who are in the poverty class, who have not access to money that the other groups I described have. And I just wonder-I have not heard anybody talk about the question of leisure, of what you are going to do about people who are being displaced from work because of technological change. Herman Kahn says by the year 2000, things going the way they are now, a few people pushing buttons will handle the economy-at least productive parts of the economy.

Now, there are other things to be done. There are other things you can use people's time for. We are doing it to some extent right now.

We send them to school for longer periods of time, keep a military institution going. We occupy them-we have a few make-work jobs, maybe a greater number more. We have a great many people who do not occupy a full day for a full day's pay. And I think-I except everybody here from that. But I think in general people are notparticularly in the offices are not working 8 hours for 8 hours of pay. I do not wish to make anybody answer this.

Senator HARRIS. I doubt if anybody can.

Dr. SHAPERO. I wonder why nobody has considered the question of leisure time-which is an important part of this problem.

Senator HARRIS. Harvey?

Mr. BROOKS. The only comment I can make is that I don't think there is really a question.

Senator HARRIS. The question has to do with the definition of work, and are we just concentrating on the term "job." Are we giving enough attention to leisure time? What are we going to be doing in the future when there is not a driving necessity to work as intensively and for as long hours as is presently the case?

Mr. BROOKS. It looks to me, as I look around our society, as if there are so many unfilled needs still in the society that the nightmare of a production system which utilizes only a small fraction of the labor force is largely illusory, provided of course, the economic system is managed in such a way that, in fact, the system's productive potential is fully utilized. It seems to me one of the greatest tragedies, from the standpoint of the society, of unemployment and underemployment is, in addition to the suffering caused immediately by the lack of financial resources and so on, the loss of productive resources to the society-productive resources that could be used to improve the quality of living.

I think the automation nightmare is very often arrived at by looking at only a very small part of economic activity, and a part of economic activity that is decreasing a decreasing part of the total. And I think the significance of your statement is yes, this certainly is true that the total percentage of work activity that will be devoted in the future to the production of goods will undoubtedly decrease, and the ratio of so-called nonproduction workers to production workers will go on increasing, and so on.

But I do not think this is the same-I do not think this necessarily implies that there will be an absence of useful economic and rewardable economic activity for people.

Mr. SCHON. I do not know how things are in Stillwater, Okla. I can only comment on air transportation in and the present quality of the ride. But back east we are living in the midst of a revolution. I do not think that is an exaggeration. The revolution is principally

one that is being carried on by center city blacks, most of whom have moved in from rural areas. That revolution, hard as it may be to believe in this pleasant setting, is seriously threatening the quality, the character, the structure of our life. One of the principal issues is whether we are going to be able to survive in some sense as a democ racy, and to survive in some sense as an economic capitalist insti tution in the face of it.

Rural poverty and the problem of rural urban migration is a critical part of that process that has tended to be overlooked. The flow of poor people from the country to the city continues. We are as inadequate in dealing with it as we ever were. That is the reason for concentrating on jobs, which I grant you is one sort of oversimplified handle for the problem of what to do about that. I think the issue is whether we are going to be able fast enough to understand what it is that is happening to us, and to begin to take measures and learn from them-the ability of middle-class people like us to understand the import of that revotionary change has a lot to do with the shift in the character of moral life in America that relates to the question of what people do with their leisure time.

Question. I have a comment-not exactly a question. This has to do with the established base of poverty-those who have an income that is submarginal, or at the marginal level. My concern is the 14 million persons that the President's Commission reported as people left behind-that is, the 14 million rural people with incomes of $500 to $1,500. Who are these people? About 8 million of them are white. The balance is divided between blacks and Latin Americans. The question I want to raise is, What do we know about these people? Have they taken the time to find out anything about their goal and value structure, or their economic structure, or the goal and value conflicts, or something about the family cycle, or something about these people in general?

