Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

2 percent of our national bounty to wiping out the misery that afflicts 25 percent of our people. We not only can-we should and we must.

The 1960 census showed that 1 out of 4 of our rural families are living in homes that are either deteriorated or so rundown they are classified as dilapidated. One-third do not even have complete plumbing.

Around every large city there are rural slums or "shack towns." The Congress has wisely extended the title V housing loan program of the Farmers Home Administration to residents of these areas. We would hasten to point out, however, that these loans are of little or no benefit because the residents do not have the ability to meet regular payments on such loans or to pay rent in the amount required to pay the cost of decent housing.

What is needed in these areas is a grant program of sufficient proportion to (1) eliminate substandard housing, (2) install proper sewage facilities, and (3) provide adequate plumbing.

During the 1960's we have seen the expansion of the lending program begun under title V of the Housing Act of 1949. The Farmers Home Administration has administered the program aggressively and is doing all that is possible under the authority and within the funds provided to the agency by Congress.

Setting a ceiling of $300 million a year on the amount of loans made under section 502 does not begin to meet the need that exists. We are confident that this agency could loan many times this amount.

The rural housing loan program, as administered by the Farmers Home Administration, has been spectacularly successful. Under this program some 80,000 families have received about $650 million to help build or modernize their homes and farm buildings. These are families who were unable to obtain credit for their housing needs from private credit sources.

The deliquency rate has been extremely low and losses have been negligible. The foreclosures rate has been only about one per thousand loans made. Losses have been only about two one-hundredths of 1 percent of the amount loaned.

With a program as phenomenally successful as this has been, we respectfully suggest that it makes sense to provide the agency with the funds to meet the need that exists without limitation or ceiling.

The proposed insured loan program which section 502 (a) of title V would establish, is designed to take the pressure off the Federal budget. However, we are opposed to going this route if it means that interest rates would be raised.

Since these loans are restricted to persons who are unable to obtain loans for housing on reasonable terms from private sources we, therefore, firmly believe that there is complete and adequate justification for making Federal moneys available for such loans if for no other reason than to keep interest rates at a minimum amount.

We can see no consistency with the war on poverty in an insured loan program in which the interest rate would be raised to this kind of borrower.

A massive program of loans and grants for housing in rural America is a vital part of other programs which are carried on in the rural area development programs and ARA programs already underway to recapitalize rural America.

These loans and grants have the highly desirable effect of stimulating economic growth across the board in rural areas. This growth,

30-944-64-62

of course, will help to alleviate unemployment and is a further step toward the goal of full employment.

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate very much the effort of this committee over the years to assist farm families in their goal for decent housing. We have the full cooperation of Farmers Union as you work to enact a good housing bill this year.

We strongly urge you to go as far as you possibly can in providing the funds, both loans and grants, to make a massive attack on inadequate and substandard housing in rural America. This must be done if we are going to eliminate poverty and move toward the goal of a decent home for each person in rural America.

While our specific comments have been toward improvements needed in title V, we repeat what we said at the outset: We are in full support of provisions of the bill which would upgrade housing and help eliminate poverty in city and urban areas.

Thank you very much for the privilege of appearing before the committee.

Senator SPARKMAN. Mr. Johnson, you mentioned this report on pockets of poverty. How big a report is that? How lengthy is it?

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, it is approximately 20 mimeographed pages, I believe. It is quiet lengthy. If you would prefer, I would be very happy to file it with the staff and make it accessible, therefore, to the members of the committee.

Senator BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if they could supply enough copies so each member of the subcommittee could have a copy? Mr. JOHNSON. I will be very happy to do that, Senator Bennett. Senator SPARKMAN. Are those mimeographed pages double spaced? Mr. JOHNSON. I believe they are, yes, sir.

Senator SPARKMAN. Why not submit it for the committee's files. We can have the record include a summary analysis of the report and refer to the fact that the full report may be found in the committee's files.

(The summary analysis of the report follows:)

REPORT OF NATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE ON POCKETS OF POVERTY (UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE FARMERS EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.) RE POVERTY IN AMERICA

The national policy committee on pockets of poverty today issued a report "Poverty in America". The report has been reviewed and approved for release by the committee as an official document. "Poverty in America" was prepared for the national policy committee on pockets of poverty by Dr. Oscar Ornati, a member of the committee and professor of economics of the graduate faculty of the new school for social research. The analyses and tabulations contained in the report are drawn, in part, from a 3-year study on poverty which Dr. Ornati has directed under the sponsorship of the 20th century fund.

The national policy committee on pockets of poverty was established in 1961 by its chairman, James G. Patton, president of the National Farmers Union and includes on its roster of 34 members (attached) Former President Truman, three Nobel Prize winners and prominent educators, economists, political scientists, sociologists and business and professional leaders drawn from every region of the country.

