It would be a better bill in my opinion if waterworks and sewers were provided for in it. It would be a much better bill.

Mr. CLEVELAND. Based on your experience in Ohio as director of commerce?

Mr. SECREST. That was for 72 months. My time in Congressthis is my 10th term. I have much more experience, if you can count it experience, than I had as director of commerce, though I worked at it.

Mr. CLEVELAND. Is this a true statement-that this matter of getting new industries into communities, particularly small ones, is a highly competitive business?

Mr. SECREST. It certainly is. Every chamber of commerce in my district, and every other man's chamber of commerce in this country is fighting to get industry into his town.

Mr. CLEVELAND. Do you think it is fair in this competitive fight between these districts in the United States, do you think it is really fair to give this type of favored treatment to 365 counties in Appalachia, bearing in mind the fact that 65 of those counties, or 70 of them, never qualified under the ARA, or the accelerated public works program as being distressed?

Do you think that is fair really?

Mr. SECREST. I think it is just as fair as giving a poor pig a double portion of milk. We are so far behind, and have been so far behind through the years, the resources we have of coal, the timber on these mountainous regions have been taken, exploited, and there has not been a big coal owner in southeastern Ohio that ever thrived that ever lived there.

Where is Peabody coal? Where is Hannah coal? Where is Ohio power?

I am not complaining. I am tickled to death they are in my district, but the profits from everything they make goes somewhere else. Mr. CLEVELAND. You do not think this can be said about other sections of the country?

Mr. SECREST. No, not in the same way, because other sections of the country outside have oil. They have not these things to be depleted. Regarding your agricultural sections of the country, they put some more lime on and they grow more wheat. My district is not all Appalachia. Some counties are in it, but I have areas that are farmlands that are fit to farm, spotty and in little patches comparatively. But I do not look upon this as robbing one area to help another one. If I did, I would never vote for a cotton bill.

I voted for mass transportation, and Lord knows I do not need any subways, or anything else, but the rest of the country may need some of these things I do not get. This is one country.

Here is an area which in my opinion is worse off than any part of the United States. It has been exploited. If we had the timber back we once had, if we had the coal back we once had, if we had the oil back we once had, we would be booming, but it is gone. And all that is left is turned over hills, second-growth timber that is only good for bank crops, and I feel that it is not unfair.

I think it is good for the Nation if we can raise one level that is way below, raise it up somewhere near the standard. That would not hurt anyone. You will spend more on foreign aid this year than this will

ever cost.

I do not see anything wrong with it. I think it is good legislation. If I lived in New York City and represented Wall Street, I would be the first one for this. I would be for more than I am.

I think the foundation of every city in the country depends on the rest of the country, and this is an area, a big area, that has been completely exploited and left nothing but some poor people sitting around on mountainsides.

Mr. CLEVELAND. There are parts of this area, more than 60 counties in this area, that are, relatively speaking, more prosperous than 3 counties in northern New Hampshire and, relatively speaking, more prosperous than a thousand counties in the Nation.

If this bill is fair and good for the area concerned, I think it would be much fairer and better if other areas similarly situated were included.

Mr. SECREST. I would object to nothing that would help your three counties if they need help. I think this is a continuous area, to leave one county out in the middle of West Virginia from the standpoint of administration and helping an area. I do not believe it would be proper. It is as near as you can draw a boundary. It was drawn by the Governors and not by me and this committee.

The Governors of these States picked out what they thought were the areas in their States that needed it the most. That really belonged in Appalachia.

Mr. CLEVELAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Secrest. You have been quite helpful to the committee. The tallest man and the highest man in all Appalachia is our colleague, Mr. Taylor, of North Carolina. Nobody has spent more effort in the advancement of this legislation than our colleague, Mr. Taylor. We are particularly pleased to have you today.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROY A. TAYLOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, may I comment before our colleague from North Carolina testifies, to the point that Governor Moore, whose statement was presented by our colleague Basil Whitener, is a constituent of the Congressman who is now going to testify, and I think the two of them were very wise to let the Governor's position be officially presented by our other colleague because the gentleman who is going to speak now can speak from personal experience to the problem.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Taylor, before you start, to see there is nothing done here except the best behavior of North Carolina conduct, I am going to ask Mr. Henderson to preside while I go in there and take an urgent telephone call. Will you do that for me, please? I will be right back.

You are

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. correct in stating that my section is the high section of the Appalachian Mountains. We have Mount Mitchell and many other mountains reaching above 6,000 feet. At the outset I need to apologize

for a poor voice. This executive flu has spilled over to the legislative branch. It did not use the seniority system because it got to me quickly.

I want to commend the chairman and the members of this committee on the prompt action that you have taken in scheduling this important legislation for hearing so early. Also, I would point out, as I have noticed, that your interest in this legislation is demonstrated by the fine attendance which this committee has had here this morning. I am honored to appear before the committee, as I did when the bill was being considered a year ago, because this legislation is vital and it is important to the people of western North Carolina, to the entire Appalachian area, and to the Nation.

This is in my opinion the most important single piece of legislation to the people whom I am honored to represent in Congress which has come before Congress since I have been a Member of it. So I urge quick passage of the bill with all the forcefulness at my command. This is a program to rebuild and to revitalize the economy of the entire Appalachian area. The highway building proposals in the bill, coupled with other features, promise relief to a section which has suffered economically because of nonaccess, because of inadequate highway systems. The Appalachian area was settled in the early days by pioneers who were adventurers and not content to sit still, but wanted to advance and to explore and to seek new opportunities. They moved to a rugged mountain area which offered a challenge and a promise and for a while that promise was realized. But as the years moved on, in many cases timber and mineral resources were depleted, and in recent years the people in the Appalachian area have been caught in the backlash of an industrial revolution. The revolution in American agriculture, which took the mule from the farm and replaced him with expensive farm machinery, destroyed mountain farming and made it uneconomical. Rough mountain land is not suitable for modern mechanized farming.

