opment, and hopefully, and where indicated develop governmental programs to express these same advantages nationwide. We do not want to turn our rural areas into cities, nor to turn our cities into ghost towns. The ideal we are looking for is somewhere in between. A gallup poll of Americans in 1966 showed that 60 percent preferred city or suburban living, while 49 percent preferred living in small towns or on farms. The poll indicates that our population would naturally distribute itself evenly across the land if economic considerations did not influence them to jam together in cities. It is an ideal that is attainable with well-placed Federal investments. If we can invest more Federal effort in constructive, comprehensive programs rather than narrow stopgap measures we can achieve far greater quality of life in both towns and cities. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate you and our witnesses and other members of the committee for the great interest you have in this subject, and I look forward to working with you. I believe we can accomplish the goal we all have in mind. Senator HUMPHREY. Thank you, Senator. (The prepared statement of Senator Bellmon follows:) Mr. Chairman, there is no subject confronting the Nation and the Senate that will have a greater impact on the future of our country than rural development. An idea of the importance of rural development can be gained from a look out the windows of this building across the slums of this city where thousands of once rural people live in squalor. Had this Nation followed an intelligent, conscious and effective program of rural development during the past thirty years, Washington and sections of most other cities of this Nation would not today virtually be ungovernable, unlivable, and unproductive. The problem arose when the agricultural revolution began to replace men with machines. Lacking jobs in agriculture and failing to find off-the-farm employment close to their homes, rural people had no choice but to leave their homes and head for the cities. They came not willingly or by choice, but because in most cases they had no choice but to move or starve. An alert and visionary government would have realized that a massive social and economic dislocation was under way. Great human suffering and great present and future costs could have been averted had timely action been taken to generate off-farm job opportunities before massive population shifts occurred. These changes continued and even though our efforts are 30 to 40 years tardy, they must be undertaken and they must succeed. The most pressing long-range domestic question facing the country is how to prepare for the roughly 50% increase in our population which is expected by or soon after the year 2000. If current job development trends continue, these 100 million new Americans will be jammed together in urban complexes which are neither pleasant places to live nor productive places to work. A trip across this country will quicky show that there are still vast undeveloped open spaces with abundant life support elements available which can beneficially accommodate a greater population. The missing element is economic opportunity. Better incomes from the land and more off-farm jobs will quickly bring the people to where the good life is-devising a plan for such development is the job of this Committee, and I am confident we can meet the challenge. Today, Mr. Chairman, we have 70% of our population living on 1% of our land area. Our major cities are splitting their seams. Still, the rural to urban shift continues because our cities are where the jobs are, where the health services are, where housing in the broadest price ranges is, where the cultural centers are. Our cities are where the action is-such as it is. But much of the action these days is coming in negative terms-pollution, tension, crime, traffic jams, drug abuse, crowded and unhealthy living conditions. Our government must play a major role in developing the untapped potential of rural America because sewing up the seams of our bulging cities is costing us an exorbitant tailor's fee. As an example, more than a billion dollars in federal tax dollars is being spent to ease the problem of traffic congestion and automobile pollution in Washington, D.C., through construction of a metropolitan subway system. That single stitching job is costing more than the annual budgets of 29 state governments for all services to their residents. The Federal Government last year spent $7.3 billion on apprehension and prosecution of criminals. New York State, alone, received more than a billion dollars of the amount, largely due to the 300,000 reported crimes in New York City last year. The Justice Department reports the fast-growing metropolitan suburbs are now suffering fast-rising increases in crime rates. Last year, crime in suburbia increased 15%. The rebuilding effort of our cities is running up a big bill for Uncle Sam, too. In fiscal 1970, the Federal Government spent more than $1 billion to help finance urban renewal projects. The fact is, Americans are paying dearly trying to hold the line on problems of the cities, but they are losing ground. Those problems are not going to be solved, they are going to get worse, unless we develop programs to more evenly distribute our population, which means redistributing economic opportunities. President Nixon has proposed that through revenue sharing a number of improvements be made in the quality of rural life. He has provided a dramatic increase in funds for major improvements in rural water and sewer facilities and better rural housing. He has provided for better rural transportation systems, and improved funding for rural electric and telephone systems. He has proposed expanding and improving rural health services. The President has indicated that improving the quality of life will lead to economic development of rural America. I support the President's proposals. But I am convinced that rural economic development will have to take place first for the other improvements to follow. Economic development will not necessarily follow the other improvements. Without jobs in rural America, rural houses, water systems, telephones, and sewers will be little used. In my home state of Oklahoma, the number of farms is rapidly declining, from 106,000 in 1960 to an expected 90,000 this year. Small farms are dying out because the income derived from them is not enough to adequately support an average family, unless there is off-the-farm income. Nationwide, there are 50% fewer people living on farms today then there were 20 years ago, even though the Nation's population has increased by nearly 33% in the same period. A young man needs only to consider his earning potential in rural America today, and he looks longingly to the city. Even though the average income for farmers is swelled by the earnings of our Nation's few agri-millionaires, the average farm household income today is $2,405 less than income for non-farm households. After production expenses are paid, Oklahoma farmers average$2,800 net income. This is not even a fair return on their average investment with nothing for labor income. We are not going to keep anybody down on the farm, we are not going to entice urban dwellers to come out to the farm, unless good income are available. As the situation now stands, most farmers who can't make an adequate living on the land have no opportunity to take on additional work, because no other type of work is available. And in too many instances, farm families live in poverty because the head of the household is not trained for any other type of work. The quality of rural life will not be improved unless we develop a program to encourage better agricultural incomes and make availabe more sources of off-the-farm income outside the urban areas. The quality of rural life, as well as the quality of urban life will not beimproved unless we remedy two causes of rural exodus. First, we must develop conditions which will lead to increased farm income and, second, we must create conditions favorable to the development of more sources of non-farm income outside urban areas. When these goals are met, rural development can and will follow. Farm incomes can be improved in two ways: Reduce production costs or improve selling prices of farm commodities. The average net income of an Oklahoma farmer is now about $2,800. His average gross income is more than $12,000, meaning about 4 of his income goes for production expenses. We can help farmers cut down on production costs and increase net income closer to the farms where they are produced. This will provide better prices and increase off-farm jobs and income. For instance there is no reason why meat processing and breaking plants cannot operate close to livestock producing areas thereby providing better livestock prices and rural jobs. There are many similar examples. Secondly, we must support substantial investments by the Federal Government in pest control research. Millions of agricultural dollars are lost every year when crops are destroyed by such costly pests as the boll weevil, fire ants, corn borer, gypsy moth, green bugs, and pecan weevil. Millions more are expended in costly controls. These dollars can be saved and added to the profit side of the agricultural income ledger. Third, a meanful rural development program should include the creation of an effective disaster relief program complimented by a workable plan of crop insurance. There can be no protection against the whims of nature, but an effective disaster relief program that will get aid to distressed farmers quickly in times of serious drought, flood, or storm, will help stabilize the farm economy and prevent an out-migration from rural areas during times of trouble. Improving farm incomes will help stop some of the out-migration to the cities, but not all of it, and it won't attract urban dwellers to the rural areas. A national rural development program must encourage industries to locate their plants in rural areas. This can be done through tax incentives and by giving these plants first priority in the awarding of government contracts. Further development of rural manpower training and retraining programs to insure a qualified labor force is needed. Young men who can receive training and a good job in their home area will be less likely to move to the city, solely for economic