statement. This is a summary of the proposal. The sponsors would suggest additional language to permit a procedure by which additional counties could be added to the basic listing that we have submitted, since it may well be that projects and programs would affect these adjoining counties. In addition, I would ask that there be printed with my testimony charts showing 1. Counties covered and their 1960 census. 2. Percent population employed in selected occupations, 1960. 3. Land and area and population by State. 4. Changes in employment and the labor force. 5. Changes in value of manufacturing. 6. Changes in wholesale sales. 7. Changes in value of farm products. 8. Changes in the retail sales. (The prepared statement by Senator Hart, the Hart amendment, and the supporting analysis and charts referred to follow :) PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. PHILIP A. HART, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Mr. Chairman, first, those of us far beyond the Appalachian Range are indebted to you, Senator Randolph, for the energy and vision you have given to evolving a pattern of national legislation to meet serious problems of regional economic deprivation. The path that has been broken by the Members of Congress and State and local officials, who so ably give leadership to the Appalachian program, guides all of us who represent States where particular areas are bypassed by the growing, vigorous national economy. President Johnson, in his forthright state of the Union message, gave full endorsement to these challenges when he said: "I propose we carry out a new program to develop regions of our country now suffering from distress and depression ***. "We can help insure continued prosperity through: "A regional recovery program to assist development of stricken areas left behind by our national progress * * *."-State of the Union, January 4, 1965. So it is, Mr. Chairman, that Senator Nelson of Wisconsin, Senators McCarthy and Mondale of Minnesota and I bring to you this morning our proposed addition to the pending Appalachia bill, S. 3, which is to initiate in an 80-county, 3-State area in the northern Great Lakes States of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, the beginning of a regional program to meet the economic distress and serious neglect of this part of our Nation. The upper Great Lakes States region has a continuing unemployment rate that is some 20 percent higher than that of Appalachia. A few of the indicative regional statistics: Unemployment for the region averages 8.9 percent. Between 1950 and 1960 U.S. population grew 18.5 percent, the population of the three States by 18.8 percent, but the region's population by only 1.2 percent. Between 1950 and 1960 the region's labor force dropped by 1.1 percent while that of the Nation increased by 15.4 percent. Wholesale sales for the same period increased nationally by 54.2 percent, the 80 counties by only 22.1 percent. The value of farm commodities increased nationally by 68.4 percent in the same period, but in the 80 counties only by 13 percent. As one looks at the problems and opportunities confronting Appalachia, there is a striking similarity with those of the upper Great Lakes area: We find that both have been bypassed by major transportation arteries and have been essentially isolated from the commerce and economic growth of other regions in these States; Both Appalachia and the upper Great Lakes have suffered substantial outmigration of population-especially by the young people-to the point that in our 80-county area there has only been 1.2-percent population increase while the Nation increased 18.5 percent. 42-031-65-7 The overall educational attainment in the upper Great Lakes counties is substantially below that of the Nation and adjoining parts of the three States; Our economy was largely based on the exploitation of vast timber and high-grade iron or resources. Today, the high-grade ore deposits are in most instances uneconomical. Some progress is being made to utilize the lower grade ores, but much more resource and technical improvement is needed; The timber resources are significant, but we find the need to stimulate new timber utilization programs and new wood-using industries; Public and private recreation development may offer the single most important opportunity for this region, but here too the investment of the Federal Government in new projects and public works is a critical factor. There is a need to step up funding of small watershed programs, forest campsite construction, Corps of Engineer harbors of refuge, recreation and park areas, wildlife preserves, forest access highways, scenic parkways, and the many other Federal and Federal-State programs that are also so important to Appalachia. Natural disasters affecting the fishing industry have left a deep mark. With expanded lamprey control programs and increased technical and financial assistance a major fishing industry can be reestablished. It is my understanding, from the testimony here on Tuesday, that the administration will recommend a $50 million supplemental appropriation to ongoing Federal programs authorized in the Appalachia Act of the type just outlined. This is an appropriate approach to regional distress, and should be supported. There is equal justification for such pinpointed investment in the upper Great Lakes region where similar projects are ready to go. One of the first responsibilities of the Authority will be to work with local and State agencies in identifying those that should be accelerated. To review some of the work in