to date on what Win has been doing very recently, among his many activities, he has been deeply involved in establishing an infantry museum at Fort Benning, Ga. He is at the forefront of that movement in raising the multimillions needed for the museum.

Win served 8 years as the Arkansas Industrial Development Commission chairman in Arkansas when he first went there. That activity brought 600 plants, it brought 100,000 jobs, and Arkansas is still feeling the benefits of his great leadership. Of course, later, he became the chief executive officer of the State and conducted many reforms in government.

I know that your committee is well aware of the economic deveolepment program. It has interrelated interests, and particularly in this subject matter, the future of small towns in rural America. Win helped establish the economic development district program before the FDA Act of 1965. It merged so well into Arkansas' planning and economic development efforts that it is almost a pilot model for the Nation now. Your witness lives on a farm in the rural area. He has been in Arkansas for 20 years now. But he comes before you today wearing a different hat- as the executive vice president of the Coalition for Rural America. It is my real pleasure to introduce to the committee the former Governor of Arkansas, Winthrop Rockefeller.

Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. It is a pleasure to have you, Governor.
You may proceed as you wish.

TESTIMONY OF HON. WINTHROP ROCKEFELLER, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, COALITION FOR RURAL AMERICA, ACCOMPANIED BY MISS AUGUSTA WILSON, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, AND PROF. EUGENE L. MOONEY

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Thank you very much, John Paul.

I would like to commend the chairman. You are having me today; I understand that you are having another of my brothers, who is going to give you his thinking. I am not suggesting that we necessarily always agree. He is a very conscientious guy; I commend him to you, and I commend you for asking him to testify.

But today I come before you and I am so happy to be with you and the subcommittee. I am happy to have this opportunity to appear at these hearings on a matter which has concerned me for many, many years, much of my adult life. My love and my concern for rural America is evidenced by my having chosen to make my life's home in rural America; by becoming a cattleman and farmer in the State of Arkansas; by my serving two terms as Governor of that great State which is predominantly rural; and now this same love and concern leads me to be here with you today to talk about those things which relate to the Coalition for Rural America.

Thus, a personal and private commitment to rural America, coupled with official capacities as a participant in the problems and concerns of rural America for almost two decades, makes doubly pleasurable this opportunity to appear before this subcommittee.

The Coalition for Rural America was formed in September of 1971 for the following purpose as stated in its articles of incorporation: "The purpose of incorporation is to advance the broad interest of rural America defined as that part of the United States lying outside

the major metropolitan areas and embracing nonmetropolitan cities, towns, villages and the open countryside," because there is so much of it. "The Coalition is committed to the objective of balanced national growth in the United States. It recognizes that achievement of a higher standard of living and an improvement in the quality of life for all Americans, whether they live in our large cities or our countryside, can only be achieved through the pursuit of such a policy. The Coalition shall pursue its objectives by serving as a spokesman for rural America in the nation's councils. It is public advocate and public educator, and it seeks to mobilize in a common effort all the many national, regional, State and local organizations and individuals that share its goal."

I could take more of your time, but I would like to include in the record, if I may, a statement of what or why the Coalition for Rural America is. If I may introduce that and save your time, I would like to put it in the record.

Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Thank you, sir.

(The information referred to follows:)

WHY A COALITION FOR RURAL AMERICA?

"The problems of urban life and rural life in America today are bound together so tightly that the plight of the cities will be relieved only to the degree that solutions are found to pressing rural problems. Call it "Rural Renewal" or "Rural Revitalization" or call it what you will, but the goal boils down to one thing we must achieve a proper rural-urban balance of population, to ensure the vitality and economic well-being of our total society.

"The glaring deficiency within our vast array of declared national goals, dealing separately with urban and rural problems, is that these goals have failed to consider the problems in their most interrelated sense-that is, the migration of people.

"To the extent that urban decay is a direct result of rural migration, it would seem that viewing these things jointly is the obvious approach to problem-solving."-Honorable Winthrop Rockefeller, Governor of Arkansas. . . at the Calvin Bullock Forum, 1 Wall Street, New York City, November 28, 1967.

INTRODUCTION

Conceivably, an introduction to the Coalition for Rural America should begin with a glossary. As times have changed so, dramatically, have the meanings of certain words rooted deep in our language. Perhaps no word offers its own more challenging example of this change than "rural" itself.

Dictionary definitions of "rural" cling generally to that traditional pastoral setting of yesteryear. Granting the niceties of nostalgia, these definitions hold little actual relevance to what life is really like for Americans living outside of metropolitan areas today.

Compounding the challenge is a profusion of governmental concepts which relate "rural" to such diverse measuring devices as village population, geographical proximity to airline routes, annual income from farming, and so on. Such bureaucratic gobbledygook results in, at best, confusion and, at worst, outright semantic deceit. As an illustration of the worst, national policy continues to equate the well-being of rural communities with the health of agriculture. Yet fewer than twenty percent of all Americans living outside metropolitan areas actually live on farms; and of those, few indeed depend solely on the land for their livelihood.

