The credit union program I have described seems to represent exactly what the war on poverty is seeking: participation by local persons to help themselves rid poverty from their lives. area. Such a program is local-for it serves only persons living within a certain It is under local control-for only persons belonging to the credit union may serve on the board of directors or the supervisory or credit committees. Most importantly, it creates an improved environment in the area it serveswith thousands of people now becoming informed about the existence of the credit union to teach them the practicalities of thrift through saving, good buying habits, and low-cost credit for provident and productive purposes. Finally, the improvement is permanent because the outside assistance for the credit union is intended to be curtailed as the credit union grows to the point where it is self-supporting. What is left, then, is a soundly structured credit union serving a community of persons who are finding the ways and means to achieve a better life. Besides participation in community action programs, the credit union movement has experienced considerable success through its independent pilot credit union projects in low-income neighborhoods of large cities. With $50,000 allocated by the CUNA International board of directors in May 1964, pilot credit unions were organized and staffed in low-income neighborhoods of Washington, D.C., Chicago, Ill., and Wilmington, Del. A year later the board authorized an additional pilot credit union project to be launched in San Juan, P.R., under funds provided by the initial CUNA International grant. The success of both the community action credit union projects and CUNA International's independent pilot projects, we have learned through experience, can be attributed to the principle of full-time, professional staffing of credit unions organized in low-income areas. I might add at this point that the Panel on Consumer Education for Persons With Limited Incomes, a group established last year by Mrs. Esther Peterson, the President's special assistant for consumer affairs, mentioned credit unions extensively in its recent report as organizations capable of alleviating many problems facing the poor. Finding that the poor "do pay more" than middleincome groups for comparable goods because of a lack of education, skill, and bargain stores in low-income neighborhoods, the panel cited credit unions locally, credit union leagues on the State level, and CUNA International on the national level as having resources of consumer education and organization regarding consumer representation, cooperative buying, credit, and money management. While most credit union efforts to date have been aimed at solving economic problems in urban areas, I would like to remark briefly about credit unions in rural areas Already many such credit unions exist Within their field of membership, they are doing an outstanding job assisting persons with limited incomes. New rural credit unions are being started every day, and there is continuing interest in aiding migrant workers in particular. Awaiting approval by the Office of Economic Opportunity, for example, is a community action project that would provide a "mobile" credit union serving migrant workers in the vicinity of San Antonio, Tex. Another project pending approval would provide additional credit union services to farmworkers in the Delano, Calif., area. One project which already has gained the approval of the Office of Economic Opportunity affects the deprived area of Guadalupe, Ariz. Only 2 weeks ago, a Federal grant of $57,405 was made to the Guadalupe organization, which is composed entirely of Mexican-American and Yaqui Indian residents of the community. These funds will help establish a neighborhood service center to provide placement, counseling, and family services to 5,000 residents; a credit union, consumer information, education mutual aid services, and a health aid service to assist residents to understand and accept modern health concepts. At the same time all this has been happening, we have continued to plan additional proposals so that more rural credit unions can be established in low-income areas throughout the country. In each instance, we believe that full-time professional staffs are needed-just as they are in the cities-if rural credit unions in low-income areas are to be most effective in serving their members. I am happy to add, in closing, that the report filed on July 21 of last year by the full Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee on the Economic Opportunity Act took note of the potential that credit unions might have in the community action phase of the war on poverty. We appreciated this display of interest on the part of the committee and we feel that this year the statement I am filing confirms the wisdom of your trust. I shall be happy in the future to keep you informed of the progress of credit unions in the war on poverty. We are grateful for your interest and support. RESOLUTION ADOPTED AT THE CLOSING SESSION OF THE FOURTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST ASSOCIATION, BOSTON, MASS., MAY 28, 1965 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY Whereas, the 88th Congress of the United States enacted the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 in an effort to combat poverty: Be it, therefore, Resolved, That