the region and here in Washington preparatory to submitting this proposal to the Congress, in the early days of the area redevelopment program some of us urged that this entire region be treated as one unit for the purposes of ARA planning, analysis, and project location. It was unfortunate that this was not done. In 1963, Secretary Freeman joined with Governor Rolvaag, of Minnesota, and others to call a Land and People Conference in Duluth, Minn. Several hundred citizens representing public and private groups, State and local agencies, came to Duluth. They heard President Kennedy pledge his support for the “* * * beginning of a bright new era for the upper Great Lakes-an era in which the Nation's growing population looks to this region more and more as a major recreation area ** * as a major source of the lumber, paper, and paper products which modern industry consumes *** as a great producer of taconite * * *. In the achievement of these goals, I pledge my full support and the support of every Federal agency ✶✶ ✶” Today, as a supplement to this testimony, a record of the proceedings of this 1963 Duluth Conference is filed with the committee. This was one of the several conferences, meetings, and studies that the sponsors have drawn upon in drafting this proposal. Essentially, the difference between the proposal for Upper Great Lakes Development Act and the Appalachian bill is that our proposal at this stage does not now authorize a substantial public works program. The charge to the Authority, and the special programs authorized, are essentially for regional planning, coordination, and technical and research grants. Close work and assistance with State and local development organizations is contemplated. We believe, for the upper Great Lakes region, this is the timely and most effective next step. The only significant public works start would be the planning and initial engineering money for a scenic shoreline route along the south shore of Lake Superior, proposal which has already received much support and whose favorable economic impact on the region is unquestioned. There is no reason to delay the creation of a regional authority such as proposed. What is needed now is coordination of regional action plans, training assistance, research funds, and technical assistance to local development groups already existing or to be established in the region. As the Authority, and the State and local agencies working with the Authority, develop more detailed programs and public works projects, Congress would have to make such authorizations and appropriations. This first step is not an open account over which the Congress would have no control. If we do proceed with this or a similar proposal, I am convinced that future Federal expenditures, developed with coordination on a regional basis, will mean that those public investments will be far more effective than the sometimes haphazard approach that we have seen at times with individual ARA and APW programs and projects. Additionally, it is the opinion of all who are concerned with the economic needs of the upper Great Lakes that the one next step that we do not need is another economic study. The region has been reported and studied beyond belief. The most useful document for the committee, and the most comprehensive, is the report "Resources and Recreation in the North Great Lakes Region" prepared by a U.S. Department of Agriculture task force. I ask that a summary of this report be printed following my testimony. Your committee's own publications of the 87th Congress on "Opportunities for Economic Development in Michigan's Upper Peninsula" will be useful in your consideration. The Senate Interior Committee has held comprehensive hearings on iron ore resource development in the upper Great Lakes. There has been established in the 16 counties of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan an Upper Peninsula Committee on Area Progress (UPCAP) which has organized a more localized economic planning and development coordinating group among these 16 counties; it has made significant studies and sponsored constructive projects. In Minnesota, at the University of Minnesota there is the Upper Midwest Research and Development Council whose many significant economic studies include portions of the 80-county region of the upper Great Lakes. The Department of the Interior's reports on power resources and recreation along our Nation's fourth great shoreline form a backdrop of useful studies justifying the need for national attention to this region. These studies and reports, in our view, provide a sufficient backdrop for justifying the Senate Public Works Committee now to initiate brief concise hearings and consideration of the desirability of the proposed Upper Great Lakes Development Authority contained in our amendment. It is our view that now is clearly the time to act, and hopefully to coordinate this legislative effort with the Appalachian legislation. I believe there is no other region as ready to proceed with legislative consideration with Appalachia, so these two proposals could easily be combined with benefit to each. Mr. Chairman, the citizens of Hurley, Wis., and Ironwood, Mich., where two more deep iron ore mines closed this past month, where unemployment is now over 13 percent and will be on the rise with these closings, these citizens know that there doesn't have to be another study, or another conference. The region is economically depressed and its hope lies in the most direct and dramatic coordination of Federal, State, and local planning, and action to build on the human and natural resource potentials that we know are there. A section-by-section analysis of the Upper Great Lakes Development Authority amendment is attached to this statement. This is a summary of the proposal. The sponsors would suggest additional language to permit a procedure by which additional counties could be added to the basic listing that we have submitted, since it may well be that projects and programs would affect these adjoining counties. In addition, I would ask that there be printed with my testimony charts showing 1. Counties covered and their 1960 census. 