Nobody really knows too much about where these people are. You get into a community and ask persons in a position to know, and they say, "They are over there." They are not included on the assistance rolls. They are not included in the labor force. On my bad days, I get the feeling that maybe we are really trying to, but we are not getting to them. On my worst days, I get the notion that we actually see the problem but are not willing to face up to it.

In terms of technology, I have a note or two. I feel that we have enough technology, we know enough about technology to carry us another decade- that is, if we are willing to take the money and spend it effectively. But along with this technology I think there is a woeful lack of information on people. I think that if this is not handled properly it could become a catastrophe.

In terms of what the Secretary talked about last night-you think about it, and you get excited about it, because really maybe you would like to become a part of it. But unless we change our attitudes about people and our respect for and evaluation of people, we will have greater frustrations.

Talking about the satellites and communications--I think these things can bring frustration to people, because they see an affluent world, an affluent America, and they can see that they are not a part of this world and cannot become a part of it.

I am reminded of a poem of Robert Frost. The young man said, "The woods are lovely, vast and deep, but I have promises to keep, and miles to go before I sleep." Senator Harris, if we do not get anything else done, we have commitments. We have miles to go before we sleep.

Senator HARRIS. Thank you.

Senator James Pearson, of Kansas, is here. He is going to have to fly out very quickly after lunch to make another engagement elsewhere. So we want the doors for the lunch to be open in just 5 minutes. Everybody will want to get in there and get seated. (Whereupon at 12:45 p.m. the Conference was recessed, to reconvene later in the day.)

Luncheon Session

Senator HARRIS. At this time I am pleased to have the opportunity to introduce a man who has been my close friend ever since I went to the Senate-despite the fact that he and I are in a rivalry capacity in one way-we are both members of our own party's senatorial campaign committees in the Senate. We hedge our bets a little by staying in close touch with each other-in case one or the other wins a majority in the Senate, we will always be able to go and talk to each other. I think probably the most impressive thing I could say about Jim Pearson is that he is one of those rare Members of the Senate who like my own colleague, Senator Mike Monroney, was chosen by his colleagues to sit in judgment on them as a member of the Select Committee of the Senate on Standards and Conduct.

I do not think there is any higher accolade which could come to someone in that 100-Member body. Jim has served in various offices in the city and county government in Kansas, including 4 years as a member of the State senate there. He was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1962. He served on the Armed Services Committee in the Senate. Among other duties in that respect, he serves on the Special Subcommittee of Armed Services and the Foreign Relations Committees to study American military commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. He is a member of the Commerce Committee and of its Subcommittee on Aviation, Communications, and Surface Transportation.

Jim is been a real pace setter in a great many fields especially some of those that this conference has concerned itself with. So I am very pleased to introduce one of the really great Members of the U.S. Senate, and a very, very good friend of mine, who has been very helpful to me since I have come to the Senate, the distinguished Senator from Kansas, the Honorable James B. Pearson.

Biographical Sketch: James B. Pearson

U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas; former State senator of Kansas; member: Special Subcommittee of Armed Services and Foreign Relations, subcommittee to study American military commitent to NATO, Subcommittee on Aviation, Subcommittee on Communications, and Subcommittee on Surface Transportation; member of Select Committee on Standards and Conduct; member, steering committee, Midwest Resources Association.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES B. PEARSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS

Senator PEARSON. Senator Harris, Mr. President, distinguished members of the panel, and those who participate in this program, ladies and gentlemen: It certainly pleases me that Senator Harris would say so many nice things before so many people. But I do not take it too seriously, for a couple of reasons.

I will let you in on something.

U.S. Senators always say nice things about other Senators-in public.

And then as I see this crowd, which far exceeds the expectations, I recall one evening when Mrs. Pearson and I were out on the speaking trail, and we went some place, and they had an enormous crowdfar more than anybody expected. As we got in our car to drive away, I turned to her and I said, "Wasn't that a huge crowd tonight." And she said, "Yes." And I said, "Didn't you think my speech was so very well received?" And she said, "Yes." And I then said, "Say, do you happen to recall how many times I was interrupted by applause!" And she said, "No." And finally we drove a while and I turned to her and I said, "You know, I wonder how many great men-I wonder how many really great men there are in the country." And she said, "One less than you think there are."

