When the Appalachia program passed the Congress, as Mr. Whitten stated, it came right up to the border of our State and there it stopped. This was not because of any fault of yours, nor was it because of any fault or omission of ours.

The chairman indicated that this matter had been submitted to the State and that no action was taken thereon, and that is true, and I do not think this would be the appropriate place to go into that.

I think maybe some of you know what the circumstances were, and so we would not comment on that, except to say that the failure of the area that we are interested in to be included was not because of any inaction or omission on the part of the committee or of Mr. Whitten and myself.

Now, since the program was inaugurated, active interest developed within the State from our Governor and other sources for the region that we are interested in here now to be included.

The Governor's conference invited the State to come into the program. We are here by invitation and not only are we here by invitation, but we are happy to accept the invitation and be here and we welcome it and in fact, we sought it.

The counties that Mr. Whitten and I are expressing interest in this morning are almost identical in every respect, income, terrain, topography, the people, and otherwise to the area now included in the lower regions of the Appalachian program.

As Mr. Whitten has pointed out, there were 26 counties which have been recommended by the Governors and the Commission itself to be included in the program. There is an area between these 26 counties in the alluvial Mississippi Delta, which would not fit into the delta program and would fit only into and actually should be a part of the Appalachia program, and while we may be seeking a bit more than that recommended by the Commission itself, if the committee and the Congress should fail to include that little strip of area between—which are part in hills and bordering the delta-they would have no place to go for a program of this kind.

Now, in the beginning of this I introduced a bill to include the 26 counties recommended by the Governors and the Commission, as well as two other counties, Mr. Whitten's home county, Tallahatchie, and a county in my district known as Carroll.

Mr. Whitten later intorduced legislation to include all the counties up to and bordering the Mississippi Delta, which adds four more to it. Now, my statement goes into the facts. I simply want to present this one point, and I will stand aside. I hope that this committee will seriously consider including all of this area. It is a region which is completely comparable to the region now served by the lower part of the program. The same income, the same people, the same type of people, the same topography, and so forth. We would deeply appreciate it if you would give consideration thereto, and, should we be included, we would be very grateful to you.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. JONES. We are honored to have you, Mr. Abernethy.

Any questions?

Mr. EDMONDSON. I just wanted to get clear in my own mind whether the counties the gentlemen proposed to be included are the 18 in the

Senate bill or the 26 that the Governors have agreed upon, or the 32 that Mr. Whitten introduced.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Well, they are not only the 18 and the 26, but there are a few additional counties contiguous to, identical in character, topography, income, and so forth.

Mr. EDMONDSON. The principal problem with reference to their inclusion being that the Governors have not agreed to them at this point, is that the principal problem?

Mr. ABERNETHY. I would say they did not recommend those additional four, maybe there are six of them, I have forgotten just exactly. They are identified in Mr. Whitten's bill.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Thank you.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask to have the privilege of Mr. Montgomery of our delegation filing a statement? I have just left the Committee on Agriculture and he is now over there. We are in session and I doubt he will be in here, and he asked me to allow him to file his statement and let it appear in the record.

Mr. JONES. Without objection, his statement will be in the record and printed immediately after the statement of this gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Abernethy.

Any questions?

Mr. SCHWENGEL. It is nice to see you again, Congressman. I am impressed with your testimony. I see the objective and need here and wonder if your people have taken into consideration the extra cost. Do you have any ideas on that? Do you know how much it is going to cost?

Mr. ABERNETHY. No: I do not. I understand that those items are included in the records that have been made, and the recommendation has been made by the Governor's conference to the Congress and to the Appalachia Commission.

I do not know what the additional cost will be. I have to confess I just do not know. It will be nominal as compared with the large area now served, though.

Mr. JONES. I might point out to the gentleman from Mississippi and the gentleman from Iowa that the inclusion of these counties will be appropriated from the total amount of funds made available for all the States, so it was a generous response on the part of the Commission to come forward and agree that this money would be apportioned to the State of Mississippi and thereby they would lose some of the moneys that would ordinarily have gone to the status quo situation that existed in the 1965 act.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Would the Chairman yield on that point?
Mr. JONES. Mr. Edmondson.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Would the apportionment that was referred to by the chairman a minute ago have been the same for 26 counties as it would have been for 18 counties?

Mr. JONES. Or for one county. If the State of Mississippi had been excluded, then the proration would have been made on the eligible counties in the other States that were part of the Commission arrangement.

Mr. EDMONDSON. If the Chairman would yield further, under the recommendations of the Commission, as we understand it, whether

we add 26 counties the same amount of money would go to the State of Mississippi under their agreement within the Commission. Mr. JONES. That is right.

Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that it has gotten into appropriations, if it is not improper, I would ask my colleagues about interrupting at this point, with the committee's approval.

Having sat on the Appropriations Committee since 1943, it is my belief-now, of course, I can say nothing about the authorization of this committee, but on the Appropriations Committee we have certainly tried to meet the problem. I think it is completely misleading that we would have a hearing and cut down the rest of the country in order to take care of this. This is not the way we have done. We have not tried to cut on public works. We have not tried to cut our power projects so as to add a new one.

So I heard this argument used before, and I am taking advantage perhaps of asking you to let me say it here, but I certainly hope that we look at the overall program and that we do not penalize one because they were big enough to include similar territory. I would repeat again, the old law is dead. We have no law. We have no Appalachia. It has got to be reinstated and renewed de novo, and under those circumstances it will be dealt with by your authorization and then be dealt with by the Appropriations Committee, based upon the magnitude of the size of the geography, or so I would take it.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Would the gentleman yield for a question at that point. Is the gentleman contending that on the money that has been authorized that there is no longer any authorization to appropriate and use that already authorized money?

Mr. WHITTEN. Well, I think our continuing resolution the other day continues that, but when that resolution dies, we will have to fall back on our committee passing a new law, which we expect to support. So I say that, insofar as the practicalities are concerned, we are living on borrowed time under a continuing resolution; and as soon as that ends, then we have to fall back on such authorizing legislation as you pass.

I do not believe that our committee is going to penalize the rest of the country because you added similar territory with the same problem. Certainly I would be opposed to any such attitude in the committee.

Mr. ABERNETHY. May I also point out that some of these counties were originally intended to be and would have been included in this program, but for the omission of a certain matter which I respectfully would prefer not to refer to here. Now, I do not have reference to anything that anyone has done on this committee or in this Congress. Therefore, such funds as would have been expended in these counties and normally would have if somebody had just said, "OK, we like it down our way"-were expended in the region, as I say they would not have received had these counties been included originally.

Mr. JONES. Any further questions?

Mr. ABERNETHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

Mr. JONES. Our next witness is our colleague from Mississippi, Congressman Montgomery, and we are pleased to have you Mr. Montgomery.

STATEMENT OF HON. G. V. MONTGOMERY, A MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I will be very brief. I believe Mr. Abernethy has submitted my report for the record. We certainly think this is a wonderful program and hope it could be extended down into Mississippi.

I apologize to the committee for not being here when my name was called. I am a freshman and still have not learned how to allot my time. Thank you very much.

Mr. JONES. You are doing very well, sir.

(The statement of Hon. G. V. Montgomery follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. G. V. MONTGOMERY, MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE STATE

OF MISSISSIPPI

Mr. Chairman: I strongly support the extension and the expansion of the Appalachian Regional Development Program. This program has made tremendous accomplishments within the last two years, and the continuance and broadening of this program will provide added relief to many who are economically deprived. The Appalachian Regional Development Program has been very instrumental in providing federal funds to be used in connection with state and local funds to construct desperately needed health and educational centers in many states. In addition, highways are under construction and numerous college classrooms, libraries, and airports are being provided under this very fine program.

The cooperative method of long-range planning and comprehensive study is the most appealing aspect of this program in that it allows a complete and thorough study of problems from all the governmental levels.

I am greatly pleased that the Senate has seen fit to amend the Appalachian Regional Development Program to include 18 Mississippi counties in this program. Three of these counties are located within my Congressional District, and I am confident the economic development of the area will be greatly enhanced by this program.

Earlier this year I introduced legislation that would incorporate a total of 32 Mississippi counties in this program, and I ask this Committee, because of the economic characteristics of these counties, to include them under the Appalachian Regional Development Program.

Participation of these 32 counties in the Appalachian Program will accelerate the economic growth of our state and make a greater contribution toward solving the problems of the Appalachian region.

Again I feel that this is one of the finest programs undertaken by our Federal Government to assist the people of our state and the nation.

Mr. JONES. Our next witness is our colleague, Mr. Landrum of Georgia, who is the author of H.R. 7089. Mr. Landrum predicted in 1965 that the mechanics of the program were sound and objective and that the bill sought would be rewarding and that Congress would be wise if it enacted the Appalachian Act.

We feel confident that your predictions are true and we have had almost unanimous approval from the participating States that the program is functioning soundly and is accomplishing what we set out in

1965.

It is a pleasure to have you.

STATEMENT OF HON. PHILLIP M. LANDRUM, MEMBER OF
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

Mr. LANDRUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I come for a twofold purpose this morning. First to express my extreme personal satisfac

tion in the accomplishments of this legislation, to commend the chairman and the members of this distinguished committee for the efforts that they made in launching this legislation, and to say to you that I have observed firsthand the tremendous success of those promoting the provisions provided in the legislation as found in my area of Appalachia.

I live, as the chairman well knows, in the almost extreme southern portion of this Appalachian Mountain region. I have seen it already produce tangible evidence of opening up great natural resources in the mountains of western North Carolina and the mountains of eastern north Georgia.

In addition to linking the cities of Asheville, N.C., and Atlanta, Ga., on a proposed Appalachian highway, parts of which are already under construction and some of which is already under contract, I can see real evidence in the uplift that the area is going to receive from the education provisions of the bill.

In north Georgia here is now being completed an area vocational technical school, which will serve almost the entire western part of this southern Appalachian region in Georgia. This establishment is going to cost with local participation and State participation and the money we receive under this act a little more than a million dollars, and its magnificent physical appearance is certainly going to be an inspiring influence on those who go there to teach and to learn to move into modern labor requirements.

Now I also appear to testify on behalf of the provisions of the bill I introduced, H.R. 7089, and say this bill provides for only the inclusion of two counties, specifically Hart County and Elbert County.

I think it may be said without too many contradictions at least that the exclusion of these counties initially was an oversight. For on the east of these counties, South Carolina, Anderson, and Oconee counties in South Carolina, represented by the distinguished member of the committee, Mr. Dorn, are included. On the west these two counties are excluded and separating them is only a great reservoir formed by the damming of the Savannah River by the Corps of Engineers and establishing there a multipurpose project for the production of electricity and recreation and otherwise.

It is important and I believe imperative that these two counties have the opportunity to plan with Oconee and Anderson counties in South Carolina.

Moreover, they are excluded from the plannings of the counties to the north of them, which were initially included in the area. The bill asking for the inclusion of these two counties is endorsed by the Governor of the State of Georgia and by the present Governor's immediate predecessor, former Governor Carl Sanders, and likewise endorsed by those designated by the Governor to serve as his delegate to the Appalachian Regional Commission.

I trust that the committee will see fit to include these two counties. I ask you to pardon some particular special interests that I might have in the inclusion of them and say that they are the only two counties in the district I am privileged to represent not included. While I did not have them when the act was established, my distinguished friend Mr. Stephens had those counties and I have inherited them. And I

81-844-67- -27