1’ R9 I’ E}. R53’ 3! LC. M, xg/2." 8 --- “ an N LB 7731 5 A ?1}%?sRARY . Wasmngton University v 7' \“ - V V} .. ‘A ~.. - ' . I. V .,_~,. ‘ ’ v‘Mw '15 F ‘ ‘. A’ 1 1'7 3 r I. "51- ’ « ..‘ ‘ ’v) » ¢a§x».¢m. ‘ . » , ‘\§,'1..‘:1"Ayw"”;V' ‘ u V. 5-,- ‘a ‘:5 NOV 17 3989 :8‘ "X 3. 8 .. i'~-»t> 4 n 2 v . .4” ‘v . ST. E8850‘ Issue Brief flalmi 1 0- 03860788 nive sit I‘ 01 x"ESEARCH SERVICE UBRARYOF NGRESSIONAL 8“ ' ; uumn CONGRESS RURAL DEVELOPMENT: THE FEDERAL ROLE ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB77113 AUTHOR: Osbourn, Sand 1: a S . Gov ernu en 1: Div i sion THE LIBRARY or CONGRESS CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE MAJOR ISSUES SYSTEM DATE ORIGINATED 19412477 DATE UPDATED 98 ¢(_)§_;§_Q FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 237-5700 0806 cBs- 1 13771 13 upnu:n—o 3/05/so '2!1.3..21.3§l1.'l.'!.lLQ! I A 1970 congressional policy declaration states that "the highest priority imust be given to the revitalization and development of rural areas." Defining the exact Federal role in revitalization and development activities has been the focus of a continuing debate since that, time. Administration reviews of the design and organization of Federal rural development programs culminated in the Small Community and Rural Development Policy released by President Carter on Dec. 20, 1979. This policy emphasized the Administration's intent to improve the operation of Federal rural development programs by orchestrating a Government-wide program of action for responding to small community and rural needs. The policy concentrates on new ways of managing existing programs, and does not propose any new expenditures. Since the policy was announced, the Administration has proposed budgetary cutbacks that some feel will adversely affect the implementation of the policy. Concurrently, the Congress has been considering legislation to provide statutory authority for a permanent rural policy mechanism in the executive branch, as well as legislation dealing with the various components of rural development. The Administration's budget reductions have been modified by the Congress. Rural development is a broad mission that involves the activities of Federal, State and local governments as well as the private sector. The aicoordination and orchestration of these activities so that they impact on rural areas in a mutually supportive way has been a continuing concern of rural development advocates in both the Administration and the Congress. On Dec. 20, 1979, President Carter released.his Administration's Small Community and Rural Development Policy which spells out rural development objectives and the procedures that will be used in meeting the objectives. The policy commits the Administration to the following goals: meeting the basic human needs of rural Americans; providing opportunities for rural people to be fully and productively employed and providing a favorable climate for business and economic development; addressing the rural problems of distance and size; and promoting the responsible use an stewardship of rural America's natural resources and environment while preserving the quality of rural life. The Federal rural development activities‘ addressed in the Rural ‘Development Policy take a variety of forms. some are directed specifically a rural areas, and are administered by the Department of Agriculture (USDA), which was designated as the lead agency in the Federal rural development effort by the Rural Development Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-419; 86 Stat. 657). other programs and activities, such as education and manpower, are directed at certain categories of people wherever they may live, and are administered cRs- 2 113771 13 upnu.-2-o 8/06/80 by agencies, commissions, and authorities other than USDA. spokesmen for rural interests frequently argue that rura1.residents do not always receive their ‘fair share" of the resources made available through the latter class of programs, which may have an urban orientation that is inappropriate 5 rural settings. They argue that because rural needs are proportionately ~ greater, rural areas should receive more Federal benefits either by increasing the total amount of resources, by revising the formulas determining the allocation of resources, or by setting aside a specific amount of benefits in each program for use in rural areas. ~ The Administration's rural development policy does not propose the establishment of any major new funding sources for programs of benefit to rural areas. Rather, the policy emphasizes improving existing programs by directing Federal agencies to adhere to theefollowing principles: manage their programs in ways that recognize local priorities and facilitate local decision-making in rural America; make Federal investments in ways that complement f State—local development plans and priorities; 3 use Federal assistance to help leverage private sector _ investments in rural community and economic development projects and programs; give high priority to the tangeting of Federal assistance to disadvantaged persons andtiistressed communities in rural areas; make Federal programs more accessible to rural jurisdictions and community-based organizations, better adapted to rural circumstances and needs, better coordinated, and more streamlined in their administration; and make special efforts to provide local citizens and their leaders with the assistance needed for effective community decisionmaking and development efforts. These principles are to be followed in implementing the proposed Action Agenda which is designed to meet Administration goals with regard to basic human needs (housing, health, water and sewer, education, income maintenance, social services, and legal aid), job creation and business and economic development, overcoming the problems of distance and size through the use of transportation and communications and through building capable local institutions, and stewardship of natural resources and environment with emphasis on preserving agricultural land and promoting pollution-free land, air, and water. The Action Agenda summarizes actions taken by the Administration during 1978 and 1979 in the series of rural initiatives described below and proposes new actions which, for the most part, build on and expand these earlier actions. Thus, the program enunciated in this policy document is a logical extension of previous Administration policies and does not include any radically new approaches. Rural development advocates have generally supported the approach taken by the Administration in its rural development policy. They have been less happy, however, with the rural development funding pattern that has emerged CRS- 3 IB77113 UPDATE-O8/O6/80 in recent months. The original FY81 Budget called for a holding pattern in rural development expenditures; with few' reductions, but also with no increases to account for inflation. This was followed by the Harch budget I 'isions and proposed recissions of previously authorized FY80 funding, which added up to substantial reductions in the funding levels for rural communitites. Congressional actions have tended to reflect a "hold the line" "approach; with no significant spending increases, but also with fewer spending reductions that the Administration has requested. APPendix A youtlines the funding history for seven major rural development programs. The Rural Development Act of 1972 is a primary sorce of programs to promote economic and community development in rural areas. Since 1972, the implementation of this legislation has been a primary focus of congressional and executive branch rural development activity. One of the goals of the Act was to strengthen the rural development institutions within the Federal Government, and to make the USDA the lead agency in rural development efforts. A host of the operating programs were placed in the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA), while the lead agency and coordinatiwe responsibilities were assigned to the Rural. Development Service. Both of these agencies reported to the Assistant Secretary for Rural Development. The main vehicle for carrying out the Secretary's leadership and coordinating roles within the executive branch in Washington is an Interdepartmental Assistant Secretaries’ Working Group chaired by the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Development. This Working Group was created by the regulations drafted by USDA to-implement the Rural Development Act. In an administrative action taken on Oct. 5, 1977, the Secretary of Agriculture abolished the Rural Development.Service and placed its functions wiin the FmHA, where the group became the Program, Policy Analysis and Evaluation staff reporting directly to the FmHA Administrator. The Secretary yalso proposed changing the name of the FmHA to the Farm and Rural Development R Administration, a change that will require legislative approval to become effective. According to the Administration, the goal of these changes was to convert FmHA into a development agency that can focus its resources on high priority rural problems and influence others to adopt a similar focus. This redirection of the mission of FmHA is in support of the following overall policies: I To target agency resources to the most distressed communities and population groups and to the most critical functional problems. Target pgpglgtiggg include the poor, the unemployed, disadvantaged blacks, Indians, Hispanics, women, the elderly, and very young adults. Target areas include those with a history of population loss, those with seriously inadequate public services and facilities, and those experiencing sudden population growth. A To place high priority on the development of cooperative agreements with other public and private agencies in order to resolve problems of coordination and to facilitate the development of joint investment strategies. CRS- fl IB77113 UPDATE-OQ/06/80 To use FmHA funds to induce other public and private sector institutions to channel more investments to the most critical rural problems. To meet rural needs better by improving FmHA program services and cost effectiveness rather than by relying on increased program expenditure levels. In connection with these policies, the agency's field organization has been realigned to correspond with formally recognized substate planning and devlopment district boundaries. Loan-making authority for community and multi-family housing programs has been transferred from county to district offices. six multistate coordinator positions have been established to improve policy coordination between the FmHA national office and the State directors. A continuing training program has been developed to prepare the field staff for a broader role in rural. development, with emphasis on coordination and cooperation with other agencies operating in rural areas. 9 on Bar. 21, 1979, Secretary of Agriculture Bob Bergland issued fa memorandum that set forth departmental policy for rural development, and spelled out the following goals: ; 1. Improve rural income levels and increase rural employment opportunities. 2. Improve the access of rural residents to adequate housing and essential community facilities and services. 3. Provide a more equitable distribution of opportunities through targeting efforts on distressed areas, communities, and people. 0. Create and implement a process for involving the private sector and local, State, and Federal agencies in establishing policies and programs that affect rural areas. 5. Strengthen the planning, management, and decisionmaking capacity of public and private institutions concerneda with economic opportunity and quality of life in rural America. Each agency within USDA is directed to identify, at the beginning of each fiscal year, how its programs will contribute to the goals and to report, at the end of each fiscal year, its rural. development achievements. The memorandum establishes a USDA Rural Development Coordinating Committee to coordinate activities within USDA, and continues the existing Assistant Secretaries Working Group for Rural Development to coordinate rural «development policy among departments. Procedures for establishing State Rural Development Coordinating Committees, and the tasks to be performed by these committees are also spelled out in the memorandum. The President's Rural Development Policy includes a number of additional proposed changes dealing with the rural development institutional structure First, the Administration will request congressional creation_of the position of Under Secretary of Agriculture for Small Community and Rural Develoment. This move will elevate the rural development mission within the USDA hierarchy. w A cus- 5 11377113 UPDATE-O8/06/8.0 Next, the Administration proposes to continue using the Working Group on Small Community and Rural Development as the primary interagency mechanism f T monitoring and implementing national rural development policy. The lnteragency Coordinating Council, which was established by Executive Order 12075 with the goal of coordinating urban policies and activities and which, iparticipated in the White House review that. led to the rural development policy, will now focus primarily on urban matters. The Working Group (whose legal authority comes from USDA regulations and the White House policy document) is to be cd-chaired by the Under Secretary for Small Community and Rural Development, the President's Assistant for Intergovernmental Affairs, and the Secretary to the Cabinet (the latter two positions have been held by Jack Watson, who is. now serving as Chief of Staff. Hr. Watson's responsibilities in this area have been assumed by Eugene Eidenberg, who had served as Watson's deputy.) Since neither of the White House positions are authorized by statute, there is no» guarantee that future Administrations would continue this, or any other, White House rural development institution. The working Group is to be composed of principal program managers (Assistant Secretary level) from a minimum of 18 Federal departments and agencies. An Advisory Council on Federal rural development composed of public officials named by major public interest groups, representatives of community-based organizations and other private interest groups, and representatives of the business and financial.cnmmunity is to be appointed by the Secretary. It is expected that an Executive Order establishing the Council will be issued in late summer. Z The heads of 11 agencies are directed to designate a senior official to be responsible for monitoring implementation within the agency, serving as a r fal advocate within the agency and acting as a point of contact for small community and rural leaders. Twenty-two agencies, twice the number requested (to do so, have appointed such an officer. At the sub—national level, the Governors are being asked to establish State Rural Development Councils to coordinate joint Federal-State efforts and to work with the rural development task forces that the Federal Regional Councils have been directed to establish. Approximately 34 States have expressed an interest in such undertakings. At the local level, the Policy proposes the establishment of a national program supporting locally-selected "circuit-riding managers." These institutional changes reflect the findings of the various White House studies on rural development which led to the rural development policy and which are described below. Changes also reflect congressional criticism of the way in which this and previous Administrations have implemented the policy—setting and coordinative authorities provided by the Rural Development Act. This congressional dissatisfaction is illustrated in several bills currently under consideration. Legislation to authorize the establishment of a rural development policy process in the executive branch has been passed by the Senate (5. 670) and has been reported to the House (H.R. 3580). The House version is more explicit in mandating a particular rural development institutional structure; the Senate authorizes a rural development policy hmanagement process, but leaves the administrative details to the executive branch. The Administration opposes several key provisions of this legislation and i encouraging amendments that would provide statutory authority for the Under Secretary and the circuit rider program, but would eliminate other provisions. other legislation deals with a perceived need to ensure that rural CRS- 6 IB77113 UPDATE-08/06/80 interests are considered in the design and implementation of national policies and programs that impact on rural areas and rural people. H.R. 2886 and H.R. 3882 would establish an Office of Rural Health within the Department of Health, Education, and welfare, while 5. 839 would establish a Rural Arr Transportation Office within the Department.of Transportation. Presumably, the President's directive to 11 Federal agencies to designate a senior official to serve as a rural area ‘point man" is meant to be a response to the concerns that led to these legislative proposals. The issue of equity is addressed in current legislation, as it is in the Rural Development Policy. The President's policy does not, however, endorse the concept of an across-the-board set-aside for small communities that is embodied in the proposed Federal Assistance Reform and Small Community Act of 1979 (S. 904). Rather, the policy directs such actions as the formation of an inter-program task force at the Department of Education to develop recommendations for assuring equity for rural constituents and a directive that special rural characteristics be considered in gthe enactment and implementation of welfare reform. The Small Community and Rural Development Policy embodies the Administration's response to the findings of a series of reviews and studies of the Federal rural development effort.o The earliest of these reviews was undertaken as the result of a request from President Carter at a June 3, 1977 meeting relating to the USDA budget and wasscarried out by a joint OMB—USDA task force, under the direction of William Nagle, then Administrator of the Rural Development Service. Agriculture Secretary Berglandt submitted the report of this task force to the Acting OMB Director in late October 1977. The issues raised in this report are summarized below. A The Task Force identified the following weaknesses in current federal programs for rural development: a (1) They have not built adequate capacity at the state level or fully effective capacity at the local level for managing rural development. (2) Federal programs have concentrated heavily on public facilities investments which have improved the public infrastructure in many rural areas, but have not stimulated substantial private sector employment. Federal programs have also underinvested in human resource development and in technological innovation in rural areas. (3) Federal resources have not been targeted on the problems of special groups in rural America -- e.g., Indians, poor Blacks, and Hispanics - and have tended to shy away from the special needs of the disadvantaged. (4) Federal efforts have not developed a knowledge base for understanding the problems and the resources required to develop institutional, financial, physical and human resource capacity in widely divergent rural areas. (5) Despite the growth of federal assistance programs directed to rural areas and problems, there is no cns- 7 11377113 UPDATE—0 8/06/80 federal focus for rural development policy. % A The authors proposed a national rural development strategy designed to yt the following objectives: i (1) Expand economic opportunity through improved access to better jobs and income for low-income and underemployed rural people, and assist in adjustment to structural economic change that results (or is likely to result) in chronic unemployment. (2) Provide access to a minimum acceptable level of i essential public facilities and social services for all rural people. (3) Strengthen the planning, management, and decisionmaking capacity of public (and.private) institutions concerned with economic opportunity and quality of life in rural America. § The report does not spell out the specifics of the design of a rural) development strategy to»meet these objectives. Rather, it identifies the following questions, which should he considered in choosing among options. (1) with regard to federal economicrdevelopment efforts: Should the current mix of federal assistance (human resource investments, public facilities investments, private sector investments) be changed? ihat additional mechanisms should be adopted to encourage private sector job creation? How can federal economic development efforts be better targeted on the rural disadvantaged? What organizational changes would contribute to a more effective economic development effort? (2) iith regard to providing access to minimum acceptable levels of essential facilities and services: What are the ggsggtigl services, in terms of people’s needs and likely budget constraints? What kind of process would contribute to establishing useful and neaningful.minimum levels? Should specific quantitative goals and criteria for targeting federal resources be adopted? (3) with regard to building an improved institutional 5 capacity: ~ ihat are the options for providing a federal organization and policy focus for rural development? CRS- 8 IB77113 UPDATE‘O8/O6/80 Phat should be the role of the three levels of government in the planning and implementation process of rural development? what should be the role of multistate regional commissions and the multicounty substate districts? what should be the role of nongwwernmental public interest organizations? The report stresses the need to develop a national growth and development policy and to insure that rural needs and interests are included in such Ha policy. It also identifies a need for an authoritative public report on the status and needs of rural America and the programmatic initiatives required to deal with those needs. To this end, (the report recommends the establishment of an Interagency Rural Development Data Base Project. The report also endorses the creation of an integrated rural development policy management process. Key initial steps would include: (1) Providing a rural development policy focus within the White House and the Executive Cifice of the President. (2) Evolution in the rural development advocacy role of USDA. (3) Strengthening institutional capacity at the State and local level to participate in the intergovernmental A policy management process, as well as to effectively ; formulate and implement policy within their own jurisdictions. Current White House involvement in rural development policy began as Ta review of specific problems with the Federal rural development delivery system, with the aim of finding specific solutions to these various problems. Later, this effort was broadened to provideethe basis for the articulation of a set of overall rural development principles and goals that were spelled out in the Small Community and Rural Development Policy. Both the Assistant secretaries Working Group and the Interagency Coordinating Council were involved in the White House review, which generated new approaches to program delivery in several functional areas. These initiatives are being expanded in the Action Agenda proposed in the Rural Development Policy. The first in this series of initiatives resulted fro proposals from the task force on rural health, and was announced by Vice President Hondale on Oct. 2, 1978. The initiative involves new cooperative procedures in three existing programs operated by the Departments of Agriculture, Labor, and Health, Education and Welfare. The procedures are designed to expedite the construction of rural primary health care facilities, as well as increasing the supply of rural preventive and health support staff and promoting th recruitment and retention of rural health professionals. A on Dec. 1, 1978, President Carter announced the proposals of the water and sewer task force to a White House audience. These proposals led to interagency agreements involving the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Farmers Home Administration (FmHA), Department of Housing and Urba Development (HUD), the Economic Development Administration (EDA), Department of Labor (DOL), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), and Community Services Administration (CSA). The Coordination and Service Delivery Agreement includes the following major features: CBS- 9 IB77113 UPDATE—O8/06/80 Emphasis on alternative and innovative technologies in rural areas. Single determinations of compliance with Federal law. Coordination procedures for facility plan reviews. Common criteria for identifying high cost projects." Establishment of a joint agency data base for needs assessment. A pilot demonstration of other administrative simplification measures. Hore efficient use of the A-95 process. Periodic regional meetings of water/sewer agencies. nanual on available assistance and how to apply. Joint agency training seminars. The interagency effort also produced an agreement between EPA and DOL to conduct a pilot program for training 1,000 new workers in water and wastewater treatment occupations, and to upgrade the skills of approximately another 750‘worker presently employed in the field. Finally, EDA, EPA, HUD, a 1 FmHA agreed to provide $2.8 million for’ FY79 to support the National Demonstration Water Project. In February 1979, the White House announced the undertaking of a series of trural communication initiatives designed to overcome the problems of rural ‘ isolation through modern communications technology. There are three areas of emphasis: Regulatory changes: Several Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules are designed to protect copetition and service in urban areas, but do not make sense in sparsely populated areas. The Administration is calling on the FCC to move rapidly to revise those rules to encourage construction of new facilities. Loan Programs: The USDA is announcing Rural Electrification Administration (BEA) and other loan programs to help rural telephone companies and other eligible organizations provide commercial television and associated broadband services to rural residents. Demonstrations: Various Federa1.agencies will use grants to explore and demonstrate the potential of modern telecommunications to improve delivery of public services while reducing costs. on may Q, 1979, at a speech in Des Moines, Iowa, the President announced another rural development initiative, which dealt with the energy problems of rural areas and small towns. Financing (grants, loans, or loan guarantees) will be made available for the renovation of 100 small-scale hydro—electric cns-"10 I IB77 1 13 UPDATE—O 8/06/80 projects, for 100 small-scale plants to produce gasohol, and for feasibility tests of the use of natural gas from coal or gas fields. The CETA program and a special training program will be used to place rural residents in jobs created by these activities. Funds will be made available to Econom’ Development Districts to help them develop integrated economic developmen. and energy production plans. In addition, measures to assure adequate supplies of natural gas, diesel fuel, and gasoline to farmers were announced. On June 19, 1979, a White House Rural Development Initiative relating to transportation was announced. Included in this initiative are: agreements and actions to improve the coordination and effectiveness of social service and public transportation programs in rural areas; assistance for the rehabilitation of essential railroad branchlines (branchlines given high priority in state rail plans); assistance to commuter airlines wanting to enter rural markets, and to small community airports to install or upgrade facilities needed to support or attract air service; and a series of actions to promote increased vanpooling and other forms of ridesharing in rural areas. The delivery of Federal programs in rural areas was also the subject of 6 executive branch reorganization study that was conducted apart from the White House review. According to the memorandum on the review of local development programs and the draft work program for the local development study, the reorganization study focused on six program areas: business promotion, public community facilities investment, housing, transportation, employment and training, and planning assistance. the objectives of the reorganization. project were to improve the coordination of local and community economic development programs, to reduce unnecessary duplication and overlap in existing’ responsibilities and activities, and to make less cumbersome the administrative structures and procedures associated with these programs. A number of alternative approaches to achieving these objectives were considered. These included: (1) g;9g;ag_QQn§g;igg§iQn. Major shifts in the responsibilities for community and local economic development assistance among departnents and agencies. (2) §;1.i;1.I.1s1.e§_iI.1.1.!§.~*=.-.i.s.ta;1.<.=e-;~‘».’2rug.1;t.1res- Alterations in the for- and mode of Federal assistance involving such possibilities as changing the balance between categorical and block grants, between formula grants and project grants, and between grants and loans or loan guarantees. (3) §_es=.hani§u§_£9-1n;2r2ze-§22rQ.i.n.§.t_:L22-at_the-I-_9.9a;_L.ezel- Changes in the role of multistate, State, and substate planning and review bodies; improvements in the capabilities of local governments; and incentives for improvement of government CRS—11 IB77113 UPDATE-08/O6/80 structures at various levels. (4) 2;9q§§;_§gg;d;n§t;Qg. Changes in the internal administrative processes of existing programs to facilitate coordination by rationalizing funding cycles, application requirements, planning requirements, and related matters. The alternative chosen by the President was that of limited program consolidation. All economic development loan and loan guarantee programs would be consolidated into one economic development financing program to he managed by EDA. This proposal must be approved by the Congress. The Administration does not plan to submit legislation to implement this proposal at this time. The following programs would -be consolidated under this proposal: The Title II program of EDA, which involves $313.5 million of loan authority. The business and industry loan program of the Farmers Home Administration, which involves loan authority of $1.1 billion. The section 501 and 502 development company loan programs of the Small Business Administration, which involve loan authority of $95 million. " 5 I Rural interests have opposed the transfer of the business and industqy loan program from FmRA to EDA without a guaranteed set aside of funds for I ‘al communities and a guarantee that the advantages; of the current Fm&A ,delivery system could be replicated under the new organizational structure.; The President's proposal also calls for greater coordination of the development planning programs operated by DHUD, DOC, and USDA (the Sec. 111 1 rural planning program) and further simplification of the planning requirements in development programs. I-..1§§l§LA..5.-‘£9! H.R. 3580 (Nolan and Grassley) National Rural Development Policy Act of 1979. Provides for the establishment of a rural development policy and requires coordination ;of Federal rural development policies. Also authorizes a 2-year extension of authorization for Title V of the Rural Development Act of 1972. Introduced Apr. 19, 1979; referred to Committee on Agriculture. Reported favorably, with amendments, June 8, 1979 (H.Rept. 96-259). Rule providing an Open Rule with.one hour of debate passed House Nov. 16, 1979. 51.3. 3683 (Jones, Ed) consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act Amendments. Sets loan levels under the Rural Development Insurance Fund for FY80 through FY82; for“ each lyear, water and sewer facility loans, $700 million; industrial development 1 .ns, 51 billion; community facility loans, $250 million. Introduced by request Apr- 23, 1979; referred to Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Reported favorably Hay 8, 1979, with amendments that would raise the authorization levels, increase the population eligibility for rural development assistance from 10,000 to 20,000, increase the ability of FmHA to CBS-12 IB77113 UPDATE-08/O6/80 fund solar energy projects, and restrict. the applicability of the new authorizing limits to as long as the programs are administered by FmHA (H.Hept. 96-153). Passed House Oct. 24, 1979; laid on table; 5. 985 passed in lieu. H.R. 3882 (E. Jones) Rural Health Services. Establishes Office of Rural Health mithin HEW and assists in development of rural health care delivery models and components. Introduced Bay 2, 1979; referred to House Commerce Committee. H.R. 4234 (Panetta) Small Community Library Services Assistance Act. Permits county governments to apply directly on behalf of its smaller communities for federal library assistance. Introduced Hay 20, 1979; referred to House Education and Labor Committee. t H.R. 6664 (Jenkins) Provides for a resource conservation and development program in the Department of Agriculture. Introduced Feb. 28, 1980; referred to Committee on Agriculture. H.R. 7136 (Aucoin and Lundine) Rural Housing Act of 1980. Extends authorizations for FmHA grant and loan programs and makes technical changes in the program. Introduced Apr. 23, 1980; referred to Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs. H.R. 7591 (Whitten) flakes appropriations for FY81 for specified agricultural, rural development, domestic food, and international programs of the Department of Agriculture and certain related agencies. Introduced June 17, 1980; referred tto Committee on Appropriations; reported to House (H.Bept. 96-1095) June 17, 1980; passed House July 30, 1980. H.Res. 173 (iatkins) Declares the transfer of the Forest. Service and the Farmers Home Administration business and industrial loan program from USDA through executive reorganization to be unacceptable. Introduced Mar. 21, 1979; referred to Committee on Agriculture. 5 S. 225 (Dole and Pressler) Rural Economic Development Bank Act of 1979. Creates a rural economic development bank to assist in rural community and agricultural development by making financial, technical, and other assistance available for the establishment or expansion of commercial, industrial, and related private and public facilities and resources. Introduced Jan. 25, 1979; referred to Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Frrestry. s. 3uo (Leahy) Rural Health Needs Planning Act of 1979} Hestructures the national health planning system to provide greater representation and financial support for CBS-13 IB77113 UPDATE-08/06/80 rural health interests. Introduced Feb. 5, 1979; referred to Committee an Human Resources. 5. 372 (Leahy) National Rural Development Bank Act of 1979. Creates ,a National Rural Development Bank to offer rural banks a place to discount their papers; finance joint-venture-equity rural development projects with federal programs for rural financial institutions; extend loans directly to rural development project sponsors. Introduced Feb. 7, 1979; referred to Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. S. 670 (Leahy) P Rural Development Policy and Coordination Act of 1979. Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to establish and maintain a rural development policy management process involving local and State governments, executive branch departments and agencies, and major private sector institutions having policies and programs affecting the quality of life in rural areas. Introduced Mar. 15, 1979; referred to Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Reported favorably, with amendments, may, 8, 1979. Passed Senate June 14, 1979 (SLRept. 96-187). r S. 671 (Leahy and Stewart) Extension of Title V of the Rural Development Act of 1972. Authorizes Fa 2-year extension of the rural development research program created by Title . Introduced mar. 15, 1979; referred. to Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. ~ g as. 836 (nelcher) Rural Electrification Act Amendments of 1979. Amends Rural Electrification Act of 1936 to provide for financing of telecommunications 7 facilities for broadband services in small towns and rural areas. Introduced Mar- 29, 1979; referred to Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. S. 892 (Leahy and Stewart) ’ w Extension of Title V of the Rural Development Act of 1972. Amends a drafting error in S. 671. Introduced Apr. 5, 1979; referred to Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Reported favorably, with amendments, May 16, 1979 (S.Rept. 96-188). Passed Senate, amended, June 1n, 1979. 3. 90¢ (Danforth et al.) Federal Assistance Reform and Small Community Act of 1979. To promote efficiency in the federal grant programs and to relieve state and local governments, especially small communities, of paperwork and regulatory burdens associated with federal assistance. Also expands the membership of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relatios to include three elected officers of small communities, authorizes a 10% set-aside for small communities in all federal assistance programs providing assistance to local governments, and gives small communities receiving small federal grants the ‘opportunity to trade in their categorical grants on increased revenue sharing 6 .lars. Introduced Apr. 5, 1979; referred to Committee on Governmental Affairs. 3. 985 (Talmadge) Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act Amendments. Companion to CBS-14 IB77113 UPDATE-08/06/80 H.R. 3683. Reported favorably nay 8, 1979, amended to increase the authorization levels (S.Rept. 96-168). Passed Senate, amended, Hay 23, 1979. Passed House, amended, Oct. 24, 1979. Oonferees agreed to file report Dec. 20, 1979. S. 1064 (Eorgan) Rural Housing Amendments. Extends and.reauthorizes existing FmHA loan and assistance programs and establishes new policies for allocating assistance, disposing of FmHA—held projects, and housing for migrant farm workers. Introduced may 2, 1979; referred to Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Reported favorably Bay 15, 1979 (S.Rept. 96-157y. Incorporated in H.R. 3875 as an amendment July 13, 1979. Enacted as Title V of P.L. 96-153 Dec. 21, 1979. s. 2553 (Leahy) Establishes a rural Ieatherization grant.program within the Departmet of Agriculture. Introduced May 6, 1980; referred to Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. S. 2679 (Baucus) Establishes an Office of Transportation in the Department of Agriculture. Introduced May 8, 1980; referred to Comittee on Governmental Affairs. : S. 2711 (norgan) ; Amends the Housing Act of 19fl9 to authorize appropriations for and extensions of rural housing programs through FY81. Amends the Housing at Urban Development Act of 1969 to authorize the transfer of «Federal surplus real property at the request of the Secretary of Agriculture for‘ low and moderate income housing. Introduced May 15, 1980; referred to Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs; reported to Senate (S.Bept. 96-724) May“ 15, 1980; indefinitely postponed in Senate June 21, 1980. S.Res. 71 (ncsovern et al-) Declares that in any governmental reorganization the Department of Agriculture should not be changed in any may that would diminish its ability to perform any of its vital functions. Introduced Feb. 9, 1979; referred to Committee on Governmental Affairs. 4 S.Res. 372 (Pressler) Expresses the sense of the Senate that. the Department of Agriculture should conduct a study of the transportation problems of the elderly in rural areas. Introduced Feb. 20, 1980; referred to Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 6 §§A§l.!§§ 3.5. econgress. House. Committee on Agriculture. Subcommittee on Family Farms, Rural Development, and special Studies. Funding authorization for FmHA loan programs. Hearings, 96th Congress, 1st session, on H.R. 2332, and H.R. 3683. Washington, H.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 50 p. , 5 CBS-15 IB77113 UPDATE-O8/O6/30 Rural Community Development Act and Rural Development Policy Act. Hearings, 95th Congress, 2d session, on H.R. 9983 and H.R. 10885. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1978. 593 p. 0.5. Congress. House. Committee on Appropriations. Agriculture, rural development and related agencies appropriations for 1981. Hearings, 96th Congress, 2d session. Part 3. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. p. 1-365. 0.5. Congress. House. Committee on Baking, Finance and 0 Urban Affairs} Subcommittee on the City. Small cities: How can the Federal and State governments respond to their diverse needs? Hearings, 95th Congress 2d session. Washington, 055. Govt. Print. Off., 1978. 584 p. 0.5. Congress. House. Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. Subcommittee on Investigations. Census on rural America. Hearing,: 96th Congress, 1st session. July 31, 1979. Washington, 0.5. A Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 40 p. 0.5. Congress. Joint Economic Committee. Subcommittee on Economic Growth and Stabilization. Economic problems of rural America. Hearing, 95th Congress, 1st session. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1977. 199 p. ---- Deteriorating infrastructure in urban and rural areas. Hearings, 96th Congress, 1st session. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 122 p. 0.5. Congress. Senate. Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Subcommittee on Agricultural Research and General Legislation. Rural research in USDA. Hearings, 95th Congress, 2d session. May 8-5, 1978. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1978. 394 p. 0.5. Congress. Senate. Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Subcommittee on Rural Development. Amendments to the Rural Development Act. Hearings, 96th Congress, 1st session on S. 670 and 5. 892. Apr. 9, 1979. Washington, u.s. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. ‘in p. ---- Housing credit needs in rural America.o Hearing, 96th Congress, 1st session. June 26, 1979. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 52 p. " ---- REA financing of telecommunications facilities. Hearing, 96th Congress, 1st session, on S. 836. Washington, 0.5. 8 Print. Off., 1979. 61 p. —---- Reauthorization of FmHA loan programs. Hearing, 96th Congress, 1st session, on 5. 985. Apr. 24, 1979. Washington, ---- Rural development oversight. Hearings, 94th Congress, 2d session. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1976. 69 p. Rural development oversight. Hearings, 95th Congress, 1st session. cns-16 5 11377113 upnmx-:-oe/05/so June 16 and 22, 1977. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off-, 1977. 159 p. ' Rural development oversight. Hearing, 95th Cngress, 2d session. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1978. 112 p. ---- Rural developnent oversight. Hearings, 96th Congress, 1st session. Apr. 2, 1979. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 83 p. Rural housing oversight. Hearings, 96th Congress, 1st session. Nov. 29, 1979. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 153 p. 0-3. Congress. Senate. Committee on Governmental Affairs. 5 Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations. Federal grants management reform. Hearings, 96th Congress, 1st session, on S. 878 and S. 904. July 27, Sept. 6, and Oct. 3, 1979. Washington, ULS. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 639 p. ---- Small Communities Act of 1978. Hearings, 95th Congress, 2d session. Aug; 2, 1978. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. E§EQ§$§-A!2-§9§§§§§§lQ!AL_2QQE!§!1§ Aucoin, Les. Rural Housing Act of 1980. Remarks in the House. Congressional record [daily ed.], v. 126, Apr. 23, 1980: R2873-2875. Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act Amendments; House debate. Congressional record [daily ed.] v. 125, Oct. 19, 1979: H9449-H9453; Oct. 24, 1979: H9635-H9647. Danforth, John C. Federal Assistance Reform and Small Community Act of 1979. Remarks in the Senate. Congressional record [daily ed.] v. 125, Apr. 5, 1979: 54024-54025. ‘ Dole, Robert. Rural Economic Development Bank Act a 1979. Remarks in the Senate. Congressional record [daily ed] v. 125, Jan. 25, 1979: 5670-5674. ’ Jones, Ed. ORB plans would weaken USDA. Remarks in the House. Congressional record [daily ed.] v. 125, Feb. 5, 1979: E374-E375. Leahy, Patrick J. Extension of Title V of the Rural Development Act. Remarks in the Senate. Congressional record [daily ed.] v. 125, nar. 15, 1979: S2815-S2817. ----- President Carter's Small Community and Rural Development Policy. Remarks in the Senate. Congressional record [daily ed.], v. 126, mar. 12, 1980: S2467-2470. p----- The President's rural health initiatives. Renarks in the Senate. Congressional record [daily ed.] cRs—17 13771 13 UPDATE-08/06/80 v. 12a, Oct. 3, 1973: 515952. ———-- National Rural Development Act of 1979. Remarks in the Senate. Congressional record [daily ed.] v. 125, Feb. 7, 1979: 51247-51253. —--—- Rural Development Policy and Coordination Act of 1979. Remarks in the Senate. Congressional record [daily ed.] v. 125, Mar. 15, 1979: S281fl-S2815. —---- Rural Health Clinic Services Act. Remarks in the Senate. Congressional record [daily ed.] v. 125, Oct. H, 1979: $14024-S14026A ---- Rural Health Needs Planning Act of 1979. Remarks in the Senate. Congressional record [daily ed.] v. 125, Feb. 5, 1979: S1061- Helcher, John. Rural Electrification Act Amendments of 1979. Remarks in the Senate. Congressional record [daily ed.] Morgan, Robert. Rural Housing Amendments of 1979. K Remarks in the Senate. Congressional record [daily ed.] A v. 125, May 15, 1979: S5932-S5933. Nolan, Richard. Rural education. Congressional record [daily ed.] v. 125, Apr. 23, 1979: E1726. skelton, Ike. The changing of rural America. Congressional record [daily ed.] v. 125, Mar. 6, 1979: H1094-H1095. 3.3. Congress. House. Committee on Appropriations. Agriculture, rural development and related agencies appropriation bill, 1981; report, to accompany H.R. 7591. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980 (96th Congress, 2d session. House. Report no. 96-1095) 0.5. Congress. House. Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs. Subcommittee on thescity. Small cities: How can the Federal and State governments respond to their diverse needs? Together with additional views. Report. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. 0ff., August 1978. (95th Congress, 2d session. Subcommittee Print) 37 p. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. Subcommittee on Rural Development. 1976 revised guide to the Rural Development Act of 1972. Mar. 25, 1976. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1976. 69 p. At head of title: 9hth Congress, 2d session. Committee print. ---- Rural development: an overview; prepared by the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress for the subcommittee on Rural Development. Aug. 20, 1979. Washington, 0.3. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. .257 p. At head of title: 96th Congress, 1st session. Committee print. 0315-18 13711 13 UPDATE-0 8/06/81-0 3.5. President, 1977- (Carter). The supplemental State of the Union -- Message from the President of the United States. (H.Doc. 96-flu) Congressional reoord [daily ed.] v. 125, Jan. 25, 1979: H295-H311. -5-- Proposed National Public works and Economic Development Act of 1979 -- message from the President - PH SH. Congressional record, v. 125 [daily ed.] Apr. 5, 1979: $3990-$3992- 12/20/79 - President Carter announces a comprehensive T national small community and rural development policy. 11/08/79 - Secretary of Agriculture transmitted fifth report on rural development progress to the Congress. 06/19/79 - Administration officials announce rural transportation initiatives designed to assist and promote social service and rural public transportation, commuter air services, branchline railroad rehabilitation, and ridesharing (vanpooling). 06/14/79 -- Senate passes S. 670, Rural Development Policy and i Coordination Act of 1979, and S. 892, Extension of g Title V of the Rural Development Act of 1972. § 05/04/79 - President Carter announces a series of initiatives _ to help small towns and rural areas approach A energy self-sufficiency while reducing the 5 country's dependence on foreign oil. 04/05/79 —— President Carter announces that the reorganization plan to transfer the Farmers Home Administration's business and industrial loan program to the Economic Development Administration will be submitted later this year. Once Congress has completed work on the reorganization plan, legislation to consolidate the FmHA program and a program transferred from the Small Business Administration into a consolidated economicrdevelopment financing program in EDA will be submitted. 03/21/79 - secretary of Agriculture issues memorandum setting forth departmental policy for improving economic opportunity and the quality of life in rural America. 03/01/79 - President Carter announces a plan to consolidate economic development loan and loan guarantee programs into one program to be managed by the Economic Development Administration. This would include the Business and Industry loan program of the Farmers Home Administration. The President also called for greater coordination of the development planning programs operated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Commerce, and 0.5. CRS-19 IB77113 UPDATE-08/06/80 Department of Agriculture, and for further simplification of planning requirements in development programs. 12/01/78 - President Carter announces a coordination and service delivery agreement for Federal water and sewer programs, in addition to related job training and National Demonstration Water Project agreements. 10/02/78 - Vice-President Mondale announces three steps the Administration will take to improve the delivery of federally supported health services and facilities in rural areas. " 08/16/78 —- President Carter signs Executive Order 12075, establishing the Interagency Coordinating Council. 08/04/78 - President Carter signs Agriculture Credit Assistance Act of 1978, P.L. 95-330. 10/20/77 —— Agriculture Secretary Bergland submitted a report on Rural Development Issues to the Acting Director of the Office of management and Budget. 10/05/77 —— Agriculture Secretary Bergland announces reorganization of U.s.D.A. rural development agencies. 06/29/77 - President Carter announces the beginning of an executive reorganization study in the area of local and community economic development. Center for Community Change. Rural development programs; a citizens“ action guide. Washington, Center for Community Change, 1979. ‘ 36 p. . Farwell, Byron. The study of small towns in Virginia. News Letter, Institute of Government, University of Virginia, v. 56, November 1979: 1-4. Focus on rural poverty. Rural development perspectives, March 1980: 4-26. Ford, Thomas R., ed. Rural U.S.A.: Persistence and change. Ames, The Iowa State University Press, 1978. 255 p. Fuguitt, Glenn, V., Paul R. Voss, and J.C. Doherty. Growth and change in rural America. (Management and Control of 0 Growth Series) Washington, The Urban Land Institute, 1979. 101 p. Gabris, Gerald T., and William A. Giles. Prospects for administrative development: a case for rural county government. Southern review of public administration, v. 3, June 1979: 70-89. Gober, Patricia. An annotated bibliography of population growth and migration of nonmetropolitan areas of the U.S. (Public Administration Series: Bibliography P-419) Monticello, Ill., Vance Bibliographies, 1980. 31 p. cns-2o 1377113 UPDATE-08/O6/80, Herbers, John. Urban centers population drift creating a countryside harvest. New York times, Mar. 23, 1980: A1, A50; Bar. 24, 1980: D9. Johnson, Kenneth H. and Ross L. Purdy. Recent nonmetropolitan population change in fifty-year perspective. Demography, v. 17, Feb. 1980: 57-70. Newman, Bobbie G. Rural.nonfarm population: a guide to the literature.[ (?ublic Administration Series: Bibliography P-418) Monticello, Ill., Vance Bibliographies, 1980. 20 p. Hason, Bert and Varden Puller. Small communities and the new federalism: some observations for general revenue sharing. Publius, v. 8, Fall 1978: 113-128. uccarthy, Kevin F. and Peter A. uorrison. The changing demographic and economic structure of nonmetropolitan areas in the United States. Santa nonica, Calif., The Rand corporation, 1979. 65 p. National Rural Center. The rural stake in public assistance; information and analysis to guide public policy. (NRC Publication Series. vol. 10) (Washington) 1978. 1&6 p. Kentucky. Legislative Research Commission. The quality of rural life 1 in Kentucky. (Research Report no. 162) Frankfort, Ky., 1979. 54 p. lortheastgnidwest Institute. The regional impact of the Rural Development Act. [Washington] 1979. 43 p. Bierce, Neal R. and Jerry Hagstrom. New migrants mean opportunities —-and problems -- for rural America. National journal, v. 12, Bar. 29, 1980: 508-512. Sokolow, Alvin D. Small towns, big grants: federal aid and non-metropolitan local government in Illinois. Illinois government research, No. 49, November 1979: 1-6. Stanfield, Rochelle L. Small cities are-onthe prowl for help from Washington. National journal, v. 10, Oct. 7, 1978: 1597-1601- ---- The changing face of rural America. National journal v. 11, Jan. 27, 1979: 149. Tweeten, Luther and George L. Brinkman. Hicropolitan development; theory and practice of greater rural economic development. Ames, Iowa State University Press, 1976. 456 p. 9.5. Community Services Administration. Improving rural transportation: the section 18 program of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978. [Washington, 0.5. Dept. of Transportation, 1979, i.e. 1980] 36, 20 p. 0.5. Department of Agriculture. Office of the Secretary. Fact sheet on U.S.D.A. reorganization. [Washington] Oct. 5, CR5-21 IB77113 0PDATE—08/O6/80 1977. 4 p. 9 Rural development progress, January 1977 — June 1979; fifth annual report of the Secretary of Agriculture to»the Congress. Washington 1979. 72 p. This report contains data and indicators on the status of rural development, including recent trends and the effects of current Federal programs at the local level. ---- Secretary's memorandum no. 1979: statement on rural development. [Washington] Bar. 21, 1979. 5 p. 0.5. Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service and Rural Development Service. Rural development issues. Washington, 1977. 17 p. A 0.5. Department of Agriculture. Economics Statistics and Cooperatives Service. Federal outlays in fiscal 1976: A comparison of metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. (Rural Development Research Report no. 1) Washington, 0.5. Govt- Print. Off., 1978. 64 p. ---- Health.careuvm:owx wcnmw om:n:oHwn% woo umscmnw wcmmmn wmncmmn. mm moo Nob Emma: wcommn wmvHwH wmnwmmwonm. mm mo mocmm >wvHovHwmnwo:m. ma m_ Am.w. umo~.wmmmmo mocmm uuwoumov woo Nu mo Ho. woo. woo boo woo H.coo owa um_ ~m_ Ho Ho Ho mmo" ow >vvm:mwN N r‘ wcnmw wwmsswnm onmnnm Awmumcamupmwv wcnmw wwnm wnonmonwon owmanm Awwuwoauunmwv noacnwnw wmnw_wn< Homam AH~-»_mm-»m~V LIBRARY OF WASHINGTON uwnvsrasrrv ST. LQUIS - M0- Home wcammn >cn:on»n< umscmnw wcammn wmncmmn. mm mw zmnnr wcammn wmwHwH wmowmmwobm. mm mo mocmm >wvHovHwmnwo:m. wm mg m wnowommmn mmsmnmu mocmmu nonmmnmnnmu 4w.Amw. ~mo_. vmmmmm momma unuoumov m u.m w.m Nmo Npo Mao mmouuc MU Libraries University of Missouri——Columbia Digitization Information for Congressional Research Service Digitization Project Local identifier CRSIB Source information Format Content type Notes Capture information Date captured Scanner manufacturer Scanner model Scanning system software Optical resolution Color settings File types Derivatives — Access copy Compression Editing software Resolution Color File types Notes Book Text Cover has cut—out to show title on title Page Stamped with property stamp for Washington University including deaccession stamp Some have labels on front page Some have black out markings on front page SuDoc numbers handwritten on front page Some items have very light print Some front pages have colored backgrounds Items not added to University of Missouri collection 20l7 April Ricoh MP C4503 600 dpi grayscale tiff Group 4 600 dpi bitonal tiff