If "rural" is a problem semantically then so, obviously, is "urban". What is a city? Again governmental agencies do not agree. Depending upon whose criteria get involved, the extent of disagreement can range to hundreds of thousands of citizens.

There are many other words that come to mind, and too often we find that although we are speaking the same language we are not conveying the same meaning. For the purpose of this document we are accepting the definition of rural

America as follows: That part of the nation lying outside the major metropolitan areas and embracing nonmetropolitan cities, towns, villages, agriculture and the open countryside.

Significant above all, the Coalition for Rural America does not presume to define what is "the good life" for all Americans. This nation's promise to its citizens is that each shall have the freedom to work toward a quality of life individually chosen. In many ways-some shocking, others even more ominous because of the subtleties of change-freedom for many Americans has been substantially eroded, and for future generations is threatened even more. Acknowledging the certainty of continued growth, we must accept the stark predictions of what the character and quality of that growth will be—if left unplanned to the present course which finds 93 percent of our national population jamming into seven percent of our national land mass.

The Coalition for Rural America believes that these conditions can be reversed and solutions found, but only with vision, planning, national commitment, and aggressive leadership. We believe that the future vitality of America is dependent upon revitalizing her countryside, thereby creating an environment of new hope and opportunity for all our citizens, wherever they now may live.

BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

One hundred years ago we were a Nation 75 percent rural. Today we are a Nation 73 percent urban. Since the beginning of World War II there has been a net migration from rural America of more than 25 million persons-this being one of the largest movements of people in recorded history. Each year more than 500,000 Americans from rural areas migrate to the big cities.

Should present migratory trends persist, the predicted growth in our national population will exaggerate the demographic profile which has emerged from the past two decades. Experts are predicting that our population will reach 300 million by the year 2000-an increase of some 100 million persons. Based on what has gone before, most of these people will be settled in five small geographical areas, with three-fifths of our population residing in four huge megalopoli. The 450-mile strip from Boston to Washington already contains almost 40 million people-18 percent of our national population. This doesn't have to be so!

This gigantic exodus lies at the heart of many of our most intractable national problems. Redress of the national imbalances created or exaggerated by this migration is central to any solution of these problems.

There is at the same time an imbalance, between vision and reality, regarding rural areas in this country. Enshrined in the national consciousness is the vision of rural areas composed of gentle towns and small cities, intimate schools, quiet churches, peaceufl fields and mountains, rivers flowing in a world without time or human misery. This vision of open spaces and winding roads, lakes and quiet spots, beckons to vacationers, calls to the overworked and offers brief therapeutic relief to our families. But the dreary statistics of rurality stand in sharp contrast to this image.

By some official definition, one out of every four rural inhabitants is poor. Rural unemployment rates are two to three times greater than elsewhere. 30,000 rural towns have no water systems and 45,000 lack adequate sewer facilities.

Per capita, twice as many rural citizens suffer from chronic poor health conditions, and twice as many die from accidents due to lack of emergency health services.

Although 27 percent of the Nation is rural, only 12 percent of our doctors, 18 percent of our nurses, 14 percent of our pharmacists and eight percent of our pediatricians live and work in rural areas.

Some general propositions about American history underpin our regard for the potential of rural America.

Our people aspire to a national society based on a high degree of personal control by the individual over his personal environment, life circumstances and destiny. Our national history and our constitution attest this goal. American society is grounded on those traditional values of Western Civilization which encourage the individual to exercise the greatest latitude for personal development consistent with the interests of all.

Most Americans would prefer to live out their lives in a non-megalopolitan environment. Every recent public opinion poll on this subject bears witness to these yearnings. This alternative can and must be made attainable by all Americans. Those who would must be permitted to live, work and raise their families in such

surroundings, without foreclosing themselves or their children from a full measure of the American experience.

The potential to master our environment distinguishes this era in world history. That environment consists not only of clean air to breathe, pure water to drink, room to exercise-but also decent housing, good nutrition, useful education, vital health, just government, transportation, recreation, arts, even attitudes toward one another. Our environment thus envisioned is the sum of these elements of our culture. Achievements of civilization have been motivated by a desire for something more than bare survival and have been produced by our best personal, governmental and scientific efforts.

Our rural areas enjoy an abundance of the clean physical environment we want; they must be augmented by the abundance of the societal environment

we crave.

Predictably we will proceed to urbanize our rural areas. We must ensure that this process is planned, orderly, sensitive, constructive and beneficial to the nation-a plan balanced for people.

THE INTERRELATED COMMUNITIES

The planned growth of rural America must be designed for the dual benefit of rural and metropolitan areas. New opportunities created become viable alternatives for the city dweller and rural citizen alike. While the Coalition for Rural America's focus of attention is on rural areas, our concern is for the entire nation. Indeed, the massive out-migration from rural towns and farms has been a major producer of urban catastrophies. Insolvent and unmanageable, our metropolitan areas are infected with pollution, crime, human misery-virtually every ill known to mankind's history, and some heretofore unknown. Even the peripheral suburbs, once seen as the oasis of escape, are inextricably caught in these problems, and are themselves potentially ripe for deteriorating human and material values.