Well, I know some more stories. I would attempt to entertain you more. But they are all about Hubert Humphrey. [Laughter.] As a matter of courtesy I will save those until I get to Wichita this after

noon.

May I speak first about that which is first on my mind.

It is a particular pleasure to be a part of this program, and I should like sincerely to congratulate my friend and colleague, Fred Harris, for taking the initiative in setting up this conference and also com pliment the officials here at Oklahoma State University for their cooperation and work to assure such a successful program. It is most appropriate and valuable that the universities cooperate with Government representatives in providing the forum and the facilities for the consideration of contemporary public problems.

It is significant, I think, that a conference on the subject on the rural to urban population shift would not likely have been held 2 or 3 years ago. Moreover, even if there had been a conference at that time, it is almost certain that the theme would have been much different from the central concern of today's conference.

Today we are concerned with the problems generated by this rural to urban shift and how the migration might be better controlled. Three years ago the emphasis would likely have been on the benefits of rural-to-urban migration and how it might best be speeded up. For it has been a longstanding belief particularly among economists, sociologists, and a great many professional experts in government that outmigration from the rural areas should be encouraged as a means of improving rural economic conditions. It was argued that the total economic wealth that could be generated in the rural areas was simply too small to accommodate the existing rural population. Therefore, an accelerated out-migration from the farms and small towns would leave fewer individuals to divide up the total

rural income pie. Thus, operating under the belief that urban economic opportunities were virtually unlimited, it was assumed that everybody would be better off.

Now I do not want to suggest that there should have been no rural outmigration during the past two or three decades. But at the same time, I would suggest, that the benefits have not been nearly as great as the proponents have argued. I would also suggest that this great outmigration has left us with a great number of unanticipated liabilities and problems.

This conference then is a reflection of this new questioning of old dogmas and thus is a symbolic sign of our time. Within the past 2 years and particularly within the past 12 months we have begun to take a fresh look at this basic question of the distribution of our rural and urban population; and out of this new perspective we are witnessing a growing national consensus on the need to encourage the economic and social revitalization of our rural communities in an effort to slow down the present rate of outmigration, thus achieving a more reasonable rural-urban balance.

I might add parenthetically here that one of the results of this new national interest in the desirability of a rural revitalization is that it is now possible for a politician to talk about stemming the tide of rural migration without being accused of simply trying to devise a scheme to "keep his voters down on the farm."

Several factors explain why we are beginning to take a new view of the great rural-to-urban migration. For one thing, the number of abandoned farms and dying rural towns has reached the point where we have been forced to recognize that there is a limit beyond which an area can continue to export its people, its talents, and its resources and still survive as a viable community. Thus questions as to the ultimate wisdom of unchecked migration have been raised as more observers have come to see that outmigration as a solution to low rural income can often be a rather drastic solution-the elimination of the rural community itself.

But these signs have been visible for several years. Thus it is the great trouble in the cities, ironically, which has finally caused us to more clearly see and understand the difficulties of the countryside and small

towns.

The headlines of the past 2 or 3 years have made all of us painfully aware of the "crisis of the cities"-a crisis described in terms of festering slums, rising crime rates, disintegrating families, chronic unemployment, riot-torn streets, bumper-to-bumper traffic snarls, burgeoning welfare roles, polluted air, and contaminated water.

As we have searched for the underlying causes of this crisis, we have come to recognize that many of the problems can be traced to the overcrowding of people and the excessive concentration of industry.

Into the cities have come the unskilled rural power attracted by the lure of economic advancement. Many gain, but a tragically high number do not. Instead of economic salvation, too many of the rural poor, both white and black, find tenements, unemployment, welfare, and the depersonalized, demoralized environment of the slum ghetto.

Into the cities also come the young, the educated, and the talented. They often do much better materially, at least; but for this economic