Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

North Carolina: Asheville, Durham.

Ohio: Canton, Hamilton-Middletown, Lorain-Elyria, Toledo, Youngstown-Warren. Oregon: Portland.

Pennsylvania: Philadelphia.

Tennessee: Chattanooga, Knoxville.
Texas: Beaumont-Port Arthur.
Washington: Spokane, Tacoma.

SIXTY-SIX SMALLER AREAS

Alabama: Anniston, Talladega.

California: Eureka.

Colorado: Pueblo.

Connecticut: Meriden, Middletown, Norwich, Torrington.
Delaware: Dover.

Florida Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood.

Illinois: Canton, Decatur, Galesburg, La Salle, Mattoon.

Indiana: Connersville, Michigan City-La Porte, Muncie, Vincennes.
Kansas: Coffeyville-Independence-Parsons.

Kentucky: Owensboro.

Louisiana: Lake Charles.

Maine: Lewiston-Auburn.

Massachusetts: Milford, Newburyport.

Michigan: Holland-Grand Haven, Iron Mountain, Jackson, Mount Pleasant. Mississippi: Biloxi-Gulfport, Greenville, Laurel, Tupelo.

Nevada Las Vegas.

New York: Elmira, Newburgh-Middletown-Beacon, Olean-Salamanca, Wellsville. North Carolina: Fayetteville, Greenville, Hendersonville, Mount Airy, Waynesville.

Ohio: Ashtabula-Conneaut, Athens, East Liverpool-Salem, Kent-Ravenna, Mount Vernon, New Philadelphia-Dover, Sandusky, Zanesville, Fremont.

Oklahoma: Ardmore, Shawnee.

Oregon: North Bend-Coos Bay, Roseburg.

Pennsylvania: Bradford, Lock Haven, Oil City-Franklin-Titusville, Williamsport.

Tennessee: Bristol-Johnson City-Kingsport.

Texas: Texarkana.

Utah: Provo-Orem.

Virginia: Covington-Clifton Forge.

Washington: Bellingham.

West Virginia : Martinsburg.

Wisconsin: Marinette-Menominee.

Secretary GOLDBERG. It goes without saying that, as Secretary of Labor charged by Congress with the responsibility of looking after the welfare of the labor force of the United States, the employed and unemployed, I have a great interest and concern with the important subject which this committee is discussing today.

In 1946, some 16 years ago, Congress declared in the Employment Act that it is the continuing policy and responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practical means to promote maximum employment, production, and purchasing power.

It has always seemed to me that it is an objective to which all Americans subscribe.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, some of the younger fellows are having a little difficulty hearing you. Would you please pull the microphone a little closer to you?

Secretary GOLDBERG. It has always seemed to me that the objective of maximum employment, production, and purchasing power is one to which all Americans subscribe regardless of whether they are in labor or in management or regardless of their political party. After all, the thing that has characterized our country more than

anything else is our highly productive labor force, our highly productive manufacturing and agricultural industries, and the concern which we as a nation, have always displayed for the welfare and the well-being of our people.

The matter which we are discussing today is a proposal which deals with the central subject of seeing to it that our economy is moving forward at a proper rate, of seeing to it that our people are gainfully employed in useful jobs, of seeing to it that our industry is prosperous, and seeing to it that our rural areas likewise share in the prosperity of the country.

Now, I think that it would be helpful to you if I would analyze the employment situation, both the positive aspects of it and also some of the aspects which are of concern, I am sure, to all of us.

In

During the last year the economy has moved toward higher levels of employment and a somewhat lower level of unemployment. that, all of us can take considerable satisfaction.

Today our latest figures from the Department, as of February, indicate a record level of 65,789,000 people employed in this country. This is the February 1962 figure.

Total employment is well over a million higher than it was a year ago. Total unemployment is well over a million below what it was a year ago. The factory workweek is a full hour above a year ago, and for those who do have jobs earnings are at record levels.

In fact, in certain of our manufacturing industries, the earnings of workers for the first time in history have exceeded $100 a week, a goal which 20 years ago would have seemed impossible in the eyes of many people.

