Ms. Ross. My name is Laura Ross. I am cochairperson of Citizens for Participation in Politics of the Task Force of Unemployment and Economic Alternatives. This petition is in support of the Equal Opportunity and Full Employment Act of 1976; 8,756 persons in the Boston area have signed this petition.

We, the undersigned, believe that the right to a productive job is an inalienable right of every adult American willing and able to work. We believe there are no acceptable levels of unemployment whatsoever. The official unemployment figures for our State are 350,000. Among those people under the age of 25 there are 30 percent out of work. Among black and Spanish-speaking young people due to racist hiring practices it is a monstrous 50 percent.

We believe that passage of the Hawkins bill, H.R. 50, which provides for community job boards with grassroots participation, is mandatory for funding demands for equal opportunity and full employment which should be a No. 1 priority for our Federal representatives.

We will take no more vetoes to our rights to a job at union wages. Hearings should be held in Massachusetts immediately to bring forth the facts of the rising unemployment here, its devastating effect on living standards of the working people.

This was printed in August of the past year. When this petition was printed the unemployment rate was 12.5 percent or, as the petition states, approximately 350,000 people officially recorded as unemployed. The rate for the State at this date is 14 percent. For Boston it is 15 percent. The number is 400,000. This does not take into account the tens of thousands who have given up the search for the illusive job and the thousands of black and Spanish-speaking here who due to racist hiring practices have never had a job.

Governor Dukakis earlier in the day said that he was not sure that we should have a cut in the so-called defense budget. But those who are working in our State and the 400,000 who are not say that their interests are not served by a figure of nearly $100 billion of their tax funds used for war material. In Massachusetts $2 billion of our taxes go to the war budget in Washington. We propose a 25 percent cut in defense budget. Instead of bigger bombs and bomb shelters, we say our tax dollars should be used for shelter, yes, for the aged, for day-care centers for the schoolchildren, the hospitals, medicare, and all those needs of the people for life instead of death. We support the Equal Opportunity- [Applause.]

Ms. Ross. We support the Equal Opportunity and Full Employment Act of 1976. But we feel that a price tag of $15 billion as a first step should be retrieved from the military establishment. [Applause.] Ms. Ross. This is the American workers' dream. Thank you. [Applause.]

Mr. HAWKINS. The petitions will be filed with the committee and will be duly acknowledged.

The next witness on the panel is here now, Mr. Bertram Farnham, executive vice president, Massachusetts State Labor Council, AFLCIO.

Mr. Farnham, we are delighted to have you testify before the committee. We look forward with anticipation to your testimony.

STATEMENT OF BERTRAM C. FARNHAM, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, MASSACHUSETTS STATE LABOR COUNCIL, AFL-CIO

Mr. FARNHAM. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and your distinguished committee. I am president of Local 201 of the ÏUE, the union that is representing the General Electric plant in Lynn. I am also executive vice president of the State Labor Council.

Considering the number and the caliber of the people who have and will testify before your committee today I am sure you will be convinced that the people of Massachusetts are 100 percent behind any piece of legislation that promises to produce jobs and reduce employ

ment.

As an executive vice president of the Massachusetts State Labor Council, which represents more than a half million union workers and their families, many of whom are at this time looking for jobs that are not there, I want to register the full support of our organization for House bill No. 50, which, as I understand it, guarantees a job to everyone over 16 years old.

As you already know, the unemployment rate here in Massachusetts is almost double the national rate. Many of the jobless in this State have exhausted all unemployment compensation benefits they had coming to them and are now on public welfare. But with the austerity programs recently initiated by the State government, many are now threatened with stark starvation for if the State determines they are employable they may be dropped from the public welfare rolls. You may classify any able-bodied man employable if he is willing to work but he can't become employed until you make a job available to him.

So it is very essential that the legislation you are considering here today, called the Equal Opportunity and Full Employment Act of 1975, be given top priority by the Congress and that it be enacted without delay.

