loss of 8.2 percent and was one of the few counties in the State which had not benefited from industrial recovery since 1950. Recently the general national industrial resurgence has so stepped up the demand for electric power that our coal is again being sought for and many of our mines are being revived and modernized. But this does not mean that Martins Ferry's troubles are over, because much of the coal nearest to us has been worked out, much more soon will be worked out, coal towns nearest our city have been abandoned and the mine entries are getting ever further from us. In order to help ourselves to share in the generally bright industrial future, we have set up a general development and planning commission for our city and its environs; we have completely modernized our schools and fire department, have set to work to do the same for our various utilities and highways. Our citizens have voted for bonds to show their willingness to put their shoulders to the wheel, but we still have a long way to go to catch up with our more fortunate fellow Ohioans. The Senate bill now being considered will, we believe, help us to help ourselves and to accomplish an industrial revitalization which would otherwise be impossible to achieve. BIOGRAPHICAL STATEMENT OF W. V. FRAZIER, JR., SECRETARY, MARTINS FERRY BOARD OF TRADE Born in Harrisonburg, Va., into a family of B. & O. railroaders, in the first 10 years of my life, I found myself being moved northward and westward with short stays in Cumberland, Md., Grafton, W. Va., and Wheeling. When I was 10, we moved from Wheeling Island, just after the 50-foot 1907 flood, to higher ground in Brookside, Belmont County, Ohio, where I still reside. My first acquaintance with the city of Martins Ferry came in 1923, while I was a law student at the University of Virginia. I spent that summer reading law and seeing it practiced in the office of Gordon D. Kinder. After obtaining my law degree in 1924, I entered the practice of law as an assistant to Mr. Kinder and have been engaged in the general practice of law in Martins Ferry ever since. About 10 years ago, I opened by own office and now have my eldest son, John, as my partner. Mr. Kinder also has organized a partnership with two of his sons. For about 3 years, I have served as secretary of the Board of Trade on a parttime capacity. Senator DOUGLAS. The subcommittee will stand recessed until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 12: 15 o'clock p. m., the subcommittee recessed to reconvene at 10 o'clock a. m., March 29, 1956.) AREA REDEVELOPMENT THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 1956 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:20 a. m. in room P-63, United States Capitol, Senator Paul H. Douglas (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Douglas (presiding) and Kennedy. Also present: Stewart E. McClure, staff director; John S. Forsythe, general counsel; and Michael J. Bernstein, professional staff member. Senator DOUGLAS. The subcommittee will come to order. The first witness this morning is Mr. George Riley, legislative representative of the AFL-CIO, who is testifying on behalf of that organization. He is accompanied by Mr. Frank Fernbach, economist of the research department, AFL-CIO. We are very glad to have you gentlemen here. STATEMENT OF GEORGE D. RILEY, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a great pleasure for me to appear before you today to testify in behalf of the bill, S. 2663, the "Depressed Areas Act," which is sponsored by the chairman of this subcommittee and by other members of the Senate. The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations is wholeheartedly in support of this well-conceived legislation and it urges its enactment into law at this session of the Congress. I will briefly indicate the reason why the American labor movement so urgently seeks the passage of this vital and long overdue legislation. There is also present with me today Frank L. Fernbach, economist of our research department, who will follow with a few proposals for technical changes which we feel will improve the act. It is a matter of deep concern to us that so many areas of substantial unemployment persist in spite of the general prosperity which is being enjoyed by the Nation as a whole. Hundreds of thousands of trade union members and their families, not only in textile, coal mining and railroad centers, but in many other places as well, are directly and often tragically affected. According to the United States Department of Labor, 19 major labor market areas in the United States are still confronted with a substantial labor surplus; that is, unemployment in these communities exceeds 6 percent. In addition, there are also 65 smaller labor market areas which are recorded as suffering a substantial labor surplus. Doubtless this list would be even larger if regular reports were available from all of the smaller labor market areas throughout the country. For prosperous 1956, the total number of these areas-large and small-is shockingly great. Furthermore, they can be found in more than half of the States throughout the Nation. What is even worse, in many localities unemployment is now chronic. If the depressed areas were few in number, or if their distress were of short duration and automatically self-liquidating, the problem surely would merit little national concern. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Sixteen major labor market areas have been on the substantial labor surplus list for 2 years or more and in some of them the jobless total even today exceeds 9 percent and even 12 percent of the entire labor force. Seven major areas have been on the list continuously since July 1951, when regular surveys commenced. In addition, perhaps onehalf of the smaller substantial labor surplus areas could be labeled as depressed since unemployment has exceeded 6 percent on every occasion that official surveys of them were reported. In an earlier period of chronic unemployment it was generally associated with the gradual decline of an area in which the depletion of minerals and other resources was occurring. Generally, the community was forewarned of impending unemployment by the visible exhaustion of these resources. Besides, the affected populations were generally small and transient. In modern times, however, technological innovations, shifting product demands and markets, and the blatant pirating of plants-as well as raw material depletion-often lead to sudden shutdowns or drastic reductions in operations on which an entire community had depended for its livelihood. I shall not burden this record with the story of human distress and of economic loss which follows. The grim picture has already been portrayed to this subcommittee by witnesses from a score of blighted communities. Today's chronically distressed area is generally no jerry-built, frontier-type outpost. It is an established city of homes, churches, schools, hospitals, commercial structures and all of the other private and public facilities essential to urban living. For years, and sometimes generations, families have lived and worked there and invested their savings to create a modern community. The continuous surplus labor problem of Lawrence, Terre Haute, Scranton, Charleston, Duluth, Wilkes-Barre and Providence-and of substantially smaller communities-just cannot be solved by telling the jobless to "pack up and move on." Not only the displaced wage earners, but doctors, schoolteachers and storekeepers, as well, have roots that run deep in their home environments. A mass exodus is surely not a feasible answer. Even apart from the problem of human misery which must touch the heart and conscience of every American who visits these distressed communities, there are attendant economic and social costs which the Nation can ill afford. There is the loss to America of hundreds of millions of dollars of goods and services which these idle people and idle communities could create, but do not. There is the tremendous social cost of maintaining entire areas in semijoblessness. There is the loss to our national security, which surely requires the preservation and dispersal of all our productive resources, in deteriorating communities and the wasting away of the work skills of the people who inhabit them. Surely the task of restoring our depressed areas to a state of economic health is not alone a local problem or responsibility. All of us have a stake in the outcome. The cooperation and teamwork of the entire Nation are essential if this malignant growth is to be eradicated. In the face of the magnitude and persistency of the area distress problem, few leaders in public life now declare that nothing should be done, although in earlier times it may have been fashionable for the callous and comfortably situated to support the doctrine that the jobless should move or starve. In 1956, however, our more "public relations"-conscious exponents of "laissez-faire"-often admit that a problem does, indeed, exist. But, then they hastily add-and you have certainly heard them or you will that the hometown folks, if energetic, are perfectly able to cope with the problem themselves. This is the recurring theme of a recent chamber of commerce document called Getting and Holding Good Employers, which abhors all aid from Washington, with a few exceptions. It is reiterated again and again in newspapers and magazine articles that glorify these so-called local bootstrap operations which are launched in the stricken areas in an effort to restore employment. According to these enthusiastic accounts, these efforts are always successful, and, therefore, the panacea. All of these valiant local undertakings are good and must be encouraged; the drive for economic recovery must always begin at home. Too often, though, closer scrutiny has revealed that the results are far from adequate. Expert testimony before this subcommittee and the Joint Committee on the Economic Report, in the course of its recent hearings on "Low Income Families," have dramatically demonstrated this fact. Generally, the new jobs are far fewer than are needed. Too often the displaced workers-particularly those middle-aged or older—are unhappily not the ones selected for the new jobs. And, in too many cases, wage rates paid by the new employers are shockingly below those that originally prevailed. The local redevelopment efforts of Lowell, Lawrence, Scranton, and Wilkes-Barre, for example, are among the ones most fulsomely praised and publicized. Certainly, these local undertakings are commendable, and organized labor is proud of its participation in them. Nevertheless, in every successive survey, year after year, they still show up on the substantial labor surplus list. 73437-56-pt. 2—37 |