Further, the executive committee will be glad to share with the Congress any data which it may have at its command through the cooperation of its constituent bodies.

Finally, the executive committee realizes that the churches have a definite obligation to stand against low standards of living, and to promote the ideal of the good life as inherent in the Gospel, both by social and educational activities of their own, and by fruitful cooperation with one another and with voluntary and governmental agencies created for that purpose.

Senator SPARKMAN. Voluntary and governmental agencies created for that purpose.

Mr. BOYD. Yes. In other words, voluntary agencies; they are Government agencies created by law.

Senator SPARKMAN. Well, you give us a statement with which we certainly cannot quarrel.

Mr. BOYD. I would say, sir, that it is——

Senator SPARKMAN. I cannot quarrel either with its substance or with its length.

Mr. BoYD. We like to be brief, sir; particularly this officer.

Senator SPARKMAN. Well, it is very fine, and we are glad to have it. I do not know of any questions that I can put to you that would shed further light on it.

Mr. BOYD. Well, there is only one thing I would like to say.

Senator SPARK MAN. You do think that it is worth while making a study of the conditions which we recognize as not being the best for the kind of life that we would like to think of as being the entitlement of everybody.

Mr. BOYD. We feel that would be of some assistance in achieving the kind of life that all of us are concerned with.

Senator SPARK MAN. I assume that you agree with previous witnesses who have been here, who have been here before us, that there is a high incidence of juvenile delinquency to be found in conditions that poverty brings on.

Mr. BOYD. Well, that has been our experience. I think any minister who has had a pastorate in a community under substandard living conditions will testify immediately that he sees that problem.

Senator SPARKMAN. You are a minister of the Gospel?

Mr. BOYD. I am; yes, sir.

Senator SPARKMAN. For how long?

Mr. BOYD. Twenty-three years.

Senator SPARKMAN. You have had ministries?

Mr. BOYD. Most of my ministry has been in the South until I went on the staff of the Federal Council. The last one was in Richmond, Va.

Senator SPARKMAN. You have seen conditions, slum conditions, bad housing?

Mr. BOYD. The last pastorate I had was on the edge of a very bad section of the city.

Senator SPARKMAN. You have knowledge that those conditions do contribute to juvenile delinquency and crime?

Mr. BOYD. They are one factor.

Senator SPARKMAN. Backwardness, health, that sort of experience from the point of view of public health?

Mr. BOYD. Oh, definitely. I would not be so categorical as to say it is the only factor; there are many others.

Senator SPARKMAN. None of us would say that at all.

Mr. BOYD. But it certainly is one of the contributing factors.

Senator SPARKMAN. You will find a high incidence of these where you find a high degree of poverty.

Mr. BOYD. I think you do. I think, however, one must be fair and also say, if you are now sticking to juvenile delinquency, you will also find it tragically among the children of our more favored families,

too.

Senator SPARKMAN. Undoubtedly that is true. However, that point was brought out by Dr. Burgess, I believe it was, from the University of Chicago, who appeared before us, to the effect that so often that child in the higher-income family would be in a situation where corrective measures could be taken. He could be sent to a very rigid training school or something of that kind, at the expense of the family; whereas, for the lower-income boy, he drifts on and he is put in the custody and care of his parents, and eventually he may have to be placed in a public institution or training school or something of that kind.

Mr. BOYD. I quite agree with you. The only thing that we would be careful in saying is, naturally from the Christian approach, we do not like to denominate any one group as being the bad child, so to speak.

We were very careful to say that in this statement, that although we believe these things do contribute, and it does put the low-income family—it has pressures, as we expressed here, maybe the other group does not have, they are not alone in the delinquency.

Senator SPARKMAN. I think we are all in agreement with the thing that you are saying.

Mr. BOYD. I would like to make that clear because I know my constituents would not wish me to say otherwise.

Senator SPARKMAN. We certainly appreciate your giving us this time and your thinking in this matter today.

Mr. BOYD. I might say this, I do not know whether it would be of any help to the committee. The Southern Presbyterian Church has just made a study-I think the title of it is-it is now in book form published by the John Knox Press of Richmond, Va.-I think the title of the book is "The Church and Community in the South."

It was done in cooperation with the department of sociology of the University of North Carolina. It is admittedly a definitive study and slanted from the church angle; it is admittedly competent. Senator SPARKMAN. The Church and Community in the South. Mr. BOYD. Published by the John Knox Press.

Senator SPARKMAN. John Knox?

Mr. BOYD. Not by John Knox.

Senator SPARKMAN. I thought he was one of the descendants.
Mr. BOYD. He may be.

Our own department of research and education of the Federal Council for the past 3 years has been making a study of economic conditions, and they are not official statements of the Federal Council; they are studies. You may have seen some of them; they are available if

your committee would like to have them, and we will be glad to submit them.

Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Boyd.

Mr. BOYD. Thank you, Senator Sparkman.

