I have before me Mr. Foster's prepared statement, which is in the record. It shows reasons given by a commission appointed in Massachusetts for youth unemployment. It then states that in the opinion of the witness and of the witness and of the commission, it was generally agreed that Massachusetts youth would accept a Youth Conservation Corps program in substantial numbers.

It was also stated that such a program would be beneficial to a young man, with few exceptions.

It is further stated that employers showed an overwhelming acceptance of a boy's potential record, as an available job reference.

Mr. Foster wholeheartedly supported S. 1, titles I and II, and in the very revealing summary which appears on page 8 of his testimony, he urged prompt and favorable action on S. 1.

And in addition to other reasons for urging its approval, referred to the experience of the Civilian Conservation Corps in Massachusetts, and the substantial backlog of present forest and park work now unaccomplished, as leaving little doubt that any Youth Conservation Corps units would be gainfully and profitably employed to the distinct advantage of themselves and the general public they will

serve.

Senator PROUTY. I think I made it clear that Mr. Foster did advocate the program before.

Senator CLARK. Yes, but it was a question of emphasis on his testi

mony.

Senator PROUTY. I think he is suggesting the type of program. Senator CLARK. That is set forth in S. 1.

Senator PROUTY. No, not necessarily. As I recall the question you asked him, as to whether or not it would be advisable to expand the program, he suggested very definitely no, that the States did not have the money, or Massachusetts did not have the money, to engage in a program of a larger size than is contemplated here.

Senator CLARK. My recollection of his testimony is quite different from yours. The purport of my questioning was to ask him whether he did not believe that some relaxation in the restrictions on State participation would be useful. He stated that Massachusetts was prepared to participate in the program and would go even further if we loosen the restrictions on State participation. This is my clear recollection. We will clear it up later and see who is right.

Secretary WIRTZ. May I have leave to enter as part of the record supplementing my remarks the pamphlet to which I have referred, the March 1960, pamphlet "From School to Work," issued by the Department of Labor in 1960, and also the very detailed bulletin No. 1277 prepared by the Department under Secretary Mitchell's incumbency, entitled "School and Early Employment Experience of Youth," which is a very detailed report on these several communities. And I should like to put it in, if I may, Senator Prouty, because I should like to have someone make clear to you the care with which we have tried to study this situation to satisfy ourselves of the answer to your very proper question, as to whether there are, in this group, the casualties to whom we have referred, people whose backgrounds warrant our assumption that this is the best single kind of approach. It has not been done lightly. It has been done on the basis of an identification of need, and these publications do show some of that basis.

So, if I may offer those.

Senator CLARK. Without objection, that will be done.

(The information referred previously will be found in the files of the subcommittee.)

Senator PROUTY. Now I would like to refer to the testimony given by Mr. Richard G. Farrow, director of youth services, Office for Children and Youth, Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare.

Mr. Farrow, as I pointed out earlier, suggested, on the basis of their experience, that new camps for 50 boys are costing nearly $385,000 apiece. Then he goes on to say:

A camp program such as Senate No. 1 will establish can undoubtedly help in developing boys physically and socially. It can provide training and work experience. It can often introduce boys to new section of the country, and perhaps facilitate some relocations. But each of the boys

And I think this is important—

But each of the boys must return to a community after his enlistment. He must once again start on his search for employment.

Still, in our present labor market, he may not find a place. Over and over this has been the experience of boys and girls, coming from our juvenile institutions. They have changed, but the community has not, and either there is no place for them, or it is the same old place in which they got into trouble.

Now, he is dealing with juvenile delinquents. I want to make that very clear. But I think it is equally true of a boy who did not have a job and still will not have one when he returns to the community where he lives.

I asked Mr. Farrell if these boys-and it is a program very similar to, perhaps identical to, what you are suggesting-whether they had any really worthwhile skills, and his answer was, "No, they do not and cannot." And then he said:

While S. 1 would make funds available on a 50-50 basis for establishing of work programs, Pennsylvania, with its present and recurrent financial crises, may not be able to participate. Youths returning to our State from projects of Federal lands-we have only one national forest-may have to face discouragement and disillusionment.

Many of our local communities, facing decreasing populations and rising problems, are unable to finance projects for youth employment when a high percentage of adults continue unemployed.

