or other factors, the industry upon which the community is dependent goes into decline, the whole community sinks with that industry. The need then is for industrial diversification which in turn requires a labor force which is capable of performing new tasks, operating new machines, and, as a matter of fact, assuming new concepts of production. One of the tragedies of the labor-surplus areas is the fact that many workers displaced by change in the industrial completion of a community are not reemployed in the same volume even if new industry comes into the locality. The problem of older workers is an acute one throughout our country but it is particularly serious in areas of labor surplus. It seems to me that the vocational education provisions of the legislation before you, applied in an imaginative way, provides a useful answer to this extremely difficult question.

Finally, I should like to call your attention to the technical assistance provisions of the bills which you are considering. I am very much impressed with the necessity, as pointed out by students of the surplus labor problem, of careful consideration being given by local communities to planning an industrial rebirth for such areas. It has been pointed out that what is needed is not construction of new plants per se but a careful assessment--if you will, an industrial audit-which takes into account not only natural and human resources but production and product trends, institutional resources, transportation and communications-in short, the whole complex of factors which make up an environment in which industry can thrive. By and large, the resources available to many of the communities which should be concerning themselves with such planning are not sufficient to provide the kind of technical assistance which is required to construct an adequate plan. It is for this reason that I believe in many ways the technical aid aspects of pending legislation could be the most critical and important provision of any legislation which you may develop.

In closing I should simply like to reemphasize that the time for action in this important area is long overdue. There is little disagreement that the program must be a cooperative effort between the Federal Government and local communities-it is not a Federal giveaway program. Moreover, the passage of legislation in this field and the careful administration of the provisions of such legislation are essential to the well-being not only of the surplus labor areas but of the economy of the whole Nation. The effects of localized depression ramify far beyond the boundaries of the communities directly affected. When thousands of workers are idle and unproductive for extended periods of time, there is a cumulative affect upon the total output of goods and services. I can only add to this that whatever the physical losses to the community and the Nation, the psychological impact on the individual concerned is even more serious. is human rather than economic values with which we are primarily concerned here today.

And it

Senator DOUGLAS. Senator Clark is our second witness, so if you will change places for the time being, Senator Clark, we are very glad to have you here. When you were mayor of Philadelphia last year you took a great interest in this measure and were very helpful, along with the governor of your State, in supporting what you believed to be a sound program. We are all delighted to have you in the Senate and very happy that you are appearing here as a witness on the subject. Will you proceed in your own way?

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH S. CLARK, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, Senator Douglas. I appreciate very much the opportunity to testify before you in connection with this bill, among other reasons because of the magnificent efforts which you have made to help relieve these pockets of chronic unemployment through the years. Let us hope that your effort will be more successful this year and we can pass it.

Mr. Chairman, I should like, as you did, to avow openly and on the record my bias in this regard. While I am not a member of this sub

committee, I am a member of the full Committee on Banking and Currency, and I have held strong views on this subject for many years before I came to the Senate.

I do want to make an earnest effort to remain objective in considering not only the bill which I cosponsored with you and a number of other Senators, but the measure introduced by the administration. I think the record should indicate that I am a biased and partisan witness.

Mr. Chairman, with your permission I should like to follow the example of the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts and file in the record and ask that it be made a part thereof, a somewhat extensive statement. In order to help conserve the time of the committee, I would like to comment briefly on that statement.

Senator DOUGLAS. Thank you very much. That will be done.

Senator CLARK. With your permission, at this point I would like to offer my formal statement.

Senator DOUGLAS. It will appear at the conclusion of your remarks. Senator CLARK. Mr. Chairman, Pennsylvania has more areas of acute and chronic unemployment than any other State in the Union. That is one reason for my strong views on this subject, although I should hope to approach this as a national matter and not merely as one which vitally affects my Commonwealth.

There are three industries in Pensylvania which have been hard hit. The first is coal mining. That goes not only for the anthracite coal regions in northeastern Pennsylvania, but for the bituminous coal areas in western and southwestern Pennsylvania.