The committee issued the following summary analysis of the report's principal findings:

"1. Poverty is no longer a condition which strikes all kinds of individuals but rather tends to characterize the great majority of individuals in certain large poverty-linked groups. If a family is in one of these groups, the probabilities are that it will be poor regardless of how poverty is defined. Poverty is revealed to be the usual product of certain social, economic, and geographical

conditions. For a family with such poverty-linked characteristics, rare escapes from poverty require the unusual combination of great ability, hard work, good luck, and an exceptionally prosperous economy.

"The study shows that although 1 out of 8 of the Nation's total number of families had a cash income in 1960 below the extremely meager level of $2,000, the proportion rises to 1 out of 3 in the case of—

"(a) Nonwhite families;

"(b) Families headed by a female;

"(c) Families 65 years of age or over;

"(d) Rural farm families;

"(e) Families with less than 8 years' education; or

"(f) Families whose head has had at most only part-time work experience. "If poverty is defined as embracing families with incomes of less than $4,500— which is only moderately above what is generally regarded as necessary to maintain standards of minimum adequacy-more than 2 out of 3 of the families with the above characteristics would be defined as poor.

"2. Where a family has not merely one but two or more of these characteristics, the probability of poverty is overwhelming. Thus 3 out of 4 families which have the following combinations of characteristics have total cash incomes of less than $4,500:

"(a) Nonwhite families with a female as head of the family;

"(b) Aged families living on the farm;

"(c) Aged Negro families living anywhere;

"(d) Negro farm families;

"(e) Farm families headed by female.

"3. Because of the rapid increase and changing composition of the population, the number of families in most of these groups already constitutes significant proportions of our society. And on the basis of current trends, their number can be expected to increase both absolutely and relatively.

"Thus, in 1960 9.5 percent of all American families were nonwhite. By 1980 this proportion is expected to increase to 11.2 percent, a gain of 18 percent. Similarly, families where the head is 25 years or younger in 1960 constituted 5.1 percent of the total number of families. By 1980 this is expected to rise to 8.2 percent, an increase of 60 percent. An even greater percentage change is expected for families with six or more children under 18. Presently they represent only 2.5 percent of the total number of families; by 1980 they are expected to increase to 4.2 percent, a gain of 68 percent. The only poverty-associated group which is expected to show a significant decline is rural families. This, of course, is the expected result of the further mechanization and centralization of agriculture. Most of these migrations from the farm will thus be involuntary, and instead of providing an offset to the incidence of poverty, they will merely shift its locale from the farm to the city.

"4. Although there is, of course, some difference in definitions, authorities appear to be in general agreement as to the existence of three levels of poverty which, in terms of a family of four, are:

(1) Minimum subsistence..

(2) Minimum adequacy(3) Minimum comfort..

Cash income
per year
$2,500
3, 500
5, 500

"In 1960 there were 20 million individuals in families whose cash income fell below the 'minimum subsistence' level; there were 46 million in families which fell below the 'minimum adequacy' level and 70 million in families which fell below the 'minimum confort' level. These already represent sizable proportions of our population. Thus, 1 out of every 10 Americans exists in a condition of abject poverty, below subsistence standards; almost 1 out of every 4 Americans exists below adequate standards, with only the bare essentials of life; more than 1 out of every 3 Americans lives below the level of minimum comfort." The committee emphasized that any effective program of public policies designed to deal with the poverty problem must come to grips with underlying economic trends which fall with particular force on various of the povertyassociated groups and which, if they are permitted to continue, could make the situation in 1980 even more serious than has been projected in this report. Committee Chairman James G. Patton commented on the special problems of rural poverty, of the aged, and of young people entering the labor market: "The current widespread rural poverty is largely a product of (a) the increased cost of farming owing to rising prices of farm machinery, fertilizer, steel wire and the other essentials of agricultural production, and (b) the de

cline which has taken place in the farmer's share of the consumer's food dollar. With reference to (a), prices paid by farmers between 1953 and 1963 rose 11.6 percent; prices received by farmers declined by 4.8 percent. In regard to (b), farmers in 1953 received 44 percent of the consumer's food dollar; today the proportion has fallen to 36 percent, a decline of 18 percent. Again, there is no sign on the horizon of a reversal of these underlying poverty-producing trends in rural America.

"The plight of the older people is due in considerable part to the erosion of the value of their pensions and annuities by the continuing long-term increase which has taken place in the price level. The increase in the cost of living has caused an annual pension which was worth $2,000 in 1953 to be worth, in terms of effective buying power, only $1,748 in 1963. If the cost of living continues to move upward-as it gives every sign of doing-there will be a corresponding increase in the number of older people unable to secure the elemental necessities of food, drugs, and medical care.

