programs, and here too they are drawing up guidelines. I do not believe that any Secretary has a monopoly on wisdom and virtue, and I certainly do not.

I would not like to see the Federal Government get too deeply involved into telling cities and telling States and telling counties what to do and what architects to select. I think this should be a missionary program of a little lapel grasping, a little reasoning together, a little encouragement, a little counseling, and I think that the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare is going to work through the State architectural societies and through the State offices of education where they exist, and I hope that the Federal Government will never be in the position of vetoing an architect selected on a local level.

I think that would be a very unhappy and politically unacceptable result. I do think that if you give the authority to some Federal official to simply encourage, to counsel, to advise and to bring a little thrust and momentum for good architects and designs that the localities will want it.

That has proved to be the case in school construction, and I am convinced that the localities that you gentlemen are serving with the marvelous projects you are creating will be happy to see these projects built with an emphasis on good architecture and design.

I am completely flexible as to accepting your judgment as to the best way to accomplish that.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. What I fear is uniformity. I think we have a great art with diversity. I am thinking particularly of the Hoover birthplace development. The people in that community, when we built the new post office, they wanted the front of that post office to look very much like the type of building that existed when Hoover was born.

This was the kind of plan, format, that the community had worked out, and the State in statewide committee.

I would hope that we would have something if we got into this area at this level, that we would not promote uniformity, but promote diversity.

Mr. SCHEUER. As a matter of fact, you can just take this Southwest area that you were discussing, Congressman, and take perhaps the architects who were involved from all over the country, and the one thing you feel there, there are no two buildings that are cut out of the same cookie mold.

In my one little project, we have five or six high rise buildings and no two of them were built to the same plans and specifications. I was criticized a little by my financial partners: Why do you have to design the building different from other buildings? I think in that one little portion of Southwest there is a variety and certain visual stimulation and we tried very hard to get away from the monotony and repetition. I think to a degree we succeeded.

When you look at Southwest taken as a whole, I think you have to credit the Redevelopment Land Agency in Washington for even considering sponsors for picking a variety of first-class architects who produced great interest and great stimulation because there is so much difference there in texture, materials, facades, and what not.

I think that is to be hoped for. I think that is one of the real goals for Federal architectural design programs-to stimulate just the variety you are discussing.

Mr. JONES. Thank you very much. Any further questions?

Mr. EDMONDSON. Just one comment, Mr. Chairman, I think we have had a very thought provoking and very enterprising statement from this gentleman from New York, and I think he has made a real contribution to the thinking of this committee.

Mr. SCHEUER. I am very grateful for the opportunity to testify, and I want to repeat-that there may be other formulas far more appropriate than the one I suggested. It is the goal I am concerned with, and not the particular device. In your judgment there may be others more appropriate and I would be happy to see in your judgment the best one selected.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Denney.

Mr. DENNEY. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest to my colleague that this amendment might be handled by striking out the words "Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare" and inserting as an amendment in administration powers of the commission, and inserting the word "Federal cochairmen of the commission as an administrative power." This way would you not accomplish the same purpose that you are trying to get here to get the most esthetic type of architectural design as possible?

Mr. SCHEUER. I do not have enough knowledge in depth to answer your question, Congressman. I do not know what the power and the authority of the commission is, and it might well be that that is a correct judgement. I do want to emphasize again that ther are lots of ways of achieving this and I would be happy to see this committee in its own good judgment adopt any reasonable approach.

Mr. DENNEY. My thought is, rather than run through the different departments of the Federal Government, you have the Appalachian Regional Commission that makes some of these decisions, you have to go to different department heads to get certain things done, and you may slow down the work, so maybe the Federal cochairmen whose expenses are paid by the Federal Government, who have a big interest in the problem, might be the men, rather than the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Mr. SCHEUER. In other words, he is in charge of the whole package and would be

Mr. DENNEY. There are certain administrative duties of the Commission as set forth in the original act of 1965, and this could be an amendment to those duties, rather than going through the bill and adding to each one of the sections.

Mr. SCHEUER. That sounds very impressive. I thank you again for your kindness and courtesies.

Mr. JONES. There are pending before the committee several bills which have been introduced by Members. The Chair would like to point out that the consideration for these hearings have been developed principally on this bill that was passed by the Senate, S. 602, and the amendments thereto. The Chair would propound the unanimous consent request that all Members who submit statements for inclusion in the record be printed in the record at the appropriate place in the pending proceedings.

Our next witness is a colleague of the Committee of Public Works, who is chairman of the Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbor Subcom

mittee, and who has taken a great deal of interest in all the programs of resource development and related programs, Mr. Blatnik.

Mr. Blatnik informs the Chair, in view of the long list of witnesses, he will reserve his time until the completion of the testimony of the other witnesses.

Our next witness is the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma, a ranking member of our committee and a member of the subcommittee, Mr. Edmondson.

STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE ED EDMONDSON, A MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

FACTS AND FIGURES SUPPORT TITLE II's REGIONAL COMMISSION ITEMS

Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, when this subcommittee began its consideration of S. 602 I testified in support of both title I, which provides additional authorizations for the Appalachia region, and title II, which contains provisions for administrative expenses, technical assistance and research, and supplemental grants for the various other Regional Commissions established under authority of title V of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965.

At that time I urged that we add to this legislation now before us amendments to place the Appalachian Regional Commission and the other Commissions now in existence upon the same footing for administrative and appropriation purposes in the future.

Because of a desire to avoid possibly controversial changes in S. 602 at this time, and in view of the assurance of the subcommittee chairman that early consideration will be given these amendments in connection with program authorization legislation for these other Commissions, I do not intend to press for these amendments now.

