As important as these features are, there are still other reasons which show the Appalachian Act to be the right approach to the problems of Appalachia, and, especially, the problems of Tennessee. I refer to the framework which the bill establishes for regional cooperation among the 11 Appalachian States and Federal agencies whose programs have application to Appalachia. The regional approach as set up by this act will be far more effective in implementing the program than if each State were to work by itself. The State of Tennessee has had only the finest experience in regionalism during the past several years as it has worked with other Appalachian States in helping to bring about this program. Furthermore, the valuable work and experience of the Tennessee Planning Commission will enable my State to utilize the benefits of the Appalachian Act in as comprehensive manner as possible.

I am therefore pleased to add my support once again to this vital legislation which will strengthen not only the Appalachian region but the national economy as well. Its successful enactment and implementation will contribute to the productivity and development of a valuable region and the people who live there. I want to urge your most expeditious and favorable action on this bill. (Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m., the committee recessed to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Thursday, January 21, 1965.)

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1965

THURSDAY, JANUARY 21, 1965

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met at 9 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 4200, Senate Office Building, Senator Jennings Randolph presiding.

Present: Senators Randolph, Muskie, Montoya, Cooper, Fong, and Boggs.

Also present: Ron M. Linton, chief clerk and staff director, Richard E. Gerrish, assistant chief clerk, and Richard B. Royce, professional staff member.

Senator RANDOLPH. The hearing of the Senate Public Works Committee will open today with our colleague, Philip Hart, of Michigan, giving to us his counsel on an important section of our country which has many problems similar in part to the problems of the Appalachian region.

STATEMENT OF HON. PHILIP A. HART, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Senator HART. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, for letting me come in this morning. I know how hard your schedule is, and am therefore doubly appreciative.

Mr. Chairman, first, those of us far beyond the Appalachian Range are indebted to you, Senator Randolph, and to your colleagues on the committee, for the energy and vision you have given to evolving a pattern of national legislation to meet serious problems of regional economic deprivation.

The path that has been broken by the Members of Congress and State and local officials, who so ably give leadership to the Appalachian program, guides all of us who represent States where particular areas are bypassed by the growing, vigorous national economy.

President Johnson, in his forthright state of the Union message, gave full endorsement to these challenges when he said:

I propose we carry out a new program to develop regions of our country now suffering from distress and depression ***

We can help insure continued prosperity through:

A regional recovery program to assist development of stricken areas left behind by our national progress ***

So it is, Mr. Chairman, that Senator Nelson, of Wisconsin, Senators McCarthy and Mondale, of Minnesota, and I bring to you this morning our proposed addition to the pending Appalachia bill, S. 3, which is to initiate in an 80-county, 3-State area in the northern Great Lakes

States of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, the beginning of a regional program to meet the economic distress and serious neglect of this part of our Nation.

The upper Great Lakes States region has a continuing unemployment rate that is some 20 percent higher than that of Appalachia. A few of the indicative regional statistics:

Unemployment for the region averages 8.9 percent;

Between 1950 and 1960 U.S. population grew 18.5 percent; the population of the three States by 18.8 percent, but the region's population. by only 1.2 percent;

Between 1950 and 1960 the region's labor force dropped by 1.1 percent while that of the Nation increased by 15.4 percent;

Wholesale sales for the same period increased nationally by 54.2 percent, the 80 counties by only 22.1 percent;

The value of farm commodities increased nationally by 68.4 percent in the same period, but in the 80 counties only by 13 percent.

As one looks at the problems and opportunities confronting Appalachia, there is a striking similarity with those of the upper Great Lakes

area:

We find that both have been bypassed by major transportation arteries and have been essentially isolated from the commerce and economic growth of other regions in these States.

Both Appalachia and the upper Great Lakes have suffered substantial outmigration of population-especially by the young people-to the point that in our 80-county area there has only been 1.2 percent population increase while the Nation increased 18.5 percent.

The overall educational attainment in the upper Great Lakes counties is substantially below that of the Nation and adjoining parts of the three States.

Our economy was largely based on the exploitation of vast timber and high-grade iron ore resources. Today, the high-grade ore deposits are in most instances uneconomical. Some progress is being made to utilize the lower grade ores, but much more resource and technical improvement is needed.

The timber resources are significant, but we find the need to stimulate new timber utilization programs and new wood-using industries.

Public and private recreation development may offer the single most important opportunity for this region, but here too the investment of the Federal Government in new projects and public works is a critical factor.

There is a need to step up funding of small watershed programs, forest campsite construction, Corps of Engineer harbors of refuge, recreation and park areas, wildlife preserves, forest access highways, scenic parkways, and the many other Federal and Federal-State programs that are also so important to Appalachia.

Natural disasters affecting the fishing industry have left a deep mark. With expanded lamprey control programs and increased technical and financial assistance, a major fishing industry can be reestablished.

It is my understanding, from the testimony here on Tuesday, that the administration will recommend a $50 million supplemental appropriation to on-going Federal programs authorized in the Appalachia Act of the type just outlined. This is an appropriate approach to regional distress, and should be supported.

There is equal justification for such pinpointed investment in the upper Great Lakes region, where similar projects are "ready to go.' One of the first responsibilities of the Authority authorized in our amendment will be to work with local and State agencies in identifying those that should be accelerated.

To review some of the work in the region and here in Washington preparatory to submitting this proposal to the Congress, in the early days of the area redevelopment program some of us urged that this entire region be treated as one unit for the purposes of ARA planning, analysis, and project location. It was unfortunate that this was not done.

In 1963, Secretary Freeman joined with Governor Rolvaag of Minnesota and others to call a land and people conference in Duluth, Minn. Several hundred citizens representing public and private groups, State and local agencies, came to Duluth. They heard President Kennedy pledge his support for the—

beginning of a bright new era for the upper Great Lakes-an era in which the Nation's growing population looks to this region more and more as a major recreation area *** as a major source of the lumber, paper, and paper products which modern industry consumes *** as a great producer of taconite ***. In the achievement of these goals, I pledge my full support and the support of every Federal agency ****

I would like, Mr. Chairman, if I may, to file as a supplement for your record the record of the proceedings of this 1963 Duluth conference.

Senator RANDOLPH. That will be made a part of our record.

Senator Hart, you are not interested that that be a part of the actual hearing record?

Senator HART. It is a very full document.

Senator RANDOLPH. That the committee may have the value of the study of such a document, it will be made a part of the record for the committee's consideration. It will be on file for our use.

Senator HART. I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that the very brief summary that was prepared from the resources and recreation study be made a part of the record at the conclusion of the testimony.

Senator RANDOLPH. Without objection, it will be entered in the record.

(The report referred to follows:)

RESOURCES AND RECREATION IN THE NORTHERN GREAT LAKES REGION . . . A DIGEST

[The original report on this subject was a result of Secretary Freeman's request for an analysis of the potentials for economic development in this extensive forested and lakestudded region. It brings together the substance of other studies and information generously provided by agencies of the Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan State governments, by their universities, and many individuals who have been giving thoughtful consideration for a long time to resource development in this region. The Task Force acknowledges and expresses appreciation for this help.]

INTRODUCTION

The report is about opportunities for rural area development (RAD) in the northern Great Lakes region. It highlights ways for people to help themselves, to work with their neighbors, to use services now available, and to draw on State and National services to reinforce local efforts.

THE SITUATION

The northern Great Lakes region is one of the most opportunity-laden regions in the Nation. Its wealth of natural resources, particularly suited for outdoor recreation, is the potential for a growing economy.