Mr. HAWKINS. But there are many areas of the country that have never suffered any unemployment rate, that have never had an unemployment rate that was as high as 8 percent. I am referring to a large section of my own congressional district which in three decades has consistently been up to 8 percent.

I think only once in some four decades has the rate been as low as 4 percent, yet we are talking about 250,000 or 300,000 persons, and so when we begin talking about a triggering device, it seems to me that we are overlooking millions of individuals, certainly several millions of individuals who are not going to be assisted very greatly by this bill, by your bill or by the Daniels bill.

As I say, this I think is related to the question of a fallback use of this as a transitional program on the theory that for these people at least the problem is going to go out of existence when the national unemployment rate goes down and I think that is unrealistic to expect.

It has not occurred under the last six Presidential administrations despite all of the efforts that have been put forth. So it seems to me that what we need is something that is a lot longer, more comprehensive, more substantial than either one of the two proposals, and we need jobs that are going to lead to life careers for these individuals and not temporary jobs on a program that is going to be a stopgap program that is not a continuing one.

Mr. BENNETT. May I speak on this?

Mr. HAWKINS. Yes.

Mr. BENNETT. I think maybe it would be illuminating if I read the bill. It says:

The Secretary of Labor is to create a register of individuals who have not been successful in finding employment.

The bill provides that the municipal and State governments and also the departments of the Federal Government, may petition the Secretary of Labor for needed manpower from this pool as required by them.

The bill provides that the Federal Government shall reimburse the hiring authority at the rate of the minimum wage to be supplemented by the hirer in appropriate cases.

Such individuals employed under this act shall be considered temporary and not eligible for retirement benefits.

The only thing in this bill that has any reference at all to temporary is not getting retirement benefits from the Federal Govenrment. I would have no objection to a broader bill to take care of all kinds of people that have a hard time finding jobs they feel are up to what they would like to have.

I come, as I said before, from a district which has very low pay, very low wages. I don't come from a district which is characterized by being on relief. I come from a district which has relatively high employment, with very very low wages. The people in my district, both black and white, are desirous of working.

They are willing to do work which may not be quite up to their potentiality. They are not only willing but anxious to do it. They are furious, in some instances, because they don't find a job.

That is all my bill attempts to do. It is not inconsistent with what you have in mind. It could be added on to what you have in mind or

59-697-71--8

yours could be added on to this, but it is a different problem. I am talking about poor people who are having a hard time making a living.

I am not talking about helping everybody having unmet aspirations in life. I guess to do that you would have to take care of all Senators because they all want to be President; and most Congressmen want to be U.S. Senators. So if you used this test you would have great difficulty in making everybody achieve everything they want to get in life.

All I am trying to do is to get grits on the table for people who want to work. It doesn't have a time cutoff. The only cutoff is with regard to whether the Appropriations Committee should feel a need exists in a particular week, year, or month. They could have a special bill to take care of any emergency at a particular time.

So I have no quarrel with the ideology you have mentioned but it is entirely different from what I have in mind.

I have in mind taking care of people who are hungry. I dont' have in mind lifting everybody to the level in life that they want to be lifted to. That is a good aspiration. I hope we can finance it some day. Maybe we can now. That isn't my bill, though. My bill is a poor man's bill to help people in trouble and give them a job so they can work instead of being on relief.

Mr. HAWKINS. I think it makes a difference on just what the philosophy is regarding this subject and I don't completely disagree with your approach, either.

I am simply suggesting that there are several million persons who have been actually unemployed by Government policies since January 1969, more than 2 million at least, and that these persons should not be blamed because they are unemployed, but the economic policymakers are the ones who should be blamed, if anyone.

Mr. BENNETT. I don't know of a policy against employing people. Mr. HAWKINS. I don't suppose you have heard of the tight money policies of this administration or to whom are you blaming then for 2 million-plus persons who have been unemployed since January 1969? Mr. BENNETT. I kind of wonder, how we can arrive at the answer to the question as to who is so evil as to put a man out of a job.