"The plight of still another group-young people just coming into the labor market-has been greatly aggravated by the recent rapid increase which has taken place in industrial productivity. It is a little known fact that while the physical volume of total manufacturing output increased by more than 33 percent during the last decade, there was an actual decrease in manufacturing employment, which fell from 17,549,000 workers in 1953 to 17,036,000 workers in 1963. Moreover, the increase in productivity resulting from ‘automation' has been particularly pronounced during the last 2 or 3 years. The expected continuation of this increase in productivity, while affecting workers of all ages, will fall with particular force upon young people without work experience just entering the labor market."

Mr. Patton also made the following observation on the heavy incidence of poverty among nonwhites:

"The poverty of Negro and other nonwhite families is the heritage of more than a century of discrimination. The passage of the civil rights bill now before the Senate would remove some of the barriers to their social and economic betterment, and their chances of escaping from poverty would be accordingly improved. But this is by no means enough. It will take far-reaching Federal economic measures to bring about sufficient improvement in the status of Negro families to permit their full enjoyment of the rights and opportunities of American citizenship."

Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you very much, gentlemen. We appreciate your presentation. I appreciate the interest you have always shown in good housing for rural America.

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, we are very grateful, indeed, for the leadership that you have given to the housing programs that have been enacted by the Congress over the years, and your counterparts in the House from Alabama, like Bob Jones, always have been stalwart in behalf of rural housing. We appreciate it.

Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you very much.

Next, we have Mr. Harold Wise, chairman of the Legislative Committee, American Institute of Planners, and Mr. Robert Williams, the executive director. Gentlemen, we are glad to have both of you. Mr. WISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SPARKMAN. May I say that Mr. Bosley, the administrative assistant of Senator Engle, of California, came to the committee room and wanted to be here to introduce Mr. Wise as a California attorney and from Philadelphia and California. But, unfortunately, he had to leave, so we will let the record show that he was here for that purpose. Gentlemen, we are glad to have you. We have your statement. You proceed as you see fit.

Mr. WISE. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. I am accompanied by Robert Williams, who is the executive director of the American Institute of Planners, headquartered here in Washington, another transplanted Californian, incidentally.

STATEMENT OF HAROLD F. WISE, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNERS; ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT WILLIAMS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Harold F. Wise; I am a planning consultant. Like other members of my profession, I work directly with State and local governments on the problems stemming both from the fact of continuous, rapid urbanization of our country and from the twin fact of deterioration of the central cores of our older cities.

The organization that I represent, the American Institute of Planners, was formally organized in 1917. Today it consists of over 3,400 professionals, who work for all levels of government in the field of planning the country's urban areas. We enthusiastically endorse S. 2468, the principal measure before you today, and appreciate this opportunity to comment on its provisions.

President Johnson's housing message to the Congress of January 27, 1964, pointed out that the Nation is faced with the task of building at least 2 million new homes a year by 1970, just to keep up with the growth of our population.

As we all know, the mere construction of new homes in subdivision after subdivision does not necessarily result in a satisfactory, healthy, and creative living environment. As the President put it:

We will need many new classrooms, uncounted miles of new streets and utility lines, and unprecedented volume of water and sewerage facilities. We will need stores and churches and libraries, distribution systems for goods, transportation systems for people, and communication systems for ideas.

Above all, we will need more land, new housing, and orderly community development. For most of this population growth will be concentrated in the fringe areas around existing metropolitan communities.

The well-being and the very way of life of the people of the United States in the population explosion days ahead will depend to a large degree on the quality of the urban environment that we create as we build new housing and new communities and as we renew the older sections of our cities.

I would like to emphasize here that this quality of environment must be created as we build and not after we build. We must plan our cities, our new communities, and our regions in advance.

We must anticipate needs and requirements and fully establish standards if we are going to have half a chance of urban survival, if we are going to have half a chance of producing what our culture and our technology clearly indicate that we are capable of producing. The frantic meeting of deficiencies on a crisis basis after communities are largely built inevitably means that standards are compromised, environmental quality is sacrificed, and costs are skyrocketed.

S. 2468 recognizes the importance of preplanning, of anticipation, and of relating the many activities that go on in cities and urban regions as it calls for urban planning assistance grants for localities, metropolitan areas, and States, and as it relates, as a condition precedent, comprehensive planning to an expanded community facilities program, to the development of new communities, and to the application of the new planned subdivision mortgage insurance.

This makes sense, is prudent, and will protect the vast investment of public funds that will be called for as we meet the problems of the development of new areas and the renewal of our older city areas.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »