We also have in West Virginia a critical lag in urban renewal programs-particularly in smaller cities which have been hardest hit by economic blight.

Urban renewal is too much a big city program. The smaller community simply does not have-and cannot afford-the staff to implement an effective renewal program. To illustrate, Pennsylvania has received $488 million in URA funds. West Virginia has received $8 million. Pennsylvania has many big cities. We do not.

The need for more and better public facilities is equally great in the Appalachian area. The Accelerated Public Works Act of 1962, which originated in this committee, proved the enormous desire of West Virginia localities to improve their communities with new public works. We receive more than $43 million in Federal grants, amounting to more than $70 million in construction for over 250 projects. It was a wonderful program, providing new facilities to localities which had despaired of ever obtaining them. It should be revived and continued in the Appalachian region.

In view of what I have said, I would respectfully propose the following:

First, includes a minimum of $100 million in accelerated public works authorization for the Appalachian region. This could be allocated to local governments on the same 70-30 matching ratio that will govern the road program.

I would suggest that the program could be limited to water and sewer systems, street improvements, public incinerators, off-street parking facilities, firefighting buildings and improvements, and conservation projects.

West Virginia has a current backlog of more than $25 million, in 115 community projects, pending under the APW program. Most of these projects never will be built without grant moneys, because the communities simply cannot bear the total cost. If you would approve such a program, the volume of pending applications would double within 90 days, so great is our need in this field. I trust that you can give this proposal every proper consideration.

Second, I propose that the Appalachian Commission be directed to study the feasibility of outright administrative grants to be established for communities of less than 25,000 population, to enable them to hire professional planners, administrators, and technical help to launch urban renewal programs.

If this is not done, the smaller urban centers of West Virginia and throughout Appalachia will continue to be blighted with rundown communities of desolation and decay-simply because their financial resources do not permit them to undertake the complex task of making urban renewal a reality.

Third, the authorization of $90 million to supplement existing Federal programs under section 214 is a well-conceived idea, and I approve it wholeheartedly. I feel it can bring many positive benefits to the Appalachians.

However, on a 5- or 6-year basis, it simply does not seem to be enough. As communities and States grow in familiarity with the Appalachian program, and grow apace economically, the demand upon this fund is sure to be greater.

I urge that the committee consider a total authorization of $300 million, with only $90 million in supplemental grants-in-aid available in the first 2 fiscal years of the program, or until expended.

I should like to make one additional comment on the provisions of section 214, as it relates to watershed development and flood prevention.

Section 214 authorizes a grant-in-aid program of increased Federal contribution to certain projects of programs already authorized, including the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act which is already so helpful in Appalachia. In West Virginia we have been actively cooperating with the Federal departments in effectively implementing work authorized by Public Law 566. The State is engaged in a substantial number of projects that are in various stages of con struction. In all cases there is cost sharing by our local communities. Planning these projects and obtaining local financial cost sharing leads us to form the opinion that most upstream damsites are not being made use of to their maximum potential and that this waste of capacity cannot be corrected with the present formula of the cost-benefit ratio. We consider a damsite, big or little, to be a valuable and irreplaceable natural resource. Properly utilized, it becomes a focal point for the best type of recreation, a source of water supply, a flood prevention unit. But some of these dams make use of a very small percentage of their total potential. Considering that a damsite is a resource, this is an irreplaceable loss. A site once occupied by an undersized structure is spoiled forever being used to its natural capacity.

The main reason for this misuse of a natural resource is the inability of local people to come up with a greater share of the cost. Although the impoundment may benefit many persons outside the local community, only the local group now shares with the Federal agencies in the costs.

We propose, therefore, that the following be added to section 214(c): In administering the funds made available by this act for implementation of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, the Soil Conservation Service shall be charged with the duty of establishing a practical maximum-use classification for each proposed structure site, design the structure for this prac tical maximum use, and, as a means of assisting the local sponsors in meeting their percentage of the costs, shall be authorized to make use of flood control and other benefits to be derived from the proposed structure as far downstream as has been made use of it in the past by any agency of the Federal Government in any watershed or river basin, unrestricted as heretofore to the subwatershed immediately below the structure, and that maximum use also be made of benefits derived from potential wildlife habitat establishment and future public recreational and water supply uses.

I believe these suggestions which I respectfully put before you would make the Appalachian Regional Development Act more effective.

I strongly urge the passage of S. 3, with the amendments I have presented. I am certain it would contribute greatly to the economic vitality of the Appalachian region, provide urgently needed public facilities and services, and help our area to join in the well-being and prosperity which is now the norm in our affluent American society. It has been an honor and privilege for me to be with you today, Mr. Chairman, and I extend my thanks again to you and the members of this committee.

Senator RANDOLPH. Thank you, Governor Smith.

Senator Muskie, I know of a commitment you have in a very few minutes. You are very kind to be with us to listen to the statement of Governor Smith of West Virginia and I would like to have you question at this time.

Senator MUSKIE. It is a privilege to join in welcoming Governor Smith here. I don't really want to take the time to ask questions now but I would like to make a comment or two on some of the Governor's suggestions for modification of the program.

I share his belief in the value of the accelerated public works program. I share what I am sure is his regret that that program has not been continued in the previous Congress to this one. Because of the urgent need for the program in many areas of the country, including my own State and areas which also have problems similar to Appalachia in upgrading the level of economic activity, I would hesitate to support a suggestion that we include an accelerated public works program for Appalachia alone.

I think that we ought to concentrate our effort on renewing the program for the country as a whole because we need it badly, too. I am afraid that if we get it included in the Appalachia program that we would tend to minimize the possibilities for getting it for the other parts of the country.

I would agree with your opinion of the great value of the accelerated public works program as a part of the program for developing areas like Appalachia. In that respect we share a common view.

