life can do to a community. And to permit the kind of condition to exist that does exist in many areas of our country, places like Scranton, like Erie, as Senator Clark stated, places like Herrin, Ill., in your own State, does more to tear up the family; and with the family being torn up, it deprives the community of the kind of contribution that must come from the family in order to permit a decent community to exist, for a community to be free from as much of this juvenile delinquency problem as it can be free from, to permit a community to have the kind of enthusiastic spirit for good projects which can only come from good citizens of a good community, and not from people in families torn up by strife, disruption, and disorder.

And so we feel a great deal of consideration ought to be given not only by the members of this committee but eventually by the citizens as a whole to the moral problems involved in permitting these blighted areas to continue unassisted or assisted in only an insufficient amount.

Senator DOUGLAS. I appreciate that. Then, in other words, you think it is improper policy to depend solely upon forcing men to leave their home communities and seek work elsewhere, and I take it that you believe that it is a preferable policy to try to bring jobs to the communities than to force the men to leave the communities and seek jobs elsewhere?

Mr. HARTNETT. Oh, yes, unquestionably, for many reasons, sir, it is much better to do something for the community. First of all, if we are only selfish in our wanting to maintain our own defenses, it is necessary, it seems to me, that we have productive know-how and productive abilities and capabilities scattered around in as broad a portion of our 48 States as we can so that all of our talent is not centered in one, two, or a dozen areas susceptible to attack. And from that point of view, I think it is necessary that we bring jobs into these communities.

Now, on the other hand, I think it is likewise important that men not be required to tear up all their ties, to move their homes, to rid themselves of a house they may have spent many, many years at hard work in order to acquire, that they not be required to abandon those homes or hospitals or other community resources that have been developed as a result of long years of investment by members of the community.

There is another thing involved in transplanting people. I think, once again, you would make a contribution to this problem of juvenile delinquency; people moving from one community into another, where they are trying to make adjustments or oftentimes required to forego the regular attention that ought to be given to families. In many instances, you will find the father having to leave the community first and leaving his family behind, and there is a loss of the father's guiding hand to the family as he tries to get himself established in a new city.

Then, of course, there is really the question of destroying productive abilities, because I think you do that in a very real sense, abilities that contribute much not only to our general defenses but our general economy. We have no right to lose the services of these hundreds of thousands of productive workers simply to satisfy the opinions of persons who feel that they should leave their communities to seek employment elsewhere.

During the depression, I know of nothing that was solved by these so-called Okies or cavalcades of unemployed, traveling through the country trying to find a place to bring up their family. All I know that it accomplished is a lot of trouble and strife and disorder and confusion. And as I say, there is nothing to be gained by sending people to look for work in other areas, where you neglect well-estabfished areas, where you permit already established communities and resources to be destroyed.

Senator DOUGLAS. Thank you very much.

Senator Clark?

Senator CLARK. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions, but I have just had the opportunity to read carefully Mr. Hartnett's testimony, and I do hope that, particularly in view of the testimony we heard this morning of Mr. Robert P. Lee and Mr. D. J. Hardenbrook, that all of our colleagues on the committee will read with some care Mr. Hartnett's testimony, which appears to me to be a conclusive answer to all the objections to the bill which were made by those two gentlement representing the National Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers.

Particularly I would like to call the Chairman's attention to the points made by Mr. Hartnett beginning on page 5 of his testimony, where he so ably demonstrates that this is a national and not a local problem and requires solution on a national scale, that the communities which need help the most are those which are financially the worst off, that Trojan efforts have been made by these local communities to help themselves; and then toward the end of his testimony, the eight reasons he gives favoring S. 964, which I find most persuasive, and I hope they will be persuasive to our colleagues on the committee also.

Mr. HARTNETT. Thank you very much, Senator.

Senator DOUGLAS. We want to thank you very much, Mr. Hartnett. Your testimony will be printed, and in the long struggle which lies ahead, we hope we may count on your criticism and support. Mr. HARTNETT. I thank you very much, sir.

(The prepared text of Mr. Hartnett's statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF AL HARTNETT, SECRETARY-TREASURER, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, AFL-CIO

My name is Al Hartnett, secretary-treasurer of the International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO. I am here in support of an effective area redevelopment program to remove a serious blight from our social and economic scene.

The Full Employment Act of 1946 established as national policy the responsibility of the Federal Government to promote maximum employment, production and purchasing power and under this same act the Government is pledged to utilize all its plans, functions and resources to this end. We believe that this responsibility should be exercised regarding the problem of depressed areas. According to the March report of the Bureau of Employment Security, at a time when nationally we are enjoying the greatest prosperity in our history, there were 19 major areas of substantial unemployment. In addition, there were nearly 75 smaller areas where, according to the Labor Department, there was "a substantial labor surplus."

Of the 19 major areas of substantial unemployment, 18 are areas identified by the Department of Labor as having “a chronic labor surplus." In addition, 30 of the minor areas of substantial unemployment also are in this category and the problem has persisted for some time. As a matter of fact, in many of these cases the problem has endured for practically a generation.

