Page images

Mr. MITCHELL. And various governmental agencies are now doing just that, in attempting to build the farm income?

Mr. HALVORSON. Yes, sir; we have had supervised credit in agriculture, and I think it is well accepted. For example, it was the Farm Security Administration, and now the Farmers Home Administration.

That is called supervised credit and we feel that it is a very desirable form of credit, which helps farmers who are not probably the best farmers, into a better type of farming.

That is the best way we know of raising their income.
Mr. MITCHELL. You would not say that was bribing the farmer?
Mr. HALVORSON. Well, you would say that it is more a form of

Mr. MITCHELL. Which is supported by all the farm groups ?
Mr. HALVORSON. Yes, sir; so far as I know.
Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you.
Mr. KUNKEL. May I ask a question?
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. Kunkel.

Mr. KUNKEL. Mr. Halvorson, do you not think the proper standard to apply would be the productivity of the farm, in determining the amount of the loan?

Mr. HALVORSON. Yes, sir; I believe the bill uses the term "earning capacity.”

Mr. KUNKEL. I noticed on page 3 of your statement that you said:

It must be predicated either on the size of the farm that makes possible a reasonable earning power, or a situation where 'supplemental nonfarm employment income is sufficient to increase earnings to th level where the house can be supported and in time paid for.

Mr. HALVORSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. KUNKEL. One of the things that has always worried me about this rural section is that if you start making loans which are not based upon the productivity of the farm, then what you are really doing is providing a country estate for somebody who is not essentially a farmer.

Mr. Halvorson. That is right. We feel that part-time farming has its place, particularly, for example in the South.

A lot of cotton mills moved in there, and people work partly in the cotton mills and still operate a little farm.

We feel they are rural people, and we would be in doubt whether they would be taken care of under the urban section. As long as they have a reliable source of off-farm employment and can pay for their house, they are entitled to consideration under this bill as much as any other group.

Mr. KUNKEL. Personally I would like to see the bill contemplate more decentralization in housing, all the way through, both urban and farm housing.

Of course, farm housing necessarily is going to be decentralized, but in most of the planning articles which I read, the over-all idea is to disperse housing more widely throughout the country, particularly in view of the dangers from the atomic bomb and military aggression.

Yet, well, when you get into the urban redevelopment sections and the low-cost housing sections, they are all calculated to freeze the existing centers of population by making more permanent the dwellings there.

I like the idea which was suggested a minute ago, about trying to do more on the transportation angle in order to permit a greater dispersion of the housing, and I do think if you can work out something whereby you can take care of the part-time employment people, that it would be helpful.

Mr. HALVORSON. Though my statement did not cover that, I know that Mr. Goss and the National Grange have made statements favoring decentralization, even before the atomic bomb was developed, and I am sure that our position would be even stronger in that direction with the advent of the atomic bomb.

I did not go into the urban sections of this bill too much but I am certain that the Grange feels the same way.

Mr. Kunkel. Well, I knew I was getting on an irrelevant subject so far as your testimony is concerned, but I just wanted to mention it.

Mr. HALVORSON. It is related to the problem of rural and part-time rural housing.

Mr. DEANE. Mr. Chairman,
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. Deane.

Mr. DEANE. In your statement, on page 5, you suggest an amendment. I am inclined to feel that if that was included it would make the legislation rather inflexible when we consider the fact that so much needs to be done on the farms at the presnt time.

The fact has been presented to us that only 17.7 percent of rural housing now has running water. At the present time, it would seem to me that leaving this problem with the Farmers Home Administration, and working as they do, down through local committees, and recognize their determinations we will be following the best policy.

Mr. HALVORSON. Yes, but we feel it would be unwise to put a man into debt above 100 percent of the normal agricultural value of the farm unit, with the value that might attach to the residence, because we feel he might not be able to repay the loan; and there is nothing that we feel is worse from the standpoint of maintaining credit on a sound and respectable basis than to say, "Well, we will cancel this this time.”

Pretty soon the individual does not have the respect for credit and for obligations that we feel is essential.