I also share with you your concern about the failure of the urban renewal program to meet the needs of small States and small communities. We have had a similar experience in our State. As a member of the Senate Banking and Currency Committee, I have been involved with the urban renewal program. I would hope that it might be possible for you to state these views in that committee. I think that really the answer to it is not the suggestion that you have here but the frontal attack upon the problem in the Banking and Currency Committee directed at the Housing and Home Finance Agency.

We have an Agency which grew in response to the very critical urban problems of large metropolitan areas and because it grew that way it developed a tremendous amount of bureaucratic redtape that is geared to the like bureaucratic redtape in the big metropolitan cities which small cities are not in a position to match.

I voiced this concern in the Banking and Currency Committee last year when officials of the Housing and Home Finance Agency testified on the urban renewal program at that time. In response to that the Agency itself now has undertaken some pilot programs, one in my own State, designed to develop approaches which are geared to the administrative machinery of small States.

So I welcome your testimony on that, too, Governor, and I look forward to inviting your participation in hearings at an appropriate time before the Banking and Currency Committee.

Governor SMITH. Thank you very much, Senator Muskie. I certainly would be delighted to appear before the Banking and Currency Committee. I recognize the fact that this is a field that is not germane perhaps to the bill that we are considering today, but it is a field

in which we are most interested in, in West Virginia, and you are interested in, in Maine.

Only a few days ago in a talk in Charleston, that was pointed out very clearly: the problem of urban renewal in small cities as against larger cities. Whereas they have staffs of over 50 employees in cities such as Norfolk, Va., and Scranton, Pa., in Charleston they are able to afford 3 and Bluefield and Huntington, 6 apiece as far as the communities of West Virginia.

This is where the problem arises and that is why there is not more of this very valuable rebuilding of America in the smaller communities of this Nation. I certainly would like the opportunity to appear. Senator MUSKIE. Actually, there is more future in the small communities than there is in a big one.

Thank you, Governor.

Senator RANDOLPH. I would like to note the presence of Curtis Aul, the mayor of Vienna, this morning. As you know, Governor, Mr. Aul has been president of the West Virginia League of Municipalities. I noted expression of approval when you spoke about a program of expanded or accelerated public works. He testified, as I recall, on that legislation at the time we had hearings here in the Public Works Committee of the Senate.

I would also call attention to the presence of Emery Woodall, who is the postmaster in Palermo, in Lincoln County, W. Va. I don't want to be provincial in anywise, but out of a rural county like Lincoln in which Mr. Woodall lives, a young man came, Chuck Yeager, the first man in America to fly faster than the speed of sound. I remember very well at the Wright brothers dinner I was talking informally before the banquet with Chuck Yeager about some West Virginia matters and this man standing nearby, an admiral with gold braid, said, "What do you know, Mr. Yeager, about West Virginia?" And he replied, "Well, I was born so far up the hollow that we almost had to pipe the sunshine in." In other words, he was a young man who had come from the recesses of the ridges of this mountain area. We can bring rewards to these ridges and in a sense, riches to the people.

Your testimony is very helpful today.

Senator Cooper.

Senator COOPER. Your testimony has been very comprehensive. I think you know your State has a very able representative here on this committee. I am sure we will hear a great deal about your recommendations.

I have no questions.

Senator RANDOLPH. You have given us some recommendations, not just suggestions. We are going to give them very careful attention. Governor SMITH. Thank you.

Senator RANDOLPH. Senator Boggs.

Senator BOGGS. Mr. Chairman, I feel very much as Senator Cooper does. I am happy to welcome Governor Smith and to meet you. I would certainly say for your first week you have had a busy one, Governor. You are starting out very well and I wish you every

Senator RANDOLPH. Representative Hechler, I accorded the privilege to Representative Mathias of commenting on Senator Brewster's remarks before the committee.

Would you desire to make any comment? You have worked on this legislation in the House and your area of the State was very much in need of this program. While Governor Smith is here would you help by your testimony informally from the place where you sit?

STATEMENT OF HON. KEN HECHLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

Mr. HECHLER. Mr. Chairman, certainly by his testimony Governor Smith has shown his deep and perceptive appreciation of the problems in the Appalachian region. I, too, am greatly interested in what Governor Smith has recommended concerning planning assistance for communities the size of Vienna which Mayor All presides

over.

I think it is absolutely necessary to develop an urban renewal program. I am also very pleased that Governor Smith has brought out the tremendous value of accelerated government works programs in West Virginia. I have yet to find a Member of the House and Senate who disagrees with this conclusion.

I think we ought to start a little revolution to get this program revised. I would concur with Senator Muskie that may not be the bill to put it on and it may not be possible to connect it with any other program. I think it is vital for the development of the economy, not only the Appalachian region but the rest of the country, that the accelerated public works program be continued. Here we have a program where the machinery is already set up, we do not have to set up any new or expensive bureaucracy, and I think it is highly important to commend Governor Smith.

Senator RANDOLPH. Thank you, Representative Hechler.

We have with us today also from West Virginia, Representative Kee, and I refer to him as Jim. He is the newest member of our delegation. I served with your father and your mother and now it is good to serve with you, this fine family giving so much in constructive contribution to West Virginia, in particular, the Fifth District.

You are now a member of the Public Works Committee of the House.

Mr. KEE. Correct.

Senator RANDOLPH. I think you might want to comment while Governor Smith is here.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES KEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

Mr. KEE. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to appear before your Public Works Committee.

First, I would like to say that the Public Works Committee of the U.S. Senate should be highly commended as your first program of 1965 started immediately on the Appalachian region. You are certainly to be commended and I want to join wholeheartedly in the recommendations made by Governor Smith.