vince you of something that you already know. I did, however, come here to add my voice to the hundreds, perhaps thousands or maybe even millions, who support the bill and to add just a few words of personal insight. This is my first appearance before a House panel or subcommittee and I beg your indulgence for the lack of formality in my presentation. We know that this Nation has a deeply rooted work ethic and we know that a person without employment is low in esteem both by society and also in self esteem. We also know that it is a very meaningful thing to have a full employment policy, and I think that it is toward that effort that you are here today and that I am here today. Work is the one thing that can be fulfilling when seemingly nothing else is fulfilling and I think for that reason that even members of the leisure class, even members of the highly successful and financially wealthy people, and I think Jackie Kennedy is a recent case in point of people showing and expressing the need for meaningful employment. In view of our work ethics and in view of the fact that we have a compulsory education policy in this country, I think that it is only reasonable to expect this country to have a full employment policy and it is puzzling to me that our national priorities have not addressed this. I think that if we are going to have a compulsory education system that the least we can expect to do is to have a job waiting at the end of the educational process. It has been brought to my attention recently that some people feel that a certain level of unemployment is tolerable, or if not tolerable necessary in order for this system of ours to survive. They say that we need to have a certain amount of people unemployed to provide the work force when there is an upsurge and a need for workers. They also say that you need a certain amount of unemployed people to help to balance the Nation's economy, that putting people to work adds to inflation. I don't believe that there is a tolerable level of unemployment and I think that the demonstration that we saw here this morning might have been repulsive or obnoxious to some of you but it certainly was not obnoxious to me. I don't know the number of calls or the number of letters or the number of requests that you get from people who are virtually destitute because of the lack of a job, but as a locally elected official and a person who is closest to the citizens of this Nation of ours daily I receive in the tens and sometimes many more calls and in fact personal visits from people who are at virtually the point of committing a crime, not just creating a disturbance in a meeting such as this but daily I see people who are at the point of committing a crime in order to provide for the necessities of life and it is very disturbing to me to be confronted with that. It is not disturbing to me to hear a person shout and demand a job. I think rather it is kind of positive. I do not know the nature of today's demonstration but I think that it is much more positive for a man or a woman to demand a job than to commit some kind of crime in order to provide-if not for food, if not for shelter but to provide for a lifestyle and that we have people who would not commit crimes for any of those reasons if jobs were available. As I said before, I did not want to make a long presentation this morning but I do feel very strongly about the question at hand. I will just briefly go through what I have rapidly jotted down as some notes and I will start at this point. I pointed out that a person in our society without a job is usually without dignity or self-respect, and whether it is to rescue his selfrespect or to eat or to provide a certain life style crime is usually the last but inevitable result of unemployment. If a family cannot afford to maintain its household, a degradation of the inevitable results. I could go on and on listing the harmful intent necessary for the Employment Act of 1976. I believe the last paragraph of the November Ebony magazine which was in this picture editorial, sufficiently states the case, and I will quote. This is the last sentence of that editorial, and I wish that the rest of you would read the whole editorial. It says: The most persuasive argument for full employment could well be that a national full employment policy will afford to all citizens the opportunity to realize their creative capacity and at the same time increase the nation's level of output and quality of life. I wholeheartedly agree with that statement and I submit it to you this morning. Thank you. Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you, Alderman. We are very pleased to receive your statement; I think it speaks for itself. Certainly we are very much helped by it. Mr. Buchanan. Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you, Mr. Johnson, for your statement. I assume as a city official you would agree that this is a problem which must be attacked by every level of government and that we are all going to have to work together to seek to solve the problem of unemployment. Mr. JOHNSON. I think that it has come to that. Originally I did not feel that it was the responsibility of government to provide jobs for citizens of this country. However, I believe now that things have deteriorated to the point where it is time for government at all levels to step in and to provide for people what they cannot provide for themselves, and I don't think that a government can do it without being engaged in some kind of relationship with industry and labor and in fact the private sector. I think that it is overdue in terms of time for all of us from the locally elected official all the way through Congress and the President to start to address this thing. Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you very much. Mr. HAWKINS. Mr. Clay. Mr. CLAY. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. I just would like to commend the Alderman for his statement and I would like to say that I agree with you in terms of the motivation for the hearing and for the demonstrations this morning, and certainly they don't disturb me. I quite well understand why people act as they have acted and well understand how profitable it might be if it in fact causes some people in this country in high positions to realize that this Government is committing a crime when they refuse to provide jobs for people who want to work. Thank you. Mr. HAWKINS. Mr. Reuss. Mr. REUSS. An excellent statement, Ben. We are grateful. Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you, Alderman. We are very pleased to have had you present your views to the committee. Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. Mr. HAWKINS. Is the Honorable William Nagel, supervisor of the county board of supervisors, present. Supervisor Nagel, you were also one of those passed over this morning. We are pleased that you are able to come before the committee at this time. You may proceed. I understand you do have a prepared statement. The statement in its entirety will be incorporated in the record at this point and you may proceed to address your remarks to the committee if you so desire. STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM E. NAGEL, SUPERVISOR, Mr. NAGEL. Mr. Chairman and subcommittee members, I welcome you to Milwaukee County and thank you for giving me this opportunity to express my support for the principles and policies formulated in H.R. 50. As chairman of both the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors' Committee on Welfare and Human Resources and its Subcommittee on Purchase of Care and Service, as well as working constantly with the CETA program, I am well aware of the need for Government to take an active role in the creation of labor intensive employment programs. In this time of economic recession, inflation, depression or whatever term is applicable, the citizenry look to Government for answers. We as elected officials or civil servants responsible for emplementing and administering Government-sponsored programs must accept the challenge