There the difficulty has been not only competition from oil and gas and the increased mechanization of the mines, which has curtailed employment, but also many of the mines have become exhausted, or the coal is at such deep levels now that it is no longer economic to produce it. So in many coal-mining areas the principal source for the accumulation of wealth has just disappeared. It is rather like the ghost towns in the Far West, when the silver boom and the gold

boom were over.

I think we are all aware historically of the tragic social results of those ghost towns. I hope we have enough conscience in modern government not to permit that situation to be repeated in this modern

era.

Textiles have also been very badly hit. Many of them have moved away, leaving their labor force behind them with no alternative source of employment. When we shifted from steam to Diesel locomotives, substantial unemployment was created in areas like Altoona, Pa., which had formerly been prosperous because of the large railroad shops. That has resulted in substantial unemployment in several of our communities where the railroads used to have far larger shops and repair works than they have at present.

Mr. Chairman, there are presently 16 counties in Pennsylvania listed by the United States Department of Labor as having over 6 percent unemployment. We have 67 counties in the State, but there are unemployment figures available for only 35, which means slightly less than 50 percent of our counties for which figures are available do have chronic and substantial unemployment.

In addition we know that in the 32 smaller counties for which figures are not available, there is also substantial unemployment. I could

cite, for example, Greene County in the extreme southwestern part of the State, where we know that there is a great deal of unemployment. They have two large captive mines in Greene County where the number of employees is much smaller than it was some years ago. While that is predominantly a rural county, I know from personal knowledge that the level of unemployment there is substantial. Yet we do not have any figures on it.

Fayette County, which is adjacent, is listed as an area of substantial unemployment, but they do not mention Greene, because they do not have the figures.

In my statement, Mr. Chairman, is a rather long letter from the editor of a local newspaper in Saxton, Pa., pointing out the very critical situation which exists there in what used to be known as the Broad Top coal area. That is at the intersection of Huntingdon, Bedford, and Fulton Counties, which are 3 of the 32 counties for which we do not have accurate unemployment figures.

Not to read the letter at length, it states that this area of 11,000 people has approximately 2,500 unemployed. It was a mining area until after World War II. Then the deep mines ceased to operate. The two railroads, the Huntingdon & Broad Top Mountain and the East Broad Top Railroad, ceased to operate because they were kept going only by the coal business. They are now scrapping those railroads, and you have a ghost town situation coming up.

That is a typical example of an area where we do not have official figures, but where the need is very great indeed.

I should point out in that regard, from my personal experience, it is very clear to me local communities are doing and will continue to do everything possible to help the situation.

I will give just one example. The city of Scranton, Pa., raised privately, as a result of the efforts of the local chamber of commerce and other people, over $3.5 million to put the Scranton plan in operation to help them help themselves.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at the last session of the legislature passed a very comprehensive plan for industrial redevelopment. I am happy to see Governor Leader will be here at a later date in order to testify with respect to that activity.

Mr. Chairman, we are not looking for charity in Pennsylvania. We are prepared to do our full share, both at the local and at the State level, but it is very clear to all of us who have studied this problem in any depth that local and State resources are not going to be enough to do this job. It is going to require assistance from the Federal Government in order to carry the program into effect.

Mr. Chairman, one of the worst results of these pockets of unemployment is social rather than economic. In a community where job opportunities no longer exist, the young people leave, leaving behind them a community of middle aged and older people who are bound by their deep loyalties and their affection for their homes and their land to stay there. They get into a more and more difficult situation. This is a typical situation in Pennsylvania. You go up there and you find the streets crowded with unemployed men. You will not see any women and you will not see any young people. The women are working in garment factories.

The children at home are either untended or the men are put in the untenable situation of being babysitters and taking care of the

housework while the wife goes away in order to earn a living to get the groceries to keep the family together.

You also find a situation where men, in order to get work, are driving up to and in excess of 100 miles in a family automobile away from their home to find work elsewhere. Frequently they must travel over icy mountain roads, with many accidents being caused in the winter, and they arrive home in an exhausted condition, creating a family environment which is socially completely unsound.

So in many places, Mr. Chairman, including some where technically the unemployment percentage figures would not qualify them under the administration bill, three is nonetheless serious social and economic stress because of the situation where the men are out of work and in order to keep the family together the women have to take a job.