reasons. Urban residents who find there are good job opportunities outside the city will no longer hesitate to relocate in more desirable living areas. More rural jobs can also be created through development of great recreational potential of rural America. Natural lakes and forests developed into recreational centers can provide substantial incomes to rural people employed to manage them. And great influxes of vacationers can create a market for small business services which would bring additional revenue. Rural development would be facilitated by establishment in each county of a rural development office and rural development council to guide development according to an orderly plan, rather than in piecemeal fashion. Present service offices of the United States Department of Agriculture are too limited in resources and in areas of responsibility to fully meet current needs. We do not want to turn our rural areas into cities, nor do we want to turn our cities into ghost towns. The ideal we are looking for is somewhere in between. A Gallup Poll of Americans in 1966 showed 50% preferred city or suburban living, while 49% preferred living in small towns or on farms. The poll indicates that our population would naturally distribute itself evenly across the land if economic considerations did not influence them to join together in cities. It is an ideal, that is attainable with well-placed Federal investments. If we can invest more Federal effort in constructive comprehensive programs rather than in narrow stop-gap measures we can achieve a far greater quality of life in both town and country. There are many examples throughout this Nation where rural development is working. Generally, such development involves an industry, frequently home-grown, an enlightened city government that has provided the support services upon which growth depends, a motivated work force which is eager to produce competitively, a modern, efficient transportation and communication system, financial institutions able and willing to take the risk involved in supplying needed funds for job development, and a stable rural community which supplies recreational opportunity, desirable living space, and a reservoir of motivated trainable workers. The Committee needs to examine these examples and discover lessons that can be applied nationwide. I look forward with keen anticipation to the success of our efforts. Senator CURTIS. I have here a short statement of Senator Miller I would like placed in the record. Senator HUMPHREY. It will be placed in the record at the appropriate place. (The statement is as follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. JACK MILLER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA Mr. Chairman, I deeply regret that prior commitments in my home state of Iowa prevent my being in attendance as the subcommittee's hearings on the problems of rural development in general and S. 1612, of which I am the principal sponsor, in particular begin. S. 1612 is the so-called "Administration bill" on rural development revenue sharing. It was introduced on Wednesday, April 21, and my own statement along with that of the President and the Secretary of Agriculture, and also additional supporting data, will be found commencing at page S5250 of the Congressional Record for that date. I hope that the members of the subcommittee will carefully review these materials. I know of no single activity of any subcommittee which can have a greater bearing on balanced growth and development of our population than the activity of this subcommittee in these hearings and the legislation it proposes. For years, many of us from states having substantial rural populations have witnessed) with dismay the exodus of hundreds of thousands of people from rural America into cities, seeking jobs and opportunities for their families. A major part of the problem of the cities is the congestion which such a shift in population has produced. Our calls for action to stem and, hopefully, reverse the tide went unheeded. Now, for the first time in history, the President of the United States has not only recognized what we must do but has sent to the Congress a program of action which, in my judgment, merits our most urgent and favorable attention. Rural development revenue sharing is a new concept which can go a long way towards making rural America a better place to live and a place where people can find job opportunities for themselves and their children as they come out of the high schools and colleges. Perhaps of equal importance, the decisions to be made toward this goal will be transferred to the state and local level where the people themselves will have a greater voice in their destiny. Senator HUMPHREY. For the information of our witnesses, we will proceed at once. We are also asking a very broad review of all legislative activity and administrative action over many years to be prepared by the Library of Congress Legislative Reference Service for our purposes here to give us background information which will help us later on for purposes of interrogation and hopefully some legislation. Second, we are asking the Senators and Representatives to give us information from their States as to what has happened within their States, and third, from the Governors. We sometimes feel that a Federal representative may take a little different point of view than a State official. So that will all be made part of our record, since we are searching at this stage for information and for some answers. (Additional information submitted for the record is as follows:) WASHINGTON, D.C., April 14, 1971. To: Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry; Attention: Mr. Mike McLeod. From: Frances Goldberg, Analyst in Agriculture, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. Subject: Rural development legislation introduced in the 91st and 92d Congresses. Enclosed is a list of bills pertaining to rural development which were introduced in the 91st and 92d Congresses with brief descriptions of each. Bills for the 91st Congress are not file at the Library, but copies of those available for the 92d Congress are enclosed, as are reports for both Congresses. Introductory remarks for bills from the 91st Congress are difficult to track down but page numbers for substantial introductory remarks for bills introduced RURAL DEVELOPMENT LEGISLATION INTRODUCED IN THE 91ST AND 92D CONGRESSES 91ST CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION House bills— H.R. 7-Amends the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 by establishing a rural telephone account in the United States Treasury. Mr. Poage House Ag. Cmte. H. Rept. 91-101. H.R. 81-Same as H.R. 7. Mr. Anderson (Tenn.) House Ag. Cmte. H.R. 99-Provides income tax incentives and other benefits for employers operating certain industrial or commercial enterprises in rural areas. Mr. Anderson (Tenn.) House Ways and Means Cmte. H.R. 101-To extend rural postal delivery service to the entire rural popula tion of the U.S. without regard to the number of families residing in a specified area. Mr. Andrews (N.D.) Post Office and Civil Service Cmte. H.R. 243-To establish community development corporations, community de velopment banks and supporting programs. Mr. Karth-Ways and Means Cmte. H.R. 332-To encourage the preservation and revitalization of America's human and natural resources in the non-urban sections of the country. Mr. RandallWays and Means Cmte. H.R. 395-To provide that the definition of rural area under title V of the Housing Act of 1949 include: open country and communities of not over 5,500 population that are within the expanded boundaries of cities and towns. Mr. Bennett-Banking and Currency Cmte. H.R. 526-To authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to provide, under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act: Federal grants to localities for the construction of multi-purpose water management projects to insure high water quality standards on smaller rivers and streams; and Federal grants to localities for the maintenance of reserve water supplies to allow future industrial or community growth. Mr. Pirnie-House Ag. Cmte. H.R. 1077-To provide income tax incentives and other benefits for employers operating certain industrial or commercial enterprises in rural job development areas. H.R. 1182-To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to cooperate with State officials to provide for preventing and suppressing structural and wild fires in rural areas. To authorize annual Federal financial assistance for program. Mr. Hull-House Ag. Cmte. H.R. 1380-Same as H.R. 99. Mr. Tunney-Ways and Means Cmte. H.R. 2771-To make it clear that each community is to be considered a separate entity in determining whether its population qualifies it as a "rural area" for purposes of assistance under the farm housing program. Mr. Hathaway-Banking and Currency Cmte. H.R. 3679-Same as H.R. 1077. Mr. Mize-Ways and Means Cmte. H.R. 3812-To authorize the making or insuring of recreational enterprise loans under the Consolidated Farmers Home Administration Act to individuals, corporations and other business organizations, and local public bodies. Mr. O'Konski— House Ag. Cmte. H.R. 4020-Same as H.R. 7. Mr. Kleppe-House Ag. Cmte. H.R. 4036-Same as H.R. 101. Mr. Skubitz-Post Office and Civil Service Cmte. H.R. 4192-Same as H.R. 7. Mr. O'Konski-House Ag. Cmte. H.R. 4219-To provide income tax incentives and other benefits for employers · operating certain industrial or commercial enterprises in rural job development areas Mr. Zwach-Ways and Means Cmte. H.R. 6018-Same as H.R. 526. Mr. Horton-House Ag. Cmte. H.R. 6738-Same as H.R. 243. Mr. Brock-Ways and Means Cmte. H.R. 7013-To establish a rural telephone account in the U.S. Treasury and to provide supplemental financing for rural telephone programs. Mr. McMillanHouse Ag. Cmte. H.R. 7018-To provide income tax incentives and other benefits for employers operating certain industrial or commercial enterprises in rural job development areas. Mr. Olsen-Ways and Means Cmte. H.R. 7073-Same as H.R. 7013. Mr. Teague (Calif.)-House Ag. Cmte. H.R. 7872-Same as H.R. 7. Mr. Hathaway-House Ag. Cmte. H.R. 7883-To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to cooperate with State officials to provide for the establishment of effective methods for preventing and controlling fires in rural areas. Mr. Hull-House Ag. Cmte. |