However I would like to point out to the members of this committee that there is already in the Federal laws a Full Employment Act, passed during the Truman administration and also that on March 15, 1962, the late President Kennedy signed into law the Manpower Development and Training Act, which authorized the spending of $435 million over a period of 4 years to assist the States develop skills that would be needed in an expanding economy and also that the 93d Congress late in 1973 passed labor-supported legislation combining and expanding the various Federal manpower efforts into one comprehensive program entitled the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act. And I would like to point out that despite all these noble efforts despite the fact that the last-mentioned CETA, still has 2 years to go, the unemployment situation, not only in aMssachusetts but in the entire country, is getting worse-and from where we stand at the moment there appears to be no light visible at the end of the tunnel.

So I would like to conclude by saying very emphatically that this hearing, my testimony and the testimony of anyone who testifies before you, will not produce jobs. And enactment of this bill by Congress, even if it has to be done over a Presidential veto, will not produce jobs-unless every provision in the bill is fully implemented.

That is the only way House bill No. 50 can fulfill its guarantee of providing a job to everyone over 16 years of age; full implementation. And I trust that all Members of the Congress realize any measure that guarantees full employment must be enacted regardless of what the cost of implementation might be. Full employment would take millions of people off public welfare rolls. It would enable all State unemployment funds to be replenished without subsidies from the Federal Government. And there is no doubt that the crime rate in all our cities would decline.

Once again I urge your committee to get this bill to the full body of Congress without relay. There has never been a more urgent need for this kind of legislation. Thank you.

[Applause.]

Mr. HAWKINS. Mr. Farnham, I appreciate the statement you have made in your capacity as executive vice president of the State labor council. We have had some difficulties, to say the least, in our approach to the question in ascertaining the position of the AFL-CIO on H.R. 50 or any legislation which would implement full employment.

I wonder if you could offer some suggestions to the subcommittee. How do we go about reaching some accommodation, let us say, some friendly approach to ascertaining their position on what I consider to be-not referring necessarily to H.R. 50-the No. 1 issue facing the American people? I ask that in a friendly way. I find it difficult to ascertain labor's position on this.

UE has done an excellent job throughout the country and the automobile workers also have been very cooperative and strongly supportive of H.R. 50. The American Federation of Teachers, which is supposed to have a representative on this panel, has been supportive of H.R. 50. But I do not see their representative present this afternoon. Could you tell us how we go about trying to accommodate the views of the AFL-CIO nationally in terms of a specific piece of legislation? Mr. FARNHAM. I don't profess to speak for George Meany. We are in trouble with George Meany in Massachusetts, perhaps rightly so. I think it is something that never should have been done. [Applause.]

Mr. FARNHAM. I came from the national convention in San Francisco a month ago. Labor is concerned with jobs. Its is the biggest thing we talk about in this country today. I am sure that labor in Massachusetts is well aware of the situation. I served on the Governor's economic council until just after he got elected. I am sure we were worried about the unemployment in Massachusetts. The only answer is to make jobs available for those who want to work.

[Applause.]

Mr. FARNHAM. It isn't a privilege to work. It is a right that people should have. Even if we were doing nothing but cleaning up, as long as people had work, as long as they had a little dignity in what they were doing. I think this is where we are heading.

I will convey your message to my colleagues in Washington so I am sure that at least somebody will let you know where we stand on that. Mr. HAWKINS. I think it would be most helpful if you would do that. The point has been made today many times by economists who deal with academic areas that it isn't possible to effectuate a policy on this

matter in the time we have set, in other words, it isn't possible to reduce unemployment in a period of 18 to 24 months to 3 percent.

Some people recall what we did in World War II. I assume we 'couldn't have won the war if we hadn't reduced unemployment rather dramatically. The rationale of H.R. 50 is that unless we do something ourselves and get about doing it that we will be discussing this issue and have starvation and suffering for several years to come.

What would be your views on the possibility of setting a time limit of some kind and say, "This is the time and this is what we intend to do?" Do you think that is a reasonable approach?

Mr. FARNHAM. I think it is very realistic. I don't believe we have to have a war in order to get our economy going.

[Applause.]

Mr. FARNHAM. I am sure that people who subscribe to that are misled. I am sure they know better. There are those who say we need unemployment in order to balance the budget. I think Congress should set a time limit. I think that people need to understand that Congress means business. Congressmen, like labor leaders, talk too much. What the people need is somebody to start motivating things, get some programs going. I think once that happens we will all start marching to the same drummer.