I think that calls for remedial action, even though all of the facts may not appear in the statistics of unemployment.

For that reason I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the test for a redevelopment area contained in the bill which you and I and a number of the other Senators have sponsored is far more realistic than the more hard-boiled test which appears in the Administration bill.

I would like to make a couple of brief comments on particular provisions in S. 964. First, sections 5 (a) and 5 (e) contain new language, which is intended to make it clear that the redevelopment areas are not necessarily confined to the market areas listed by the Department of Labor. As they affect Pennsylvania, the Department of Labor's definitions of these areas would exclude three kinds of areas which badly need help.

The first group is made up of those industrial counties where the labor force is too small to permit the county to be included in the present Labor Department list.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that a small community with a high percentage of unemployment is just as much entitled to assistance as a large community with a similar percentage of unemployment.

In that connection, I would like to cross-reference to my comments on Greene County made a little earlier.

The second group consists of the outlying regions of large metropolitan areas. For example, Washington County is listed by the Department of Labor as part of the Pittsburgh labor market area, which has less than 6 percent unemployment. Of course, that is a vast metropolitan region which comprises 4 big counties in western Pennsylvania. The percentage of unemployment in the region as a whole would not qualify it under the Administration bill. The percentage of unemployment in Washington County is very high because of the decline of the coal industry. Yet under the Administration bill, Washington County could not qualify for assistance, which it badly needs.

In the Pittsburgh area you have the same problem with respect to transportation and traffic congestion that we have all over the country. It is almost impossible for many men in Washington County to drive the long distances necessary to the fringe on the other side of Pittsburgh, where they might find employment.

I suggest for that reason the test in the Administration bill which uses the present Department of Labor's statistical policies is not a realistic one, if we are really going to try to get to the root of this

matter.

The third kind of area which would be covered under the bill you sponsored, which I think it most important to help, is just the opposite of the Washington situation. It has to do with that decaying and blighted ring around the cores of so many of our American cities. I can speak with first hand knowledge of Philadelphia, but I do know that that situation exists in the case of many another major metropolitan area in the United States.

We have in Philadelphia a very lovely and a very fine central city area which is being rapidly improved and of which we are very proud indeed a healthy area, too. But in a circle around that central city area are some of the worst slums in the country, into which new citizens are moving, many of them from the South and nearly all of them in lower income groups. Frequently they are not very skilled. Most of them are in too low an income group to have an automobile which can take them a good ways to work. Public transportation facilities, I am sorry to say, are not too good in our city. In that area also are hundreds of those old loft-type factory buildings which are now obsolete from the point of view of producing economically, and in a way which could meet competition on the products they used to produce. Now, Philadelphia will not qualify under the Department of Labor's test because they take in the whole metropolitan area, including the prosperous suburbs and the prosperous center city area. reason I strongly urge the provision in S. 964 which permits the Administrator to create a redevelopment area out of less than a county, or even less than a city.

For that

That ties right in with the provisions in your bill which would amend the Housing Act so as to permit industrial redevelopment under the program which has hitherto required that redevelopment areas be predominantly residential. By that provision it will be possible to combine residential and industrial redevelopment so as to tear down these loft buildings and, with the inducements provided by this bill, bring into those blighted areas new industries which can provide employment opportunities for so many of the citizens of those areas who are presently either underemployed or totally unemployed. The final section on which I would like to comment

Senator DOUGLAS. I may say, Senator Clark, the situation you have described in Philadelphia is identical with that which we have in Chicago.

Senator CLARK. I think it is typical of pretty nearly all of our large metropolitan areas.

The last section I would like to comment on is section 7 (a) (4), which would prohibit the use of the funds provided under this act to finance the movement of industry from one locality to another, commonly known as the "runaway shop" provision.

This provision is not as stringent as the one in last year's bill, and I believe it to be therefore far more workable and feasible. It provides that no loans shall be made where the result will be to create substantial unemployment in another area.

I do think it is important, and I think you will agree, that we do not wish to have this bill used to create employment in one spot at the expense of unemployment in another.

Senator DOUGLAS. In other words, you think it should provide for net growth being channeled into the areas of chronic and persistent