the Unitarian Universalist Association support adequate appropriations in the Congress and vigor in the activities of the administration to implement the act; and be it further Resolved, That constituent churches and fellowships be urged to participate in every appropriate way in the initiation, development, and implementation of economic activity programs to alleviate and prevent poverty in their communities; and be it further Resolved, That the Unitarian Universalist Association urge the Director of the economic opportunity program to enforce vigorously the act's provisions that the poor must have adequate and substantial representation on both the governing body and the Policy Advisory Board of all community programs. Adopted by a greater than two-thirds majority vote. Hon. LISTER HILL, NATIONAL CANNERS ASSOCIATION, Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, DEAR CHAIRMAN HILL: This letter is an expression of the views of the National Canners Association regarding section 11 of S. 1759, a bill to amend the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, and we request that it be considered and made a part of the record of the deliberations of your committee concerning this important subject. The National Canners Association in a nonprofit trade association with almost 600 members canning in 43 States and the territories. Members of the association, including both independent canning companies and cooperative canning enterprises, pack approximately 80 percent of the entire national production of canned fruits, vegetables, specialties, and fish. Section 11 of the bill would permit Government loans to establish new cooperative enterprises for the processing of food. In our judgment loans for such purposes would not be economically feasible for the reason that additional production facilities are not needed to meet market requirements for canned foods. As a matter of fact such loans would constitute a disservice to farmers. Canning plants now in operation are capable of producing in excess of market demands. Should new firms be encouraged to enter the business through the availability of low-interest financing, it becomes obvious that the possibility of surplus production would be increased. We know of no farm organization sponsorship for the proposed measure. The House committee report on the companion bill (H.R. 8283) suggests that loans for the purpose of organizing cooperatives would be of special value to "low-income rural families in the processing and marketing of cheese, butter, ice cream, or similar dairy or edible farm products." We are puzzled by this justification of the administration's proposed amendment in section 11 of the bill since we have neither seen nor heard of any request on the part of producers for new or additional Government aid in establishing processing facilities. Quite to the contrary, it is our understanding that milk producers are deeply concerned about the price-depressing effects of the large number of processing outlets now in existence. New techniques in cannery operation render it increasingly important that plant and equipment be utilized to the greatest extent possible to insure the lowest available unit cost. Any cooperative venture undertaken under section 11 of the bill would be a small-scale operation. It would have difficulty in achieving economies owing to the inherent high cost of a small-scale operation. The high cost of plant operation could only be offset through the payment or return to producers of lower prices for their products. For these reasons we suggest to the committee that the purposes of the administration's program would not be accomplished and we recommend that the present limitation in the law regarding the extension of credit be retained. Very truly yours, Senator PAT MCNAMARA, MILAN D. SMITH. ARKANSAS FARMERS UNION, Chairman, Select Subcommittee on Poverty, Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Due to previous commitments, I will be unable to appear in person before your committee to testify in favor of the Economic Opportunity Act hearing on June 28-29. However, Arkansas Farmers Union wants to go on record as favoring this act. Arkansas Farmers Union is sponsoring a statewide Neighborhood Youth Corps program here in Arkansas employing some 14,538 young men and women working in all 75 Arkansas counties. In our opinion, this is one of the finest programs to be approved by Congress in a long time. It would be almost impossible for me to tell you and the members of your committee how much good is being accomplished by giving these youngsters an opportunity to work this summer and earn money whereby they will be able to continue in school this fall. You would have to see these young people working and talk with them to get the full value of this program. We in Farmers Union are proud that our Government is willing to invest in our young people, giving them an opportunity to furnish this country with leadership for tomorrow. Thank you and the members of this committee for the fine work you are doing. Yours truly, LEWIS J. JOHNSON, President. PREPARED STATEMENT BY NATIONAL FARMERS UNION Mr. Chairman, the National Farmers Union is indeed tremendously concerned about the existing poverty in rural America. For many years now rural America has been in deep and prolonged trouble. We have been disturbed by the low income, the lack