Mr. GRIBBS. In terms of the availability of skills and immediate work, the answer has got to be yes, if you have to have a carpenter, and he is not a carpenter-well, the two in my judgment are not mutually exclusive. I feel this, that the effort to include more, put more minority workers into the industry and to train on the job must continue, but they cannot be trained if there are no jobs upon which they may be trained, no matter how ideal the program or how laudable the effort, or how practical it may be, if there is not the job upon which they can be trained at the location, at locations upon which they can be trained. Whether it is plumbing or carpentry or whatever construction skill we are talking about.

The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions?

Mr. RANGEL. No, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Questions to my left?
Questions to my right?

Mr. Mayor, we thank you very much. I would like to call attention, merely for purposes of emphasis, to the situation which plagued so many cities. You state there are no further tax resources available.

We had that situation in Minnesota back in 1962, when we initiated the accelerated public works program. We found that some of the poorest cities did not even have decent drinking water, did not have planning money. They could not even meet the matching funds required by the Constitution. But a more prosperous city, at the other end of the some county, with a relatively lower rate of unemployment, and more financial resources on hand, was able to take up over 70 percent of the total money allocated for the whole county. Yet they got three times more, just because they had more money. They were better off in terms of employment and better off in terms of financial

resources.

I think your emphasis on getting as high a Federal percentage share of the contribution as is possible is important.

Another point you raise, which I repeat merely for emphasis in your statement: "because of difficulties, States and localities have faced in selling bonds for needed public works."

You stated earlier that you do have to cut some projects, even though they are desperately needed, in order to maintain whatever public services you had, however inadequate. You further state that the Weekly Bond Buyer for March 8 indicates that over $4.4 billion in local projects has failed to receive financing over the past 2 years because of the poor condition of the municipal bond market.

It certainly helps to some degree to point out the very serious lack of financial resources in so many of these municipalities, which at the same time have high unemployment.

Mr. Mayor, I thank you most earnestly and genuinely for the very simple, straightforward, and hardhitting statement which you have represented from a city which is really confronted with a serious unemployment situation."

Mr. GRIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your kind words. It occurs to me, with your permission, just one comment that perhaps Congressman Rangel and the rest of you might bear in mind, as to current economic conditions in dealing with those that are yet unskilled, that are trying to get into the construction industry. The problem is way beyond, if this is an inappropriate way of saying it, of getting to that problem of just-I testified, and some 15 other mayors testified, before a Senate Committee on Emergency Manpower bill, and

I said then, and I call to your attention that today in the city of Detroit we have some 2,600 persons that are not employed that were employed in the city of Detroit. Because of attrition, we have not rehired-laid off some 600 last year, and unless there is some financing, that is a serious consideration this year. So if we had among those laid off and not hired are skilled and laborers, and right down the line, and though our electricians that work for the city and plumbers and painters and the tree trimmers and the laborers that park persons that could be employed through programs like this by the city for public works, if this bill is passed; and I am sorry to intrude upon your time. I want to make that point, that it is not a question of going out and hiring new, but we could rehire those that have been laid off.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for the opportunity. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mayor, thank you and your associates and your staff.

The next witness, representing the National Association of Counties, is Mr. Ralph L. Tabor, director of Federal affairs, National Association of Counties.

Mr. Tabor, will you please take the central witness chair. You have with you several members of your committee. Would you, for the purpose of the record, introduce them and give their full title and the county which they represent?

STATEMENT OF RALPH L. TABOR, DIRECTOR OF FEDERAL AFFAIRS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES; ACCOMPANIED BY FRANK STERIHA, COUNTY CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, MUSKEGON COUNTY, MICH.; GORDON SKIPPER, COUNTY COMMISSIONER, MUSKEGON COUNTY, MICH.; RAY WELLS, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, MUSKEGON COUNTY, MICH.; DR. JOHN SCHAEFFER, CONSULTANT, MUSKEGON COUNTY, MICH.; ELMER PETERS, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, SEDGWICK COUNTY, KANS.; AND ROBERT LAKIN, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, SEDGWICK COUNTY, KANS.

Mr. TABOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is indeed a pleasure for us to be here before you today. We have two counties represented here, Mr. Chairman. They have statements prepared to tell about their local conditions, conditions of unemployment, and some of the projects that they have available which would make use of this proposed legislation.

I should say right at the outset that the National Association of Counties is very strongly in support of this legislation. Two examples of counties that are represented today are good examples of the situation all over the United States, where we have counties that have made plans, they have got projects underway, and they are ready to make use of these kinds of funds, if they are made available.

Now I would like to introduce the group that is here today. Sitting to my immediate right is Mr. Frank Steriha, who is the county chairman, Board of County Commissioners, Muskegon County. He is accompanied by Mr. Gordon Skipper, county commissioner, Muskegon County; also Mr. Ray Wells, county administrator, Muskegon County.

Then Dr. John Schaeffer, consultant, Muskegon County, Elmer Peters, Board of County Commissioners, Sedgwick County, Kans. Then Mr. Robert Lakin, director of planning, Sedgwick County, Kans. So, Mr. Chairman, I would like to turn to Mr. Steriha now, to present a statement from Muskegon County.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Steriha, may I make a personal comment? How long have you lived in Muskegon? Are you from the city of Muskegon as well as the county?

Mr. STERIHA. I am from the city of Muskegon Heights. I have lived in Muskegon Heights all my life. As I indicated to you earlier, my roots are up in Ely, Minn.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; one of the cold spots of the United States. I saw the ice in Muskegon Harbor about a month ago. You had five commercial boats and auto carriers stranded there for about 5 or 6 days.

We are very pleased to have you here. I am very personally pleased to be able to welcome you.