These are areas where the unemployment ranges up to 12 percent or more of the labor force. It must be borne in mind at this point that the words "labor force" as used by the United States Labor Department include not only wage and salary workers but also self-employed professional men and owners of businesses. If we were to consider the ratio of unemployment exclusively among wage and salary workers, we would find that unemployment in some of these areas may be as high as 15 percent to 20 percent.

I suppose it should not be necessary for me to recall to this committee in detail the effect not only upon the people in these blighted communities, but also upon our Nation as a whole, of the continuation of substantial unemployment in these areas. You have had previous hearings on this matter and also the excellent testimony by many witnesses this year, including that of AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasury Schnitzler on March 11.

However, I do feel that some remarks along that line may be in order. I myself had the experience of growing up during the depression in the working class areas of Philadelphia and I know the devastating effect this had upon my family and the families of my friends and neighbors. The effect of living in a depressed area upon the family, the foundation of American life, is, perhaps, the most important consideration of all. Not all of the family's evils can be traced to poverty, but surely poverty must take a major part of the blame. Those of us who have lived under these conditions have seen many examples of a steady worker who, unemployed for a long time, degenerates into another being with drastic results for his family.

Excessive drinking, very often, plays a large part in helping him forget his present sorrows. His constant desire to forget soon takes him out of the rank of the employable. This, of course, just about destroys his family. It means no hope for higher education for the children, it gives them an undesirable home life, it adds to the increasing problem of juvenile delinquency.

Alcoholism is not always the most serious problem resulting from bad economic conditions. Despair and frustration have filled our mental institutions to overflow. Malnutrition and dietary deficiencies have left their mark from the previous great depression.

We must recognize that in everyone of these depressed areas, it is the great depression all over again. And all of the evils we came to hate are with these people now.

However, those experiences which are now in the past for most of my friends and neighbors, are the daily lot of hundreds of thousands of people in the depressed areas, and this has been so in many cases for almost a generation. I myself have visited some of these depressed areas in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and other States, and one can see how the whole community becomes run down-not only the people, but buildings, roads, social services, public health services and so on.

What usually happens is that the younger people, finding no opportunity, move away and these communities are left with a large percentage of older workers who have been trained to work in only one industry, such as textiles, coal mining or shoe manufacturing.

A labor force of a million and one-half to two million workers live in these depressed areas, and unemployment in them runs into the hundreds of thousands. For example, in 13 mainland areas of persistent substantial unemployment and just 6 minor areas there is a labor force of nearly 1,700,000. In early February 1957 there were 166,000 unemployed in these 19 areas. This was equal to nearly 10 percent of the labor force in these areas. For the Nation as a whole, unemployment is running about 5 percent of the labor force.

As already indicated, a large percentage of these have already exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits.

These figures do not include 3 major areas in Puerto Rico and 30 minor areas of substantial prolonged unemployment on the mainland.

We have special experience in our industry of communities that may become part of the depressed area category if the present trend continues. At present they are listed by the United States Labor Department in the C categorywith 4-6 percent of the labor force unemployed. It would need little in some cases to move them over the line.

For example, the March 1957 report of the United States Labor Department called Area Classifications Summary changed the Albany-Troy-Schenectady area from B to C. It declared "unemployment is up sharply as slack demand for electrical equipment, building products, apparel, reduce payrolls. trical machinery may dip further.

Elec

The major electrical equipment plant in this area is General Electric. Some 3,000 jobs have been lost in this GE plant in the last 3 years through the moving out of industry to lower wage areas. Yet GE boasts that 1956 was the greatest year in its history for sales and profits. Huntington, W. Va., is another C area. Here the Sylvania Corp. had a plant making radio tubes. It dropped employment from 2,000 to about 200 when the armed services cut off its orders and no more were placed to take up the slack.

In Erie, Pa., another large GE center, jobs were moved out and that area is also one of continuing unemployment that may get worse.

The Springfield-Holyoke area is the site of a large Westinghouse plant where jobs were moved out to get lower wage rates and substantial unemployment persists.

In many of these cases, the corporations did not permit the workers to move with their jobs even if they had wished. I mention these situations because, like those in the depressed areas, they are a matter of grave concern to the unemployed and to the balance of the population of communities that are hard hit. Consider also the removal and waste of valuable skills that would be part of our national defense in some future emergeniy. These skills were obtained after long years and at large expense. They should not be allowed to go to waste through disuse.

What must be remembered, too, in considering unemployment figures is that in addition to the outright unemployment, there is underemployment-the short work weeks, the doubling up of two people on a job and the work at depressed wage rates that does not show up in the official figures.

One Government official raised the question of why all these unemployed do not go out to other areas to search for jobs. It should be remembered that if that were to happen on a large scale, these areas would sink into total ruin. Because, in addition to the unemployed themselves, there are the homes that they own and attempt to hold on to, there are the stores and other services which are dependent on their trade, there are the schools and hospitals, and roads and, finally, those intangible things that make up one's own hometown. In one of the studies in the depressed regions of southern Illinois, it was found that all but 3 percent of the unemployed regarded southern Illinois as their permanent home and more than 52 percent owned the homes in which they lived.

If these communities remain depressed after so many years of general national prosperity, it is unlikely that this situation will change of itself or that their inhabitants can somehow begin to enjoy the standards of living which we have come to call the American way of life.

I think we will find if we make a study of income levels, that a substantial proportion of people in these depressed areas are at too low an income level for health and decency. Most of them have exhausted their unemployment compensation benefits. Large numbers are forced to live on local relief or Government surplus food.

The question might be raised as to why these communities cannot of themselves take care of their problem by raising money and establishing development commissions to attract new industries.

The first point that should be made on this is that in the main, the conditions that have produced these depressed areas were national in origin. The removal of textile mills, the change in the use of fuel, other changes in industries or methods of transportation were not the fault of the people of these depressed communities, thus they could not have averted the disaster which hit them. The problem is a national one and requires solution on a national scale. The second point is that the communities which need help the most are those which are financially the worst off. Their payrolls are substandard. Taxes are not sufficient to maintain even adequate social services and in the case of Rhode Island at least, the State unemployment compensation fund is itself in a difficult situation due to the tremendous drains upon it.

Thirdly, in a great many of these communities and States great local efforts have been made to handle the problem. A large number of cities and in some cases, States, have established redevelopment boards, have raised large sums of money, have attracted some industry and have made a dent in the problem.

But the record will show that in spite of all of these efforts there simply has not been enough money, nor sufficient technical aid to prevent these areas from continuing in the depressed category.

In the anthracite area of Pennsylvania, 14 communities banded together and raised some $8,400,000 to finance the establishment of 59 manufacturing plants. In 1956, they employed 11,000 people. Of these only 6,000 was a net gain. Help ful as this is, it did not cut too deeply into the figure of 41,000 jobs lost in that

area.

In southern Illinois an excellent effort in Herrin has been handicapped by lack of capital, according to the Southern Illinois, Inc., the development agency. In Lowell, Mass., several plants were established as the result of a new indus trial plant foundation and the Lowell Development and Industrial Commission. But after all these efforts, Lowell still remains in the category of a depressed area of substantial unemployment.

What is needed is a tremendous boost to the programs of cities and States from the funds and technical aid of the Federal Government. The situation is very much like trying to pull an automobile out of a ditch with insufficient power. No matter how hard we try, we fail and we need a tow truck to pull us out and put us back on the highway again.

The principle of Federal aid to carry out the basic policies of the Full Employment Act should occasion no real opposition, because we have already used Federal aid on so many other fronts.

There is now before the Congress a bill to extend several billions in aid to foreign nations in order to help them improve their standard of living, increase production, and preserve the democratic way of life. I want to make it perfectly clear that our organization and labor generally are in full support of such for eign-aid programs and have been since the beginning.

I call to your attention also that subsidies are given to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars for roads and other public facilities and to industrial corporations for research and development programs on a guaranteed profit basis. For example, in 1956, GE alone got $200 million from the Federal Treas ury as its share of these research and development contracts.

It is our belief that the principle of providing Federal aid to communities where several million American citizens live, enabling them to become selfsupporting, should be no less important than these other programs about which I have spoken.

The principle of Federal responsibility has been recognized by the major political parties, which have indicated in their programs that they intend to do something about it.

The January 1956 report of the Council of Economic Advisers declared that "the fate of distressed areas is a matter of national as well as local concern."

In his economic report for January 1957, President Eisenhower declared: "Government must use all practicable means to promote high level of production and employment and to contribute toward achieving an expanding and widely shared" and I repeat, "widely shared, national income. ***"

The January 1957 report added that "The Congress is again requested to enact a program of Federal assistance for developing the economic base of local areas experiencing persistent unemployment." Several bills have been introduced into the Senate by spokesmen for the administration and a bill has been introduced by other members of the Senate. Since there is general bipartisan support for the principle, the question should be what is needed to do an adequate job.

We join Secretary-Treasurer Schnitzler in support for Senate bill 964, introduced by Senator Douglas and cosponsored by 18 other Members of the Senate, including representatives of both parties. We believe that while it does not meet fully our views as to what is required to conquer this economic blight, it is the best-rounded, most adequate program that has been put forward. Here are our reasons for supporting this bill:

1. It places the responsibility for the direction of redevelopment activities of the Federal Government in a separate agency exclusively devoted to this purpose.

We oppose the proposals made in other bills that these activities be placed within the Commerce Department. The Commerce Department has as its purpose the protection and advancement of the interests of business and is guided in policy matters by a council made up largely of big-business men.

In contrast, the problems that the area redevelopment activities should tackle, are involved with many agencies of the Government. They affect the Labor Department, the Health, Education, and Welfare Department, the Defense Department, and many others. The new agency should be able to solicit support