Mr. DEANE. Do you feel that there is a rapid tendency, among our young people, to leave the farms because of the serious problems involved in housing? They go to college, and they visit their urban friends, and they are no longer satisfied with the present housing facilities they enjoy.

Mr. HALVORSON. Well, that is certainly a factor in the migration of people from the farms to the cities, but that is a desirable tendency that has taken place in our economy for a long time.

Mr. DEANE. As I study your statement, you would more or less encourage people to leave the farm. On page 7 of your statement, you suggest this amendment:

No loan or grant shall be made under this section unless the Secretary finds that it is not possible for the family to relocate to a more favorable incomeyielding situation.

Do I understand that you, by that, would have the farmer find industrial employment and move away from the farm?

Mr. HALVORSON. We would probably prefer to see rural industrialization, but it is a fact that about two-fifths of the children born on

farms in the next decade will have to leave the farm for city employment. The farm people have a high birth rate, and the nature of farm business is such that it does not expand like our industry.

At one time we were 80 percent farm and rural, and that percentage has decreased as farmers with technology produce enough food for the rest of the population even when it expended rapidly.

Actually, the farm population has decreased from prewar, in actual numbers, and not only in percentage, because of this advance in technology

It is the way we raise our standard of living.

Mr. DEANE. The only reason I brought this subject up was, due to the fact, that your testimony seems to differ from the stand taken by other farm interests. The testimony of Malcolm Orchard, editor of the Southern Agriculturist, and statements filed by Alexander Nunn, managing editor of the Progressive Farmer, and H. L. Mitchell, president of National Farm Labor Union, A. F. of L., all give unqualified indorsement to title IV. At several points in your statement your support seems to have been given rather grudgingly.

Mr. HALVORSON. Well, we do favor title IV, but we feel that that will do more harm than good unless it is wisely and soundly administered.

Mr. DEANE. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. Cole.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Halvorson, I think you have made a very fine statement, with which I certainly agree, particularly on your basic fundamental ideas as to the farmer and on his approach to the problem.

Mr. Beane has suggested that there are other farm interests that have testified here. If so, I do not know who they are. I think you are the first farm organization to testify.

I am up against this problem. You stated in your testimony, but not in your statement, that you were for title IV. I read your statement before you appeared, and after reading it I was a little confused, quite truthfully, wondering whether you actually did approve title IV.

Mr. HALVORSOx. Yes; we do.

Mr. Cole. But you do approve the title providing there are a number of other amendments, or providing it is administratively handled as you approve.

Mr. HALVORSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. COLE. That leaves me in quandary, because first I am inclined to think it will not be amended as you suggest.

Secondly, I do not believe it will be administered as you suggest. Therefore, I am in a quandary as to whether or not I can vote for it.

You say you hope such will happen. I say yes; I hope it will. But I have the doubt, first, that it will be amended, and, second, that it will be carried out administratively as you hope.

Therefore, I am in a quandary as to what to do about it.
Mr. HALVORSON. Well, we always face that problem in legislation.

Mr. COLE. Yes; you can say maybe, but I cannot. I have got to say yes or no. That is the point.

Mr. MITCHELL. May I ask a question, Mr. Cole?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.

Mr. MITCHELL. On the basis of the administration of general but similar programs by the Agriculture Department, wouldn't you say

the tendency of the Agriculture Department will be to administer as you say you hope it will be administered?

Mr. HALVORSON. Well, we feel that in the past the Farm Credit Administration has been administered very well; and, except for the early years of the Farm Security (now Farmers Home Administration), we feel that has been administered rather well.

Mr. MITCHELL. So, the most recent experience under the Farmers Home Administration would indicate to you that the program will be well administered?

Mr. HALVORSON. We never know when they will make a deviation; but, with the safeguards that have been put in the Farmers Home Administration and in the administration of that program, it has worked very well and very soundly, we feel.

Mr. COLE. I yield to Mr. Nicholson. Mr. NICHOLSON. Has the National Grange gone on record in favor of this bill?

Mr. HALVORSON. Well, the bill was not considered specifically at our annual session. Mr. Goss has testified previously on housing legislation. Mr. NICHOLSON. This year or last year? Mr. HALVORSON. Last year. Mr. NICHOLSON. I know, but this is a different bill.

Mr. HALVORSON. Well, we have a certain amount of discretion in the national office, and frequently these items have been considered by the executive committee, if they are not specifically considered by the entire body.

Mr. NICHOLSON. I belong to the Grange and it has never been brought up in my grange that I know of.

Mr. Halvorson. That may be. That is probably true of a number of bills that come up.

They have such a wide scope of matters that come up that the national office is entrusted to use its best judgment on such matters.

Mr. NICHOLSON. If they thought this was important to the National Grange, they would have gotten some expression of opinion from the various lodges of the Grange; would they not?

Mr. HALVORSON. Well, frequently the actions of the National Grange are based on matters that have come up from the subordinates; but, when the subordinates do not consider all the matters that come before Congress, it is left to us to use our judgment.

Mr. NICHOLSON. I am not questioning your judgment. The only thing I am asking is if they have gone on record in favor of this bill, the National Grange?

Mr. HALVORSON. Not delegate body.
Mr. MITCHELL. Has the executive committee?

Mr. HALVORSON. They have approved testimony given previously that is in line with this testimony.

Mr. COLE. Returning to Mr. Mitchell's question, this, in my judgment at least, provides for a definite deviation, not only a deviation, but a complete change of policy with respect to farm housing. The Administration has never had authorization such as is provided in this bill.

The first thing is the cancellation of the indebtedness. The second thing is the grant. Thirdly, there are the inadequate farms, which you do not support, on the basis of any agricultural advantage to the farmer.

Now, I am not talking about something in theory. I am talking about something that is actually fact, with which we are faced.

Mr. Halvorson, that is what worries me, not what the past has to do with the administration of the Department of Agriculture, but what they will do, what can be done, and what probably will be done because this is a new theory of assistance to the farmer. That is what concerns me. And I think that it must concern you, because


couch your language with considerable care.

Mr. HALVORSON. Yes, it has. We are afraid that it could be abused, and we have suggested certain safeguards; but, on the one hand, we also feel that money is being spent for urban housing, and rural housing is probably in a worse situation, and certainly deserves some attention,

Mr. COLE. That statement is often used in support of the ruralhousing section of this bill; and, with all due deference to you, to me it does not mean anything. We should help the farmer; we should see that the farmer is economically on a sound basis; we should do everything that is possible to help the farmer produce all the things that are necessary for this great country of ours, but we should not do things for the farmer which will hurt him and, as you say here, which will prevent the farmer from striving to look after himself, because some other program is adopted.

You and I will agree on that, I am sure.

Mr. HALVORSON. Yes; I would like to restate what I said. Is it not because we are spending money for urban housing that we feel it should be spent for rural housing as well, but we feel that if we set the standards for decent housing in urban areas, and we use sociological arguments for it, that those same arguments apply to the rural

Mr. Cole. That is right. With that, I thoroughly agree. If we are going to do it for one segment of our economy, certainly we must do it for all. That is my objection to this bill. We are not doing it for all. Somebody has selected the farmer, and said we are taking care of the urban population. I say why are we not taking care of the lowestincome group, and the fellow in the little town in the nonrural area? We are not doing that. Under this bill, we are taking care of a few privileged people, first in the urban areas, and then we say, “Because there is a farm element, we are going to do something for the farmers. We do not care particularly what it is; we are not very happy about it; we do not just like it, but we are going to do something for them, because then we can say that we have an urban low-rent housing situation, and now we have a farm proposition, which we are taking care of.”

My point is: It has not been done on the basis of what is the need. I do not find that any farmers have asked for it. I doubt if the grange has really asked for it.

You have probably been asked to come in here to testify on the bill. You have done a good job. I think you have done a very fine job, and I commend you for it. But the thing that disturbs me is, Where are we going on it?

Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. Cole, would you not say, though, that having authorized more than $9,000,000,000 for urban homes under FHA,


« PreviousContinue »