Senator SPARKMAN. This concludes the hearings, and the committee will stand in adjournment.

(Whereupon, at 11:45 a. m., the subcommittee adjourned.)

(The following statements were submitted at the request of the chairman for inclusion in the record :)

STATEMENT BY HAROLD F. CLARK, PROFESSOR OF EDUCATIONAL ECONOMICS, TEACHERS COLLEGE, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, NEW YORK, N. Y.

There are two general methods of trying to deal with the problem of lowincome families. One method is to attempt to divide up more evenly the income now produced. The other method is to try to take steps that will enable low-income families to produce more and thereby increase their own income. If we consider only a short period of time, there might be some argument over which method to use. Over any long period of time, there can be only one possible answer.

One hundred years ago thoughtful people were very greatly disturbed over the plight of low-income families. Then, as now, suggestions were made to try to divide up more evenly what was produced. We can be thankful today that the method of trying to increase production was followed. If this method had not been followed, practically all families in the United States would have an income smaller than is now obtained by the low-income group. A family income of $200 was a substantial income 100 years ago. Today, the low-income family has three or four times the income of the average family of 100 years ago.

Can the low-income family of 100 years from now look forward to an income three or four times what the average family has today? I think that is entirely possible. I think a subcommittee of Congress in the year 2050 will be studying how to raise the income of low-income families that have three times as much as the average family has today. That would be, say, around $10,000 a year in terms of 1949 purchasing power. This can happen, however, only if, in trying to help the low-income family of today, we do not take steps that endanger the future growth and development of income for the middle-income families and all other income levels.

In emergency cases and for highly special situations, some further direct assistance or evening up of income may be desirable. But, in general, I think we can cross off this method as a valid way of helping low-income families over a long period of time. If, then, we are committed to the idea that the proper method to use in raising low incomes is to increase production, how do we proceed? It can be stated emphatically that improvement in the status of the low-income families must be based primarily upon their increased ability to produce. There are two major things to be watched. Public opinion sometimes assumes that they are in conflict but they definitely are not. These families must be helped to get the additional training and skill that is necessary in order to produce more and, consequently, to earn higher wages.

In addition, they must be given a great range of increase in the skills that are necessary to do things for themselves. A comprehensive school program that is designed to raise the skill of all these people is about as simple a formula as can be advanced to deal with the problem.

No general statement, however, will get very far. There are low-income families in the mountainous sections all over the United States. This poverty is created primarily by the fact that these people do not know how to make a high income in mountainous territory. Many of the people in Switzerland make a large income out of extremely mountainous territory. People in most sections of the United States live at an extremely low level of poverty when they have much better natural conditions. We have been unable to find a single good school in the United States with a program showing people how to use mountain

resources.

The school programs in the slum sections of our great cities are not at all well adjusted to raise the incomes of these families. These families should be doing more things for themselves. Many of these slum areas and sections could be cleaned up, painted up, and fixed up by the young people alone. These are

the same young people who are creating problems of juvenile delinquency because they have nothing to do. Few if any schools in the slum sections of our great cities are really designed to give boys and girls the information they need to raise their own standards of living.

A study we have made of the poor countries of the world has convinced us that they are poor because they do not know what they need to do to be rich. The countries that are relatively well-to-do are in that position because, through a small part of their economic life, some people do know what to do. No country in the world has yet built a good school system which meets the needs of its population.

A few countries are compelling most of the children to go to a school system designed for a handful of people. There is every reason to assume that the low-income sections of the United States could have a high income by the simple process of showing the people what to do to get a high income, then helping them become skilled in doing those things.

A State such as Mississippi has a relatively large number of low-income families. It should be one of the richest States in the Union and will be as soon as those people are brought to a high level of skill in doing what they should do.

Even the highly paid factory worker in Detroit or in Pittsburgh could probably get a 30- or 40-percent increase in his income if he knew how to spend his income wisely and if he knew how to use his leisure time profitably in producing other things that he needs and can use. An industrial worker with a high cash income, modern powered tools producing food for himself on a little plot of ground; power tools taking care of his house; power tools making furniture and doing many other things for himself, comes about as near providing a formula for high incomes as anything now known.

There are families in Alabama with an inadequate diet. As a matter of fact, a good fraction of the families in Alabama probably have an inadequate diet. This is caused almost 100 percent by the lack of knowledge and skill as to what to do. In a climate as mild as Alabama, food can be produced the year round. Our experiments have shown beyond any doubt that practically all families that have an inadequate diet in the State could have a thoroughly adequate one if they knew what to do and how to do it. It may be somewhat more difficult to get a good diet in Vermont, Minnesota, or North Dakota. But even there, if the person has a sufficient amount of skill, in most cases, it probably could be done. Much of the clothing in Vermont is inadequate and again a lack of essential information is probably at the root of the difficulty. The schools in Vermont do not teach the essential information people need in order to be comfortable in a cold climate.

