60 of our colleagues in the House of Representatives have joined us in cosponsoring the bill.

I am further delighted that the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, the Honorable Hubert H. Humphrey, has introduced a companion bill in the U.S. Senate with the cosponsorship of Senators. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Philip A. Hart, William D. Hathaway, Edward M. Kennedy, and Howard M. Metzenbaum.

The Equal Opportunity and Full Employment Act of 1976 insures to every adult American the fundamental human right to useful paid employment at fair rates of compensation. This job-guarantee bill will help prevent the future economic collapse of America.

By reducing inflationary shortages and bottlenecks, the measure will assist in our fight against inflation. It will eventually raise the number of civilian jobs from 85 million to 120 million within 5 years.

Because the bill would bring about major changes in the Nation's approach to employment and unemployment, it would result in radically altering welfare, manpower training, unemployment compensation, and other social benefit programs.

The Equal Opportunity and Full Employment Act of 1976 has eight major provisions:

Full employment is redefined as "a situation under which there are useful and rewarding employment opportunities for all adult Americans willing and able to work," in contrast to the current practice of setting a tolerable level of official unemployment for a narrowly defined labor force.

The President is required to develop a national full employment and production program, covering all areas of economic activity, which is designed to promote sufficient employment opportunities through normal channels so that the activities of the U.S. Full Employment Service and the Standby Job Corps are reduced to a minimum.

Local reservoirs of public and private employment projects are developed by community job boards which are established by local planning councils.

A Job Guarantee Office is created with the renamed U.S. Full Employment Service, which would fund these public and private employment projects. Priority is given to the development of jobs in the private sector.

A Standby Job Corps, in which qualified jobseekers may be temporarily placed if no suitable jobs are available, is created.

The Congress, through the Congressional Joint Economic Committee, reviews and votes upon the implementation of the full employment and production program, by mandatory biannual consideration of its funding.

A National Commission for Full Employment Policy Studies is created to conduct studies of the many changes in governmental policies and programs which must be more closely geared to the maintenance of genuine full employment without inflation.

The opportunity to seek redress, by suing through the U.S. district court, is afforded to any person who feels deprived of his or her job rights.

These hearings constitute a major beginning step in long-term leadership by the U.S. Congress in combating the devastation of un

employment and inflation. Like the original Patman-Murray full employment bill of 1945, this measure is an example of congressional initiative. It has not been sent here by the White House. It has not been drafted by any lobby or pressure group.

I believe that the subcommittee will, as it has in the past, continue. to operate on the basis of bipartisan dedication to complete fairness toward all shades of opinion in this highly controversial area.

As one of the bill's coauthors, I am committed to understanding all weaknesses and defects in the measure as well as the source and nature of all and any opposition to it. I know that this commitment is equally shared by those members of this subcommittee who, at this moment, may not support this legislation, or who may even oppose it.

This hearing will be relatively brief and preliminary on a legislative proposal of immense scope and complexity-a proposal of vital human meaning to every man, woman, and child in this country-and to future generations as well.

Despite the galloping increase in the twin evils of unemployment and inflation, the subcommittee does not intend to handle a measure of this magnitude on a crisis-ridden, quick basis. More intense hearings will be conducted following the convening of the 94th Congress next year.

Our purpose at this time is to explain the aims of the legislation: to develop a record of its historical context, particularly in relation to the Employment Act of 1946; and to elicit key questions about the legislation.

As an example of the kinds of questions that should be formulated in greater detail for our hearings next year, let me set forth some of those questions which have occurred to me and the staff of this subcommittee:

What are the various meanings of full employment and of the right to equal opportunities for useful paid employment at fair rates of compensation?

If this measure should become law, what levels of paid employment might result?

At such levels of paid employment, what might be the general structure not only of employment but also output by various sectors of the economy, of income in its various forms, and of private and public expenditures for consumption and investment? In other words, what alternative models might there be for an expanding economy of genuine full employment?

Is sustained and genuine full employment compatible with:

Reasonable price stability, as distinguished from crawling, walking, or running inflation?

High productivity of labor and capital?

Environmental protection as distinguished from environmental degradation?

Friendly economic relations with other countries?

An avoidance of excessive military expenditures?

Less concentration of power in the executive branch of the Government?

More initiative and decisionmaking at the local and community level?

What would be the impact of this legislation, if enacted, on the availability of equal opportunities for people who have been discriminated against on the basis of age, sex, color, religion or national origin?

To implement this legislation, what kinds of supplementary legislation in specific fields of national policy might be necessary?

What might be the costs and benefits of this legislation from the viewpoint of the Federal Government, State and local governments, business, labor, families, and individuals, nonprofit institutions, and other areas of the national interest?

What connection might there be between this legislation and the survival of our free enterprise system?

Let me repeat that our aim is not to answer all such questions in this preliminary hearing. Rather, we seek to develop the best possible compilation of such questions in a more detailed form as the framework for the more extensive hearings which we will be conducting on this legislation next year.

While the bill has been labeled the Equal Opportunity and Full Employment Act of 1976, this does not indicate that the members of this subcommittee or those sponsoring this bill intend to wait until 1976 for action. It is evident that we are galloping toward a depression. Something in the immediate future must be done, within the context of full employment, to bring about some solutions to the troublesome problems that we are confronted with at this time.

It is indeed a pleasure for me, as chairman of the subcommittee, to present the one individual who has done more than anyone else in economic policy consideration for the Congress. He is a noted Congressman, in his own right, an authority, one that I am very, very pleased to say is coauthoring this bill with me. I am pleased to call as our first witness the Honorable Henry S. Reuss of Wisconsin.

STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY S. REUSS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

Mr. REUSS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HAWKINS. Henry, it is a pleasure to have you as a friend and as our first witness.

Mr. REUSS. Members of the committee, I am so proud to be a coauthor of this landmark bill and grateful for the opportunity to testify in its behalf here this morning.

The chairman has already given an excellent account of the aims of the bill, which are nothing less than to make the Employment Act of 1946 mean what a nation thought it meant, namely, an opportunity for everyone able and willing to work to have a job which was productive, and decent, and contained dignity, as well as a means of livelihood. H.R. 15476 does just that. There couldn't be a time when public service employment, which is the central thrust of the bill, is more important than it is today.

We have all seen the latest unemployment figures for September. Last month 5.8 percent of the work force was unemployed, the highest figure in 4 years. The trend is all the wrong way. It is upward. 5.3 million Americans are out of a job. That is an increase of 1,200,000 since just a year ago.

If I add to that another 1.300,000 workers who are involuntarily working part time, another 1.9 million who are working part time because that is all that is available, you come up with something like 811⁄2 million Americans who are being denied the livelihood and dignity of a productive job.

Worse than that, unemployment, as who knows better than members of this great subcommittee, hits hardest those who can least afford to be hit at all.

The overall unemployment rate of 5.8 percent, a phony in and of itself as I have shown, falls with very unequal force on just the groups who are already bearing the great burden of inflation and discrimination: Blacks, other minority groups, women, teenagers, blue collar workers generally.

In September, blacks had an unemployment rate of 9.8 percent. Women had an unemployment rate of 5.7 percent, compared with little more than half of that for males. All teenagers, white, black, and every other color, had an unemployment rate of 16.7 percent while black teenagers had an unemployment rate of almost 33 percent.

Unemployment rates for other groups are set forth on page 3 of my written statement.

I think at this time, Mr. Chairman, I will ask the consent of yourself and the committee that my entire statement be submitted for the record.

Mr. HAWKINS. Without objection, the entire statement will be inserted in the record at this point.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY S. REUSS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

A NEW APPROACH TO FULL EMPLOYMENT

I appreciate this opportunity to testify on H.R. 15476, the “Equal Opportunity and Full Employment Act of 1976". I am proud to be a coauthor of this bill, which has been sponsored by more than 60 Democratic Members of the House. H.R. 15476 represents an effective national effort to fulfill the commitment made in the Employment Act of 1946-to provide "useful employment opportunities, including self-employment, for those able, willing, and seeking to work, and to promote maximum employment, production, and purchasing power”. What's so new about H.R. 15476 is that it guarantees the chance for "useful paid employment at fair rates of compensation" for every adult American willing and able to work.

Until now, we have relied on expansionary spending and money supply policies to solve unemployment. But during a period of outrageous inflation such as we are now experiencing, undiscriminating economic expansion just adds fuel to the inflationary fire. H.R. 15476 realistically rejects the traditional approach and instead makes the federal government directly responsible for providing jobs through public service employment.

Why is public service employment so important today?

1. Unemployment is too high, and rising

During September, 1974-last month-5.8 percent of the labor force was unemployed. This is the highest figure since 1971, when unemployment reached 5.9 percent. And the trend is upward. A year ago, 4.7 percent of the work force was unemployed. In April of this year, it was 5.0 percent. In May and June, 5.2 percent; July, 5.3 percent; and in August it moved up to 5.4 percent. Even the most conservative estimates are for 6 percent unemployment by midwinter, and Otto Eckstein, President of Data Resources, Inc., and Professor of Economics at Harvard, predicted at the September 27-28 Summit Conference on Inflation that we are in for 6.5 percent unemployment before things begin to improve.

41-356-74- 2

The figures for September mean that over 5.3 million Americans are out of work, an increase of more than 1.2 million just since a year ago. Add to this 5.3 million another 1.3 million workers who are forced to work part-time because of production cutbacks and layoffs. Add another 1.9 million who are working parttime because that's all that is available. Altogether, then, there are 8.5 million Americans who are being denied the employment opportunities they seek, who are being denied the dignity of a fully productive job, who are being denied a decent wage.

2. Unemployment hits hardest the disadvantaged who can least afford it

While an unemployment rate of 5.8 percent is itself a national disgrace, there are socioeconomic groups who are forced to bear an even worse burden-blacks, veterans, women, teenagers, blue-collar workers.

In September, blacks had an unemployment rate of 9.8 percent, compared with 5.3 percent for whites. Women had an unemployment rate of 5.7 percent, compared with 3.9 percent for males. Teenagers had an unemployment rate of 16.7 percent, while black teenagers had an unemployment rate of almost 33 percent. For other groups, the figures are equally discouraging. Unemployment among blue-collar workers is 6.8 percent, compared with white-collar workers who have a 3.5 percent unemployment rate. For unskilled laborers, the rate is 10.1 percent. And for young veterans of Vietnam, the unemployment rate is 12.4 percent.

These are the people who suffer the tragic consequences of high unemployment, the poor, the uneducated, the unskilled, who already have low incomes and little savings to fall back on and who are last in line when new jobs open up. They can't afford to wait any longer. Nor can the country afford to let them wait.

3. In some areas of the country, unemployment has risen to truly disastrous levels Not since the Great Depression have some cities and countries seen comparable unemployment. Just choosing at random from the Labor Department's most recent figures for hard-hit areas: Boston, 10 percent; Newark, N.J., 12.3 percent; Buffalo, N.Y., 11.4 percent; East Saint Louis, Ill., 15.2 percent; Flint, Michigan, 18.8 percent.

In my own state of Wisconsin, there are numerous pockets of excessive unemployment. In Milwaukee, there are over 20,000 workers unemployed, 6.8 percent of the work force. In Racine, it's 8.6 percent; Oshkosh, 8.2 percent; Green Bay, 8.9 percent; LaCrosse, 7.6 percent. And in Rock County, unemployment is 11.8 percent.

The same pattern of selected areas of huge unemployment holds for most other states. Widespread joblessness contributes to crime, unrest, and decay in our large cities.

4. Existing federal and state programs do little to help the unemployed.

Up until now, the federal government has taken two totally inadequate approaches to aiding the unemployed-unemployment compensation to tide them over when they are out of work, and job training and placement.

Unemployment compensation helps, of course, but the average weekly check is just $63, hardly enough to keep a family going. And for many workers, there isn't even this inadequate support. Over half the unemployed aren't covered to begin with, while many more have been out of work so long that their benefits have run out. Over 30,000 workers exhaust their benefits each week, and the number is rising.

The Comprehensive Employment and Training Act, which Congress passed last year, concentrates on manpower training and placement programs, but does little to guarantee that a job will actually exist for the newly-trained or counseled worker.

Title II of CETA does provide for public service jobs, but at an inadequate level of funding. Last Thursday, October 3, 1974, the Labor Department released the figures on how many jobs would be funded by their latest $415 million disbursement-a mere 75,000 jobs! Total Title II spending for fiscal 1975 is $970 million-enough for only 170,000 jobs.

With 5.3 million unemployed, 170,000 public service jobs are a drop in the bucket. In the District of Columbia, a $4 million 1975 disbursement will fund 800 jobs, according to the October 3 Washington Post. But there are 27,100 people looking for work in Washington. What's being done for the other 26,300? Milwaukee, with 20.400 unemployed, is going to receive about $3 million, enough for 600 jobs. What's going to happen to the other 19,800?