I assume you and I have lived at the same lengths of time. I have lived in poverty myself, and I never felt when I was out of a job that this had very much to do with the fault of God or my country.

I think that there are problems in life economically. Nobody has known yet how to create a device that makes everybody have a job. We have a free enterprise system; but even if we didn't, if we had totalitarianism, there would be the same problem. There would still be people very poor who can't do the things they want to do. Our system allows an ambitious man to create jobs and find jobs not only for himself, but for other people, too.

I believe in the free enterprise system but I don't believe Mr. Nixon is anxious to have people unemployed or that he is very happy to raise interest rates. I probably will vote against raising the interest rates, and we can all make all kinds of points with this sort of thing but I am not sure about the relationships of jobs and interest rates.

I am really interested in one thing. I know a lot of people in my district, black and white alike, who have a hard time getting by. I think

there are a lot of things that need to be done in my home communities and I want ot give them a chance to make it by working.

I don't want to tell them, "You are too doggone dumb to hold down a job and get married and have kids." I don't think society should do this. They are good people. That is all my bill does. There are a lot of other problems in the world that I don't understand, including the complexities of the management of money.

When I first came to Congress there was a Congressman, from one of the Western States who said to me "You are a wonderful potential Congressman, young man." I was then black-headed. That was over 20 years ago. He said, "I would like to see you stay in Congress." I said, "I would like to stay here, too." He said, "I will tell you how you can stay in Congress. You read my speech at such and such a page in the Congressional Record."

So, I read that speech and it was about money, about interest rates and about silver and all of those things. I couldn't make anything out of it whatsoever. I was completely lost so I stayed away from this Congressman for a long time.

Finally I saw him in the cloakroom and he said, "Well, son, what did you think about my speech?" I said, "It was a very interesting speech." He said, "That is not what I asked you." I said, "I couldn't understand it." He said, "You have put your finger on it. I have been running on that speech for 20 years and nobody can understand it and it elects me regularly." So money and its management are indeed very complicated. I don't know much about money management but I do know that people who are honest, good people and don't have food on their table and are not very able nevertheless have a right to work for a living. I don't care how many training programs you have, many of these are going to wind up without a job. This bill that I introduced would give them a job in things which are needed to be done.

There is nothing so bad in working on ecology, work which can only be done by people. There are a lot of national parks. There is a lot of animal protection that can be done by these people. There are overnight rest places to be built. There are infinite things yearning to be done. There are a lot of roads and trails to be built.

There may be many other good bills. I am not in opposition to any of the ideas presented to me today, but think about the many good, fine people in this country who don't have much education and don't have much potentiality for ordinary jobs. They have complete bodies. They want to marry and have children. They are good American citizens and have a right to make their way in life.

That is what my bill would do.

Mr. HAWKINS. Mr. Bennett, I don't disagree with you about the very fine people that you are talking about. I am merely suggesting that some of these fine people that you are talking about have as great a potential as you and I would have. They are not people who lack necessarily gray matter. They are just the ordinary people like anyone else and I don't think we should be blaming them for economic policies that have put them out of employment.

Mr. BENNETT. I am trying to help them.

Mr. HAWKINS. If you have not listened to economic advisers of the President as they have talked about inflation and some of the other

policies of this administration, then it seems to me we are completely missing the point.

There are many individuals who are unemployed through no fault of their own and there is certainly some obligation and some responsibility that we owe to these individuals who are suffering, who are victims of some of our policies in order to control inflation.

Mr. BENNETT. They are not a victim of any of my policies.

Mr. HAWKINS. And whether they are black or white makes no difference.

They are individuals who have potential and should have the opportunity to go up the economic ladder and not forever remain at the

bottom.

Mr. BENNETT. I would be happy to associate my concept with your concept. There are two ideas, both of which are good, and it doesn't necessarily mean they are against each other. I have done my very best to try to find employment for people.

