in Appalachia that in themselves are not depressed and do not meet the test of the ARA bill, and do not meet the test of the APW bill. I think it is discriminatory when a county with 15 or 20 percent unemployed has to pay special taxes toward the county in South Carolina, as an example, or any other county in Appalachia, which in itself not only is not depressed, but has the highest per capita income of any county in the State. This is why it seems to me this act should be amended to have a provision in it that any area within the defined region of Appalachia that in itself does not meet the test of a depressed county under the ARA bill or the APW bill, should not qualify for the special benefits, such as an additional share of vocational education, or additional layer of health benefits. All these States qualify under our basic nationwide programs of antipoverty; the basic nationwide vocational act, the basic nationwide Hill-Burton Act, and we are putting through this act a second layer applicable to these States, and I don't think that second layer should apply if the individual areas within it are not depressed. I don't think this is fair to areas outside Appalachia. I would like to ask a question of the witness: Why would you not be willing to have an amendment of that kind to actually make this applicable? I am not referring to the highway program. The amendment I offered last year did not refer to highways. But why are you unwilling to support an amendment that would actually concentrate these special benefits to the areas that are really depressed, as compared to the areas that do not meet the tests? Mr. SWEENEY. We feel so strongly about it that we feel such an amendment would severely hamper the execution of this program. If I could just take a minute to say that you are on exactly that subject which marks the whole debate that I believe is going on in Washington today, both in the Congress and in the administration and, indeed, throughout the country, as to what constitutes an effective development program. Appalachia lacks cities. Its major problem is that 43 percent of the people in Appalachia are classified as "rural nonfarm" they do not farm for a living and they live in what we have called ribbon towns down these long, narrow valleys, with no urban amenities whatsoever. They are stretched out. You cannot provide facilities for each cluster of people; there is just not enough money in the U.S. Treasury, or the State treasuries, or through local means, to do that. Funds must be concentrated and clustered where they would begin to provide an urban environment and attract employment; or, secondly, where there is a significant recreational potential. We believe most of the money in this program will go to precisely the counties you are talking about. But, for effectiveness in a given area, it may be necessary to put money in a community which does not qualify under present objective criteria; namely, unemployment or low income, or you will not be able to do a thing for that subregion. A classic example is that highway patterns generally lead in and out of strong communities. They are the most accessible. They are the ones where you could most conveniently locate a regional hospital, perhaps, to serve the greatest need; where a vocational training school would best serve the needs; where putting in an airport would best serve the needs. Placing of these institutions in this type of community would enable that community to take off and, thereby, provide employment for people from all these surrounding counties. Here in Washington, we drive 45 minutes to go 8 miles. In Appalachia, you can go between 40 and 50 miles in 45 minutes. A chemical complex there attracts its workers from 15 surrounding counties. Plants have to be located where they are close to transportation; where they are close to market access. We say: Do not destroy this program by insisting that you must put your facilities where they will probably stand the less chance of attracting industry, or recreational growth, or any other kind of employ ment. We do believe most of this money will go into presently depressed counties. Certainly that is true in the hard core of Appalachia where there is no such thing as a healthy county, except in very rare instances. All we are saying is: I think it would be a mistake to judge this Commission as being totally insensitive to human needs and to political needs. If this Commission were to start to pour its money into Knoxville and Chattanooga, it would soon die. If the States themselves did not kill it, obviously the Congress would. But, where a particular project is needed, let us go into an area in order to make it viable; in order to provide decent opportunities for people in surrounding areas. We believe that we should not be restricted from doing that. Mr. BALDWIN. The testimony of last year of several witnesses-and I particularly recall the testimony of the witness representing the State of Virginia-was certainly the kind of testimony that, to me, did not support certain aspects of this bill as it applied to those areas in Virginia. The testimony of the witness from the State of Virginia was that a number of counties in Virginia, about two-thirds of them, were not depressed; had very low unemployment rates; in fact, as I recall, a witness said the State of Virginia had about the lowest unemployment rate in the Union. Mr. SWEENEY. Not the Appalachia portion, sir. Mr. BALDWIN. The State as a whole. Mr. SWEENEY. Yes, sir. Mr. BALDWIN. He mentioned two-thirds of the counties in northern Appalachia were not depressed and had an extremely low rate of unemployment. You have mentioned a case where there is a hub area with some counties related to it. This is not true of two-thirds of the counties in Virginia. They have not only the hub nor the surrounding areas depressed in any sense; they did not meet the APW standard nor the ARA standard. This is what is, to me, fundamentally discriminatory: that these will become eligible for a second layer of assistance. Let me point out, all the counties in Appalachia-depressed or not depressed qualify in the antipoverty program for special assistance; they qualify under the vocational training program; they qualify under the Hill-Burton Act for assistance. So the question is: Are we going to superimpose on these counties another layer of assistance? I think it is unfair and discriminatory. Mr. SWEENEY. I can't say more than I did. I do believe, in certain areas of Appalachia, such an amendment would severely hamper the program. I just don't believe this Commission is going to superimpose facility after facility in areas where they have the ability to pay. Obviously, one of the things taken into consideration is the ability of an area to pay for its own facilities but, where they are not willing to do that by purely local means—because it does not serve the immediate community but, nevertheless, putting it there would vastly serve the ability to serve the surrounding areas we would like to offer inducements to them to do so. They are still going to have to come up with part of the money. Mr. BALDWIN. May I ask one further question: I assume that you have available to you from the Bureau of the Budget-because they have broken down figures-the figures that would show the per capita income in each county in the States in the Appalachian region. Mr. SWEENEY. We have them for 1960, sir. Mr. BALDWIN. Yes; I mean 1960. Mr. SWEENEY. Yes. Mr. BALDWIN. Could I ask that you submit, for the record, the list of the counties in each of the States within the Appalachian region with the per capita income for each of those counties and, also, the counties in those same States outside the Appalachian region with the per capita income of each of those counties? Could you put that in the record so we could have that available? Mr. SWEENEY. We will try to. We have completely available the data you are asking for the Appalachian counties themselves. I don't know how long it will take us we may have them-for the non-Appalachian counties. We will provide them if we can. Mr. JONES. Without objection, the information will be received and printed in the record at this point. (The data follows:) NOTES ON DERIVATION OF PER CAPITA INCOME The per capita income was calculated by dividing the aggregate income of individuals in each county by the population of the county. The population of counties used is from the U.S. census of population, 1960. The aggregate income is the amount received by all income recipients 14 years old and over from all income sources. It was obtained by multiplying the mean income by the number of income recipients. Income is the sum of money received in 1959 from the following sources: Wages or salary; net income or loss from self-employment; net income or loss from rents, or receipts from roomers or boarders; royalties; interest, dividends, and periodic income from estates, trust funds, and annuities; social security benefits; pensions; veterans' payments. Armed Forces allotments for dependents, unemployment insurance, and public assistance or other governmental payments; and contributions for support from persons who are not members of the household, such as alimony. The figures represent the amount of income received before deductions for personal income taxes, social security, bond purchases, union dues, etc. The source of this data is: U.S. Bureau of the Census. County and City Data Book, 1962 (a statistical abstract supplement). U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1962. |