Search

Though amended in 1973, the Older Americans Act of 1965 has not met the needs of the rural elderly and was, consequently, the subject of these hearings by the Senate's Special Committee on Aging which consider proposed legislation under Title III of the Act to gain support for demonstration programs to assist older rural people and to improve the delivery systems of rural America. These hearings include testimony from (1) the Governor of Arkansas and the Director of the Arkansas State Office on Aging and Adult Services; (2) the Associate Dean of the University of Iowa's College of Medicine and the Chairman of the Iowa State Commission on the Aging; (3) the Executive Director of the South Carolina Commission on Aging; (4) the Director of the Title VII Nutrition Project; (5) a professor from the Department of Agricultural Economics and Sociology at Pennsylvania State University; (6) the Director of the Georgia Mountains Area Program on Aging; and (7) a consultant from the Senate Special Committee on Aging. Among the discussion topics recorded in these hearings are: (1) population distribution of the elderly; (2) revenue sharing; (3) equalization aid; (4) nutrition; (5) housing; (6) health care needs and delivery systems; (7) transportation; (8) model project funds; (9) flexibility for state programs; (10) Title III projects; (11) rural/urban differences. (JC)

Compiled by the members of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Rural Development, this series of papers presents varying views on rural land-use issues. The 19 papers are titled as follows: (1) "Planning: Some questions, Answers, and Issues"; (2) "Evolution of Planning Theory and Practice: A Response to Changing Problems and Institutions"; (3) "The Legal and Governmental Framework for Planning"; (4) "The Politics of Planning"; (5) "Planning Practice and Techniques"; (6) "Implementing the Products of Comprehensive Planning: The Pueblo Experience"; (7) "Integrating Natural Resources into Areawide and Local Planning: The Southeastern Wisconsin Experience"; (8) "Rural New York State's Agricultural Districts"; (9) "An Overview of the Taxation of Open Land"; (10) "Differential Assessment of Open Space and Farmland"; (11) "Status of Ad Valorem Taxation on Rural Land in Georgia--1972"; (12) "Farming in the City's Shadow"; (13) "Human Considerations in Land Use"; (14) "Major Uses of Land in the United States: Summary for 1969"; (15) "Land Use Change in the Southern Mississippi Alluvial Valley, 1950-69"; (16) "Urbanization of Land in the Northeastern United States"; (17) "Urbanization of Land in the Western States"; (18) "Improving Water Quality Management Planning in Nonmetropolitan Areas"; (19) "Watershed Models: Tools in Planning Land Management for Water and Pollution Control". (JC)

This report of the congressional hearings regarding the future United States population focuses on the need for various levels of government (Federal, State and local) to anticipate population change and to develop appropriate policy responses. Specific areas covered by the hearings include the impact population changes will have on the needs of youth and on employment policies. The fiscal implications of the U.S. population's changing age structure is also considered. An appendix includes prepared statements and additional related material submitted to the committee. Additional topics addressed include the future of the American family, population shifts and regional trends, population changes in New York State, fertility and migration, and the effects of population growth on economic conditions. (EB)

This report of congressional hearings on population movement and its implications for future planning focuses on the relative growth and decline in population within different geographic areas (both urban and rural) of the United States. Specific issues addressed include the effects these trends will have on school enrollments, family life, economic policies, the elderly, and migration. Strategies that might be employed by the Federal government in planning for population change and for developing alternative institutional approaches for dealing with these issues are discussed. An appendix includes prepared statements and additional related material submitted to the committee. (EB)

The report, prepared by the Select Committee on Population of the United States House of Representatives, discusses the consequences of the changing age composition and geographical distribution of the population. The committee recommends that the government needs to anticipate these changes in order to develop a policy in response to the problems caused by these changes. The document is presented in four sections. Section I discusses the changing size of the U.S. population, including the impact of the 1945-1960 baby boom and more recent birth slowdown, the falling mortality rate, and immigration changes. Future size projections are discussed, as are the need to set population goals, and economic consequences of population growth. Section II explores the changing age composition of the nation, considering consequences and policy alternatives related to the growth of women in the labor force, effects of boom and bust birth cycles on education, influx of new workers in the labor force, and investigates geographic redistribution, noting a nonmetropolitan revival, shifts from the Northeast and North Central to the West and South, and future movement possibilities. The causes of population distribution are pointed out, as well as consequences and possible responses for areas losing or gaining population. Section IV focuses on the need to plan for population changes and their consequences, emphasizing current policies and other possibilities, and the need for coordinated data collection and analysis at federal, state, and local levels. (CK)

With Social Security and retirement benefits unable to keep up with inflation, and persons living longer than ever in this country, retirement at age 65 or younger may no longer be a desirable choice for millions of older workers. These themes were articulated by government officials and foundation officers at the first session of a U.S. Senate hearing on work after 65, held in Washington, D.C., in April, 1980. In the hearing, witnesses from the Center on Work and Aging, American Institutes for Research; the Gerontology Research Institute, University of Southern California; the Center for Studies in Social Policy, the Work in America Institute; the National Council on Aging; and the President's Commission on Pension Policy, along with Senators Lawton Chiles, Pete Domenici, John Heinz, and Charles Percy, testified that the demographic picture of the United States will show a much greater number of older persons after the turn of the next century, as compared to today. This population, if early-age retirements continue, will place a great strain on the resources of the country for support. At the same time, witnesses noted, many thousands of older workers are both capable and desirous of continuing on the job, or at least being employed part time. Efforts must be made to change both public policy and public opinion to both permit and encourage older workers to continue to be employed, according to the witnesses, with benefits from such a policy accruing to both the older persons and the economy of the country. (KC)

Flexible retirement policies have worked very well for four major United States corporations, accordinq to testimony of their executives during the second part of a U.S. Senate hearing on work after age 65, conducted in Washington, D.C., in May, 1980. Executives of Xerox, Polaroid, Bankers Life and Casualty, and Atlantic Richfield told the special committee on aging that their companies have a 15-year span--from 55 to 70 and beyond--during which employees can choose to retire. The executives said that in most cases the best, most productive workers were the ones who chose to stay the longest; thus, not having mandatory retirement was helpful for the companies. The company officials also commented that older workers had records of absences that were as good as or better than those of younger workers, and much better safety records. The hearing record also includes testimony about the needs of older workers and the future needs of the marketplace for older workers by Senators Lawton Chiles, Charles Percy, John Glenn, David Pryor, and John Melcher. In addition, reports of various task forces and surveys relating to older workers and retirement are appended to the document. (KC)

The problem of senior citizens in Florida who need to work are chronicled in this third part of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, Work after 65 hearings, conducted in Orlando, Florida, in July, 1980. During the Florida hearing, representatives of various government programs for senior citizens, professors of education and economics and private employers and employment agencies described the services their agencies or offices provided for persons over age 65, and the problems these seniors encounter. Themes running through the testimony were that pensions and Social Security provide inadequate incomes for most retired persons, and, therefore, the people need jobs. However, they often encounter discrimination in finding a job and in being paid a fair wage. However, experience has shown that older workers are as capable as younger ones if they are allowed to work. The witnesses urged more help for senior citizens in finding employment and in filling out forms required, as well as suggestions for increasing Medicare benefits. Many personal anecdotes of productive senior citizens are included. (KC)

In response to challenges and guidelines set forth in the 1982 International Plan of Action on Aging (IPAA) by the World Assembly on Aging, this background paper summarizes (1) immediate and long-range reasons for the World Assembly; (2) content and significance of the IPAA and the factual base on which action plan decisions were made; (3) follow-up steps taken within the United Nations system since the World Assembly; (4) similarities and diversities among peoples as they become more aware of aging as a factor affecting the quality of life for all generations; and (5) the past and future role of the United States in supporting recommendations of the IPAA, in expressing its support for a continuing U.N. priority to aging concerns, and in maintaining communication with other nations on aging issues of mutual concern. Data in chapter one build a case for action on aging. Several key points of the IPAA are made in chapter two. In chapter three, responses by the United Nations and by individual nations since 1982 are detailed, while chapter four focuses specifically on past and future responses of the United States. Appendices include a fact sheet on the American Association for International Aging, the complete text of the IPAA, an annotated list of trust fund projects approved or earmarked for funding, a state department report on the World Assembly on Aging, and the concluding chapter of Charlotte Nusberg's "Innovative Aging Programs Abroad: Implications for the U.S." (LH)

This compilation, consisting primarily of state statutes providing education and training benefits for senior citizens, focuses on the accessibility of educational opportunities to older adults across the country. Included in the first part of the volume are excerpts from federal education laws dealing with education and training for older Americans as well as the text of the Older Americans Act of 1965. The next section of the compilation contains tables of data dealing with the educational attainment of the noninstitutional older adult population in basic and secondary education, adult illiteracy, the national distribution of older Americans, and states having statutes that contain adult education and senior citizen entitlements. Presented in the final portion of the compilation are the statutes providing education and training for senior citizens that exist in each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Marianas, Puerto Rico, the Trust Territories, and the Virgin Islands. (MN)

Transcripts of the 1971 Senate hearings on rural development held in Bowling Green, Ohio are presented in this document. These hearings include statements of private citizens, State and Federal legislators (Ohio, Oregon, and Minnesota), and representatives from: (1) Southern Ohio and Kentucky United Farm Workers Organizing Committee; (2) La Raza Unida de Ohio; (3) Buckeye Power (Columbus, Ohio); (4) Colorado State University; (5) Ohio Cooperative Extension Service; (6) Wood County Department of Welfare (Bowling Green); (7) Ohio Valley Health Service Foundation; (8) Lake State Forestry Cooperative (Duluth, Minnesota); (9) Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; (10) University of Missouri; (11) South Central Power Company; (12) College of Agriculture and Home Economics, Ohio State University; (13) Labor and Industrial Relations, Michigan State University; (14) Bowling Green State University; (15) Ohio Farmers Union; (16) Division of Administration on Aging, Ohio Department of Mental Hygiene and Correction; (17) Community, Human, and Industrial Development; (18) Toledo Edison Company; (19) Ohio State Grange; (20) Community Action Commission (Freemont), Ohio State Grange; (20) Community Action Commission (Freemont, Ohio; (2) Ohio Farm Bureau Federation; (22) Ohio Department of Development; and (22) Ohio Bankers Association. (JC)

Transcripts of the 1971 Senate hearings on S. 1612, a bill to establish a revenue sharing program for rural development, are presented in this document. Testimony presented in these hearings includes that of Federal and State legislators from North Dakota, Minnesota, West Virginia, and Georgia and representatives from the following: Arkansas Game and Fish Commission; National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges; Cooperative Extension Services (West Virginia University, Colorado State University, Texas A & M, Purdue, and the University of Nevada); Arrowhead Regional Development Commission; Wildlife Society; National Association of Development Organizations; National Wildlife Federation; National Association of Conservation Districts; American Farm Bureau Federation; Virginia State Dairymen's Association; Michigan Department of Natural Resources; American Forestry Association; Wildlife Management Institute; Chamber of Commerce of the United States; National Association of County Agricultural Agents; Forest Farmers Organization; National Association of Farmer Elected Committeemen; Fertilizer Institute; Appalachian Regional Commission; American Oil Company. Among other documents presented are 12 letters from the North Dakota constituency. (JC)

Transcripts of the 1971 Senate hearings on rural development held in Stillwater, Oklahoma and Lincoln, Nebraska are presented in this document. Derived from many sources representing the varied interests of each host state, representative testimony includes that of: university professors and administrators; State and Federal legislators; chamber of commerce representatives; bank executives; community action committee members; extension economists; public school officials; representatives from private industry; etc. Among the many specific organizations represented in these hearings are: Nebraska State Grange; Lincoln Legal Services; Nebraska Farmers Union; Nebraska Bankers Association; Nebraska Petroleum Council; Niobrara River Basin Development Association; Nebraska Livestock Feeders Association; Oklahoma Young Farmers Association; University of Oklahoma Medical Services; Omaha Economic Development Council; Farmers Home Administration; Nebraska National Farmers Organization; LeeFac Manufacturing Company; Statewide Advisory Committee of the Nebraska Department of Economic Development. (JC)

Transcripts of the 1971 Senate hearings on rural development (held in Sioux City, Iowa; Montgomery, Alabama; Vermillion, South Dakota; and Tifton, Georgia) are presented in this document. Derived from many sources representing the varied interests of each host State, representative testimony includes that of: city and state officials; university students; college deans and professors; extension workers; legislators; bank executives; community action committees; etc. Among the many specific representatives presented are: the National Urban League of South Dakota; Iowa State Employment Service; Siouxland Interstate Metropolitan Planning Council; Central Savannah River Area Planning and Development Commission; Tri-County Appalachian Regional Health Planning Commission; Northeast Iowa Power Cooperative; the Southern Rural Project; South Dakota Farmers Union; North Central Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commission; the United Sioux Tribes of South Dakota; Alabama League of Municipalities; Tennessee Valley Authority; North Alabama Traffic Club; University of Alabama Medical Center; rural Community Assistance Consortium. (JC)

Included in these Senate hearings on rural development are statements from representatives of the following: (1) National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors; (2) National Association of Community Development; (3) American Institute of Planners; (4) National Farmers Union; (5) Business International; (6) National Service to Regional Councils; (7) Farmers Union Grain Terminal Association; (8) National Milk Producers Federation; (9) Midcontinent Farmers Association; (10) National Planning Association; (11) Natural Resources Department; (12) West Virginia Institute of Technology; (13) National Rural Electric Cooperative Association; (14) National Council of Farmer Cooperatives; (15) Neighborhood Services Center; (16) National Rural Coalition; (17) National Grange; (18) National Association of Counties; (19) Women's Committee, American Farm Bureau Federation; (20) National Farmers Organization; (21) National Association of Conservation Districts. Among the miscellaneous documents presented are; (1) Evaluation of Resource Conservation and Development Projects; (2) Benefits of Watershed Projects; (3) Members of Coalition of General Farm and Commodity Organization; (4) Analyses of the President's department reorganization and revenue sharing proposals; (5) Information submitted by the Forest Service and the Departments of Labor; Agriculture; Transportation; and Health, Education, and Welfare. (JC)