The 14 mountain counties which I represent lost 14,000 farm jobs between 1947 and 1957. In those counties in which industry did not come in to take up the slack, there has been out-migration, and there has been underemployment and there has been a great amount of unemployment.

In most sections of Appalachia, as in my area, the people have been trying to solve their own problems. Since 1948, the Western North Carolina Associate Communities has been an active organization promoting regional development in my district. This organization founded the Western North Carolina Regional Planning Commission which with the aid of a professional agency made an economic analysis and survey of the area, and the development report stated that the key to the development of western North Carolina is roads and highways, and I believe that is true of other sections of the Appalachian

area.

I am strongly supporting the Appalachian bill. It offers hope and economic uplift to a section of our Nation, but I will confine my remarks in the main to the roadbuilding and highway construction provisions of the bill. Other witnesses, I know, have emphasized other features. Civilization moves with transportation, and transportation has been an important factor in the development of each

section of our great country. The Appalachian area lies close to great concentrations of people and wealth. We see them all around us. But isolation caused by inadequate highways and transportation facilities has prevented the extension of such growth and economic prosperity into the Appalachian area.

The establishment in this region of an adequate system of highways is the key to its development. Highways are needed to aid traffic congestion in some cases, but they are needed throughout the area as a means of promoting economic development.

By opening the door to transportation, we lay the foundation for private enterprise to come in and to build and to develop wealth and jobs. The area is rich in climate, rich in water, rich in timber resources, and in human resources. Make the area accessible with modern highways and these resources will bring about its development along industrial and recreational lines, and will convert it into a land of promise.

I commend the President's Appalachian Regional Commission headed by Franklin Roosevelt and the House Public Works Committee and others who have worked on this bill on placing the main emphasis on highway construction. I believe that they have been right and you have been right in determining that some 85 cents of each dollar spent should go for highways. Federal spending in the Appalachian area has not been in proportion to its population. In 1963 the area had 8.5 percent of the country's population but received only 4.9 percent of the dollars spent by the Federal Government. This area has always been short in military and defense spending. So the Appalachian program is not a handout. It will be aiding this section in getting its proportion of the tax dollars spent by the Federal Government.

Now the various sections of our great country have individual needs and they have problems. In some cases the economic need is harbor development. In other cases dredging of rivers for commerce or other construction is needed. Out West the need is development of water resources. I have supported programs and will gladly continue to support programs to meet each of the great needs.

In the Appalachian area our need is access roads and highways. It is important that Congress take effective action to meet this great regional need and approve the Appalachian development program. I have spent most of my time on roads but I am supporting all features of this program, and I can assure you that in carrying out this program, it will get 100 percent cooperation from North Carolina. Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Taylor, I want to commend you for your entire statement. I think it was well done and effective. But, particularly, I would like to comment on your last paragraph of the statement. As a distinguished member of the Interior Committee here in the House and as a Member of the House, I can testify that you have recognized the needs of the other areas of the country, and I would like to comment that you and I have had much conversation with regard to this bill. I know that you recognize the needs of even my congressional district where perhaps harbors and river dredging have been recognized by you as important as the highways and mountain areas you represent. For the benefit of the record of the committee,

I would like to say that I think your statement here, as you concluded, was sincerely made and one that you have expressed by your action. I commend you for your appearance today.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As each of us sit on the House floor we so often look at that quotation in front of us; "Let us develop the resources of our land." As we think in terms of that, we have to face problems as they exist in each section.

Mr. HENDERSON. Are there any questions?

Mr. BALDWIN. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Taylor, you certainly have represented the needs of the people of your district very effectively this morning. Let me ask this question: Are you familiar with the Senate amendments that were added to this bill, particularly the Lausche amendment dealing with strip mining?

Mr. TAYLOR. Somewhat.

Mr. BALDWIN. You have cases of strip mining in your counties? Mr. TAYLOR. No; that is not a problem in my area.

Mr. BALDWIN. My question was going to be whether you had any views for or against the Lausche amendment. I might read it for your information. It says that—

No moneys authorized by this act shall be expended for the purposes of reclaiming, improving, regrading, reseeding, or reforestation of strip mine areas except in lands owned by Federal, State, or local bodies of government until authorized by law after the completion of the study and report to the President as provided in subsection (c) of this section.

The impact of that amendment as I understand it is that without that amendment there could be Federal funds used for reclamation of strip mine areas even if they were in private possession. With this amendment it would only authorize the use of Federal funds on strip mine areas if those areas were in public ownership. In other words, there would have to be some kind of local redevelopment association to acquire the land before any Federal funds could be used in connection with it.

Do you have any views for or against this amendment?

Mr. TAYLOR. I have not given much study to that particular amendment because my area is not a mining area.

Mr. BALDWIN. Thank you.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Cleveland.

Mr. CLEVELAND. I just want to say that I think your statement is an excellent statement and you graphically portray the problem in parts of the Appalachian Mountains where agriculture has yielded to modern techniques of farming and where the forests have been cut over and not properly replanted and because of the mountainous terrain access roads and development roads are badly needed and are perhaps the key to future economic development. I want to commend your statement but I want to remind you that there are other parts of the Appalachian Mountains not included in this bill which have, at the same time, the problems described in this bill. Also counties which are remarkably favored economically, 70-odd counties which never qualified for Area Redevelopment Act or accelerated public works programs because they were so favorably situated. Do you really think it is fair to have legislation like this where it can be clearly shown that there are regions very similar to your own that are ex