drainage, and are certainly in accord with the spirit of the report, "Surface Mining and Our Environment," released last week by Interior Secretary Udall. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like the record to show that I am extremely pleased with the way in which this program has operated. As you know, I have criticized some aspects of Federal operations from time to time, and have called for reforms to improve intergovernmental communications and reduce red tape. The Appalachian Regional Commission is one agency which has avoided the problems which have plagued so many offices. Perhaps because it is, in many ways, a creature of the states, its relation with the states has been consistently good. Its responsiveness to local needs, state initiative and Congressional interest has been excellent indeed.

I encourage your Subcommittee to approve S. 602.

Mr. MATHIAS. As the chairman very kindly said, I have had a particular interest in this legislation. I was a cosponsor of the bill when it was originally before the Congress.

I think it has justified our hopes in that it is a way of letting ideas flow upward prior to the time that funds flow downward to and from the Federal structure here.

It is a useful kind of pyramid, and I think it has come as close to our expectations as mortal men can reasonably hope.

Now that is not to say that we would not like to get a little more out of it in the counties of Maryland that are involved, but nevertheless we are blessed with the way the program has worked. We have not expended all of our allotted funds for fiscal year 1966 and 1967 in Maryland, but I am inclined to believe this is because we are approaching the program in a conservative and prudent way. We are studying the projects, and we will make more use of the program to the extent that we can.

I might note that the University of Maryland, which has made a study, has made this finding—that as far as Appalachian Maryland is concerned, the region's major problems are the continued expansion of economic opportunity for all individuals: the adequacy for the public sector in terms of education, planned development, and highway access relative to its functions in modern society; and the improvement of resource management at all levels and units of decisionmaking.

These, I think, certainly confirm my own observation, day to day traveling, through the area. These are the problems that must be met, and this is the principle reason that I am here today to urge the extension of the act. We in Maryland during the first 2 years of the program have put primary emphasis on education and health. I am very happy about this. I do think we have to follow on with the transportation problem, which is a serious one with us, and the years ahead of the activity extended will give us that opportunity.

One of the additions to the act is the renewed emphasis on help in controlling acid mine pollution and rehabilitating surface mines. The minefields of western Maryland are in critical need of this kind of help: We seek it and need it very badly.

Finally, I think because I am on occasion prone to criticize certain agencies, certain Government officials, whom I think have done less than a good job, I would have to say here that the Appalachian Regional Commission is an agency which has avoided a lot of the redtape that plagues so much of Government, and they do deserve our commendation and our thanks for the job that they have done.

Mr. Joxys. Thank you very much. I think you have pointed out one very significant and important aspect of the Appalachian program,

that is the activation of the program was initiated at the local level and it has important support at the local level, and consequently brings into play all the desires and aspirations of the community in fashioning and planning these things.

To me I think that is very important and a very prominent accomplishment of the legislation we passed in 1965-quite contrary to other programs where we pass them and they are not activated because the focal people are not equipped in such a way, even financially, or knowledgeable of what has been done, and consequently the programs are slow.

Thank you very much.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Just a comment. I want to say I am glad to see my colleague before this committee and say to him that I am very, very impressed with his record in Congress and his testimony was a very fine addition to the testimony of this hearing. I would like to ask if he thinks that the changes wherein we invite the leaders of the various States to pay part of the administrative costs would be a desirable addition and change in this continuing authority?

Mr. MATHIAS. I would say to the gentleman that there is no quarrel with the equity of this proposal. My experience, however, in the attempt to get States to join in contributary programs of this sort has not been a happy one. And I think that if this is to be done and done successfully there will have to be very strong guarantees or very strong incentives on the States to come in and make this administrative contribution, which as I say, you cannot quarrel with on the ground of what is fair and right.

I hope that the program itself is not slowed down by the lack of such participation on the part of the States. We had in Maryland Appalachia certain projects which are being undertaken jointly with neighboring States, and we are suffering from the fact that neighboring States are not making the assurances of payment that they ought to, even though relatively small sums of money are involved. I hoped that would not be allowed to happen under this act.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. I like the principle where they share in the cost of administration, at least.

Mr. JONES. Other questions? Thank you.

Mr. MATHIAS. Thank you.

Mr. JONES. Thank you. The Chair would like to renew its request in order that a number of the members who were scheduled to testify this morning have been in committees or will not be in attendance, to have their statements in the record.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to note that the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Ichord, called to say that he had a military matter come up in the Armed Services Committee that would make it impossible for him to be here, but that he would send over a statement. Mr. JONES. They will be incorporated in the record. (The statements referred to follow :)

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN A. BLATNIK, A MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA

Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee to offer my views in support of S. 602 which is now under consideration. I know you have a long list of witnesses to be heard this morning, so I will keep my remarks brief.