of community facilities, the amount of unemployment, the economic decline, and the accumulation of poverty in rural areas. Many programs of the Federal Government have been aimed at helping to solve problems such as these. During the last 41⁄2 years, a number of highly important new measures have been passed by the Congress to deal with greatly increased vigor with the problems of economic development, job training, vocational education, community facilities, preschool programs, and others. It is our firm conviction that the Economic Opporunity Act of 1964 was a giant step toward the elimination of poverty in this great Nation of ours, poverty not only in urban America but in rural America as well. We have been most pleased to see the progress that has been made to employ youngsters under the Neighborhood Youth Corps. We have been equally pleased to see communities organize to help themselves with the use of funds available through the community action programs. We are also deeply concerned with the problems of the aged poor. And although we commend VISTA for the progress it has made, this area has much to be desired. These are only a few of the programs, the components of the Economic Opportunity Act. However, others have done equally as well. There is, however, a very serious problem, a very serious barrier, which is preventing the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 from being administered in many of the areas of greatest need. That barrier is the right for the Governor of a State to veto Neighborhood Youth Corps, community action program, as well as the deployment of VISTA volunteers and other aspects of the program. As many of you are no doubt aware, Neighborhood Youth Corps programs which Farmers Union State organizations has sponsored in the States of Montana and Teaxs were vetoed by the respective State Governors on the grounds that they did not believe private nonprofit organizations such as our own should have a right to sponsor Neighborhood Youth Corps programs. Although the leg50-620-65-19 islation in the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 is quite clear in pointing out that private, nonprofit organizations do have this right, the veto that the Governors may exercise gives them the right to reinterpret the act as they choose. Not only have programs which our State organizations sponsored been vetoed but also much-needed programs in Alabama, New York, and other States have been vetoed for what we consider unjustified reasons. It is our opinion, Mr. Chairman, that if the war on poverty is to be controlled by any one agency, one man, one Governor, or one group in a State or in the Nation, then surely absolute victory cannot be won. Many of the States where poverty is most acute will not enjoy the benefit of this program if the Governor of that State is not in sympathy with it. We, therefore, urge you to eliminate the Governor's veto from the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. Looking more specifically at rural poverty, we would like to cite for you evidence that this has become a drastic problem. In his February 4, 1965, message to the Congress, the President said: "Lack of a decent life is almost twice as prevalent in rural America as it is in urban America. Only 30 percent of our families live in rural areas, but 46 percent of them have incomes under $3,000.” "Rural America has almost three times the proportion of substandard houses found in urban areas. A fourth of all farm homes and a fifth of rural nonfarm homes are without running water. Over 14,000 rural communities of more than 100 population lack central water supplies." "Rural people lag almost 2 years behind urban residents in educational attainment. They often suffer from a lower quality of education. Per pupil expenditures for elementary and secondary education in rural school districts are substantially below expenditures in urban districts." "Rural communities lag in health facilities. Rural children receive one-third less medical attention than urban children. Their mortality rate is far higher." We can wonder why the rural communities have not been able to get their share of services. With respect to this problem, the President had this to say in his February 4 speech: "Rural communities often lack the specialized organizations found in major cities which keep informed of development programs and initiate action to make use of them. Special measures must be taken both by the States and by Federal agencies to reach rural people, particularly in remote areas." The evidence of the difficulty of providing services to rural people are indicated by the facts that In the manpower development and training program a spot check shows only 3.4 percent of the training projects were held in towns of 10,000 or less, where nearly one-half of the total U.S. population lives. Money going into community action programs under the Office of Economic Opportunity has been only about 5 percent of the total granted, despite the fact that almost half the poor families live in rural areas. Federal Housing Administration loans are usually not available outside the city limits of the larger cities. Small Business Administration loans fail to penetrate into the area most distant from the field offices. The President has called for a parity of opportunity for rural America. He says that rural Americans must have national