I do want to impress upon this subcommittee the urgency of the need for the funding authorizations contained in title II of S. 602.

We now have five of these Regional Commissions in existence: Ozarks, Upper Great Lakes, Coastal Plains, New England, and Four Corners.

Title II would make available not to exceed $2.5 million annually during the next 2 years to each of these Commissions, to meet administrative expenses (a Federal obligation for the first 2 years under section 505 of the 1965 act) and technical assistance and research costs during that period.

The experience of the Appalachian Regional Commission in its beginning years supports the reasonableness of the authorized costs for administration, technical assistance, and research for each of these other Commissions-but precise requirements of each would of course be spelled out in appropriations requests, and would depend to some extent upon the Commission's stage of development.

Title II also provides an authorization for supplemental grants in the development regions organized under title V, with $5 million authorized for fiscal year 1968 and $10 million for fiscal year 1969, for each region.

The total authorization for the five existing Commissions under title V therefore comes to $20 million apiece over the next 2 fiscal years, with the major portion coming in fiscal year 1969.

NEED DOCUMENTED

The need for the supplemental grant programs authorized for these five regions is inherent in the criteria used in their designation-since economic distress calling for assistance, evidenced by chronically high unemployment, low median family income, and substantial loss of population due to lack of employment opportunities, are dominant factors in the regions.

The Ozarks region in Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri is a strong case in point.

The 1960 census figures revealed per capita income in the Ozarks region of $1,242, compared with $1,405 in the Appalachia region and $1,850 in the United States as a whole.

The same source showed 44.4 percent of the families in the Ozarks region had incomes under $3,000 annually, as compared with a figure of 30.7 percent of the families in Appalachia and 21.4 percent of the families in the United States as a whole.

The Ozarks region, with 2,495,367 people, has 1.39 percent of the total U.S. population, but was receiving only 1 percent of U.S. grant in aid funds annually during the last fiscal year.

The addition of $5 million in supplemental grants during fiscal year 1968, and $10 million in supplemental grants in fiscal year 1969, would still leave the Ozarks region far behind the share of the national grant-in-aid funds to which its population would appear to entitle it, without reference to the region's economic problems.

Relatively speaking, the cases for additional supplemental grants are even stronger for the Upper Great Lakes region and the Coastal Plains region, on the basis of population statistics alone.

With 2,692.907 people, the Upper Great Lakes region has 1.5 percent of U.S. population. Yet only 0.6 percent of the Nation's grant-in-aid funds went to the Upper Great Lakes region, in the most recent accounting available.

The Coastal Plains region, with 5.017.097 people, has 2.8 percent of the U.S. population. The region's share of U.S. grant-in-aid programs, however, was only 1.1 percent-far below à fair share based on population needs alone.

The Four Corners region, with population of 1,758,693, has 0.98 percent of the Nation's population, but received only 0.76 percent of the grant-in-aid funds during the same period.

While it is true that the New England region, with 10,509.367 people and 3.86 percent of the Nation's population, received 5.98 percent of the grant-in-aid funds, it is also true that the size and statewide nature of this region obscure to some extent the severity of need in some areas, and in some grant-in-aid programs the entire region has lagged badly in its share of the national total.

Hill-Burton funds for New England, for example, totaled only 2.86 percent of the national total in fiscal year 1966, and Federal aid for airports totaled only 2.4 percent in that year-contrasted with 5.86 percent of U.S. population.

I realize that these figures are general in nature in the case of all the regions in question, and I am certain that overall needs of the regions will be placed at a much higher figure than the sums authorized in title II, once the several commissions have outlined specific programs. We have heard a sample of these urgent needs in the convincing testimony of the Ninth District Congressman from Michigan, the Honorable Guy Vander Jagt, addressing himself to only one major problem in the Great Lakes region, and asking for an authorization of $30 million over a 10-year period to meet a fishery emergency there. The people of the five regions now in existence under title V of the 1965 act are looking to this Congress for the initial funds to get programs under way and to make the Public Works and Economic Development Act meaningful in their part of the country.

The authorization levels in title II are both reasonable and moderate, in view of the needs that are present and the case that can be made for action.

Mr. JONES. Our next witness is the distinguished member of the Appropriations Committee. He has worked very diligently and very cooperatively with this committee. It is our pleasure to receive the Honorable Jamie L. Whitten, of Mississippi.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMIE L. WHITTEN, MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI-Resumed

Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your statements. I apprecite the opportunity to come before the committee in justification for the inclusion of certain areas in Mississippi in the Appalachian regional program.

First, may I say that I am highly pleased through the years to have worked with you and members of your committee in the interest of the development of our own country.

I am happy to serve on the Public Works Subcommittee and also as chairman of the Subcommittee on Agricultural Appropriations where funds for the Appalachian program are provided to a great degree, although there are certain items elsewhere.

We have deferred the consideration of financing of these programs pending such authorization by your committee.

Mr. JONES. I might say, Mr. Whitten, that the committee is anxious to report out this bill and get early consideration. We have had a great deal of work that had priority over consideration of this proposition, and that has occasioned our delay.

We hope that we can get the bill out so that it will accommodate your schedule in the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. WHITTEN. I realize the many, many problems that this committee has. My purpose in mentioning that was to say that I did have some familiarity with the workings of the program, and I now have the privilege of representing all of north Mississippi across from the Alabama line, across to Arkansas, and I am not trite when I say that the Appalachian Range does not stop at any State line, neither do the problems, nor the needs.

I am familiar with the fact that the Senate has enacted and included 18 counties. I am also familiar with the fact that our Governor, and it