If that is done, it seems to me that his comment is not sound. People do move. He tried to meet the fact, which is obvious, that they do move and that there is a readjustment going on which is internal and not involved in imports, by saying this: However, there is much difference in the American worker's view toward his own Government and our political system and his conception of individual freedom and dignity according to whether his difficulties are created by the vagaries of a demand and supply, or whether he is being pushed around by a central government trying to play the Diety with our economic system. With all respect, I don't think the worker makes much distinction ordinarily. He is just as mad when he is moved by demand and supply as he is if the Government moves him. But it does seem to me if the local initiative is where it starts, and the company is going to close up unless they do something about it, that it is not a question of pushing him around. It is a question of helping him to adjust in the way that he would normally want to adjust if he could. Senator DOUGLAS. In the locality where his attachments have been already formed and where in many cases his home has already been purchased. Mr. TAFT. That is perfectly true. And if you can keep him there, that is fine. If you can move industries in. It may be if you get isolated mining communities where you do have this kind of distressed area, as Mr. Randall said about Iron Mountain, the first thing that happened was that the minerals gave out, which forced them to go after Ford to put the Ford station-wagon body plant in there, and then when they didn't make wooden station-wagon bodies any more, they had to get other kinds of industries to put in their place. But that is the way you want to go at it, and I don't see that that is the Government as Diety pushing the worker around. It is trying to find him additional opportunities for working in the place that he wants to work. That is all that I can say for our Committee. I do want to add a few personal comments on the two bills, as I think I should while I am here. The two bills each has an advisory committee and recognizes the problem of diversified agencies that are involved. It does seem to me that it is sounder to pick the Secretary of Commerce and to set up an Administrator under him, because, in spite of Senator Douglas' remark, I counted the departments and agencies which are under his advisory committee, and there are no less than 6 departments and 4 independent agencies, whereas under the Smith bill there are 5 departments and 2 independent agencies. So both of them have a problem, and there has to be coordination. In that connection, I would think that the determination ought to be a certificate by the Secretary of Labor rather than by the area administrator on the advice of the Secretary of Labor. The Secretary of Labor is the authority on this question of whatever your standards are. There is that difference between the two bills. On the requirement as to level and persistence of unemployment to qualify an area as "distressed," I would personally prefer a straight 8 percent for 2 years to the 9 percent for a year and a half and 6 percent for 3 years, principally because of the experience that we have just had of the Defense Department awarding a "Buy American" contract to a Pittsburgh firm because Pittsburgh was an area of exces sive unemployment. That gets a little too far for me, because Pittsburgh just was over the 6-percent line. Maybe the 3-year requirement would eliminate a situation of that kind, but Pittsburgh got in under a "Buy American" act exception on the ground that it was an area of excessive unemployment. That was because the 6-percent figure was the standard one used. I don't see why you have to stick to that kind of standard setup for other purposes, when you are dealing with a depressed area in the bill. I would think that 8 percent for 2 years would give you a better measurement for the kind of case you are really after. The urban renewal proposal I would support without having examined it in any detail, but because of the experience that we are now having in Cincinnati. We have an urban redevelopment project which has been expanded, which tears down our worst slums and puts up industry in most of it, and housing in about a third of it, and we added to that a similar acreage, another 350 acres along the river which is industrial, but which has a few pockets of bad housing. We will take the bad housing out as part of the redevelopment operation, but in the renewal operation, we found that the amount involved in improving the highways and the transportation facilities in the area was four times the net cost to the city of the entire redevelopment project. To give you the specific figures, the cost of buying all the property is about $38 million. The estimated resale value is about $13 million, leaving a net cost of $25 million, which will be divided two-thirds to the Federal Government and some $81 million to the city. Of the $8 million, over $6 million is for the improvement of highways in the urban renewal area. It is only about a million-six which is actually due to the net loss in the resale of the ground. It is true that this was our master plan, and perhaps was a little more refined than you might need in every case. You might not go so far, but I think it does show the importance of some kinds of public facilities in improving an area and bring it back from blight into an adequate and proper industrial situation. So it does seem to me there is a place, as I heard this colloquy with Mr. Larson-a place for the public improvement part of it, if it is related to the urban renewal and general improvement plan for the area that is involved. As to the amounts, I wouldn't be qualified to say what is needed, but it did seem to me that that was something that was relevant and should come in. I think the provision perhaps the committee will know more about than I would, but I rather like the provision requiring a separate amount of equity by the local people in some way as provided in the Smith bill. That isn't mentioned-I suppose it is implied-somebody else has to provide it, so I suppose it is implied in the Douglas bill, too. But I think a specific reference to it strengthens the bill from the public relations standpoint. I think those are all the comments I have, Senator. Senator DOUGLAS. Thank you very much for a very able testimony. Senator PURTELL. I want to thank you, too, Mr. Taft, for your very helpful testimony. Mr. TAFT. Thank you, sir. Senator DOUGLAS. The subcommittee will meet next on Thursday, March 22, to receive testimony from a number of major trade unions. The Department of Commerce and representatives of major business organizations will be heard on Friday. (Whereupon, at 11:58 a. m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a. m., Thursday, March 22, 1956.) AREA REDEVELOPMENT THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 1956 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a. m. in room P-63, United States Capitol, Senator Paul H. Douglas (chairman) presiding. Present: Senator Douglas. Also present: Stewart E. McClure, staff director; Roy E. James, minority staff director; John Forsythe, general counsel; and Michael Bernstein, professional staff member. Senator DOUGLAS. The subcommittee will come to order. Today the subcommittee will have the pleasure of receiving testimony from additional representatives of labor organizations. During our field hearings in February, we heard valuable testimony from a large number of spokesmen for organized labor in New England, Pennsylvania and Illinois. Included among them were representatives of the Brotherhood of Railroad Carmen of America, the United Mine Workers, the Retail Clerks, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the International Hod Carriers, the Carpenters, the Textile Workers Union of America, the Transport Workers, the United Steel Workers, the International Ladies Garment Wear Union, the Progressive Miners, and the State A. F. of L. and CIO of those States. We expect to hear from a number of other unions before these hearings are concluded. This morning our first witness is Mr. Arthur G. McDowell, education director of the Upholsterers' International Union of North America. We are happy to welcome you, Mr. McDowell. STATEMENT OF ARTHUR G. MCDOWELL, DIRECTOR OF CIVIC, EDUCATION, AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, UPHOLSTERERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AND CHAIRMAN OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON MIGRATION AND SUBSIDIZATION OF INDUSTRY, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT OF AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS Mr. McDOWELL. I appear this morning in both of my official capacities, both in my capacity as director of civic, education and governmental affairs, Upholsterers' International Union of North Amer |