I am particularly interested in the supplemental grant funds which this legislation proposes for each of the EDA Regional Commissions. Although the amount of money proposed is obviously inadequate to the long-term needs of the Commissions, we all recognize that this is only an initial step to help us get started with some of our more urgent needs, and that full hearings will be held on the complete Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission program, and that of the other Commissions as soon as they are ready.

The list of studies on ways to improve the economies of the Upper Great Lakes states is as long as it is impressive. Going way back to the first study on the federal level, ordered by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the mid-1930's, we find 761 individual studies completed on virtually every aspect of economic life in the three-state area.

Some of these studies have been implemented, but most of them are gathering dust on library shelves. What we need is prompt action to carry out these various recommendations, and the Upper Great Lakes Region's Federal Co-Chairman has already compiled a list of urgently-needed projects that are awaiting only funds, not more planning, to get them underway.

We hope that the modest funds as well as the administrative refinements provided in this bill will help to get the Upper Great Lakes and the other Regional Commissions off to an encouraging start on their vital missions of renewing economies that have too long lagged behind our Nation's general prosperity.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD H. ICHORD, A MEMBER OF Congress FrOM MISSOURI

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee; First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my deepest appreciation to the Committee for the opportunity to lend my support to an amendment to be offered by our highly esteemed colleague and member of your Committee, the Honorable Ed Edmondson of Oklahoma, which amendment would give the Ozarks Regional Commission, under the Economic Development Administration, independent status the same as the Appalachia Program. As you may know, the Ozarks Regional Commission is the first such organization formulated under Title V of PL 89-136. The Commission is just now becoming operative and I believe it is important to the function of the Commission to have independent status. In making the recommendation to the Committee that such an amendment be adopted I do not mean to be critical of the administration of the Department of Commerce, however I do believe that the objectives of the Commission can best be served by eliminating bureaucratic control over the activities of the Commission.

Programs of this nature foster a unique concept in federal-state relationships by establishing a planning action for economic growth and development. Such action I believe will be a significant step forward in achieving real creative federalism.

A look at the map discloses that about one half of the states of Missouri and Oklahoma and about two thirds of Arkansas make up the Ozarks Region. The Region is characterized by lagging industrial development, by median family incomes far below the national average, quite similar to the Appalachian area. Of the 125 counties included in the Ozarks Region, 44 are in Missouri and 17 of them are in my congressional district.

I, of course, am very familiar with the Missouri area and will confine my remarks to that area. These Missouri counties in the Ozarks terrain are typified as an area of underdevelopment with historical reliance upon a few basic industries, including a marginal agricultural industry, which have failed to produce a sufficient local economy for self-sustaining growth. The Ozarks is abundant with natural resources including valuable mineral deposits, lush forests and some fine agrienltural eropland and is inhabited by a proud. sturdy and independent people. Recreational potential of the area is unsurpassed, but a serious lack of facilities and services have impeded full development.

Through the operations of the Ozarks Regional Commission it is anticipated that the area will be able to meet its special problems, to promote its economic development, and to establish a framework for joint effort with the federal government toward providing the basic facilities essential to economic growth an 1 independence. In my opinion, the regional program holds great promise for

the future for the towns and cities of Ozarkia. It will certainly be a great assist in bringing the under-developed Ozard Region into full partnership with affluent America. The Ozarks needs highways, airports, water and sewer systems, recreational facilities, hospitals, industrial facilities, and greater and improved educational facilities.

For these reasons I am very hopeful that the Committee will adopt the proposed Edmondson amendment, which provides that the Regional Commissions created under Title V of PL 89-136 be granted independent status. Congressman Edmondson has been a leader in the field of developing in natural resources of the area for many years and I strongly support the adoption of this amendment.

May again thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to express my interest and position.

STATEMENT BY HON. JOSEPH Y. RESNICK, A MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman, I am here today in support of H.R. 4446 which extends and revises the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965—or more specifically, I am here today to urge the inclusion of Schoharie County, New York, in the Appalachia Program, as is permitted under this proposed legislation.

I do not have to tell you about the success of the Appalachia Program thus far. The strides that have been taken, while small in comparison to what still remains to be done, are exemplary. The 13 counties in New York State that are presently in the program are benefiting from $25 million in highway grants and $5.6 million in public facilities grants they have received during the 11⁄2 years that New York has been in the program.

Vocational educational schools, hospitals, libraries, sewage treatment plantsnearly $15 million worth of public facilities-could not have been built without the special supplemental assistance from the Appalachia Program.

But this is aid that has been received by the 13 counties already in the Appalachia Program. I am here today, primarily, to urge that a 14th county in New York State-Schoharie County-be included in the program.

Let me tell you about Schoharie County:

Appalachia has an average rate of families with incomes below $3,000 per year of 17.1%; Schoharie County has a rate of 27.9%.

Appalachia has an unemployment rate of 5.2; Schoharie County has a summer unemployment rate of 8.3 and a winter unemployment rate of 13.0.

Appalachia has an average yearly per capita income of $1771; Schoharie County has an average yearly per capita income of $1459.

Appalachia has a rural farm population of 9.1; Schoharie County has rural farm population of 24.4.

Appalachia has a commuting labor force of 8.8; Schoharie County has a commuting labor force of 18.4.

Appalachia has a farm family level-of-living index of 108; Schoharie County has a farm family level-of-living index of 83,

Appalachia has an income per member of the labor force of $4519; Schoharie County has an income per member of the labor force of $3942.

During the years from 1900 to 1960, the population of Schoharie County has decreased from 26,854 to 22,615. In 1875 there were 4,000 farms in Schoharie County. As of 1960, there were 1,100.

Upstate New York has a median family income of $6,629; Schoharie County has a median family income of $4,592. Schoharie County has the highest incidence of families with median incomes of under $3,000 per year and the third lowest with incomes over $10,000 per year.

Upstate New York has a school age population of 45%; Schoharie County has a school age population of 19.5%.

Gentlemen-I think the picture is clear. By all of the economic yardsticks that are used to determine the components of an Appalachia County, Schoharie is near the top of the list of contenders. In each and every category, Schoharie is below the average county that is presently in the Appalachia Program. The need is there.

In addition, I want to emphasize that logic demands that Schoharie County be included in the Appalachia Program. It is contiguous to the counties which are already in the program at the present time. (It is located next to Delaware

County). As a matter of fact, it was an oversight that Schoharie County was not included in the bill in the first place.

For the past two years I have been skirmishing with Governor Rockefeller over the inclusion of Schoharie County in the Appalachian program. While I don't agree with the contention, the State has maintained that they recognize the necessity for this county to be a part of the program, but it is not within the power of State officials to cause this to occur. They say that it would take an Act of Congress. Now, since everyone apparently agrees that the need is there and since there is every logical reason for including Schoharie County, geographically, as well as economically, I believe there is no reason for not taking the final step and including it is the revised bill at this time.

Mr. Chairman, before I proceed, there is one thing that I would like to make clear-Schoharie County is nobody's poor cousin. There is nothing wrong with the people of this lovely Upstate New York County. They are endowed with natural intelligence, ability, willingness to work hard, ambition, and tireless energy, in the finest traditions of Rural America. But even an abundance of these qualities is not enough to overcome problems caused by factors which are beyond the control of the people. I am proud to represent the kind of people that we have in Schoharie County. But what they need is assistance from the Federal Government through the Appalachia Program that will allow them to overcome these obstacles to economic progress in which circumstances of geography have placed them. I know that once the funds for economic development are provided to get the ball rolling, these people will keep it rolling.

Just let me tell you how I know. Schoharie County-despite all of its economic handicaps-is attempting to accomplish its own "Operation Bootstrap." That is, it is attempting, on its own incentive, ( to try to raise itself. Steps have already been taken by the local people. Schoharie County has a successful and popular Community Action Program.

Two Head State Programs and one Day Care Center, a Neighborhood Youth Corps, and an operation Mainstream project are presently in operation.

In addition, arrangements, have been made, through the offices of the OEO and the Department of Labor, for a Manpower Specialist to provide employment services within the county. Previously there was no employment counseling available in Schoharie County.

Also, the Schoharie County Community Action Committee has requested technical assistance from the Department of Commerce for a Study of the Development of Tourist Attractions and Related Facilities.

This program, if successful, would indirectly afford employment to those in the greatest need-women (who constitute 80% of the county's unemployed), elderly (13% of the population) and young people.

It is an ambitious program. It is an attempt by a group of genuinely concerned and interested citizens to improve the economic condition of their community. Local leadership is also awakening to the needs of the community. They have established a County Development Committee and many of the mayors and supervisors have actively promoted applications for 701 planning grants and water and sewer development grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. But Schoharie County cannot do it alone.

Schoharie, like the counties in the Appalachia Program and, indeed, like most of Rural America, suffers from an acute shortage of transportation. I am Chairman of the Rural Development Subcommittee of the House Agriculture Committee and we are presently holding hearings on rural problems. This is one of the most frequently-heard problems of rural America.

During the hearings we heard that 43% of the nation's poverty is rural, but only 29% of its population. We heard that the unemployment rate of rural nonfarm residents is 20% higher than that of urban residents. We heard that 44% of the nation's sub-standard housing is in rural areas, but only 30% of the housing stock is there.

But this is an old story. The figures may change slightly-as the problems grow more acute-but the main theme remains the same. We have begun to do something about these problems, through the Appalachia Program, but we must continue to work.

During the past 24 years the Program has proven to the satisfaction of the American people that its approach is sound, that it can work, and that these areas can be helped. But now the period of experimentation is over, and it is time to face up to the fact that there are other areas that can be included and that