Even if employment can be provided through projects in some areas, it should be the type of work which involves training which in turn can lead to industrial, commercial, or other employment. Anything less than this, I fear, may become another dead end activity for young people with consequent loss of self-respect and community standing.

I am just putting that in the record, because here is a man who is an expert in that particular field.

Senator CLARK. Will the Senator yield?

I would like to note for the record that one has to read Mr. Farrow's testimony by its four corners in order to get the clear support which he gave for S. 1. The portions which Senator Prouty has read into the record were parts where he expressed a concern which I share, which I am sure the Secretary shares, that this is not going to be a panacea, and that there will be disappointments as a result. But Mr. Farrow's testimony, read as a whole, makes it very clear indeed that he supports this program and bases his support in part at least on the successful experiments we have had in Pennsylvania with the camps with which he was so fully familiar.

Now, insofar as the question of the sharing is concerned, it has been made abundantly clear that it seems unlikely, unless the matching requirements are relaxed, both in terms of percentage and in terms of the ability for the State or locality to furnish its share of contributions in kind rather than in cash, there will be difficulty in my Commonwealth's participation. I would hope the bill which the committee would report would take account of that situation, and that therefore that particular objections could be overcome.

Senator PROUTY. I would like to quote further from Mr. Farrow:

Until our depressed areas attract industry, and our blighted city slums are lifted to a level of decency, our child welfare services and our public support of needy persons are adequate, we should not be expected to put substantial sums of State or local funds into a program for employment of youth.

Now I would like to refer to the questions which you asked Dr. Foster, Mr. Chairman, and I would like these in the record:

Mr. FOSTER. The closest figure that the commission was able to come up with was that there might be as many as 1,000 youngsters who might be in a position to take advantage of this program in a given year.

Senator CLARK. That would seem to indicate that an initial force of 15,000 would not meet the national needs, would it not?

Mr. FOSTER. I think that is true, but I think from our point of view in Massachusetts we would like to start on a pilot basis, if we could, and if this situation does grow materially then we would be in a position to expand.

Senator PROUTY. That, may I say, is Yankee conservatism, with which I agree wholeheartedly.

Senator CLARK. Now will you please continue and read the next three pages?

Senator PROUTY. Three pages?

Senator CLARK. Well, I will read what I want. You have read what you want. I do not think we ought to get into a hassle on this, but since you have started it, I think we ought to have the record clear.

Senator CLARK (reading).

Now, Mr. Foster, you testified about the backlog of forest improvement work on State forest and park land in Massachusetts, you are aware, are you not, that the present draft of the bill restricts to no more than one-third of the Corps the availability for utilization on State lands and under contract to State lands. There are some of us who think that restriction should be eliminated. I wonder how you feel about it?

Mr. FOSTER. Limitations as far as the number of people.

Senator CLARK. It is no more than one-third of enrollees being put to work at any one time on State projects. I am concerned, in Pennsylvania, that we have a whole corps to work on our State land and forests in Pennsylvania. I do not see any particular purpose in keeping that restriction in, which from where I sit would mean that young men from Massachusetts and Pennsylvania would be sent to Yellowstone National Park, when they could be well employed in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.

Mr. FOSTER. As far as the backlog of work to be done, I think there is no question that a larger work force could be justified.

Again, in terms of how it would function as a program, again I think we would like to start small and expand if we could.

Senator CLARK. That is exactly what this bill does. It starts small, and it calls for expansion if it is available.

Senator CLARK. I am not talking about the size of the program. Let us say we cut it in third so that you only had 5,000. Do you not think that Massachusetts' share of enrollees could be usefully deployed for work in Massachusetts? Mr. FOSTER. I would imagine so, but this is something that I think we would

like to look further into, before we would know precisely how many could be used.

Senator CLARK. I would be happy if you would take it up with Governor Peabody and if possible have him communicate with the subcommittee before we mark up this bill how he feels about the restrictions in section 104, subsection 2, which first state that no more than one-third of the Corps shall be available at any one time for utilization by State agencies, and secondly, that the State must defray theoretically in cash one-half of the cost of any State program. These are quite unacceptable in my State, and I suspect they would be in yours, but I would like to know.

Mr. FOSTER. On this, I think one of our only hesitancies would be on the cost involved at the State end.

Senator CLARK. Now, will you go ahead, please, Senator Prouty? That is all I wanted to read in. I did not want to take any more of your time.

