Mr. PATMAN. Also at the end the aggregate loans that have been made by the Small Business Administration during the same period of time and the amount that has been paid out, first, as the approved loans and next the amount that has been disbursed and the total amount of lending power granted by Congress, the amount of the appropriation and the amount used.

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

STATUTORY LENDING AUTHORITY, APPROPRIATIONS MADE THEREFORE, AND UNCOMMITTED BALANCE OF REVOLVING FUND AS OF MARCH 31, 1956

Statutory lending authority

Of funds authorized to be appropriated to a revolving fund in the Treasury for the purpose of financing SBA's lending activities, not to exceed an aggregate of $150 million may be outstanding at any one time for business loans, and not to exceed an aggregate of $125 million may be outstanding at any one time for disaster loans. As of March 31, 1956, the unused balances of these statutory limitations were: Business loans, $73,062,594; disaster loans, $85,211,132.

Appropriations to revolving fund

Through March 31, 1956, pursuant to the statutory authority cited above, appropriations of $105 million have been made to the SBA revolving fund to finance the business and disaster loan programs. This does not include a supplemental appropriation request of $20 million contained in H. R. 10004 now in conference.

Uncommitted balance of revolving fund

As of March 31, 1956, the uncommitted balance of the SBA revolving fund was $5,434,578.

21, 390

2,278

109, 726

91, 197

1, 743

82, 015

67, 371

76.5

4, 131

3, 624

43, 008

41, 175

2, 956

29, 593

29, 226

81.6

25, 521

5, 902

152, 734

1 132, 372

4, 699

111, 608

96, 597

79.6

Mr. MUELLER. Mr. Chairman, yesterday a question was asked me to find out and introduce into the record a definition of monazite, and I have here a technological description of that material and I will enter it for the record.

The CHAIRMAN. That may be inserted without objection in the testimony.

(The information is as follows:)

MONAZITE

Monazite is a mineral which occurs in beach sands and placer deposits. Most of the current production in the United States is from

(1) Florida where it comes as a byproduct from mining of titanium. Both are mined from beach and dune sands in the neighborhood of Jacksonville, Fla.;

(2) South Carolina where it is mined from ancient beach sands principally near Aiken;

(3) Idaho where it is mined from stream deposits.

The principal foreign source is the Union of South Africa.

Monazite is composed of two commercial minerals, thorium and rare earths. Thorium is a fissionable material which comes under the control of the Atomic Energy Commission. If kinks can be removed which now handicap its use, it may become a more economical source of atomic energy than uranium and thus find a market as a replacement for uranium. Monazite is composed roughly of about 3 to 5 percent thorium.

The rare earths found in monazite are used in making glass, stainless steel, cigarette lighter flints and other industrial products. About 50 percent of monazite is made up of rare earths.

The production of monazite is at times for its thorium and at other times for its rare earths. The principal purpose at any time is dependent on market price but having a dual purpose, it finds a fairly good market. It may ultimately find an excellent market in competition with uranium.

Mr. VANIK. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Vanik.

Mr. VANIK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the witness 1 or 2 questions which relate to the shifting of industry and people because of the depressed area problem.

Now in Cleveland for example, we have lost several plants. I told you we lost 7 to the State of Tennessee, and 1 of those is the Murray, Ohio, bicycle plant. It employed about 600 people in the city of Cleveland. The plant was moved to Tennessee because a particular city in Tennessee built them a plant, in addition to offering some other inducements. I have felt for some time there ought to be something in our code in the nature of an unfair industrial inducements act because there should be a limit to what communities should offer to industries. I think communities should compete for industries on the basis of resources, labor market, the abundance of materials and utility facilities. When communities begin building plants, for private concerns, I think they go a little further than they ought to go. That is my own opinion.

Well, in analyzing the 600 employees who were displaced by this movement of the bicycle plants to Tennessee, we learned that between 30 and 40 percent of the 600 people who would be laid off at the Murray, Ohio, operation in Cleveland, were recent arrivals from the State of Tennessee. They were among those most recently employed and therefore among the first laid off.

We are concerned with the problem of the depressed areas and the effect that they have upon our national economy. In my city, there

are entire towns that seem to have moved in from West Virginia, from eastern Kentucky, and from other parts of the country.

They are overflowing our schools, they are taxing our local facilities, and I think these people are going to be permanent residents. My thought is this; if we are tackling the problem of the depressed areas and the impact of depressed areas upon our community, isn't there some justification for doing something for the communities which have to carry the excessive burden of teaching and training and providing all the public services that are necessary for huge segments of population that come in from depressed areas and move into our cities. Shouldn't that be a part of this same package, as part of the same problem?

Mr. MUELLER. You have made Cleveland so attractive that you have brought these people from those areas to your locality-either you or your industries. I am not saying that facetiously. I mean there was some reason why those people from Tennessee moved there. Certainly we do not want to do anything that is going to destroy the mobility of our people.

Mr. VANIK. That is right.

Mr. MUELLER. I do not know how the Federal Government or the State can enjoin any local municipality from offering any sort of an inducement if they feel it is within their power to do so.

Mr. VANIK. Yes, but here we are asking for legislation which is going to make it possible for loans to local communities to provide facilities and plant facilities, et cetera, and to increase their utility services. By the same token, aren't we, who live in urban areas with an influx of these people, in some way entitled to a contribution in some way to the added cost of our housing utility and educational facilities? Mr. MUELLER. I would look at this from a broad aspect. Those people contribute to the communiyt as well as being a charge on the community in the face of facilities. In other words, they become taxpayers in their community, they bring in a certain amount of money by the production that they particularly may produce in their particular industry or job. Each man in a job in a manufacturing plant is accountable for from anywhere from 10 to 20 to 25 thousand dollars worth of production a year. That is money brought into the community.

Enactment of H. R. 8555 would enable the Federal Government to help areas of substantial and persistent unemployment resolve their economic problems and thus offer residents of such areas real incentives to remain rather than relocate in large industrial areas in the hope of employment.

Mr. VANIK. Yes, but the taxpayers of our community are faced with the burden of building new schools, new facilities. They have already taken care of their established needs but because of this migration of people they have added burdens placed upon the local tax economy which is already in a very weak condition. Don't you think they ought to have some relief to compensate for the effect of migrating people from the depressed areas.

Mr. MUELLER. I think it would be a very hard thing to measure sir.

Mr. VANIK. We can give you statistics. There is one town in eastern Kentucky that has contributed 600 families to one Cleveland