Now, we can take satisfaction with those positive facts, but there is a major set of returns which have to be considered by all of us in this area, and I refer to the fact that there are still 4,543,000 people unemployed in this country.

Now, from the very outset of our administration and, in fact, in past Congresses as well as in past administrations, the number of unemployed has been a continuing matter of concern both to Congress and to the Executive, as it properly should be.

We have been carefully studying the unemployed, their characteristics, where they are, who they are, because it is important to know these facts when we talk about programs such as the program we are considering here today.

And one of the very disturbing aspects of unemployment in this country is what we classify as the long-term unemployed. In February 1,400,000 of the unemployed were long-term unemployed-that is, continuously jobless for 15 weeks or longer up 100,000 from January. In this group approximately 750,000 have been continuously jobless for 26 weeks or more, a figure which is virtually the same as it was a year ago, despite a rising employment level.

And who are these long-term unemployed? casually drift in and out of the labor market? do not need work, who do not want work?

Are they people who
Are they people who

Quite to the contrary. Fully one out of every four of our longterm unemployed is an older man, 45 years of age and older, whose reemployment, we are forced reluctantly to conclude, will hinge in considerable measure on the stimulus to job growth generated by the

types of programs we are recommending here, and the types of programs that Congress has already enacted, notably in the Manpower Development and Training Act and in the Area Redevelopment Act.

Now, another aspect of the unemployed, which bears upon the subject you are considering and the type of programs we are recommending, is the fact that a large proportion of unemployed are unskilled workers. The fact is that while only 5 percent of the American labor force is unskilled, triple that portion, 15 percent, of the long-term unemployed are unskilled workers.

Here again it is particularly these types of workers whose employment possibilities will be enhanced by the type of programs we are considering here today.

Now, there is another aspect of the unemployment situation to which I ought to direct your attention, and that is that the problem in the construction industry is also an aggravated problem.

We find that in February 1962, about 5 percent of all workers in the United States were in the construction trades, but 14 percent of all of the long-term unemployed are represented by construction workers.

And, incidentally, 18 percent of the construction labor force is unskilled, which is, again, relevant to the type of legislation that we are considering.

There is another aspect of unemployment which, I think, necessitates the close attention of the Congress as it has necessitated the close attention of our administration. The fact is that the last decade has seen a rising level of unemployment after each recession and even during recovery periods.

Let me cite just a few figures to illustrate this point.

In July 1953, just prior to the 1953-54 recession, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in this country stood at 2.6 percent.

And for those who constantly ask the question whether in a great country like ours, you do not have to have considerable unemployment, let us remember that just a few years ago, in 1953-54 we had an unemployment rate which stood at 2.6 percent.

And if we are talking about ultimate goals or targets one of our ultimate goals and targets is to try to get down to where we were in 1953 and 1954, not an impossible goal for our country, by any means. Now, the recession of 1953-54 was followed by a very substantial improvement but in July 1957, during a period of employment just prior to the 1957-58 recession, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate stood at 4.2 percent, and then after this particular recession the unemployment rate fell again, but in May 1960, just prior to the 196061 recession, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was 5.1 per

cent.

Thus, after each of these periods we emerged with a higher rate of unemployment even at the peak of the prosperous period.

It is disturbing, and I am sure it is disturbing to all of us, that in the last 52 months there has been only 1 month when the unemployment rate fell below the seasonally adjusted rate of 5 percent.

That month, incidentally, was February 1960, when the rate was 4.9 percent.

I do not believe the Congress of the United States or the President, or his administration, intends to live with these disquieting and linger

ing pockets of unemployment that exist in the country, and I believe very strongly, and I am sure that the Congress shares this belief, that there is no reason why we cannot deal with this problem, deal with it constructively, deal with it within our means and see to it that unemployment is reduced to levels which we achieved in the recent past.

In the letter that the President sent to you he proposed an immediate public works or capital improvements program. Dr. Heller has read you his letter which proposes a $600 million capital improvements program which would extend through fiscal 1964 and would be operative in all areas eligible for assistance under the Area Redevelopment Act, and in communities which have been designated for 12 months or more as areas of substantial unemployment.