2. Percent population employed in selected occupations, 1960. 3. Land and area and population by State. 4. Changes in employment and the labor force. 5. Changes in value of manufacturing. 6. Changes in wholesale sales. 7. Changes in value of farm products. 8. Changes in the retail sales. SECTION-BY-SECTION SUMMARY OF UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACT PRESENTED AS AMENDMENT No. 1 To S. 3 TITLE V-SHORT TITLE AND STATEMENT OF PURPOSE Section 501. The short title of this chapter shall be "Upper Great Lakes Regional Development Act of 1965." Section 502. Sets forth the findings that the upper Great Lakes region lags behind the Nation in economic growth as a result of changes in the nature of its resource base and the requirements of the Nation's economy, and that revitalization can come only through extensive participation by State and local authorities along with the Federal Government in implementing development programs tailored to the region. The purpose of this chapter is to promote the economic development of the region and to establish a framework for joint Federal and State efforts to this end. TITLE VI-UPPER GREAT LAKES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Section 601. Establishes the Upper Great Lakes Development Authority to be composed of seven members, four appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and three appointed by the Governors of the States, one from each State. Of the Presidential appointments, one shall be from each State, and the fourth to be at the discretion of the President shall serve as Chairman. Decisions of the Authority shall be by vote of the Chairman and three others. Section 602. The functions of the Authority shall be (1) to develop comprehensive and coordinated plans and programs and priorities, including those for land use and public works; (2) conduct and sponsor investigations, research and studies and in cooperation with Federal, State, and local agencies, sponsor demonstration projects to foster regional growth; (3) review, study, recommend modifications of, and additions to, Federal, State, and local public and private programs; (4) formulate and recommend interstate compacts and other forms of interstate cooperation; (5) encourage the formation of, and support existing, local development districts with technical assistance and financing of staff and administration; (6) encourage private investment in industrial, commercial, and recreational projects; (7) serve as a focal point and coordinating unit for Federal, State, and local programs; (8) provide a forum for consideration of problems of the region and proposed solutions; and (9) formulate for the Congress a program of development projects with proposals for Federal participation in their funding. Section 603. Sets forth the administrative powers of the Authority. TITLE VII-SPECIAL PROGRAMS FOR UPPER GREAT LAKES REGION Section 701. Authorizes the Authority to contract with or make grants to any agency of the United States, any agency of any State or local government, any public or private educational institution, or any private research organization to carry on basic and applied research on improving techniques for extracting, processing, transporting, and marketing of the natural resources of the region, and makes available $3 million for this purpose. Section 702. Authorizes the Authority to award fellowships for graduate study in resource development, industrial development, community development, area economic planning, economic and physical planning, and other areas determined by the Authority, and makes available $500,000 for this purpose. Section 703. Authorizes the Authority, in cooperation with the Secretary of Commerce, to prepare detailed plans for a Lake Superior scenic highway, including land use planning with emphasis on sites for recreational development, and makes available $2 million for this purpose, 10 percent of which shall be available for land use planning. Section 704. Authorizes the Authority to make grants to certified local develop ment districts for not more than 90 percent of the costs of technical staff and consultant assistance to such districts, and makes available $2 million for this purpose. TITLE VIII-MISCELLANEOUS Section 801. Authorizes $10 million to be appropriated for fiscal year 1966 to carry out the purposes of this chapter. Section 802. Directs the Authority to prepare annual reports on its activities to be submitted to the Governors of the States and to the President for transmittal to the Congress. Section 803. Stipulates that no State shall be required to engage in any program under this chapter without its consent. Section 804. Defines the upper Great Lakes region as those 80 counties in the States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan set forth in this section. 79 COUNTIES IN THE UPPER GREAT LAKES REGION-MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, AND WISCONSIN TABLE I.-Percent employed in selected occupations, 1960 |