15,000 migrant families while they are away from home and are not eligible for benefits porvided for residential farm workers. This program annually provides employment for approximately 300 professional workers and approximately 600 subprofessional workers to assist in the needs of migrants. In addition to this program, there are currently funded programs for selfhelp housing activities with an objective to provide low-cost self-help built housing for at least 200 families in California. Educational programs in the counties of Sutter, Yuba, Tulare, Merced, Kern, Yolo, Kings, Stanislaus and Santa Clara represent curriculum in adult education, preschool education and day care activities. While the above named programs represent a meaningful start in services to residents of rural areas, it is my opinion that these programs, provided for by funds from the Economic Opportunity Act, have not dealt in depth with rural needs. The major emphasis in the Economic Opportunity Act has been towards alleviating the probems or residents of urban areas. In California today we have a desperate need for programs directed towards eliminating the major problems of underemployment, unemployment, solutions to rural housing problems and related elements in the areas of sanitation. We have, for example, in California, approximately 20,000 rural families who have no source of water supply and are forced to carry domestic water in buckets, cans or other containers and in many instances are transporting water for as much as 20 miles. We feel that a major emphasis must be placed upon problems of the rural poor. These people, generally, have no advocate for their needs. Sincerely, THERON J. BELL, Director. STATE OF FLORIDA, Tallahassee, June 27, 1967. Hon. JOSEPH Y. RESNICK, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN RESNICK: In regard to the effect of recently enacted federal programs on rural America, the State of Florida does not as yet have sufficient research information to adequately evaluate changes brought about by these programs. As figures will substantiate, urban areas have had resources and qualified persons to actively solicit and absorb federal funds. This has occurred in some isolated instances before rural areas had knowledge of existing programs. By the time rural areas "geared up" to apply for federal funds, these funds had long since been allocated to the metropolitan areas. Another problem confronting rural areas is that of financial limitations necessary to meet the demands for matching funds. Areas having the greatest need for funds are often the ones deprived. Consequently, rural areas having a high priority need for federal funds are often excluded. The statement has been made that 46% of the poverty is in rural areas, but that only 15% of OEO funds have gone to rural America. As a specific example, in twenty-two of our rural North Florida counties there are eight community action agencies and with the exception of Summer Head Start Programs, only two of the counties have received grants, (one each) in addition to Conduct and Administration funding. Federal programs which provide greater opportunities for job training for rural people probably have been most helpful in widening opportunities. Funds made available from the various pieces of legislation dealing with training and education have been very useful in encouraging rural youth to continue training. This includes loans and grants to students for higher education. In some cases the vocational training programs have enabled people to obtain more gainful employment locally, and in others, out-migration has resulted. Society has gained in either situation. An hypothesis is that mass migration to overpopulated metropolitan areas is caused by advanced automation and mechanization of farming operations which eliminates job opportunities in rural America. As a general observation. I believe our rural problems are of a rapidly changing nature and are likely to intensify rather than diminish over the next few years. Considerable proportions of Florida's rural youth quit their home areas for non-farm employment not by choice but of necessity. If industry were widely dispersed, out-county and out-state migration would lessen. There seems to be sufficient evidence from surveys to conclude that young people would not migrate if employment were available in their home areas. The beneficial effects of social stability and economic growth are unquestioned. The broader authorities which have been granted the Farmers Home Administration and the Small Business Administration through their regular programs and through cooperative arrangements with OEO have been most helpful. However, the $3,500 limit established by FHA to farmers of low income is inadequate for today's modern farming operations. Rural housing is also involved with manpower requirements. In certain citrus and vegetable areas, because of the inability to obtain first class transient labor, it is necessary for growers to utilize offshore labor at peak harvest seasons. Perhaps this situation is amenable to resolution. Many people with ability in low-income rural areas of the United States are often seasonally underemployed. It is realistic to believe that they may be encouraged to migrate to higher income areas if (1) they could migrate as families (2) they could live in homes which are conducive to dignity and self-esteem and (3) if earnings from employment were fundamentally attractive. Coordinated federal and state programs would be necessary to provide the impetus for this transitional development. The need for attention to housing in rural areas appears in quite another area. One deterrent in rural development is the "freezing" of retirees on farm consolidation; hence effective land-use is foregone. Many retirees permit their farms to decline to total disuse because of institutional restrictions. Sponsorship could be encouraged for certain small-scale retirement housing developments in critical rural areas. A rural retiree could then sell his farm, using the proceeds to acquire a home elsewhere. Possibly, a rural public housing authority may have to be created. Digressing for a moment, one solution to difficult rural housing problems may be for the Federal Government to delegate authority to local banks to handle and disburse federal funds for low-cost rural housing. This