If this legislation were promptly enacted we could get some assistance right during this, the remainder of this fiscal year. And, of course, the bulk of the assistance, as has been described to you, would take place during fiscal 1963.

In addition to that, you have before you in the bills that have been offered or in the bill that has been offered the standby proposal for a capital improvements program directed toward averting and minimizing future recessions.

It may be asked if we have 412 million people more or less unemployed and we have many areas how will the $600 million program immediately help?

It will help significantly and let me say why it would. Pockets of unemployment exist in hundreds of localities throughout the country and the creation of jobs in such localities could have an impact far out of proportion to the total size of this program.

I believe there has been offered to you, through the letter, a list of the communities who would be eligible for assistance and for participation in this program. Let me point out to you something very interesting about this. This is not a sectional proposal.

This is not a proposal designed to help one community to the detriment of another community.

In the two lists, the area redevelopment list and the list of communities where substantial unemployment has persisted for a period of 12 months, you have, if I have read the list correctly, and will offer them for the record, if I may, Mr. Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. It is so ordered.

Secretary GOLDBERG. We have communities in, I believe, 48 States. I was checking the list as I came here, and I think possibly there are only two States that do not have communities that fall within these two categories.

And we are not so sure that even in those two States there are not some communities which fall within the category, because we have not been able statistically to analyze all communities in the country, large and small. We have stepped up our activities in this area since the Area Redevelopment Act, but we have not yet completed all of the work that is required to be done in this area.

I must say this, Mr. Chairman, that, surely, we must ultimately rely upon our private economy to attain the rate of growth that will support job opportunities for all of our people.

But I do not believe that we can any longer wait on this in terms of the human values involved, the people in various communities who

have been waiting and are anxious and willing to work, and for whom the progressive growth of the economy has not yet afforded jobs.

We have had a remarkable growth of the economy during the last year. Many people thought that the rate of growth that we achieved last year we could not achieve, but we brought up the gross national product from $500 billion to over $540 billion.

And yet we have these pockets of unemployment, and those people have been waiting for their jobs for inordinately long periods of times. Since in America we believe very strongly that the very best solution to the problems of unemployment is work, the programs we are proposing are not palliatives. I have found from my own travels around the country that what people want most are jobs. It also seems to me that in order to alleviate the effects of unemployment, we must maintain and improve our unemployment program and our welfare programs. We need equal attention to the problem of stimulating job opportunities so that we can afford work to people who want work. I have been in many States since I took office, and I have found that the universal characteristic of the unemployed, whether they are in Minnesota on the iron ore range, or in Indiana in South Bend, or in southern California, or in Michigan, or in Pennsylvania, or down in any of our Southern States, the universal desire of people is to work, to get jobs.

You know that, too, because they are your constituents. And I believe that we have a responsibility while we are waiting for the private economy and doing all we can to stimulate the private economy, we have an obligation to help in this area and to provide job opportunities.

Now this bill that we are talking about, both in the immediate aspects of its program and in the standby aspect of the program, is not a make-work bill. I would like to emphasize this.

It does not contemplate a restoration of leaf-raking projects nor does it contemplate that we will redo the history of the 1930's where we faced quite a different problem.

I tried to make, in my own mind, a rough estimate of what would happen if we had this immediate bill and later if we get the standby bill. I would conservatively estimate that 95 or more, maybe 98 or maybe 99 percent of the work which would be done under this legislation would be done for private contractors, private employers, and that it would be work in private industry.

This is certainly the thrust of the bill. We are talking about capital improvements which largely would be handled by private contractors building buildings, taking care of pollution situations, building hospitals, doing all of the various types of work, sewage systems, roadbuilding, civic buildings, airfields, street, and port improvements-by and large is done traditionally under our system by private

contractors.

So we are not talking about putting people on the Government payroll. We are talking about giving people the opportunity to work in much needed capital improvement projects throughout the country. It may be said that with the dimensions of the problem as great as they are, if they are great, can this program alone do the job?

The answer is: "No, it cannot alone do the job, but this is one of several measures we are proposing."

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »