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

do is to move surplus rural population off the land and to find economic opportunity for the displaced families or individuals in industry. Up to relatively recent years in the United States, and even yet in some underdeveloped countries abroad, this usually meant finding a place for the additional industrial workers in already overcrowded and congested cities.

Today we see that while the encouragement of urbanization of population and industrialization of the economy may solve some problems, it creates new ones as well. Completely deprived of any opportunity for meeting their needs by primary production, the urban industrial families become wholly dependent upon cash income from their employment. In times of depression this employment is quite precarious; in times of relative prosperity it often provides insufficient income to meet family needs. To meet this situation, growing out of a totally money economy, all sorts of methods for supplementing earned income have had to be devised. These include various social-security provisions, unemployment compensation, public-assistance programs, increased welfare and social services. Many of these provisions would, of course, be desirable under any circumstances, to insure a more satisfactory standard of living for our population. But it should be recognized that at least some of the social services instituted since World War I have become necessary because so many lower-income families must rely exclusively upon precarious industrial wages. Barring wage increases, there is no other way of improving their standards of living or of providing a measure of economic security except through social services. In a very real sense they are proletarians.

Most of the energy of the labor movement in the United States has been spent in securing wage increases for workers or in protecting them against untimely cessation of income. Moreover, much of the energies of Government have gone in the same direction. There is merit to the suggestion that at least comparable efforts should go into developing opportunities for supplementing the real income of as many low-income families as possible by means other than cash payments. That is particularly necessary in times of depressed economic activity, but even in prosperous times it is desirable to have ways of improving the living standard of low-income families by increasing their real income.

The NCRLC fully appreciates the fact that there is a limit to the number of full-time farmers who can achieve a livelihood by raising crops for sale. That limit in part derives from the amounts of certain commodities which can be consumed, and in part from the inability of the nonfarm population to purchase all the foodstuffs they would desire. Increasing the number of acres planted in certain crops could, under such circumstances, actually result in lower living standards for the farmers producing. To draw attention to this fact is not to advocate a policy of restriction whereby the land's productivity would be curtailed simply to keep up prices in the market. Rather it is to point out that identification of agriculture with raising of cash crops, particularly when this is on a single-crop basis, is to overlook the importance of proper land use in raising standards of living.

Specifically, it has been a fundamental of NCRLC policy in recent years to advocate strongly the use of as much arable land as possible for subsistence purposes. This means bringing more families in contact with such land, and keeping as many families as possible on the land. Since, as has been said, only a limited number of families can achieve adequate cash income through commercial farming, this means in the concrete that additional opportunities must be devised for families to live on the land and at the same time earn all or much of their cash income in industry or similar occupation. This has been referred to as "having a foot in industry and a foot on the land." It can be put into effect in various ways:

(1) By providing industrial opportunity, on a part-time basis, for marginal farm families who do not have enough land or proper quality land to secure a decent standard of living.

(2) By enabling families now in congested cities to establish a homestead on the land where they can raise a part or most of their food, while earning a cash income in nearby towns or cities.

(3) By encouraging all farm families to raise as much of their own food as possible, thus improving their living standards, while securing their cash income by the sale of commercial farm products.

Such a program is posited on the belief that food raised for the family at small' cost or without cash outlay helps to raise the living standard. Not a few of even our more prosperous farm families could have the standards of living they do, were it not for the practice of supplying themselves with food. They could not

purchase in commercial stores the same amount of foodstuffs on the income they normally have. If full-time farm families can thus better their economic lot, there is no reason why nonfarm families with a piece of arable land, or parttime farm families, cannot do the same thing.

Even a casual survey of the Census of Agriculture will reveal that a considerable amount of this sort of land use already exists. It is the contention of the NSRLC that more of it could exist to the benefit of the economy and the improvement of many families' standard of livving.

It may, of course, be argued that the result would be something of a decline in the amount of foodstuffs sold through commercial channels. The objection is answered in large measure by saying that all too often families that need the extra foodstuffs to improve their living standards cannot purchase them at prevailing prices. Nor is there any immediate prospect that money incomes will increase so as to enable them to so purchase all the food they need. Even were this possible, it would not follow that families should be made wholly dependent upon money income. There are social and spiritual values which must be con-sidered. The ownership of even a small piece of land on which part of the family subsistence is grown makes for greater security, stability, and initiative when the task is approached in the right spirit. Furthermore, it provides for the family the space, light, and air of which it is usually deprived in contemporary congested urban living.

Obviously such an approach to bettering living standards of low-income families will not work out unless there are adequate industrial and other employment opportunities in rural areas. For this reason the NCRLC has stood behind the movement to decentralize industry to the maximum extent feasible. Such a development will not only benefit families in rural areas by providing increased economic opportunity, but it will also do much to clear up the congestion of our larger cities which have become most difficult places in which to raise a family and provide it with a living, particularly among the lower-income groups.

MAN'S RELATION TO THE LAND-A STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES WHICH SHALL UNDERLIE OUR NATIONAL, STATE, AND INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS

We hold :

God created the world, of which the earth is a portion, with a purpose, and through His loving providence He maintains the world for the good of human beings. Therefore, all human beings possess a direct natural right to have access to created natural resources.

God's intention in creation is to enable man to live with dignity in accord with his noble nature and destiny, to develop his personality, to establish and maintain a family, and to be a useful member of society. Society exists to fulfill these aims.

The good earth

The land is God's greatest material gift to mankind. It is a fundamental source of food, fiber, and fuel. The right to use such elemental source of life and development is essential for human welfare. No law or contract is superior to natural law. A fundamental human right is not to be denied or rendered ineffective by any legal ordinances, apparent previous rights, or obligations. Stewardship

Land is a very special kind of property. Ownership of land does not give an absolute right to use or abuse, nor is it devoid of social responsibilities. It is in fact a stewardship. It implies such land tenure and use as to enable the possessor to develop his personality, maintain a decent standard of living for his family, and fulfill social obligations. At the same time, the land steward has a duty to enrich the soil he tills and to hand it down to future generations as a thank offering to God, the giver, and as a loving inheritance to his children's children.

The family and land

Since the family is the primary institution, access to land and stewardship of land must be planned with the family unit in view. The special 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