going to get all nine funded. We could go beyond them, actually. So I think this is an unfortunate circumstance that a low number of new EAPA agencies has been authorized for fiscal 1968. Mr. RESNICK. That is one of the many problems. Again, I want to thank you for your very fine statement. You have put very succinctly the problems of the State in dealing with the war on poverty. Mr. SMITH. Thank you. Mr. RESNICK. Mr. Zwach? Mr. ZWACH. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I did not hear most of the testimony, because I was previously here and then got tied up on telephone calls. Did you present what the State and county units of governments are doing with regard to rural development? Did you touch on that? And if you did not, could you touch on it orally? Mr. SMITH. Well, I do not believe that I touched upon that directly. The State of Wisconsin, of course, through the CAMPS committee, on which I serve, as well as other representatives of my office working with the U.S./State Department of Agriculture officials, has been attempting to plan and develop projects in the rural areas of our State. Speaking for the Wisconsin Office of Economic Opportunity, at least as identified by the Intergovernmental Relations Advisory Committee's reports, they indicate that we have an 80-20 bias operationally in the Wisconsin OEO toward rural, as compared to urban activities. This follows because by and large outside of the Milwaukee metropolitan area, and a few key larger cities, we have a rural orientation in Wisconsin. I do not want to belabor this planning point too much, but I would like to establish the fact that we have seven district plans in print now covering the entire State of Wisconsin. In terms of planning economic, industrial development, and human resources or infrastructural activities, we know by and large now what the major problems are, what future trends obtain, and we feel that with the proper implementation procedures, we could do a better job in developing our growth points as identified, as well as rural area economies. Mr. ZWACH. Do you have a rural development section? You do have business development agencies and tourist business agencies in Wisconsin? Mr. SMITH. Yes. Mr. ZWACH. Do you have a rural development section at the state level? Mr. SMITH. Well, I believe the State department of agriculture as such, does not have a rural specialty division, but it works for the benefit of agriculture in Wisconsin. Mr. ZWACH. I have no further questions. Mr. RESNICK. I want to thank you. I would like to state at this time that our scheduled witness for tomorrow, Mr. Roger Fleming of the American Farm Bureau Federation, cannot appear. It is requested that the statement of Mr. Lynn be put into the record-I am sorry; Mr. Fleming will submit his statement for the record, together with the additional information which was requested. Without objection, that will be done. (No additional statement or information was supplied for the record by either Mr. Lynn or Mr. Fleming.) (The following statements and letters were also submitted for the record :) RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE STATES IN THE WAR ON POVERTY (By Hon. Joseph S. Clark, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania) For nearly five months the Senate Subcommittee on Employment, Manpower and Poverty, which I serve as chairman, has been assessing the effective ness of the greatest social and economic experiment of our time, the Federal war on poverty. Our study is not finished, but one conclusion can fairly be drawn from a large part of the testimony presented to our subcommittee and to the Subcommittee on Rural Development of the House of Representatives which has also been holding hearings in recent months. The evidence points to the conclusion that few States are pulling their own weight in the anti-poverty crusade, and that the States that protest the loudest about States' rights and the sanctity of State prerogatives are the same States that have refused to accept their share of responsibility for vigorous action on behalf of the poor and underprivileged. Time and again our Subcommittees have encountered State attitudes that seem to say, "We will accept all the Federal money that we can get allocated to our State for anti-poverty projects, but we prefer not to make substantial financial contributions to the programs if we can help it. Moreover, the State should be given complete supervision and control of these porgrams." Over many years, before the advent of the war on poverty, individual states had frequent opportunities to wipe out penury and deprivation, or at least to make a vital start. But no serious, concerted effort was ever launched. During these last few months our Senate subcommittee has inspected, at first hand, urban and rural poverty areas in Mississippi, New York, California. Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and elsewhere. We encountered appalling poverty conditions undoubtedly as old as the States themselves. We saw widespread hunger and malnutrition, victimizing children and adults alike. We saw thousands of Americans living in squalid urban slums and dilipidated rural shacks; we even found migrant workers and their families living in abandoned autos. We visited areas of heavy and persistent unemployment which generated a despair and hopelessness that settled over cities and neighborhoods like an oppressive fog. Over and over again we were confronted with a heartbreaking lack of medical care, clinical and hospital facilities, elemental hygiene, and even immunization programs. We took testimony establishing that at least 50% of all poor children in the U.S. do not have adequate immunization; that 64% of poor children have never seen a dentist in their lives; that 45% of all women who have babies in hospitals have absolutely no prenatal care; that an infant born to poor parents has twice the risk of dying before reaching its first birthday; and that the chances of dying before the age of 35 are four times greater for a member of a poor family. The total of America's poor still stands at 32,500,000 despite nearly three years of the war on poverty, and at least 22% of the nation's needy receive absolutely no public assistance or welfare help. And the Economic Development Administration reported recently that more than 840 American communities are suffering acutely from unemployment and low income. At least 226 of these communities are afflicted with a jobless rate exceeding 8%, twice the national average; and 59 are economically sick with joblessness ranging from 13.8% to 30%. Here, then, is the picture—but only a partial picture of penury in the midst of plenty in the world's most affluent society in the year 1967. We have not forgotten that last year in the testimony before our subcommittee, Sargent Shriver, offered an unprecedented challenge to Congress and to the country. The United States, the OEO Director told us, can eradicate poverty by 1976 if it brings to bear the necessary resources, talents, and determination. By 1976, the 200th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, the nation can complete the task of bringing to all Americans the fulfillment of the Declaration's promises of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." So said Director Shriver on June 21, 1966. But exactly one year later, Mr. Shriver, again testifying before our subcommittee, told us reluctantly but bluntly that if the nation continued to devote its present rate of resources to the anti-poverty program the war on poverty "will never be won." Larger and more diversified resources, it becomes clear, are necessary for victory. With the conspicuous exception of the Job Corps, an important group that has made only a token contribution to the war on poverty is the business and industrial community. I pointed out in our Chicago hearings that "the business leaders in the community are insulated from the real conditions of the ghetto because they never see the ghetto and know nothing of it except the little they read in a newspaper." Recently, however, there have been hopeful omens. The National Association of Manufacturers has decided for the first time to participate in an anti-poverty undertaking which, just possibly, may set a precedent for individual business and industrial concerns. But most important, in the opinion of many, is for all 50 States to become active, fully-responsible partners in the war on poverty. Malingering by State governments, especially in the area of matching funds, must be halted. States must be induced to accept their moral, organizational and financial obligations to insure the successful operation of the various anti-poverty programs. They should and must become fully committed to this national crusade to erase the blight of poverty from the American landscape. There is, quite possibly, still time, before the 200th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, to start economic injustice and destitution on their way to permanent oblivion. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. JOSEPH Y. RESNICK, Chairman, Subcommittee on Rural Development, Agriculture Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This will acknowledge and respond to your recent invitation to participate in hearings to be conducted by the Rural Development Subcommittee of the House Committee on Agriculture on the effectiveness of Federal programs in rural areas. It has always been my position that the development and strengthening of our rural areas is an essential part of the overall growth and progress of our Nation. We must have broad population distribution and basic dispersion and decentralization-including people, industry, business, traffic, and all the other elements of our fast-paced civilization-if we are to plan for long-range, orderly growth. The alternative, of course, is the continued crowding and congestion of our metropolitan areas where 7 out of 10 people now live-and where, it is predicted, 4 out of 5 will live by the turn of the century. The simple, elemental fact is that the development of our rural and small town areas is the easiest and surest way to assure a broad population distribution and to ease some of the pressures on our metropolitan areas. At the same time, of course, the development of Rural America will assure a better quality of life for our people there. Speaking as the Representative of the Fourth Congressional District of Tennessee-a District of small town and rural composition-I want to go on record as saying that the Federal programs of grants and assistance have played an important and significant role in the growth and progress of our area. It has been my objective and goal to assure an equitable distribution of Federal funds and programs between urban and rural areas. Much has been accomplished in this direction. However, rural areas and small towns are at a disadvantage in the preparation of applications for Federal programs because of the immense resources and expertise available to the municipal governments in our larger cities. In this connection, it might be worthwhile for agencies to coordinate their efforts and set up joint circuit-riding teams to make periodic trips through rural and small town areas, instructing and assisting officials in making applications for the various programs. In addition, where possible, it would seem desirable to locate similar programs in one agency. There are, for example, now a variety of water and sewer assistance programs scattered throughout government. In conclusion, I want to commend you and your Committee for your work on this most important matter of the impact of Federal programs in rural and small town areas. With kindest regards and best wishes, I am, Very sincerely yours, JOE L. EVINS, Member of Congress. STATEMENT OF HON. JULIA BUTLER HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON In the past few years, the Economic Opportunity Committee of Clark County, in my district of Washington State, has been involved in the administration of federal anti-poverty programs related to the development of rural areas. I asked the Clark County Committee to comment on and evaluate some of these programs. believing this information would be of interest to your subcommittee. Before summarizing the committee's report, I would like to point out that Clark County's rural situation is rather unusual. Instead of migrant families and small subsistence farmers, the county has a large number of seasonal workers who apply for state support during the off-season. In general, problems in these rural communities are common ones-lack of adequate education, job skills, transportation, health and other community services coupled with a corresponding lack of economic and social opportunities. These communities lack diversified industry and offer limited employed opportunities. In Yacolt and other small rural communities-with the exception of some farming and a few small businesses-the only industry is logging. There is not one military installation in my district. Accelerated economic development programs would ease employment, housing and education problems. However, many of the federal programs to foster