Senator PROUTY. Mr. Secretary, do you know how many conservation job opportunities are available at the Federal, State, and local level, as well as in private industry?

Secretary WIRTZ. Conservation jobs, I will see if there is available information on that.

Senator PROUTY. Mr. Wirth, who is the Director of the National Park Service, was a witness, and quite frankly, he was in favor of the program. I asked him how many permanent employees he had at the present time. Speaking from memory now, I think he said 5,000.

I asked him how many more he would like if Congress would approve the funds, or how many he could use, effectively and efficiently. I think he said 1,000 more, which would make 6,000 or it might have been 7,000. I do not remember the figure exactly.

Then I said, "How many temporary employees do you have?" and he said "I believe 4,000 during the summer months may come from high schools and colleges."

I said, "How many more of the CCC boys could you utilize if they were available?" And he said, "Another 4,000."

Then the question was, "How are these boys, who may become interested in conservation, going to get jobs in that field, where there are no jobs?"

Now, certainly a boy who married or perhaps hopes to be married and have a family is not going to be satisfied with a 3, or 4 or 5 months' job in the summertime. There are just not the jobs available in the conservation field, coming to Mr. Wirth. (See p. 531.)

Secetary WIRTZ. We are assuming that the training and experience which they get in the work camps will lead a great many of these 15,000 boys into other lines of work.

Senator PROUTY. That is where I find it difficult to agree with you. I just do not think that will happen. I am looking for just one more statement, and if I can find it, Mr. Secretary, I would not keep you any longer. You have been very patient, and I appreciate your coming.

I think I will have to find that, and perhaps I can send the question

to you.

Secretary WIRTZ. We will be very glad to receive it.

Senator PROUTY. Now I am quoting from Dr. Conant, former president of Harvard, in his recent publication "Slums and Suburbs," and he says the following:

I submit that in a heavily urbanized and industrialized free society the educational experiences of youth shall fit their employment.

Now, you assume that the boys are going to receive their training in the woods, which will qualify them for that type of employment. That is where we seem to differ.

Secretary WIRTZ. Yes. I am in a little better position to comment about Dr. Conant's view on this, because I am a member of the Committee of which he is Chairman, the Youth Employment Committee, and although that report has not been formally filed, I am sure it is no breach to identify Dr. Conant's position from the discussions in the Committee as being one of complete support of a program of the kind covered by S. 1. And beyond that, Senator Prouty, this is the point on which there is this Senate rule disagreement, and I should like only to improve this by way of summary to say that the recommendation as far as title I is concerned is based not only on the conservation programs involving the natural resources, but on the careful, considered and I think conservative conclusion that this is the best kind of work training for one group in this work force, in this segment of the work force, about which we are here concerned, and we think it will mean the salvage of about 15,000 boys who will otherwise likely be thrown on the scrap heap. It is just that important. Senator PROUTY. Is it not possible to expand the training program, so that we can admit more youth, quite substantially?

Secretary WIRTZ. I should like to emphasize again what seems to us the great advantage of having a variety of programs which can be used to mean the different circumstances of different individuals, and that this program is a program which would better meet the needs of a group than would any other program.

Senator PROUTY. Are you not in effect saying, Mr. Secretary, that we are going to take into the woods 15,000 boys this year who are unemployable and probably will always be unemployable for one reason or another; that they are not qualified for vocational educational training?

Secretary WIRTZ. No. No. Quite the contrary. And so significant that I must emphasize it. The conclusion is quite to the contrary. I would like to say, before stating it again, that I couldn't help reacting to the various statements which you read in terms of what seemed to be the suggestion that we should just forget about this group, that something has happened to them and you forget about them, that there is not anything more that could be done about them. That was the implication in almost every statement that was read.

Our position is that you can, and that we will, and that there is a very high human salvage value in a group which apparently others may, I am sure not intentionally but just by implication just forget about. We think you can salvage a very, very high percentage of this group.

Secretary PROUTY. Well, my position is and has been from the start. that we have a program, but I do not think this is the way to face up to it. I would expand our vocational educational facilities and perhaps go far beyond what is involved in a monetary sense in this bill. I would expand the manpower retraining program. We only have, as I understand it now, about 1,500 young people in that program being trained for various jobs, some skilled and several in unskilled. Why not put these young people into that program?