a community than any physical property because if you make the community attractive, with good schooling, good sewage, good highway, and good facilities and access in and out, there are banks and insurance companies and other great repositories of American economic wealth which will make these investments. The problem is making the community economically attractive to the area, primarily through public facilities development. Mr. EDELMAN. May I point out, Congressman, I think a specific case in point would be Cumberland, Md., where we suffered this particular problem as a result of a drastic and dramatic technological change in the big synthetic fiber plant, where the basic industry of the community went down to less than half of its normal employment, or its previous employment, plus dieselization, which cut down railway employment. I believe an investigation will show, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Congressman, that water facilities, they finally put in the county did something about flood control and a better water supply, it finally enabled them to bring in a glass plant and it, too, I think, 8 years before that public improvement was created, before they got the first alleviation of a problem which kept that community practically prostrate, and I should say most of the women in the town manless, for a period of 7 or 8 years. Mr. RAINS. Of course the simple truth is, in location of industry, water supply is the first and most vital. I was interested to know-and I am sure you have read it in the magazine which came across my desk or rather out at my apartment, by Dun and Bradstreet this week in which they run a very fine article, the author I don't rember, on all of the things necessary to attract an industry to a town from the standpoint of the things you are talking about here. I think you might be interested in reading it. It is a well-researched job. I am well aware of this situation, as you know. The only problem I was raising, it is going to be difficult in my opinion to get the Congress of the United States, with every fellow thinking of his home bailiwick, which maybe he shouldn't do, to think about putting a river by somebody else's door when the good Lord gave him one, and to think about all of these problems that he is going to insist is a dead industry, whether it is or not, I am not saying so, and I was hopeful that we would be able—and you helped my feelings considerably by saying that there would be no direct Federal participation of Federal funds other than administration and research, which I think practically everybody would favor. I have been under the impressionand I admit I came specifically to hear what you have to say-that the bill itself was one of the grants and direct contributions to these communities, and I find out that is not the case. I appreciate your statement. Mr. BARKIN. I would like to illustrate again, because this is so important, and I must illustrate in terms of New England because I have been so much concerned with the problems over the last few years, a vigorous planning agency, such as is contemplated by this definition of local committees, could do two major things for New England, and which I have urged the New England Council to undertake, with no success: First, bringing the universities of New England to the service of the region. There are tremendous intellectual, scientific, and academic resources, as you know, in that region; institutions like MIT, Harvard, Yale, Brown, and others, and Wooster similarly-technical institutions, the equal of which are not to be found throughout the world, and yet there has been no effort made of any proportions to employ those resources, to engage those resources in the development of the region. The second, New England is close to Canada. It has harbors, it has proximity, and the Canadian East Coast has natural resources which are being discovered almost daily, to be of endless amounts and variety, and yet New England is not engaged in any efforts, large-scale efforts, to tie in the resources of the eastern shores eastern areas of Canada and its own manufacturing facilities. Mr. BOLTON. If I may interrupt, just to underline what Mr. Rains said and our problem, from the northern shores of Ohio and along Lake Erie, with specific connection with the steel industry, here I sit, as a Representative of my area, much as I happen to have spent a good deal of time in New England and love it, much as I would be concerned with New England problems, I would have to stand up for my area first. Mr. BARKIN. That is correct. We stood up for your area. My area has been supporting the seaway battle all these years. We happen to be fortunately pleading before you the cause of all America because we have membership-in this case we happen to be selfish, too—we have members everywhere. Mr. EDELMAN. Including the Congressman's district. Mr. BARKIN. We see not only will our members benefit through direct employment but American industrial development will be encouraged and we see in each area, as Congressman Rains knows, we have been supporters of the TVA, because TVA built the resources on which private industry could develop extensive industrial structure. Without the power, without the locational advantages which have now been created, we couldn't have had those industries there, leaving quite aside the problem of whether public or private power, it needed TVA or its equivalent development in order to assure the utilization of the resources of that region, and we have been fighting for Passamaquoddy for the same period of years, because we think that unless that natural resource is developed, it can't-the northern parts of Maine can't be properly developed. Why has the State of Maine been so unfriendly, until the present Governor, been unfriendly to industrial development? It was extremely a sad commentary upon the attitudes there and that story in itself, our efforts to change the attitude of the administrations and legislatures and the people of the State of Maine, is a commentary on the deficiencies of this bill, H. R. 8555, because we couldn't get the State administrations up there even to turn a friendly eye on the idea of industrial development, so I really plead with you gentlemen, not in any specific-not in the interest of any specific group of people that is, specific self-interests; this is in the national interest. We have millions of people who are now suffering either through underemployment or no employment, and they can be helped. Many regions of this country have been previously helped by the Federal Government, and an adequate bill in this field can help those areas which have been unfortunately dislocated by national economic trends. The CHAIRMAN. You heard Mr. Ezelle paint that terrible picture of unemployment in Kentucky. Now, Kentucky is fortunate in its central location; it is rich in its navigable rivers; it has a fertile soil, and it ought to be rich in the minerals of its mountains, and yet it is in poverty. There are no large communities there to encourage industries. Do you think the Federal Government should help these stricken areas take advantage of their natural resources? Mr. BARKIN. Mr. Chairman, I happen to have had the good fortune of visiting New Zealand 3 years ago, and I saw what the New Zealanders made out of that volcanic surface and created out of sheer debris a prosperous nation, because they were lucky to know how to use that soil. I think it is the obligation of the Federal Government to utilize its resources in the general public welfare, to quote the preamble of our Constitution, "to help employ its resources, to find ways and plan for the development of that area." I cannot believe-and no American can accept the concept that we are without the human ingenuity to turn the mountainsides and rivers there to man's use, and I think that is the challenge which this bill presents. If this bill-if an adequate bill is not forthcoming, it is as serious to me as a defeat of foreign aid. My concept of this particular bill is, if point 4 is good enough for our allies, it is good enough for our own people, and that is what we have to face. We must pass legislation in this Congress, and that is what concerns me. Mr. BOLTON. Will the gentleman yield for a question, because he has raised this philosophical question several times and it is the one I have the problem with. You mentioned that the New England Council, for example, had a planning survey of what could be done for New England, and that the government there did not accept it. Mr. BARKIN. May I correct the gentleman? It was not the New England Council. It was the New England Committee of the National Planning Association, which had that plan. Mr. BOLTON. But it was a plan for New England which was put before the various State governments, is that right? Mr. BARKIN. No, it has been put before the people rather than before the various State governments. There is no formal legislative proposal. Excuse me if I have disturbed. Mr. BOLTON. It is all involved in my same question. The same thing would apply to your remarks about the State of Maine, and it raises the question, as I have followed your remarks and I want to compliment you on them because they have been exceedingly forceful and well-presented-should we in the Federal Government adopt the position that the Federal Government will make plans for the various areas of the Nation, whether those areas are willing to accept them or whether they aren't? Mr. BARKIN. Thank you for raising that question. Mr. BOLTON. Isn't that the basic question that your remarks have raised? Mr. BARKIN. That is correct, sir. My answer to you is this, "Yes," if there are local forces and local groups within the State or local communities, which are so minded as to frustrate and impede and prevent the industrial development and economic development of that area, the Federal Government has the obligation under the general welfare clause to intercede, intervene, and to secure that development. Let me illustrate for you Mr. BOLTON. Regardless of the feelings of the people? Mr. BARKIN. Regardless of the feelings of the leaders of that community, because, gentlemen, this is a conspiracy and not the feeling of the people. The people want jobs. The leaders are interfering. All of you know quite well, and if you want me to quote chapter and verse, I will be glad to do it. You know quite well, until 1947, how many chambers of commerce of the Southern States prevented industry from coming into their communities. There was a conspiracy. Is that correct, Mr. Spence? The CHAIRMAN. I have heard of them doing that. Mr. BARKIN. I can quote you. During World War II the Federal Government had difficulty in getting local approval of the location of plants, because local communities were resisting and opposing. Now, there is more at stake here than the ruffled feelings of an individual group of leaders who find private profit in preventing the industrial growth of that particular area or community. Mr. BOLTON. I don't think that is always true, do you? Mr. BARKIN. Not always, obviously not, but there are people who are so minded, and who have the leadership of that community. Obviously, let me add this in order to sort of qualify what I am saying, obviously no Federal Government goes into a local community and rides roughshod. This is merely enabling legislation. Then the process of education begins. If there are distressed areas, they can—the leadership can be educated, and won over to that kind of program. We know, for example, that in many of these distressed areas the local leadership is uninformed as to what can be had. The only thing they hear about is what the chamber of commerce or a local realtor tells them. They are not experts in this field and if they came into contact with local experts, men of experience, they could do very much to be won over. They could win them over and persuade them to undertake and support such types of project. This enabling legislation will initiate a period of education which will be of great help in the industrial development of our country. Mr. BOLTON. And basically, if I might add, would put the industrial planning of this country in the hands of people who are actually not themselves personally interested in that industrial development, right? Mr. BARKIN. Not personally-in terms of personal profit, that is correct. Mr. BOLTON. And in terms of personal responsibility. Mr. BARKIN. They will have public responsibility. Mr. BOLTON. As a member of a national planning agency. Mr. BARKIN. That is correct. Mr. BOLTON. I think the gentleman would agree that is the cleavage of philosophical difference. 76350-56- 14 Mr. BARKIN. That is the cleavage, the cleavage is philosophically, as you generally pose it. The other side of the cleavage is can you let people expire, sink into greater and greater misery, simply because at the moment they haven't perceived that they can help themselves through active planning and help from the outside? It is tragic, gentlemen, when the officials of Lawrence, Mass., that have such a high proportion of unemployment, publicly state that they don't need help. Who doesn't need help? The mayor, or the other officials there? Of course not. They have their own private income. But the thousands of unemployed in Lawrence, Mass., for whom they are rejecting help, they need the assistance and that is the tragedy. When people of other areas-I am picking out the areas for which I can speak with knowledge and personal acquaintance, I think that it is an indictment of the nature of representation in some of these areas when the public officials or a spokesman of a public interest appears before a Federal group and says, "I don't need Federal assistance." He doesn't, but, by God, what public representative can stand up and say, "I have 15 to 20 percent of my people unemployed and they don't need help and they came to me and told me to reject assistance?" The CHAIRMAN. Righ along that line, this bill provides that the Government may make a loan of 25 percent. Fifteen percent will have to be raised in the affected area, as a condition to getting the Government loan. Do you think that is a practical matter? Mr. BARKIN. No, sir. As I have expressed myself, I think that that provision indicts the bill, and the philosophy underlying it. The CHAIRMAN. Well, if there are no further questions, we will conclude the hearing this morning. You have made a very excellent statement, and we are very glad to have your views, and I know they will be considered when we meet in executive session. We thank you for coming. Mr. EDELMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BARKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will adjourn, to meet tomorrow at 10 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 11:58 a. m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a. m., Tuesday, April 24, 1956.) |