Most of our faculty members are now in Washington, serving the administration, trying to make foreign policy, not giving you documents you are entitled to look at. Mr. BENITEZ. The point I was trying to underscore is not that the universities have all the answers. Obviously they don't. To a great extent, the answers are in the process of being evolved and developed. But it seems to me that they do have a responsibility. Having worked in the university for many years, I must say I am not satisfied with my own work. But they do have a responsibility for posing questions and for probing them. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HAWKINS. Governor, the length of time we kept you this morning indicates the manner in which we enjoyed your testimony. We wish to thank you. We appreciate the fine contribution you have made. They have been of very high quality. Mr. DUKAKIS. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman. I hope my staff will be in touch with yours. Mr. HAWKINS. Certainly. [Applause.] Mr. HAWKINS. At this point the Chair will direct that a statement be submitted for the record by Hon. Michael J. Harrington, together with a covering letter addressed to the Chairman of the committee, without objection, I am submitting a background sheet on the Boston situation with respect to the industries that are in serious decline, Massachusetts welfare statistics and other data, which I think would be relevant following the presentation of the Governor. That request will be granted. [Letter and statement submitted by Hon. Michael J. Harrington follows:] CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Salem, Mass., November 15, 1975. Hon. AUGUSTUS F. HAWKINS, DEAR GUS: I regret not being able to attend this morning's hearings on this important bill. I appreciate your accepting the testimony and hope it is of some use. Let me know what I can do to help with the bill at any future stage. MICHAEL J. HARRINGTON. PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL J. HARRINGTON Mr. Chairman: I want to thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony today on an issue of critical importance to the future economic and social welfare of not only the Commonwealth of Massachusetts but of the New England region and the Nation as a whole. Instead of calling attention to the recent rise in the national unemployment rates that belies the administration's claim that the economy is moving toward recovery, I would like to address myself to the grim prospect that New England faces on the job front at least for the remainder of this decade. A recent U.S. labor Department report projects a very slow growth rate in all sectors of the New England job market over the next five years. While the national increase in jobs is expected to average 22 percent, the increase in the number of new jobs in New England is expected to average only 12 percent. New, England is expected to lag behind the rest of the Nation in almost every job category, whether white collar or blue collar. If these projections are an accurate indication of the employment trends of the region-and there is little reason to doubt that they are then the consequences to an already struggling economy could be debilitating. According to the latest available statistics, the New England unemployment rate is 3 percent higher than the national average, while in individual States like Massachusetts and Rhode Island the disparity is substantially greater. The Labor Department's report suggests that the disparity will grow-in the relatively short period of five years-to a staggering level. It is insupportable that New England continue to accept and endure such a situation. It is difficult for me to understand-in the face of statistics and projections of this nature-how certain citizens and officials in positions of presumed leadership can continue to berate those who through no fault of their own find themselves among the jobless. We cannot continue to push people out of the unemployment lines and off the welfare roles when there simply are not nearly enough jobs to go around. Furthermore, we cannot take solace from the few bright spots in the employment outlook. Even in those few areas where employment is expected to grow at a rate above the national average, the difference is minuscule-in the area of management and administration New England will have its largest gain in jobs with a growth rate 3 percent above the national average. This hardly begins to balance the other figures, especially when we consider that New England, with its abundance of colleges, universities, and professional schools, will turn out into the market-place far more young people looking for administrative and management posts than the expected 110,000 new positions available. This is no time for hooverish optimism. Nor is it a time for nostalgically glancing back over our shoulders at the halcyon days of a New England rich in manufacturing and indigenous industry and commerce. Those who claim that manufacturing is the backbone of the New England economy are going to be faced with a spineless corpse before long. It is a time, rather, for realistic and activist solutions. Of course, these solutions cannot be sought on a single front. Clearly, New England must devote its energies and its attention to those areas of the job producing marketplaces where its prospects are brightest. Mr. Richard Syron of the Federal Reserve Bank in Boston pointed out the other day at the New England Regional Commission's symposium on capital and labor markets what surely is a basic fact of New England's regional development: the future of New England lies in the high technology industries. The Labor Department's report cites another area where close attention can lead to an expansion of the job market. There is, the report states, "the increasing need for highly trained workers in solving the region's transportation, environmental, and urban renewal problems." The areas of promise have been clearly identified in study after study; it is in these areas that New England, with the assistance of the federal government, must begin to develop job opportunities. But even an intense effort in this direction cannot be expected to counteract entirely the trends suggested by the Labor Department projections. The “equal opportunity and full employment act" under consideration by this committee addresses itself to the other side of the equation: what is the responsibility of a society to those members of the society who cannot function in that society by virtue of the fact that the social and economic system espoused by the society demands that they not be able to find work? The answer to that question, it seems to me, is clear, especially in a nation and a region where there is so much necessary work to be done-work that does not happen to receive the blessing of the capital investors. Society, through the agencies and powers of the government, must insure that gainful and substantive employment is available to all those willing and able to work. The recent Nercom Task Force on labor markets has concluded-on the basis of a number of previous studies and their own research-that "most of the able bodied workers on welfare and unemployment compensation desire work, but that there are simply too many barriers and impediments preventing these workers from finding the right job in the right emerging occuption." It is surely time to lay aside the mythical notion that most of those who are unemployed are content to subsist on government largesse. That notion is a patent and proven falsehood. Yet far too many executive and legislative decisions-both at the state and at the national level-result in actions that are based on the perpetuation of that myth. The "job guarantee office," the "local planning councils," the "community job boards," and the "stand-by job corps" outlined in the proposed legislation move toward recognition of the moral and pragmatic imperatives suggested by the facts that I have recited. I would urge the committee, however, to establish a more specific timetable for the institution of these proposals, lest the laudable rhetoric of the legislation be superceded by executive inaction and procrastination. I would also urge that the committee indicate the general magnitude of the cost of its proposals so that no one will be lulled into complacency about the expense of so massive a program. To expect any single act of Congress to be a panacea for the severe prognosis of New England's and the Nation's ills is to continue in the kind of fantasies that have helped to propel us down this perilous course. Yet swift action on job producing legislation can begin to ameliorate some of the immediate problems and focus our attention more clearly on the immense problems of the future. BOSTON BACKGROUND SHEET Population.-Boston, 618,275; Boston SMSA, 2,897,860; and Massachusetts, 5,799,415. Principal industries (in order of importance) Durable Goods.-Electrical Machinery, and machinery (except electrical). Nondurable.-Printing and publishing; rubber products; and paper products. Current rate of unemployment.-Boston, 12.8 percent, and Massachusetts, 12.5 percent. 1 The figure of 41 percent for welfare expenditures is offset somewhat by funds contributed by the Federal Government With these funds the proportion of the State budget which goes to welfare payments is approximately 33 percent. 2 Request. 3 Information not available. Note: Welfare includes cash assistance, medical assistance, social services. Cash assistance-250,000 cases for total expenditure of $600,000,000. Medical assistance-$600,000. Social services-$80,000,000. Source: Massachusetts Commissioner for Public Welfare. MASSACHUSETTS-BENEFIT PAYMENTS FOR CALENDAR YEARS 1972 TO 1975 (TO DATE) 1 This program extends employment benefits once the initial benefit period has expired. 2 This program extends the extension for a total of 65 weeks. Under the terms of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act, Massachusetts workers who have been adversely affected by tariff agreements are entitled to receive monetary compensation from the Federal Government. Funding is administered by the state. Mr. HAWKINS. The chair also has a statement for the record from Congressman Drinan who is unable to be present today. I ask that his statement be entered into the record at this point. [Prepared statement of Hon. Robert F. Drinan follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON ROBERT F. DRINAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to reaffirm my wholehearted support of the Equal Opportunity and Full Employment Act of 1975, H.R. 50, of which I am a co-sponsor. The time has come for a "right to work" for willing and able Americans to become something more than an empty declaration of national policy, without force of law. The critical alternatives facing Congress have never been more clear: How long can we afford the enormous economic and social costs of continued high unemployment? The grim economic statistics speak for themselves. The national rate of unemployment for the month of October was a full 8.6 percent, which represents more than 8 million American men and women unable to find work. September unemployment figures for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are even more discouraging, as 12.5 percent of the work force, or