Our vast natural resources and living space cannot be effectively used by the greatest number of people when more than 100 million continue to be squeezed together and increasingly constrained within less than 2 percent of the 3.6 million square mile area of the United States. This incongruity becomes even more apparent when it is realized that these conditions are also creating problems in the rest of the country and leaving its great potential of land and natural resources relatively underdeveloped. Fortunately, the symptoms of these circumstances may be leading a growing number of people toward a more realistic future. This movement would combine city values with those qualities that exist only in close proximity to the good earth. This kind of town and country development is taking place in many parts of the country. While some of the phases are still in their formative stages, there are no less than 5,000 small cities in the countryside ranging in size from one to fifteen thousand or more that serve as prime examples. In this development we may find the answer to many of the most baffling problems that now confront the country. Fourth. Agriculture is responsible for more than 35 percent of all jobs in the country, but more of these jobs are being created outside than within the countryside. In many of the richest agricultural areas, whole communities have been deteriorating and left in decaying circumstances. This has been laid to technological advancements. Much of the technology has served as a two-way pump, sucking money and people away from the countryside and returning finished goods. The process has impoverished the economy and created a human wasteland in many areas of the countryside. But technology per se is not biased; it can be directed to serve the public welfare at all levels. It is just that the value system applied to it has not been thought out to end objectives. We have been more concerned with machine efficiency, production efficiency, and cost effectiveness than with living effectiveness, with environmental effectiveness, or with effects on the human being. While the farmer is the most efficient producer in industry, judged by almost every yardstick that may be applied, the rank-and-file farmer remains the most underpaid member of the production economy. This efficiency has not been willed to him. Before the turn of the century, he had developed the most efficient agriculture in the world; and this enabled the country to become a lender instead of a borrower nation. In all our history of foreign relations, the farmer has probably been the greatest good-will builder we have had. Fifth. There is widespread concern in the countryside about a growing land "monopoly." In some sections of the country, large land holdings are now in the hands of absentee owners, some of whom are big corporations. Invariably, the communities suffer, opportunities disappear, and people move out. This kind of "monopoly" could become far more serious to the quality of living conditions in the country and to the future welfare of the American public than the kind of economic monopoly with which the government has often been deeply concerned. It is well that we look at these systems now, or we may have to face up to "land reform" measures later, such as now confront many nations. The relationship of people and the land resource is not a new issue. It was early recognized that the people who owned their land and homes became better community builders and better citizens. Our system, which has encouraged wide individual ownership of land, homes, and property, has been in a large degree responsible for the initiative and enterprise of the American people. Sixth. No longer can farming alone support the countryside and provide opportunities for the people who live there. The economic base must be broadened by diversification. Not only is farm labor being replaced by machinery, chemicals, and higher-yielding seed, but many substitutes are continually replacing farmgrown products. For example, hand-made fibers now account for about 50 percent of all textile fibers. Wool consumption has gone down from about 9 percent of the total in 1950 to less than half of that. The impact of these developments has been enormous. Now less than one family in five is farming, while four out of five have to make a living in town or get out. It has long been clear that the decline of most country towns has resulted from lack of economic diversification. It makes no difference whether the industry is single-crop agriculture, mining one-plant manufacturing, or exclusively forestry. Single economy in a community tends to stagnate and to limit local opportunities and to degrade the community. Individual initiative and skills have little chance to develop, and the more progressive and competent leave the community. These conditions have been in the making for a long time. The processes of adjustment will come slowly. Unless they grow largely from within and are tailored to the condition in each community, they are not likely to bring permanent improvement. If these facts had been recognized in time, Appalachia probably would not have become the poverty symbol it is today. Seventh. We must begin to look to the countryside for much more than raw materials. Nowhere else are there to be found greater future opportunities for industry and new business development. Nowhere else is investment safer. Nowhere else is the environment so friendly nor the air and water so fresh. Here are the green earth, ample living space, and all the vital resources to sustain the highest standard of living to be found anywhere in the world. Much of the vitality, the planning, and the progress in the countryside are centered around its small cities. It is important that they continue to go ahead. They provide business services, educational, health, social, and recreational facilities, and opportunities for young people. To support such a town requires diversification and people. The country towns are the gateways not only to all our land resources but to a new kind of future for millions of people. People in the country are eager to move forward. Farmers, too, would have as much or more to gain than anyone. Such development could bring more local processing and packaging of farm products as well as increase local consumption and demand for various products of the land. It would mean more local opportunities for farm families, and there would be more incentive to plan for their future in their own communities. Actually, a great deal of progress is already under way. It has gone on without attracting much public attention, yet much of it has contributed more to our basic resources than many skyscrapers. More than 9,000 towns and small cities now have modern highways, power, improved educational, health and recreational facilities often better than found in big cities. Lakes, waterways, vacation areas, forests, and soils have been improved. In 