Mr. HAWKINS. Aren't there more people seeking jobs than there are jobs available?

Mr. BENNETT. I am talking about your type of job.

Mr. HAWKINS. I am talking about all types of jobs.

Mr. BENNETT. I only came here to talk about one kind of job that puts grits on the table of a man who doesn't have much money.

Mr. HAWKINS. I am not talking about a job that is going to keep a man in poverty. If that is the type of job you are talking about, you can forget it.

Mr. BENNETT. I am sure you are not going to say

Mr. HAWKINS. If that is the type of job we are talking about creating, we are not going to solve the basic problem.

Mr. BENNETT. Isn't it permissible for me as one Congressman to come in with one concept which you are not opposed to?

Mr. HAWKINS. I am delighted to know that you have come as far as you have toward my view or I can adjust it to yours, but I am suggesting that it isn't adequate and it is a long way from creating anything that is going to be much relief.

It isn't going to take care of those who are going to be put out of jobs in the next several months.

Mr. BENNETT. I am not fighting your idea. I am not opposed to this at all. I am just primarily interested in taking care of the person who I think is in the society who doesn't have what it takes to compete in society today and is being forced onto welfare.

That is the kind of person I am trying to take care of. It doesn't mean that I am not sympathetic with the kind of man you are interested in.

These people who have confidence in me know I love them and want to try to help them. Though I am sympathetic to the Ph. D in aerospace, that is a different program from the one I present here today.

Mr. HAWKINS. I think we can get together.

Mr. DANIELS. Congressman, your thinking is very challenging. I am sorry, but Congressman Gaydos of Pennsylvania would like to ask a question.

Mr. GAYDOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I, too, want to join with my colleague in welcoming you before this committee, knowing of your many years of dedicated service in this body.

I like your concept because it is very simple. It seems that around here all of us get sidetracked when something is simple and fundamental.

You mentioned 5.3 million people would be the suggested number of people in various institutions and activities that could possibly be beneficiaries under your program.

You hinge it upon the concept that only minor amounts of training would be involved. That is as I understand it.

Mr. BENNETT. That is correct.

Mr. GAYDOS. What bothers me is that we have unemployment statistics in and around the 6-percent area. Translated into practical figures, that is around 5.2 million. In our present unemployment statistics are many professionals, highly trained specialists in their field.

How do you justify these figures of a minor amount of training which would then immediately affect 5 million people, put them to work and put their grits on the table. How do you reconcile that with 6-percent unemployment figure which encompasses people of all types of professions?

Mr. BENNETT. I think you could have another program to put these trained and adequate people in jobs. I don't have the ability to put that bill together. I don't have the staff to put that together. I don't have the knowledge of how to put it together. I don't have comprehension as to how to put it together. What I have here is simple and I understand it. It will do good. That is all I am saying. I am not saying I am against something else. I am saying I am for this.

I think one thing you could do, would be stop canceling things like the Cross Florida Barge Canal which would produce lots of jobs and things like that.

In other words, you can stop ending in midstream public projects which have been justified from military and economic standpoints and you can give some thought to the job-producing things that need to be done in this country.

I know it is not very popular to say this today but I think this country is in a state of hysteria about ecology. All one has to do is make an assertion, whether it is true or not, with regard to ecology, and any politician can't be caught dead questioning it at all. As a result, thousands and thousands of jobs are going to be closed down in the near future. A payroll of $20 million has ceased in my hometown. The biggest private industrial plant in my hometown I think is going to close this week because of a State law, not a Federal law, with regard to ecology because they can't buy any insurance on the statutory demands.

Mr. GAYDOS. Would you support this committee in legislation that would include a clause which would provide adequate manpower training programs as we have suggested in last year's legislation? Would be averse to that?

you

Mr. BENNETT. No, I voted for it and I am for it. I think the truth is, however, that we have trained and retained and retained people only to find that there are no jobs for them.