about 346,900 persons, were unemployed. The City of Fitchburg, exemplary of the older industrial communities in my congressional district, is currently enduring unemployment levels of over 13 percent, with economic recovery only beginning. Although real growth in the GNP was reported for the third quarter of this year, New England production indicators leave little room for optimism. The monthly index of manufacturing activity in the region witnessed a decline of more than 9 percent between the 1974 average and July of this year, and more specifically, the index of durable manufactures, computed on a monthly basis, declined by a full 15 percent during the same period. Though modest growth has begun in certain segments of the New England industrial community, it is highly improbable that increased production will reach the point where the present reservoir of unemployed persons may be absorbed by industry in the forseeable future. Not only does high unemployment and under-capacity industrial activity reduce the individual and business tax base, but the current situation requires expansion of Federal and State outlays for welfare and unemployment compensation. State benefit payments for unemployment have more than doubled in the last two years, totalling more than $13.2 billion in fiscal year 1975. The total balance of unemployment trust funds administered by States was depleted by more than 40 percent during fiscal 1975, and some States have actually been forced to borrow capital to keep pace with growing demand on existing programs resulting from high unemployment. As unemployed individuals reach the end of eligibility for unemployment compensation, and as they deplete their personal savings and other assets, they satisfy requirements for AFDC and other general relief programs. Unless unemployment levels are sharply reduced through affirmative congressional action, Federal and State welfare programs will come under considerable strain as they assume a greater part of the burden of supporting the families of the unemployed. Granted the current condition of our national economy, this is a burden that State governments simply cannot afford. Mr. Chairman, the goals of full employment, stabilized inflation and economic prosperity are by no means mutually incompatible. For every day that 8 million Americans stand idle, not only is the Nation deprived of the multitude of goods and services that might otherwise have been produced, but these persons are deprived of the sense of self-sufficiency and self-respect that results from gainful employment. For every day that our abundant human resources go underutilized, local governments are prevented from proceeding with the capital improvements and expanded public services that they would like to be able to offer their citizens. And for every day that we tolerate 7 or 8 percent unemployment, the welfare and unemployment compensation costs for both the Federal and State governments escalate by the billions of dollars. The time for affirmative action is long overdue. The Equal Opportunity and Full Employment Act, in my view, deals with both our current and our cyclical unemployment problems in a forthright and comprehensive manner. Not only does this legislation guarantee that "all adult Americans able and willing to work have the right to equal opportunities for useful paid employment", but it establishes an appropriate structure at both the Federal and State level for the effective administration of this right. As you know, this legislation requires the President to submit a "full employment and production policy" within the Economic Report to Congress, which shall reflect the volume of goods and services and the labor and investment policy needed to meet human and national needs in a given year. Addititonally, as part of the annual manpower reports, the Chief Executive is also required to submit extensive analysis of the composition and volume of national labor markets, and the relation of current labor supply to projected levels of production. H.R. 50 utilizes the local planning councils established under the CETA program to select and plan local public and private employment projects within guidelines established by the Secretary of Labor. Administration and implementation of the full employment program is the responsibility of a new Job Guarantee Office within the U.S. Employment Service, in conjunction and cooperation with local councils, public agencies and private industry. A Standby Job Corpsavailable for public service work projects planned by local boards-is established to provide employment in circumstances where private sector and general public employment is not sufficient to keep pace with the supply of available labor. Finally, the bill imposes meaningful standards of nondiscrimination, vests oversight and related responsibilities within the congressional Joint Economic Committee, and creates a National Institute for Full Employment, to develop the long-term policy studies necessary to provide for the continuing improvement and effective implementation of this Act. It is my feeling, Mr. Chairman, that among the criteria for evaluating any full employment or "right to work" legislation are the extent and nature of local participation, the coordination and interface with private sector demand on labor markets, and avoidance of the "displacement effect", or substitution of Federal funding for what might otherwise have been locally financed employment. H.R. 50 is an excellent bill in all of these respects, but let me briefly outline the importance of each of these factors in developing and considering the merits of public service job legislation. 62-586-76-18 |