Mr. Steriha, county chairman of the Board of Commissioners of Muskegon County.

Would you please proceed at will?

Mr. STERIHA. We have a 10-page prepared statement, Mr. Chairman, but rather than read all of it, and there are 6 pages of appendix at the end, outlining some projects that we do have ready to go, in the second paragraph of my statement I think

The CHAIRMAN. The statement will appear in its entirety in the record at this point. We appreciate your cooperation in summarizing those areas or calling our attention to those points that are of particular concern to you that you think would be more informative and helpful to the members of the committee.

(Statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF FRANK STERIHA, CHAIRMAN, Board of COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, MUSKEGON COUNTY, MICH.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Frank Steriha, Chairman, Board of County Commissioners, Muskegon County, Michigan. On behalf of Muskegon County and the National Association of Counties, we want to thank you for the opportunity to testify before this Committee. There are several other officials with me today from our county and I would like to introduce them. These officials are: Mr. Gordon Skippa, a fellow member of the Board of County Commissioners; Mr. Ray Wells, our County Administrator; and Dr. John Sheaffer, a consultant to Muskegon County. Also appearing at this hearing on behalf of the National Association of Counties is a delegation from Sedgewick County, Kansas-Mr. Elmer Peters, Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and Mr. Robert Lakin, Director of Planning. Mr. Peters has a separate statement to present to the Subcommittee. We are accompanied by Mr. Ralph Tabor, Director of Federal Affairs, National Association of Counties. We support H.R. 4400, the Public Works Acceleration Act Amendments of 1971, because we believe this bill will assist metropolitan areas like Muskegon County with the kind of special help needed for economic recovery. We agree with the legislation's emphasis on helping only those areas who have very high unemployment and those local governments who have projects ready to go.

It will become evident during our testimony that Muskegon County is not asking the Federal Government to solve all our problems. We have many long range recovery programs going on right now which we initiated and are being financed from our own tax resources. More importantly, we have brought in the best brains in this country to study the needs of Muskegon County and to help us plan to meet our needs. The problems of our area are complex and are not going to be solved by any one program or project. Nor did these problems happen over night; they are the result of an accumulation of conditions going back many years. But the important point, gentlemen, is that we now have a strategy—an

action plan—and we are ready to go. H.R. 4400 addresses itself to helping us provide some of the basic facilities needd if we are to carry out our plans.

To give you a better idea of our particular problems, I would like to give you a quick sketch of Muskegon County. Muskegon County is located on the westcentral section of Michigan's lower peninsula along the eastern shore of Lake Michigan. The County covers an area of 510 square miles and has a population of approximately 156,000. There are seven cities, four villages and sixteen townships within the County. The attached map shows the State of Michigan and the location of the County.

Population and Labor Force

The population growth has approximated the national rate during the two decades 1940 through 1960-a 14 percent increase in the first decade and an 18 percent in the second. The population increase between 1960 and 1970 in Muskegon County, however, has been considerably lower than the national rate, 4.2 percent as compared with 13.3 percent. Population in the cities of Muskegon and Muskegon Heights has declined in the past decade, the loss being 4.5 percent and 12.8 percent respectively.

The downturn in population growth reflects the sluggish performance of the local economy which has experienced a deterioration in both its physical plant and environment. This situation has resulted in an out-migration of the young, potentially productive, age group. Birth rates recorded by the County show a constant decline during the last decade.

Muskegon County's labor force increased almost 20 percent during the 1950's but has remained almost static since then. The size of the labor force is approximately 61,000 people. Almost half of the employment of the County is in heavy industrial manufacturing. Another 30 percent is shared almost equally by wholesale and retail trades and services. Agriculture has declined to about 2 percent of the labor force.

Unemployment

The real impact of our depressed economy is reflected in the increasing rate of unemployment in the County. According to the figures available for December, 1970, unemployment was 11.3 percent of the work force. The unemployment figures for the whole year of 1970 are as follows:

One of the principal reasons for this chronic unemployment is the relative imbalance in the area's economy caused by its dependency upon heavy industry and its lack of more stable service industries. Recently, the area has experienced some gain in industry such as the chemical industry. Apparently, new industry has avoided Muskegon because of its low environmental quality, its "factory town" image, its labor problems, and its unskilled and relatively uneducated labor force. These problems are, of course, interrelated and tend to reinforce one another.

It may be interesting to the Committee to review the results of a recent survey by a local agency, the Community Action Against Poverty, Inc. on the characteristics of the unemployed in Muskegon County. The survey is summarized on pages 6 and 7. You can see the evidence of educational deficiencies in the summary table. About 45 percent of the unemployment have vocational or educational deficiencies of one kind or another. Physical health problems are significant in that 13 percent of the unemployed are excluded from work in many manufacturing jobs because of poor health.

Muskegon's Recovery Plan

We would like to make available to every member of this Subcommittee a copy of a report completed in September, 1970 entitled "Overall Economic Development Program for Muskegon County, Michigan." It is too long to put into the hearing record.

This report shows our efforts to assess our problems, our resources, our potential for growth, and the plan we have developed for Muskegon County's recovery. Muskegon County, with proper organization and programs, has the potential for a well-balanced, healthy economy. A considerable amount of our efforts towards this end will be in an upgrading of the environment which we believe will provide the basis for both recreational and industrial expansion.

The potential for economic growth through recreation is significant. Muskegon lies at the mid-point of the Lake Michigan eastern shoreline, opposite the considerable urban populations of the Chicago SMSA and Milwaukee. It also lies within short distance of the Detroit urban comples. Muskegon's locational advantage is enhanced by its potentially excellent dunes-impounded lakes and the shoreline dunes. The area also contains considerable state park and forestland, fishing and hunting resources and opportunities for winter recreational activities such as snowmobiling.