1965, 57 million acres produced 4 billion bushels of corn compared with 2.08 billion bushels from 100 million acres in 1930. This is progress in which the whole nation has been sharing. The concept of diversification and creative development of industry and business is still very new in much of the countryside. Yet there are many towns and small cities in every state that are outstanding examples of what initiative and inventiveness can do. Their experience should become more widely known. Many leaders in government and industry are advocating more industry and business development in the countryside, and they are becoming more numerous every week. Representative John Zwach has recently stated: "I am making development of the countryside one of my primary efforts in Congress." Secretary of Agriculture Freeman pleads: "More people moving into the cities means more problems, more waste, more loneliness and more despair . . . A 180-degree turn in the thinking of big city-oriented America is necessary to save the cities and revitalize rural America." From Mr. W. B. Murphy, president of Campbell Soup Company: "It is in order to suggest . that manufacturers can do themselves a favor and our country a service by allocating a fair share of their new plants to the rural areas." Scores of others have recently made similar pronouncements. Eighth. The "RURAL" image is misleading and is hurting the countryside. The public needs a clearer picture of what the countryside is and what it has to offer. The COMMITTEE can help formulate a body of countryside values, perspective, and identity. The countryside has had no voice or means with which to project an up-to-date image. The term "COUNTRYSIDE" itself needs wider popular acceptance. The census classifies all populations on farms and in towns under 2,500 as "rural." The press and many agencies commonly refer to everything outside "urban areas" as "rural." While rural is a revered tradition, it is no longer adequate or appropriate for defining the combined economy of town and farm. It doesn't fit this kind of countryside and is misleading. For example, most of the 3,500 towns and cities in the country ranging in size from 2.500 to 10,000 (and some larger) in population are just as much countryside based and dependent on farming or on the land economy as are towns under 2.500. There are many fine communities centered in towns under 2,500 and even half that size; but as the countryside develops the better towns are certain grow. Should they pass this population mark, they become no more urban than before so long as they remain a part of the countryside. Actually, industry is moving to the countryside. In the last two years, several hundred plants have been opened in small cities. A study covering a limited number of these enterprises has revealed some significant facts. In general, the attitude of the workmen is better than in big-city plants. They have more pride in their place of work. More of them own their homes and take more interest in the total welfare of the community. They are stable and responsible. These advantages may be more important than is generally recognized by industry or the local community. A much broader survey covering a large number of establishments in a number of states is one of the more urgent projects to be undertaken at this time. The human factor is an important resource in every country community. Improvements in the physical assets have been or are being realized in thousands of country towns-modern highways, power, education, health and recreational facilities. Fortunately, these developments are taking place without sacrificing traditional values of country living and at just the time when population and social pressures are building to painful heights in the big cities. Ninth. The nation is living in a dangerous age. For a whole generation the country has been engaged in hot and cold wars. This year 67 billion dollars are going into defense and to fight a war in Asia. Another 40 billion or more may soon be added for missile defense. Despite these great efforts, it may be assumed that a growing number of ICBM's are zeroed in right now on every big city in the country. Whatever our defense calculations may be, the nation's ultimate survival would be in the countryside. But the greatest threat to the nation may not be from outside hostilities, but from man-made dangers-pollution of his environment, abnormalities from overcrowding, increase in crime, and spiritual impoverishment. There is no one answer or one solution we can turn to, but the most promising haven to explore is the countryside. Tenth. If the countryside, which embraces more than 98 percent of the land area in the country, is to accommodate future developments, it must not stand still. It must continue to make its tremendously diversified resources and natural advantages still more attractive and inviting to industry that is seeking more suitable environment and to people seeking homes in communities that are more to their liking. This is just as important to the future of big cities as it is to the countryside. The countryside may continue to foster its native virtues and qualities, which have contributed so much to our history-to our finest literature, art, culture, and national leadership. Four of our last six Presidents have come from the countryside; and more than its share of leaders in government, industry, science, and education continue to come from there. This is the American background, and here is where our most enduring future lies. Mr. RESNICK. I want to thank you for traveling all this way. I am glad to know that all is not dark in the countryside, that there are some rays of sunshine. If my colleague from Mississippi would yield to our colleague from Minnesota. Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes. Mr. ZWACH. Mr. Olson-what is your opinion? Are farm organizations in the midwest starting to cooperate better? Mr. OLSON. There is much more cooperation. Within southwestern Minnesota, presidents of the three major farm organizations that we have, Farmers Union, Farm Bureau and NFO, presidents are meeting quite regularly. They are cooperating in a number of different ways. I understand that one of the purposes of this hearing, Mr. Chairman, if I may have just one more minute, is to investigate the effects of great society programs on rural areas. Mr. RESNICK. It is all Federal programs, not Great Society. Mr. OLSON. We have one program that you might be interested in that we are extremely proud of. It is an Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Title III, Cultural Enrichment Supplemental Center, which had provisional financing for 2 years and in February of 82-388-67-34 this year, it received its third grant. For over a year now, it has been serving about 32,000 students in southwestern Minnesota. The primary objective of this center is to provide cultural experiences for students and other members of the rural communities that are not normally available because of the geographical remoteness of our area. Experiences are in the fine arts, including performances by symphony orchestra musicians, mobile art exhibits, touring dramatic productions and so on. The fulfillment of this project's second objective will be to find a general upgrading in appreciation for and instruction in the fine arts. One of the reasons I think this has met with such widespread enthusiasm is because it is a locally conceived program, planned and prepared by people who know the problems of our community. It had a limitation. It was not a perpetual grant. We have received the last bit of money that we are going to get. From now on, our program has to stand on its own two feet in our community. I think those are strong points that ought to be considered. Mr. RESNICK. Thank you. Mr. Zwach? Mr. ZWACH. I have no more questions. Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Olson, I would like to ask you, just a matter of information. In my district, I have one daily paper and 22 weekly papers. I note that you put out a biweekly newspaper? Mr. OLSON. It should be semiweekly instead of biweekly. Semiweekly is twice a week. That was a typographical error on the front sheet here. Mr. MONTGOMERY. What days do you put your paper out? Mr. OLSON. Wednesday morning and Saturday morning. Our next witness, after our recess, will be Mr. Philip H. Young, who is field representative for Appalachia, National Missions of the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (Short recess.) Mr. RESNICK. Come to order. STATEMENT OF PHILIP H. YOUNG, STAFF MEMBER, BOARD OF NATIONAL MISSIONS OF THE UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE U.S.A. Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, you have before you a 15page mimeographed statement, which I assure you I have no intention of reading in its entirety. Mr. RESNICK. If you would like it put in the record— Mr. YOUNG. Yes, sir. Mr. RESNICK. With no objection, it will be entered into the record. (The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:) STATEMENT OF PHILIP H. YOUNG, STAFF MEMBER, BOARD OF NATIONAL Mr. Chairman, my name is Philip H. Young. I am a staff member of the Board of National Missions of the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. with field responsibility for Appalachia. I am also currently serving as the President of the Council of the Southern Mountains, Inc. I lived for many years in Hazard, Kentucky and at present reside in Blacksburg, Virginia. My denomination is a constituent member of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. The National Council of Churches is composed of thirty-four Christian communions, whose aggregate membership was 42,500,000 at last report. No one could speak for all of these people, and I do not pretend to. I am speaking for the Division of Christian Life and Mission based on policy approved by the General Board. This Board is the representative governing body of the National Coucil of Churches, and is composed of 255 members chosen by the member communions in proportion to their size and by whatever procedure each sees fit. No one can speak for the General Board of the NCC without authorization by the General Secretary and without a very explicit basis in policy adopted by the General Board after a rather lengthy and democratic process of preparation. In behalf of the National Council of Churches, I appreciate this opportunity to bring to the attention of the subcommittee on Rural Development of the Committee on Agriculture of the United States House of Representatives its concern for rural development and the effects that various government programs have had in rural communities. Having contributed far out of proportion to their population number to the total wealth and prosperity of the nation and the world, rural people now in turn must experience full development. As early as June 4, 1958, the General Board of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. demonstrated its hope that the pressing needs of rural people would be considered by issuing a pronouncement on "Ethical Goals for Agricultural Policy." This statement included the following: "Poverty is often crippling to human personality. The fact that many farm families could not achieve adequate levels of productivity and income even during the decade of comparative farm prosperity following World War II makes it clear that both their situation and the national interest call for national programs designed to assist them to higher levels of living. General farm organizations, farmer co-operatives, and government should be encouraged to develop programs which will enlarge the opportunities for low-income farm families to earn adequate incomes and achieve satisfactory levels of living either on or off the farm, as the sound basis for wholesome personality growth." In spite of this declaration, the captive poor exist in ever increasing numbers throughout the United States and particularly in rural areas. Indian Americans, Spanish speaking Americans, Negro Americans, Southern white Americans and all the structurally unemployed and underemployed Americans challenge the myth of American affluence. Altogether there are some 67 million people who live in the small towns and country areas (under 10,000 population) of the nation. The hard reality is that one-third of the nation's population includes over one-half of the nation's poor. Warren H. Wilson in his early pioneering days of the rural church movement recognized a relationship between the economic status of the people of a community and the effectiveness of their church. He saw the need of integrating the church with a better living for the people of the land. He linked arms with economic improvement agencies in providing adult education through institutes and conferences to achieve better living for rural people. This historical approach to rural community problems has been expanded in the Rural Development Program of the USDA which began in 1955 on a pilot basis in fifty low income counties. This approach now currently incorporated in such units as the Rural Community Development Service of the USDA has great validity. However, without sufficient funds or personnel, the necessary and full planning by multicounty units has as yet not occurred. The National Council's efforts to raise the issues surrounding the problems of poverty and the need for rural development have given rise to many comprehensive policy statements and resolutions. The texts of statements are available regarding economic growth, area development, employment and wages, income maintenance, food and clothing, health services, housing, family life, minority racial problems, farm and agricultural problems, migrant workers, children and youth, public assistance, and many others. A recent statement, "The Concern of the Churches for Seasonal Farm Workers," was adopted by the General Board |