Mr. HAWKINS. Mr. Kane, do you care to comment on that?

Mr. KANE. I agree. I notice that any time Schlesinger or Kissinger puts Congress on warning that the Russians are getting ahead of us one way or another that a few billion dollars go to them to build some more bombs.

I think if they start concentrating on the priorities of people in this country, of supplying jobs, building roads, hospitals, better schools, the whole thing, then America will be a lot better off. I think it can be done. I don't think we have to keep spending all of our money on defense.

I think we are the victims of a bunch of hoaxes in terms of how bad off we are, in comparing us to Russia and the other countries. [Applause.]

Mr. HAWKINS. Mr. Buchanan.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

One aspect of this problem that I don't think has been addressed today and I would appreciate your comment is, what degree of training or retraining might be required to meet the unemployment problem specifically in a State like Massachusetts or in this area? I would assume that those who were unemployed had a certain level of skill. I wonder if you would comment on what ought to be done or you think might be involved in terms of training or retraining.

Mr. FARNHAM. The first thing we ought to do is to train people for jobs that exist. We spend a lot of money training people, all kinds of machinists, but there are no jobs in that area. I think that is nonsense. [Applause.]

Mr. FARNHAM. I know the people in Massachusetts. I have represented them for 25 years. They are known as routiners and not innovators. I think they train very easily. I think to train working people is a very easy thing. What we have to do is to encourage people to enjoy what they are doing, to give them a little dignity. That is what we are looking for in the labor movement. I think when do that you you

find that people take to the task very easily. I don't consider training a big problem in Massachusetts.

Mr. KANE. I believe we have some very talented people in Massachusetts. But I also believe that we will never see as many people working in the plants again that I represent. I think that automation has caught up with us. I think the people that are laid off don't stand a good chance of getting back to work, only a few of them.

Even when times pick up, the companies not only have the automation. They find new ways of speeding up workers. I don't think there is going to be a full recall of unemployed people to their jobs. We have got to start concentrating on educating workers in the direction of services. We are going to have to have more and more services throughout the country.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you.

Mr. HAWKINS. Mr. Benitez.

Mr. BENITEZ. I just wish to compliment both gentlemen on their attitudes and hope they continue to work with us because all of us must start working together in order to get this bill through and we will get it through.

[Applause.]

Mr. KANE. Thank you very much.

Mr. HAWKINS. Mr. Benitez does, I believe, express the sentiments of the subcommittee and the chairman.

[Applause.]

Mr. HAWKINS. It has been called to the attention of the Chair that we do have two of our State legislators in the audience. I did not know that they were present. I apologize for not having recognized them and would like to do so at this time and ask them to appear before the committee.

They are Ms. Lois Pines and Mel King. [Applause.]

Mr. HAWKINS. We didn't have your presence called to our attention. We are very pleased to have you here today to have your views. Ms. Pines, would you begin?

[Prepared statement of Lois Pines follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LOIS PINES

The Equal Opportunity and Full Employment Act is a bill that I feel is long over due and desperately needed in the United States. I urge the Congress to enact this bill as soon as possible.

This bill would benefit all Americans. It would relieve the tax burden that our present working force must bear due to welfare. It would restore pride, dignity and productivity to the unfortunate people in the United States who are unemployed.

By giving every American who is willing and able to work the opportunity to do so, our country would improve economically. No longer would there be any wasted skills and ideas. No longer would we be paying millions of dollars without benefiting from those skills and ideas. Our economic structure would become much more efficient.

The time has come for this country to say, "Jobs, not welfare". Welfare is demoralizing, demeaning and unproductive. Whenever possible, people should be given the opportunity to retain their self-respect, become productive and earn a living. This legislation would provide that opportunity.

The Equal Opportunity and Full Employment Act would bring additional help to the people I set out to aid when I sponsored a part-time employment bill that was passed by the Massachusetts legislature. That bill provided for ten per cent of all state government jobs to be set aside for part-time employees.