matter may require further study. The programs of housing, welfare and rehabilitation obviously have not been utilized to the same extent in rural areas as has been done in urban areas. An exception to this is the Medicare Program which has received wide acceptance by rural residents and is of inestimable benefit to them. In more concrete terms, the Medicare Program has done much to relieve anxiety previously noted among some of our older rural residents. One adverse effect of the Great Society programs is a certain measure of uncertainty introduced by social legislation. One major minority group is rapidly disappearing from the rural scene, but a degree of anxiety persists. In general sociologists are of the opinion that public action programs must be defined in terms of traditional values and beliefs shared in common by the people effected. There is a need to utilize the services of persons able to carry out programs on a neighborhood basis, where the felt needs of people are rooted in the social and psychological setting of the home. An often voiced comment is that some of the Great Society programs, particularly the anti-poverty ones, tend to ignore these basic cultural approaches. As a more positive approach, far greater progress could have been made in most of the south and particularly in Florida if the Federal agencies had been willing to let local people implement these programs in a manner compatible with local goals and objectives. It is not inferred that local communities in the south should be permitted to violate the Civil Rights Act or to conduct programs in a discriminatory manner. Radical viewpoints of both segregationists and integrationists should not be permited to neutralize worthwhile programs. In order to achieve constructive, cooperative, voluntary work by responsible citizens in many southern communities there must be an understanding of local conditions by program administrators. There exists a great need for more flexible policies and closer interagency cooperation. It is worthy to note that you are conducting a series of hearings concerning rural America. It is sincerely hoped that the participants will not be limited to those who necessarily concur in present federal policies. Let us hope that some who feel the need for more local direction of these programs will have an opportunity to participate. Actually, in my opinion these rural programs should be designed to coincide with comprehensive state plans relating to the total needs and economic development of a state. In closing, I regret that Florida at this time has no criteria to measure the impact of recently enacted federal programs on rural America, but I trust my comments may prove helpful. Sincerely, CLAUDE KIRK, Governor. EXECTIVE CHAMBERS, Hon. JOSEPH Y. RESNICK, Member of Congress, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN RESNICK: Governor Burns has asked me to respond to your letter of May 31, 1967, as he is presently away from the State. We enclose testimony from the following State Departments: 1. Department of Planning & Economic Development 2. Department of Agriculture 3. Department of Health 4. Hawaii Office of Economic Opportunity 5. Department of Education We regret not being able to be present to offer testimony, but we appreciate the opportunity to do so in writing. Sincerely yours, MYRON B. THOMPSON, Enclosures. MEMORANDUM of Department of PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT HONOLULU, HAWAII, June 20, 1967. To: Mr. Myron B. Thompson, Administrative Director, Office of the Governor. From: Shelley M. Mark. Subject: Letter from Congressman Joseph Resnick dated May 13, 1967. Attached are comments regarding our financial assistance programs which relate to our direct participation in Great Society programs in rural areas of Hawaii. Additionally, we are involved in the planning aspects of some of the Great Society programs cited in Congressman Resnick's letter, although implementation of our planning actually involves many other State agencies. These other agencies, will, no doubt, comment specifically on the effects that these Great Society programs are having on rural America. Should you or any of the other State agencies require statistical data relating to our rural areas, we would be glad to furnish whatever data that we have developed. STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS I. Economic Development Administration Program The Economic Development Administration which was formely the Area Redevelopment Administration has been of considerable assistance to the development of rural and underdeveloped areas in the State of Hawaii. The County of Hawaii has been designated a redevelopment area under this program. Two resort hotel developments were made possible because of Economic Development Administration loans. These two resort developments added a total of 100 new rooms to the hotel inventory in the rural area of Kona, Hawaii. This has not been the complete extent of the development because the developers have already indicated their intentions to expand their operations because operations have progressed so well. The 100 new rooms provided job opportunities for approximately 125 employees, which added over one-third of a million dollars to the payroll of that area. Another Economic Development project is in the construction of a sewer system in the Kailua-Kona area. The Economic Development Administration played a prominent role by providing 50 per cent of the financing of this project. Prior to the construction of the sewer system, this prime resort area was faced with a severe pollution problem. The contamination was so great that the Health Department banned any future construction in this area until the situation was corrected. After the sewer system was constructed the following additions were made to the hotel inventory in this area: expansion of the King Kamehameha Hotel, expansion of the Kona Inn, the construction of the 200-room Kona Hilton Hotel, an expansion of the Hilo Hukilau, the construction of the Kona Plantation Hotel, the construction of the Kona Tradewinds Hotel, and numerous other business esthe construction of the Kona Tradewinds Hotel, and numerous other business establishments. II. Small Business Administration Financial Assistance Programs Federal funds have played an important role in providing the