Now, this committee has made a substantial and valuable contribution to the body of knowledge which now exists about the problems and the needs of Appalachia. I would like to just quote one passage from the report which this committee sent to the floor of the Senate to accompany S. 2782 last year.

Such legislation is long overduc, although it is by no means too late to bring Appalachia into a condition of economic parity with other regions of America. The achievement of such a goal will be to the ultimate enrichment of all America.

With your permission, Senator, I would like to embellish on your remarks as to the changes which have been made this year in this act, so that we might anticipate some of the questions which the committee might have.

Senator RANDOLPH. That would be helpful, sir.

Mr. SWEENEY. These will be brief, and I would like to emphasize what you said: that the major thrust of this year's bill is an attempt to clarify the Federal-State relationships which we hope will emerge through the creation of the Appalachian Regional Commission.

Secondly, we hope to emphasize within the bill what we believe is the only effective strategy for the Appalachian region; namely, an effort to determine the best course of growth for the several subregions of Appalachia, and to pattern the investments, which the bill provides, to best realize that potential.

As a consequence, the statement of purposes of the bill has been changed to emphasize, and I quote—

that the public investments made in the region will be concentrated in areas where there is a significant potential for future growth, and where the expected return on public dollars invested will be the greatest.

We have made a determined effort to emphasize the Federal-State relationships which will exist, which is to say that the primary responsibility for determining programs and projects will rest with the States. No project may be approved by the Appalachian Commission which has not received the approval of the States.

It has been our belief, working for 18 months with the States in the Appalachian region, that they do have a far better knowledge about the problems facing their part of the country and are much more informed as to what reasonable solutions might be. We intend to insure that the Federal participation in this would be limited primarily to insuring that the traditional charges of pork barrel cannot be leveled against this program.

I think that really is the sole Federal responsibility. The States are in a better position to determine what programs can solve the individual problems in their communities, and we hope to rely on their advice and counsel to the greatest degree possible.

Now, as you have pointed out, Senator Randolph, we did increase the access road mileage within this bill without increasing the total dollars. This comes primarily from a better realization on the part of all people involved as to what the costs of these access roads might be. We had orginally premised our dollar total on the fact that these roads would cost $100,000 per mile. They would be high-type secondary roads. As it turns out, most of the States have plans for far less expensive construction. For example, they are talking about using this mileage within their State forests to increase the timber cut

there. They are planning to build unpaved roads out to various commercial sites or out to various recreational sites which can increase the use of the land on which those projects will be built. These, too, will not be anywhere near the $100,000 cost.

It is our best judgment at this time that these roads will probably average about $50,000 a mile, and as a consequence, it will virtually double the mileage without increasing the dollars to be spent.

I might add that while the development highway system, the major primary roads which will go with this bill, are exciting to the States, we found a tremendous enthusiasm for the access road concept, because they realize that there is so little land in Appalachia which is capable of development, and one of the keys to making it developable is to link it up with the major highway system. That is what these roads will obviously do.

Again, Senator, as you pointed out, we have made an effort to change the emphasis in the pasture program, the land improvement program. There is really little change in substance, but last year we found, as did everyone associated with this measure, that there was an undue emphasis on livestock production. Neither in last year's bill nor in this year's bill were there any funds specifically set aside for the purchase of livestock or for the increasing herds. All of the funds in this year's bill, as in last year's bill, were to be used for pasture improvement, for the liming of the land, plowing of it, and in some cases fencing of it.

Within the normal program of the Federal Government, primarily through the Farmers Home Administration's loan program, the farmers will have available some loans to increase their herds or put new feeder calf operations into these pastures. But this program contained in S. 3 is primarily patterned after the Great Plains conservation program which helped achieve, in that broad region of the country, the water resource and land treatment improvement that so desperately is needed within the Appalachian region.

In the timber development section, Senator Randolph has again pointed out, the major change is that the organizations which will be formed to improve the return from timber on small holdings in Appalachia are required to be nonprofit corporations. This is something which has made good sense to both the States and to the Federal Government. We obviously don't want to create a force that has a profitmaking capacity to compete with the industry that already exists in the region. This is a thriving industry, and capable of realizing the potential benefits of Appalachian timber.

This is solely a means by which the small holdings can be consolidated for management purposes to provide better timber stands. Now, as I have stated before, the other main change, the change we regard as major, is the complete locking in, in this bill, of the State responsibility, the State authority to approve projects as a prerequisite to approval by the Appalachian Commission.

I would like to emphasize, in addition to the changes in the bill, the fact that the Appalachian Regional Development Act does not contain all of the programs for which funds will be made available during fiscal years 1966 and 1967. This bill contains only those programs that require new authorizations or modification of existing authorizations. The funds to carry out the entire Appalachian program, in

cluding the provisions of this bill, and the funds for those programs already authorized, will be provided for in a supplemental appropriation bill to be presented to the Congress once this bill is passed. The Appalachian programs not included in this act, but which will be funded by supplemental appropriations bills, are as follows:

The first of the major areas obviously is an acceleration of the essential work being done by the Corps of Engineers and the Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. We anticipate that the President's budget will contain funds to allow the corps and the Soil Conservation Service to step up the development of the watersheds of Appalachia. That development includes flood control, industrial and residential water supply, and recreational use.

In the timber development and land stabilization field, there are programs already authorized which simply require that more funds be spent in the Appalachian region. One of the most important of these is the research in new ways to harvest timber, and even more important, new ways to put timber to a better end use. We hope to see a substantial increase in the research which is being done through the Department of Agriculture.

Secondly, we hope that the marginal lands of Appalachia, those that have been strip mined or have been clear cut leaving little chance for normal timber growth, can be added to the national forests of the area. We hope to improve the timber cut in the national forests by the construction of more forest roads. This, of course, needs only a supplemental appropriation.

We hope also that the Farmers Home Administration loan program can be increased to provide for better land treatment, and also, where it seems feasible, for the farmer to better utilize that pasture by an increase in his livestock.

In the mining field, which is so important to a number of the coal States of Appalachia, we hope to supplement existing programs for extinguishing burning refuse piles and controlling acid mine drainage, as well as provide a substantial increase in the funds which can be used to better explore the geological and mineral resources of this region.

I know that the committee will ask this question, and I am in no position to speak for what the President's budget will ultimately contain, but I would say that we have asked the Budget Bureau to include approximately $50 million in the supplemental appropriation bill which will be above and beyond the authorizations contained in S. 3.

The provisions of this bill and the appropriation followup contain a sound program for economic development of the Nation's largest and most clearly defined region of deprivation. The method of operation of this program reflected in the proposals of the Commission has evolved from a history of successful State-Federal relationships over a period of several years.

The neglect which has determined the present condition of Appalachia cannot be allowed to continue, and the requests for action to help Appalachia come not only from the people of the region, not only from the Governors, but also from business and industry in the Nation which obviously can see Appalachia as a potential market and as a potential source of raw material.

This legislation seeks to provide for Appalachia not the means of support, but more important, the tools of development. To that end are dedicated the efforts of the Federal Government, the State governments, the local communities, individual and private business and industry, all working in responsible cooperation. Through its approval of this bill, this committee can once again contribute to the promise of a brighter future for the 16 million people of the region. I will now begin my prepared statement:

The economic problems of Appalachia have been of deep concern to both President Johnson and President Kennedy. President Johnson has assigned the highest priority to the economic development of Appalachia out of his concern for the deprivation which has settled over large portions of the region. In April of last year, President Johnson visited several of the Appalachian States and witnessed directly the hardships endured by all too many Appalachian people.

While meeting with the Governors of the Appalachian States in Huntington, W. Va., the President pledged the full support of his administration to improving the economic conditions of Appalachia, a pledge that he has held to unswervingly. Immediately following the Huntington meeting, President Johnson sent to Congress legislation very similar to the bill under discussion today. In October, he created the Federal Development Planning Committee for Appalachia in order that the Appalachian States and the Federal Government could continue their joint efforts without interruption.

The program contained in Senate bill 3 clearly represents the President's strong dedication to the people of Appalachia and his desire that they, with all their countrymen, share in the realities of the Great Society.

Almost 2 years ago, President Kennedy established the President's Appalachian Regional Commission out of his conviction that the economic ills of Appalachia demanded the special attention of government at all levels.

He appointed as Chairman of that Commission the Under Secretary of Commerce, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr. In that capacity, Mr. Roosevelt labored long and hard, bringing together all the best ideas of the Appalachian States and a dozen Federal agencies into the report which preceded this legislation.

This committee has likewise made a substantial and valuable contribution to the body of knowledge that now exists about the problems and the needs of the Appalachian region. Last summer, after conducting hearings and collecting a variety of testimony on S. 2782, the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1964, the Senate Public Works Committee made this comment in its report on that bill:

Such legislation is a vital necessity in order to launch a broad-scale attack on the problems of the Appalachian region.

Such legislation is long overdue; though it is by no means too late to bring Appalachia into a condition of economic parity with other regions of America. The achievement of such a goal will be to the ultimate enrichment of all America.

Four months have elapsed since the Senate passed the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1964, yet the need for an accelerated pace of economic development in Appalachia is just as evident today as it was last year.

Senate bill 3, introduced by Senator Randolph and many of his colleagues, is predicated upon the same needs and objectives as was its

predecessor in the 88th Congress. It continues to recognize the overriding necessity to produce a more rapid rate of economic growth in the Appalachian region.

There have been few changes in the Appalachian Act. The most important changes concern the working relations between State and Federal Governments in the operation of the Appalachian Regional Commission.

Later in this statement I shall discuss the most significant differences between Senate bill 3 and the bill which this committee considered last summer.

Regional economic development in Appalachia requires a full utilization of the area's resources, both human and physical. The Appalachian Act identifies four major development areas where joint Federal-State action can provide a sound regional economic base. These are: access to, from, and within the region; water resource exploitation including flood control; better use of the natural resources and a concerted effort to upgrade the region's human resources.

HIGHWAYS

The first of these developmental needs, better access for the region, is provided for by section 201 of the bill, the Appalachian development highway system. Lying between two great population centers of the Nation, the Midwest and the eastern seaboard, Appalachia represents a potential market and a source of raw materials, as well as a major recreational area for these enormous concentrations of population. Yet none of this potential will be realized until the isolation of the region has been overcome, and the Appalachian Mountain barrier can only be eliminated by a modern highway network.

Highway construction in most sections of Appalachia is expensive. For example, in West Virginia and Kentucky, the east-west roads which cut directly through the mountains will cost more than a million dollars per mile for a high type two-lane primary road. This can be contrasted to an average cost of between $300,000 and $500,000 for such a road on flat terrain. This bill recommends that the Appalachian highway program be constructed with moneys from the general fund, for to dip into the highway trust fund would discriminate against the other 39 States. The Appalachian States have put a disproportionate amount of their highway funds into the Appalachian portions of their States. This general fund investment will enable them to build the highway system which is the key to future economic growth.

The only change that has been made in this section of the bill has been an increase in the mileage of local access roads, from 500 miles to a total of 1,000 miles. The development highway system remains the same, 2,350 miles, and the Federal share of the entire program remains at $840 million. The additional access road mileage will link even more areas having development potential with the development system itself and with the interstate highways that cross the region.

The Appalachian Regional Commission will, as previously understood, recommend the basic corridors through which the development highways will pass. But before the Commission makes such a recommendation, it must have obtained the recommendations of each State highway department. Once the Commission's recommendations have