economic development are not available to the county. The northern half of Clark County, which includes about 40 per cent of the county's population, is rural. But because the southern part of the county is industrial and urban, it has not been possible to qualify the northern half for benefits provided under the Area Development Administration and other federal programs. More flexibility in federal regulations is needed so that the rural sections of such counties may qualify for federal assistance. The Economic Opportunity Committee of Clark County sees a great need for better government-community cooperation in federal projects such as public works. Many dam-building, irrigation and reclamation projects are underway in rural areas where unemployment exists; yet often outside workers are imported to project areas. The committee feels: 1. That the federal government should make a greater effort to present project plans and needs to the communities, giving residents an opportunity to prepare themselves for jobs and 2. That the government could offer job-training to local residents for specific project jobs. The committee feels that often skills exist in these rural areas, but that they simply are not tapped. There are many problems in rural areas that cannot be answered solely by economic development. The committee believes emphasis must also be put on programs that promote a more positive and hopeful outlook among rural people, which in turn will provide more favorable circumstances for new industry and economic growth. Yet those federal agencies which provide programs affecting individual outlook and attitude-programs in education, health and job-training-often do not reach rural communities and the rural poor. Federal agencies tend to be located in urban areas. Many rural residents-because they lack access to public transportation systems or because they find big cities threatening-do not travel to urban centers. The Clark County committee feels this communication problem can be reduced by decentralization of federal programs-by bringing service units to the rural communities. The committee has set up neighborhood centers in a number of rural areas to offer and to inform residents of available public services and to involve communities themselves in problem-solving. The committee feels this approach is an extremely useful one and that it helps bridge one of the many gaps between rural and urban areas. I agree. I recently attended a meeting in Vancouver and heard forty women tell their impressions of an anti-poverty program Community Center. One woman commented: "Before the center, we thought there was not chance for us-that we'd only be smacked down if we tried." The women who spoke were extremely enthusiastic about the Community Center program-which allows them to earn part-time salaries instructing other low-income women in such areas as home management and sewing. The fact that these women are now able to earn a few dollars seems to have elevated them to a place of respect not only for themselves but also for the community in which they live. STATEMENT OF HON. HAROLD T. (Buzz) JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the courtesy extended me today to testify to the effectiveness of some of the anti-poverty programs which are operating in the Nation and my State of California and particularly in the Second Congressional District which I have the honor to represent. As you may be aware, the Second District covers approximately one-third of the State of California and includes most of the timber lands, much of the recreation lands, and mountainous area of our State. Approximately 60 percent of the land area in the District is owned by the Federal Government itself and consists of National Parks, Bureau of Land Management lands and most of all lands under the administration of the National Forest Service. It is obvious, therefore, that we are extremely interested in conservation programs and I appear here today to support those related to conservation in rural areas. Such anti-poverty programs use healthful, outdoor productive projects as a means of developing vocational skills and motivating our youth in proper work habits and promote both physical and mental improvement of our disadvantaged youth. Specifically, the 88 rural Job Corps Conservation Centers, with 15,000 Corpsmen, under the supervision of the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture and the land managing agencies of the Department of the Interior, are proving to be highly successful. When one considers that the Job Corpsmen are school dropouts, many of whom have been in trouble locally, and are youths who need a change of environment, the Job Corps Conservation Center program is proving to be a most effective method for motivating and training these youngsters to make them employable. The rate of successful employment after graduation is steadily increasing. It, in our opinion, will be even more successful with the further delegation for complete operation of these Conservation Centers to be made to the old line agencies (Agriculture and Interior) as of next July 1. I understand that OEO's role from that time will be one of monitoring the Centers' operations rather than direct line authority in their administration. Conservation Centers have about half of the male enrollees in Job Corps. They are the most successful part of the total program. Their current operation costs are 20 percent less per man-year than Urban Centers. They are teaching better work habits and provide a better program of social adjustment than other Centers. The on-the-job work skills traning in such vocations as carpentry, masonry, welding, heavy equipment operation, and cooking has proven very successful. Work skills training is directed toward conservation work and has provided recreation facilities and other conservation improvements valued at $26,000,000 through April this year. In addition, Conservation Centers have been taking the least educated youths and providing the most comprehensive remedial educational program in Job Corps. Almost all youths who cannot read at the seventh grade level are assigned to Conservation Centers. One third of them cannot read or write when they enter. The average entering Corpsman reads at the third grade level. The remedial education program is working well and Corpsmen are learning at a rate several times greater than they did in the public school system. The reports that I receive and my own observations of the functions of the several Centers located in my District, including Sly Park and Five Mile operated |