financing for promising businesses which are unable to obtain financing through the normal private financial channels. These business concerns were granted loans which might not have otherwise been made from other sources. The business. concerns have been able to add to their resources much needed working capital as well as the ability to increase their inventories, retire high-cost indebtedness, and construct new or expanded facilities. In practically every case an increase in the number of employees and a more profitable and efficient business resulted. This program has benefited the economic growth of Hawaii. The Federal financial assistance programs have also been very important by providing the necessary means for cooperation among the various segments of the business community, the banking community, and local groups. The cooperation of these various groups along with the assistance of the Small Business Administration and State governmental agencies has enabled the program to progress so far as it has. Small business concerns in all of the counties of the State have received benefits from the Federal loan program. With few exceptions, all of these loans have been in participation with the Small Business Administration. During the period 1964-66 the Small Business Administration has provided loan funds of $1,003,950. These loans have paved the way for additional loan funds from the State government totaling $514,200 and the banks have been induced to make loans of $240,850. This is a clear indication that the impact of Federal loan funds have generated additional funds to aid Hawaii's hard-pressed small businessmen. III. Local Development Companies Another aspect of the Federal financial assistance programs relates to local development companies. This program is highly beneficial because it involves a broad base of community participation in assisting small businessmen in the area. The involvement of local residents in a business project makes them cognizant of the needs of small business and the important role that they play in the welfare of the community. So far, six loans have been made to local development companies. The Small Business Administration has provided $1,816,400 to these local development companies. This Federal assistance brought in additional financing of $264,700 from the State government as well as $100,600 from banks and over $400,000 from the local residents and other sources. The numerous parties involved make for a highly complex relationship among all the strata of the community. However, the results have been so startingly beneficial that strong impetus has been given to the formation of other local development companies which have not yet take advantage of this Federal program. One particular project on the Island of Kauai bears special note. The town of Kapa, Kauai suffered a severe setback several years ago by the closing of one of its most important companies, the Hawaiian Canneries Co., which processed pineapple. Other means of generating income had to be found and tourism was determined to be one of the greater potentials. A small contractor with very limited resources had visions of building a resort in a very attractive area adjoining a beach. However, with limited resources, he was not able to get anywhere. The possibility of forming a local development company was proposed by the Small Business Administration official and the town's businessmen and resi82-388-67-55 dents jumped at this chance of being able to finance a resort operation with a minimum investment. The culmination of this endeavor is the near completion of a 72-unit polynesian type hotel complete with a dining room and modern kitchen facilities. The hotel will be opened for business very soon. MEMORANDUM To: Mr. Myron B. Thompson, Administrative Director. JUNE 16, 1967. Subject: Congressman Resnick's Letters of May 13 and 31, 1967, Re Effect of Great Society Programs on Rural America This department is not directly involved with implementation of the Great Society programs. However, through our Farm Loan Division we are working very closely with the USDA Farmers Home Administration in assisting and encouraging the farmers and farmer cooperatives to obtain credit under the Economic Opportunity Act. We understand from the FHA that a number of the Kona coffee farmers have benefited from loans made under provisions of the EOA. These loans are nominal, with loans for home improvement limited to those on fee simple land. It is believed that this program would have greater impact if Hawaii's unique land tenure situation were taken into consideration and leasehold tenants could also qualify. KENNETH K. OTAGAKI, Chairman, Board of Agriculture. JUNE 19, 1967. Hon. JOHN A. BURNS, Honolulu, Hawaii. DEAR GOVERNOR BURNS: In response to your memorandum of June 5, 1967 I have reviewed Congressman Joseph Y. Resnick's letters of May 13 and 31, 1967, concerning the effects recently enacted federal aid programs are having on our rural communities. Not only recently enacted federal health programs but continued and often increased financial funding for the older health programs have brought benefits to the rural portions of our State. These programs cover many health subjects such as the control of cancer, the chronic diseases, tuberculosis, venereal diseases, heart disease, radiological exposures and water pollution. They also include the promotion of dental health and mental health and the provision of services for the mentally retarded. The financial support provided to the State by the Federal government for these programs has made it possible for the Department to bring their benefits to every rural resident of the State. I recommend that Mr. Resnick's Subcommittee on Rural Development be urged to support the continuation of federal aid for health programs. Very sincerely, WALTER B. QUISENBERRY, M.D., STATE OF HAWAII, HAWAII OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, Re request from Congressman Joseph Y. Resnick. Office of the Governor, Iolani Palace, Honolulu, Hawaii. DEAR MR. THOMPSON: The poverty program in the State of Hawaii has been very active in the rural areas. The majority of the Head Start classes are in the rural areas of this State. Most of the poverty target areas are in the rural areas with a heavy concentration of the Community Action Program there. On each of |