Studies of 58 countries of the world have convinced us that the crucial factor in determining the level of economic welfare of practically all people is the level of technical competence of those people. This, in turn, of course, depends upon the level of general education. Any help extended to other nations of the world should be extended in a way that will improve their technical competence. This would quickly enable them to solve their own economic problems. Any assistance that is extended to people in the United States insofar as possible, should be to increase their technical competence to help themselves. In extreme cases of disability and old age, undoubtedly, some assistance will have to be provided. If a program of helping people to help themselves has been adequately planned and executed, the number that will have to be helped by the other methods should constantly decrease and finally move toward the vanishing point.

The central point to watch in all legislation trying to help low-income families is to increase the technical competence of these families to help themselves. The countries that have proceeded this way have become the rich countries of the world. We have as yet only a very hazy idea as to how far we can go in solving the problem of poverty along these lines because no countries have really been aggressive in trying to solve it in this way.

STATEMENT PREPARED BY REV. WILLIAM J. GIBBONS, S. J., ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL CATHOLIC RURAL LIFE CONFERENCE

The National Catholic Rural Life Conference is an organization concerned with rural welfare, which has membership in all parts of the United States. Educational and program work is carried out on the local level by rural life directors, appointed by their respective bishops, in some 90 of the dioceses of the country. The national organization carries on educational work through

publications, training courses, national and regional conferences, and similar means. The headquarters are located in Des Moines, Iowa. The president is Bishop John P. Treacy of LaCrosse, Wis.; the executive director, Monsignor Luigi G. Ligutti.

This opportunity to express the views of the NCRLC is fully appreciated. It is noted with gratification that the Joint Committee on the Economic Report has gathered detailed facts and statistics on family income in the United States, and on the status of low-income families in both urban and rural areas. There is, therefore, no point in reviewing similar statistics here. In the comments that follow, observations are confined to the question of finding ways and means of helping low-income families improve their economic and social situation.

The founders of NCRLC organized themselves a quarter century ago because they realized that the population of America is becoming increasingly urban; and that in the process rural families have suffered neglect, while city families do not necessarily benefit by being separated from the land. Today the conference membership is more convinced than ever that the economic disequilibrium, manifest in practically all countries of the world whatever the degree of industrialization, cannot be resolved without more attention being paid to conditions in agricultural and rural areas generally. This applies particularly to the use of arable land for the benefit of as many families as possible.

Several years ago a group of rural leaders, prominent in religious welfare work, drew up a statement, Man's Relation to the Land. It sets forth basic principles which should underlie our national, State, and individual actions. One paragraph especially is worth quoting:

"Since the family is the primary institution, access to land and stewardship of land must be planned with the family unit in view. The specal adaptability of the farm home for nurturing strong and wholesome family life is the reason for the universal interest in land use and rural welfare. A unique relationship exists between the family and the vocation of agriculture. The farm is the native habitat of the family. The family's welfare must, therefore, have the first consideration in economic and social planning. Throughout the history of the United States these fundamental principles have been worked out through national and State legislation, and they have been upheld by court decisions and popular acclaim."

Worthy of note also are the suggested methods for the practical application of the declared principles on land policy as given in this statement. It is of significance that Man's Relation to the Land was subsequently adopted by the NCRLC as a statement of policy. Various Protestant and Jewish groups have made similar use of it. A copy is appended to this memorandum. ·

In the promotion of economic development, so much effort has been directed toward raising productivity and increasing money income that the desirability of adjusting the economic order to the over-all needs of family life tends to be overlooked. To achieve proper perspective it is necessary to consider how better use of the land can help the family to fulfill its destiny.

The Nation's agriculture is currently experiencing mounting surpluses which threaten the stability of the farm economy. Some of these surpluses are absolute in terms of domestic needs. There are simply more of certain commodities than can be used by our people, without discovery, at least, of new forms of industrial utilization. Part of these surpluses might be sold abroad, where there purchasing power available in deficit countries, but due to dollar shortages and problems of convertibility only a portion of these surplus commodities can be sold abroad despite world need.

In the case of other commodities the domestic surplus is only relative. More eggs would be sold, for example, were lower-income families able to purchase them. The needs of these families are not fully satisfied in this instance, as in others, but their purchasing power is exhausted.

Partial answers, not always satisfactory, have been found for this phase of the surplus problem through such devices as the school-lunch program. Other surplus disposal measures, such as gifts or sales at concessional prices to institutions, have also been tried. Through such devices, and others like the foodstamp program, underprivileged groups can benefit to a degree by the productivity of America's agriculture. But it needs to be emphasized that the continued stress on sustained prices and restriction of production has tended to obscure the fundamental fact that the Nation's lower-income families especially do not benefit as they should from the potential productivity of our agricultural land.

Faced with the problem of unmarketable surpluses in agriculture, traditional economic analysis has usually arrived at the conclusion that the only thing to