thousands of unemployed individuals, young people, women, handicapped, blacks, Hispanics, other minorities, who are supposed to benefit from the millions in Federal funds that were diverted to this sadly bungled program. These moneys can never be recovered. The persons Congress intended to help get jobs, those who could make good use of needed employment training to escape the vicious welfare cycle-these people have suffered a far greater loss. They have been denied training and jobs and the dignity that working and providing for one's family bestows. They have been denied a chance at a better future. They are the ones, along with the taxpayers, to whom the board majority must answer for their doctrinaire ineptness.

Thank you, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Dymally, for your interest and concern and your long record of concern and interest in this very difficult area.

Mr. DYMALLY. First, Mr. Assessor, I want to commend you for a very succinct and a very much to the point statement.

It is obvious to me that the President's style has had some effect on the CAO because, whenever the President suffers a defeat, he claims victory. I thought it was rather interesting that a program which has been a total disaster has just been hailed as a success here. That to me is a very unique way of solving the city's problems. It reminds me of the time when we were in Vietnam. Senator Vandenburg of Michigan said, "Look, the best thing for us to do is to bring the boys back home and claim victory." So, in the face of a disastrous program, the CAO has said, “We have put more money into the program" suggesting a concern for people without admitting that he has had to put more money in because of the failure of the program. He promised $4 million in savings and he has put in another 12.

Mr. POPE. Maybe he was taking his queue from recent events in Lebanon.

Mr. DYMALLY. Thank you very much.

Mr. MARTINEZ. I understand your concern because I share it in a way, especially for my district. I have two industries that went bankrupt, closed up, the Bethlehem Steel and Huffy Bike, large companies that employed a lot of people. A lot of the people involved were my constituents. I have met with them repeatedly. There has been a constant concern for job training. A good portion of them were that kind of a person that found himself, after working for many years at one place, trained in only one skill. These people don't want to go on welfare.

Mr. POPE. Right.

Mr. MARTINEZ. They want to get back to work and as soon as they can.

Mr. POPE. One of the points is that, if we are going to use the very limited dollars which this administration sees fit to make available for these kinds of programs, it has to be used effectively. The kind of people that you're talking about, Congressman, are the

people who can benefit from a program of this magnitude and this duration. The general welfare people who have been put into these slots, many of them have much more difficult and serious problems, as Mr. Galloway indicated, illiteracy problem and related language problems, perhaps a second language problem, and that kind of thing which cannot be dealt with in an 8- to 10-week period. They simply aren't the people for which this program was designated to target.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Well you have a good grasp of the intention of the bill because that's exactly it in a nutshell. The other people we know need help and there are other programs-there was a county program and evidently they've chosen to do away with it because they saw this dollar available to them.

Mr. POPE. I'm sorry you're making that statement to me rather than to Mr. Antonovich, Mr. Schabarum, or Mr. Dana, but hopefully they will get the message.

Thank you very much.

Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you very much.

Mr. DYMALLY. Thank you.

[Prepared statement of Alexander Pope follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER POPE, ASSESSOR, LOS ANGELES COUNTY My name is Alexander Pope, and I am the assessor for the county of Los Angeles. At long last the controlling majority of the Board of Supervisors appears to be acknowledging the failure of their employment and training program. Better late than never. Others have been critical of their approach all along.

But this was not some noble experiment for which they deserve high marks for a good try. Nor was it a well intentioned effort to address our welfare problems in a business-like manner as they would have us believe.

This brainchild of the doctrinaire board majority has squandered millions of county and Federal dollars. A business run the same way would be filing for bankruptcy.

We were promised that the County Employment and Training program would save $4 million. Instead it is now $6 million over budget and counting.

The program has failed because the board is led by those who have a simplistic view of the world that just does not jibe with reality. They wanted quick easy solutions. They were not concerned with the human costs nor the long range impacts. A poorly planned and ineptly administered program was the result.

First there was the thought that Federal job training dollars could cover welfare expenses, thus saving dollars for the county. But Federal regulations largely prohibit such substitutions.

Then it came out that the real savings would come from welfare participants dropping out of the training program and not being able to go back on welfare. It was anticipated that people would give up rather than suffer through the frustrations and inequities that characterized the program.

The county never realistically expected that people would be trained and get jobs. By its own admission, not more than one in five persons were expected to complete training and secure a job.

And in all the haste, adequate termination and appeals procedures were not provided for. This was a big mistake. Without such procedures participants couldn't be terminated, and the savings from reduced welfare rolls never materialized.

Given these mistakes is it any wonder that there have been overruns, not savings?

But there is another and more basic issue. I am speaking of the human costs. There are thousands of unemployed individuals: youth, women, handicapped, and minorities who were supposed to benefit from the millions in Federal funds that were diverted to this sadly bungled program.

These monies can never be recovered.

Those persons Congress intended to help get jobs; those who could have made good use of employment training skills to escape the vicious welfare cycle; these people have suffered a far greater loss.

They have been denied training, and jobs, and the dignity that working and providing for one's family bestows. They have been denied a chance at a better future. Thank you.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Senator Bill Greene.

STATEMENT OF BILL GREENE, CALIFORNIA STATE SENATOR Mr. GREENE. Mr. Chairman and members, you have copies of my testimony.

Mr. DYMALLY. Before you start, Bill, I just want to thank you. I called you once before to say thank you about getting my bill out. Mr. GREENE. I told people that you were the only Member of Congress that I could find in the history of the State of California which had a measure by the Senate and signed into law while you were a Member of Congress. So you could use that in your campaign brag sheet that you set a record there.

Mr. DYMALLY. Very good. Thank you.

Mr. GREENE. It's a good bill on job training too, Congressman Dymally.

Mr. Chairman and members, let me say that it is my privilege to be here to appear before you this morning.

Joining me is Alan Davenport who joined my staff this year. I managed to sneak him away from EDD. He is one of the bright, experienced, and capable people with EDD also represented them before the legislature. I was impressed with his talents and ability.

Also joining me is Mr. Gregory Schmidt who is chief consultant to Senator Bill Lockyer. He is here because we're going to make reference to the Family Economic Security Act, which we developed here in California. You will see its relationship in my testimony. Gregory was the chief staff architect of that with Senator Lockyer and that was just before the Senator came to the assembly when he chaired my counterpart committee on the assembly side. He and I, I might say, have, for several years, put our heads together to see how we could begin to make some sense out of what we have and what was coming down the pipe rather than the confusion that we have now. Of course, the situation that we're in now we certainly did not anticipate. So, Mr. Schmidt is here to comment and testify on behalf of Senator Lockyer in that regard. I would appreciate it if you would give him an opportunity to make his remarks after I finish my testimony. Mr. Davenport is here to respond to your questions.

Let me say also, Mr. Chairman and members, that ever since I have chaired the industrial relations committee, which goes back to 1976, and then subsequently in 1977 when I became the chairman of the subcommittee of senate finance, which handles the budget for this entire area as well as all of health, medical, MediCal, employment, rehabilitation and what have you, some one-third of the State's budget-this year the portion of the budget that we handled was $7.1 billion, which means that we frankly sit at the juncture both on the policy side and on the appropriation side of everything that the legislature does in this regard. It's finally worked out by conferees on the budget.

My two Congressmen represent my position very clearly and very stalwartly in that regard, so my comments here this morning are really made as the chairman of the senate industrial relations

committee of the Senate of California, and as the chairman of the budget appropriations committee.

I might state that the comments that I will make here this morning are those that I have been making in the city and the State where we are faced with the same kind of situation.

We have carefully reviewed the Los Angeles County job training plan and would like to focus our attention on certain aspects of this plan that clearly stray from the course envisioned by the Family Economic Security Act and, unfortunately, confirms our worse fears of what could possibly happen with the Job Training and Partnership Act.

Let me say that the Family Economic Security Act [FESA], was an act that we purposely developed and purposely fine tuned so as to conform with the Reconciliation Act and then subsequently did the same thing with the Job Training Partnership Act. We amended certain aspects of the former CETA program, but it was purposely formed and structured to provide training and to provide all of the backup services for people on welfare. It was our thinking that we needed a tight system, but part of what we found has been a problem here in the State of California is that people far too long have intermingled these categories. So we developed this legislation, under Senator Lockyer's guidance and leadership, to take care of categories such as this.

Now it is our opinion that the Los Angeles County job training plan does two jobs very badly. It does not train people for jobs and it does not get them off welfare.

I believe that, under a properly administered Family Economic Security Act, excesses of the Los Angeles County plan would have been curbed; however, these excesses apparently cannot be controlled under the Job Training Partnership Act.

Los Angeles County intends to refer over 10,500 county welfare recipients to 10,000 adult training slots. However, only 3 percent of the adults served will be recipients of aid to families with dependent children, which, of course, is the Federal-State welfare program. Instead, up to 97 percent will be and are recipients of general relief, as has been pointed out here and, as you have spotted so accurately, is entirely county costs. Now this means that, in our service delivery area where we have over 282,000 economically disadvantaged adults, and over 100,000 of them unemployed, the JTPA funds will almost entirely be reserved for about 9,000 recipients of general relief, nearly one-sixth of whom have not worked in the last 5 years.

The job training plan affects people who, of course, live in our district as well as elsewhere. We, of course, are well aware of Los Angeles County's concern for its general relief costs and the direction of their plans to curb that cost, but we certainly cannot embrace what they have done in this instance.

Now, members of this committee and, of course, members of the board of supervisors, and all of us can and will agree on what is effective job training and the importance of keeping people off welfare.

However, I have grave concerns about this particularly misguided attempt of using job training funds to reduce county welfare costs. By its own description, and let me cite that all of the figures