posed to us by John Q. Public. This is not meant to be an indictment of private enterprise but I do believe that during times of economic stress only Government has the capability and the flexibility within the existing executive, legislative and judicial framework to to bring about immediate changes in policies and programs-changes that will insure every American, regardless of sex, age, race, color or creed, the right to useful and meaningful employment at a fair rate of compensation. In recent years there have been many proposals in Washington and in many State capitals, including Madison, to restructure the present public assistance and social service delivery systems. Caspar Weinberger when he was still Secretary of HEW declared "that several welfare programs, including food stamps, aid to families with dependent children and supplementary security income allowances, should be abolished" in favor of "*** a 'simple cash grant' based on income and payable only to those meeting a 'strong work requirement."" Those oriented toward reforming the present delivery system believe that the existing multiplicity of welfare programs tends to smother work incentives for multi-beneficaries. Restrictions in some programs produce situations where an extra dollar earned costs a family hundreds of dollars in benefits. The work ethic has become buried under a maze of social work do gooder programs all designed originally to fight poverty. Billions of dollars have been poured into what now appears to be a bottomless pit. Poverty has not disappeared, unemployment remains above 8 percent and the income gap separating the poor from the rest of society is increasing at an alarming rate. The belief that massive governmental spending is a surefire cure for everything that ails us has only hastened the arrival of the problems we face today-inflation, recession, depression. Many of those programs which sought to help the poor, the elderly, the disadvantaged-these people are now trying to cope with the inflationary crunch of Uncle Sam's spending spree. Today the antipoverty programs are gone, but their participants are still on welfare with little hope or opportunity for securing meaningful employment. Although certain poverty programs have greatly improved some aspects of life for those living at or below the poverty level through improved access to education, medical care, legal services, and housing, little has been done relative to employment. In the long run the success or failure of the poverty program area can be measured in the degree to which a participant was able to secure employment and become economically self-sufficient and independent. All the counseling and training is for naught if in the end there is no job to be had. The answer today, as proposed by President Ford, is to give the poor an unconditional guarantee of cash without a strong work incentive. Although the President favors such a proposal, I believe H.R. 50 will radically change the present system by guaranteeing every able bodied adult American the opportunity for useful paid employment at a fair rate of compensation. For too long we have held the belief that people of low social and economic status have negative work attitudes. Recent studies have concluded that the work attitude and ethic of those at the poverty level is not significantly different than those well above the poverty level. I submit that what appears to be a lack of a work ethic is often little more than a manifestation of access, economic and institutional barriers to employment. I believe that the present system does not always provide an opportunity for individuals and families to secure employment or to earn an income sufficient to meet their enonomic needs. Although we profess to require all able bodied adults on welfare to work, we offer them a job only if one is available and at a wage rate that prevents them from becoming financially self-sufficient. In many instances welfare has become a way of life, not by choice but by lack of an acceptable alternative. I see this as a fundamental weakness in the socioeconomic system rather than a lack of a work ethic. I represent an inner city district that is populated primarily by persons receiving either AFDC, SSI, or social security. I have received many calls from welfare mothers who are willing to work, who have been trained through various Government-sponsored programs but who are still on welfare because of the economic and institutional barriers to employment. I have long proposed that a systematic and concerted policy to raise the wage level of the low-earning sector of the economy be undertaken to compliment and support a work incentive, service, and training strategy. I hail the passage of H.R. 50 for I believe that it is the responsibility of Government to enforce the right of every American able and willing to work to equal opportunities for useful paid employment at a rate of compensation that meets their basic needs. If time permits, I invite each member of the subcommittee and staff to take a tour of Milwaukee County to learn firsthand what we at the local level are doing to create labor intensive employment programs through funds provided under the Comprehensive Employment Training Act (CETA). To date Milwaukee County has created 466 new jobs paid for with CETA funds. Positions created include case aides, security aides, teacher aides, ecology aides, housing aides, day care workers, bookkeepers, auditors, custodians, et cetera. Not only have we worked to create employment opportunities in existing agencies, both in the public and private sector, we have also been somewhat innovative. Today we have a 92 person force of neighborhood security aides paid for under CETA and county funds. The NSA's are uniformed and equipped with two-way radios and are assigned to patrol in pairs on foot in areas of high crime against the elderly. Their duties include observing unusual activities in their assigned areas, recording any and all suspicious events or persons and, if necessary, contacting local law enforcement officials for assistance. The program has been well received by all residents of the community. I can attest to this by the cries for more aides, and I may add that there is a waiting list at the Wisconsin State Employment Office for future openings. The problem has been money-the lack of sufficient CETA funds to create and equip additional positions. A plan for using county funds through our work relief program has been adopted but we need additional Federal moneys to expand the program community wide. I think it is clear from my remarks that Government has a responsibility as employer of last resort. Only Government can effectuate legislation that will eliminate the economic and institutional barriers that have resulted in unequal employment opportunities or no employment for women, older people, younger people, members of racial groups, ethnic groups, national or religious minorities, veterans, the physically or mentally handicapped, former drug addicts and released convicts. Private enterprise cannot meet this goal. This is not to say that Government intervention should be permanent, but during periods of economic crisis only Government has the machinery to move quickly and responsively to guarantee equal employment opportunities for all. I would like to close my presentation by calling the subcommittee's attention to a study recently released by the Congressional Budget Office. The study indicated that public service jobs emerged as the most effective way to attack unemployment. Public job programs can be started quickly and terminated easily and have a relatively low inflation impact if their goal is to employ low income workers. If we are serious about achieving the goal of full employment with equal opportunities for all, I urge you to support passage of H.R. 50. Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you for your statement, supervisor Nagel. There are one or two points in your statement that are not exactly clear to me. On page 3 in speaking of President Ford's program you |