economic prosperity to increase their employment opportunities, full access to education, training, and health services to expand their earning power, and economic development of smaller and medium-sized communities to insure a healthy economic base for rural America. In order for rural people and rural communities to share fully in our national life, they must receive their full share of the assistance and services which the Federal Government offers to all its citizens. The President has called for an imaginative and positive new effort to see to it that the services of all Federal departments reach into the rural communities, where they have failed previously to reach. Obviously, each agency cannot have an office in every rural county; however, the Department of Agriculture, which does have one or more offices in every rural county, must somehow help the other agencies to reach these rural people. In his February 4 message, the President announced: "The Secretary is creating within the Department of Agriculture a Rural Community Development Service which will have no operating programs of its own but will devote its energies to assisting other agencies in extending their services." In line with the President's directive, Secretary Freeman has organized a Rural Community Development Service. Its principal responsibility is to perform this new service for all Federal Government agencies in rural communities, as called for by the President. The Rural Community Development is aiming for "one-stop service" to rural people who are seeking help from their Federal Government. Secretary Freeman defined "one-stop service" to the rural citizen and community leader this way: "The Department of Agriculture will take the responsibility for determining what Federal service is available to help the rural citizen and community leader to cope with his problem, and then, advising him of the procedure that is necessary in order for his application to receive fair consideration." As Secretary Freeman put it, the Department of Agriculture, in this way, "will provide for the rural citizen and community leader the kind of profes sional assistance in coping with Government redtape that urban citizens and urban community leaders usually can obtain through their paid staffs of specialists and experts." Again, let me emphasize that Sargent Shriver, Secretary Freeman together hold the key to elimination of poverty in rural America, and it is our hope that through a cooperative effort we will be able to provide rural youngsters and deprived adults the same services that are available in many of the urban areas. The new Public Works and Economic Development Act can be equally effective in rural areas if there is a delegation of authority to the Department of Agriculture to promote, stimulate, and recommend action in rural areas, and if adequate money support is provided. Specifically, the Congress should make its intent clear that it expects the Department of Commerce to provide funds to the Department of Agriculture, in at least the same proportional amount as was done by ARA, for employment by USDA of sufficient people to carry out the necessary work in connection with the program in rural areas. The Department of Agriculture should have the responsibility for carrying on this work in counties not having a town of 25,000 or more, and in the rural parts of any county, areas, or development district. The war on poverty is lagging seriously in rural areas. It will never have much real meaning in rural areas unless more effort and attention is given to the special problems of applying the programs to rural people and rural problems. Scattered population, lack of experience by many rural leaders in establishing human improvement programs, and lack of ongoing welfare and civic organizations dealing with the problems of low-income people such as those usually found in the cities, mean that special help is needed. Community action programs, projects utilizing Neighborhood Youth Corps enrollees, and the utilization of VISTA volunteers, are making important con tributions in many rural areas. But they will develop much faster if someone is available to work with the local leaders to help them plan their projects, prepare suitable applications, and overcome obstacles as they arise. The Economic Opportunity Act states that there must be equitable distribution of the funds between rural and urban areas. Equitable distribution will not occur without special attention to the rural problem. Administrative funds should be allocated by the Office of Economic Opportunity to RCDS, for employing rural economic opportunity fieldworkers who can give close support and guidance to local leaders in developing their plans, preparing their applications, and operating their projects. Although this is badly needed, we stress again that it will go for naught unless the Governors' authority to veto without reason is eliminated from this act. PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL COUNCILS OF CATHOLIC, JEWISH, AND NEGRO WOMEN, AND THE UNITED CHURCH WOMEN It seems appropriate for the National Council of Catholic Women, the National Council of Jewish Women, the National Council of Negro Women, and the United Church Women to submit testimony on behalf of the extension of the Economic Opportunity Act, designed to support a national movement for the elimination of poverty. |