As a viable Coalition our thrust must be affirmative and future-oriented. Common experiences teach that an ethic of protest or negativism limits its own exponents and invites the contempt of others. We are concerned with constructively influencing the practices of our society. We propose to contribute toward creative action in the furtherance of our central concern-the revitalization and-yes-the vitalization of rural America.

Complexities abound. Particularly problems and potentials in rural growth are presented by the interdependence of commercial cities, industrial cities, rural trading centers, suburban complexes, rural countryside, and the fact that all are constantly in transition. Acknowledging this, we must adapt our best intellectual, scientific and sociological capabilities to our objectives.

As suggested previously, the many governmental definitions of rurality reflect that the concept of Rural America is amorphous. Both the United States census definition and the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area guideline definition seem meaningful for some purposes and not others. These definitions are grounded on bare demographic criteria. Other definitions can be designed to suit particular purposes. Rural areas may be defined in terms of entire states for purposes of regional planning; in terms of population densities for particular types of programs; in terms of economic criteria for business purposes; and in terms of social, political, geographical, environmental or psychological conditions for yet other purposes.

We must be able to envision these divergent possibilities in order to operate rationally in this complex and dynamic field. Clarifying the goals of rural development, we must envision the kind of societal mix which the preponderance of Americans desire, and determine the role of rural America in that context. it is essential to identify and comprehend the flow of events in our history, along with the cross-currents. We must then be capable of devising alternatives that will alter traditional and current trends which are not compatible with our goals. Past efforts too often have been preceded by lack of knowledge, timid planning and limited vision. The expenditure of billions of dollars and millions of manhours not only has not ensured constructive solutions, but in the guise of illusory progress has served freqently to perpetuate social problems, waste, failure and human bitterness.

Our total process must continue over time as we assess and reassess every developmental stage in light of reality, and modify our fanciful expectations and actions. Hypotheses must be framed, and we must pretest our social proposals. That which is good can be replicated where appropriate. The dysfunctional, un

successful or negative can and should be discarded. This approach envisions mobilization of many segments of our society-governmental and nongovernmental to accomplish the objectives sought. Above all, the precious human values we seek to further must not be sacrificed or distorted. We seek to enhance the dignity of the individual American citizen, wherever he chooses to live.

A national consensus should be articulated. The Administration, the President, must voice and move for implementation of a national rural America development policy. That policy should be stated succinctly, possibly following these lines: "The development of a supportive, vigorous nonmetropolitan environment is essential to the healthy growth of America. As our people seek alternatives to their present unsatisfactory lives, this choice must be available. To be a viable Ichoice that life must have an economic base, public services, a cultural attractiveness, and continuing opportunities for succeedng generations."

Needs and national policies are the raison d'etre for governmental programs. National programs to revitalize rural areas can only be accomplished through harmonious efforts by Federal, State and Local governments. A higher degree of coordination of governmental effort can be effected through re-examination and modification of the systems which deliver governmental services to our communities.

The present configuration of Federal undertaking once again is being reviewed to reorganize the agencies which administer categorical assistance programs. A variety of plans for restructuring the present chaotic Federal-State-Local government delivery system are being developed.

New and different approaches for financing government services are being proposed.

The role of our rural areas in these proposals, and their relationship in the American society which would consequently evolve, must be clarified and evaluated in light of our National rural area policy. Functional efficiency at the Federal level to develop our rural areas is surely needed, but it must be matched by increased local capabilities, state responsibilities and regional flexibility.

We must devise, assist and support formulation of governmental innovations which will further the objectives of the National Rural Area Development Policy, more by pursuing new opportunities than by preserving lost eras.

At no time would the philosophy of grassroots action be more meaningful and productive than in this context. Those who are experiencing the frustrations and the rewards of today's regrettably uncoordinated rural emergence have a tremendous input relative to the maximizing of this, one of America's great undeveloped assets. The leadership that exists should first be recognized and appreciated and, second, be excited, inspired and motivated to redouble already heroic achievements.

FREE ENTERPRISE AS A SOURCE OF SOLUTION

The principles which infuse our efforts must encourage private initiative, personal motivation and rational participation by each in accordance with his capabilities. The ultimate of good government is to inspire and assist the efforts of men of good will, working singly and in concert, to improve their world.

Orderly growth on our vast countryside can be effected through planned extension of urban services to rural areas, development of existing small municipalities and creation of viable new communities. There are in existence literally hundreds of Federal categorical assistance programs designed to aid rural areas. Too often the availability of Federal funds dictates the local "need", and inadequate palliatives are constructed at great cost. Tempting categorical matching grants are used, sometimes deceitfully, in contrast to the wise use of block grants or some possible form of revenue sharing. The entire approach should be critically re-examined before new or bigger programs are instituted. Consistent with the Coalition's feeling that the whole Federal rural assistance program should be carefully restudied, the President's Commission on Population Growth and the American Future in its recently released report and recommendations emphasizes human resource development to improve the quality and mobility potential of individuals. Similarly the report recognizes the need of programs to develop and provide worker-relocation counseling and assistance to enable an individual to relocate with a minimum of risk and disruption.