future, their design and power must keep pace with the increasing capabilities that science gives both to the aggressor and the defender. They must continue to perform four main tasks: 1. As a primary deterrent to war, maintain a strong nuclear retaliatory power. The Soviets must be convinced that any attack on us and our allies would result, regardless of damage to us, in their own national destruction. 2. In cooperation with our allies, provide a force structure so flexible that it can cope quickly with any form of aggression against the free world. 3. Keep our home defenses in a high state of efficiency. 4. Have the reserve strength to meet unforeseen emergency demands. To provide this kind of defense requires tax money-lots of it. During the last 5 fiscal years we have spent $211 billion on our security—an average of over $42 billion a year. This includes our own armed services, mutual military aid, and the Atomic Energy Commission. In my judgment, the Armed Forces and their scientific associates have, on the whole, used this money wisely and well. Much of it has gone and is going into better and more powerful weapons. A single B-52 bomber costs $8 million. much as the B-36 wing it replaces. The B-52 wing costs four times as The Nike missile, which has largely replaced antiaircraft artillery, costs three times as much per battalion. A new submarine costs $471⁄2 million-10 times the cost of a World War II submarine. And so on, for our entire arsenal of equipment. DEVELOPMENT OF ADVANCED WEAPONS Now, for some years increasing attention has been focused on the invention. development, and testing of even more advanced weapons for future use. The Defense Department has been spending in the aggregate over $5 billion a year on this kind of research and development. There has been much discussion lately about whether Soviet technological breakthroughs in particular areas may have suddenly exposed us to immediately increased danger, in spite of the strength of our defenses. As I pointed out last week, this is not the case. But these scientific accomplishments of theirs have provided us all with renewed evidence of Soviet competence in science and techniques important to modern warfare. We must, and do, regard this as a time for another critical reexamination of our entire defense position. The sputniks have inspired a wide variety of suggestions. These range from acceleration of missile programs, to shooting a rocket around the moon, to an indiscriminate increase in every kind of military and scientific expenditure. Now, my friends, common sense demands that we put first things first. The first of all firsts is our Nation's security. Over the next 3 weeks I shall be personally making our annual review, with military and civilian authorities, of our national security activities for the coming year. Then, I shall meet with the legislative leaders of Congress, from both Houses and both parties, for conferences on policies, actions, and expenditures. In the meantime, I ask your sober consideration of some of the actions to which we must give our most urgent attention. Today, as I have said, a principal deterrent to war is the retaliatory nuclear power of our Strategic Air Command and our Navy. We are adding missile power to these arms and to the Army as rapidly as possible. But it will be some time before either we or the Soviet forces will have long-range missile capability equal to even a small fraction of the total destructive power of our present bomber force. To continue, over the years just ahead, to maintain the Strategic Air Command in a state of maximum safety, strength, and alert, as new kinds of threats develop, will entail additional costs. This means accelerating the dispersal of Strategic Air Command to additional bases. This work, which has been going forward for some years, ought now to be speeded up. Also, with missiles and faster bombers, warning times will grow shorter. Therefore, we have been providing facilities for quicker response to emergency alarm. This, too, should be speeded up-through standby combat crews, more runways, more fueling stations, and more housing. Next, to achieve maximum possible warning of any future attack, we must carry on additional improvements throughout our warning line that are now scientifically feasible. Another need is to develop an active missile defense against missiles. This item is undergoing intensive research and development within the Defense Department. Now, to increase retaliatory power, we shall be adding long-range missiles, both land and ship based, to our security forces. The technicians tell me that development of the long-range ballistic missile cannot be markedly accelerated by expenditure of more money. We are now spending more than $1 billion a year on their research and testing. But, of course, where needed, additional sums will be provided. Moreover, it is clear that production, deployment, and installation of missiles over the period ahead, when they become available, will be costly. Next, the military services are underpaid. We must be fair with them. Justice demands this, but also compelling is the factor of efficiency in our defense forces. We cannot obtain and retain the necessary level of technical proficiency unless officers and men, in sufficient numbers, will make the armed services their careers. Now, let's turn briefly to our satellite projects. Confronted with the essential requirements I have indicated for defense, we must adopt a sensible formula to guide us in deciding what satellite and outerspace activity to undertake. Certainly there should be two tests in this formula. If the project is designed solely for scientific purposes, its size and its cost must be tailored to the scientific job it is going to do. That is the case in the present Vanguard project now underway. If the project has some ultimate defense value, its urgency for this purpose is to be judged in comparison with the probable value of competing defense projects. RISING COSTS Now, all these new costs, which in the aggregate will reach a very considerable figure, must be added to our current annual expenditures for security. There is no immediate prospect of any marked reduction in these recurring costs. Consequently, the first thing is to search for other places to cut expenditures. We must once more go over all other military expenditures with redoubled determination to save every possible dime. We must make sure that we have no needless duplication or obsolete programs or facilities. The answer does not lie in any misguided attempt to eliminate conventional forces and rely solely upon retaliation. Such a course would be completely self-defeating. And, most emphatically, the answer does not lie in cutting mutual defense funds overseas-another important part of our own Nation's security. We are linked with 42 countries by military assistance agreements. We could not possibly station our troops all over the world to prevent the overflow of communism. It is much more economical and vastly more effective to follow and strengthen our system of collective security. The same applies to economic aid. This kind of assistance helps others keep free of dependence upon the Soviet help, which too often is the prelude to Soviet domination. It shows the free world's ability to develop its resources and to increase its living standards. It helps allied economies support needed military units and remain sturdy partners of ours in this worldwide struggle. Now, in the Federal Government's civilian activities, we shall have to make some tough choices. Some programs, while desirable, are not absolutely essential. In this I have reached a clear conclusion. Some savings may still be squeezed out through the wringer method. This will be one of the hardest and most distasteful tasks that the coming session of Congress must face. And pressure groups will wail in anguish. Now, by whatever amount savings fail to equal the additional costs of security, our total expenditures will go up. Our people will rightly demand it. They will not sacrifice security to worship a balanced budget. But we do not forget, either, that over the long term a balanced budget is one indispensable aid in keeping our economy, and therefore our total security, strong and sound. Now, there is much more to the matter of security than the mere spending of money. There are also such things as the professional competence of our military leaders-and there are none better; the soundness and productivity of our economy-and there is none to equal it; and, above all, the spiritual strength of our Nation-which has seen us through every crisis of the past. And one thing that money cannot buy is time. Frequently time is a more valuable coin than is money. It takes time for a tree to grow, for an idea to become an accomplishment, for a student to become a scientist. Time is a big factor in two longer term problems: strengthening our scientific education and our basic research. STRENGTHENING SCIENTIFIC EDUCATION The Soviet Union now has, in the combined category of scientists and engineers, a greater number than the United States; and it is producing graduates in these fields at a much faster rate. Recent studies of the educational standards of the Soviet Union show that this gain in quantity can no longer be considered offset by lack of quality. This trend is disturbing. Indeed, according to my scientific advisers, this is for the American people the most critical problem of all. My scientific advisers place this problem above all other immediate tasks of producing missiles, of developing new techniques in the armed services. We need scientists in the 10 years ahead. They say we need them by thousands more than we are now presently planning to have. The Federal Government can deal with only part of this difficulty, but it must and will do its part. The task is a cooperative one. Federal, State, and local governments, and our entire citizenry, must all do their share. We should, among other things, have a system of nationwide testing of highschool students; a system of incentives for high-aptitude students to pursue scientific or professional studies; a program to stimulate good-quality teaching of mathematics and science; provision of more laboratory facilities; and measures, including fellowships, to increase the output of qualified teachers. The biggest part of the task is in the hands of you, as citizens. This is National Education Week. It should be National Education Year. No matter how good your school is-and we have many excellent ones-I wish that every school board and every PTA would this week and this year make one single project their special order of business. This is to scrutinize your school's curriculum and standards. Then decide for yourselves whether they meet the stern demands of the era we are entering. As you do this, my friends, remember that, when a Russian graduates from high school, he has had 5 years of physics, 4 years of chemistry, 1 year of astronomy, 5 years of biology, 10 years of mathematics through trigonometry, and 5 years of a foreign language. Young people now in college must be equipped to live in the age of intercontinental ballistic missiles. However, what will then be needed is not just engineers and scientists, but a people who will keep their heads and, in every field, leaders who can met intricate human problems with wisdom and courage. In short, we will need not only Einsteins and Steinmetzes, but Washingtons and Emersons. BASIC RESEARCH Another long-term concern is for even greater concentration on basic research, that is, the kind that unlocks the secrets of nature and prepares the way for such great breakthroughs as atomic fission, electronics, and antibiotics. At present, our basic research, compared with any other country's, is considerably greater in quantity and certainly equal in quality. The warning lies in the fast rate of increase of the Soviet effort and their obvious determination to concentrate heavily on basic research. The world will witness future discoveries even more startling than that of nuclear fission. The question is: Will we be the ones to make them? Here, again, money cannot do everything. You cannot say to a research worker, "Your salary is tripled; get busy now and produce three times as many basic discoveries." But wise investment in such facilities as laboratories and high-energy accelerators can greatly increase the efficiency of our scientists. The Government is stepping up its basic research programs. But, with 70 percent of research expenditures, the biggest share of the job is in the hands of industry and private organizations. Right here in Oklahoma City you have established a superb mechanism for the mobilization of needed resources to strengthen our pursuit of scientific knowledge. It is the Frontiers of Science Foundation. Today I had the great privilege of a few minutes' visit with Dr. Harlow and with about half a dozen of his bright youngsters. I congratulate you on them and on the institution. You have every reason to be proud of both, and I hope other States will follow your example. And now one final word: The goal we seek is peace with justice. This can come to our Nation only as it comes to all nations. The world's hope is that the Soviets will cooperate with all the rest of us in achieving this goal. Our defense effort, large as it is, goes only far enough to deter and defeat attack. We will never be an aggressor. We want adequate security. We want no more than adequacy. But we will accept nothing less. My friends, it has always been my faith that eventual triumph of decency and freedom and right in this world is inevitable. But, as a wise American once observed, it takes a lot of hard work and sacrifice by a lot of people to bring about the inevitable. RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, Troy, N. Y., March 19, 1958. Hon. LISTER HILL, Chairman, Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR HILL: In the New York Times of Sunday, March 16, 1958, I read that Dr. Frederick Burkhardt of the American Council of Learned Societies appeared before the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee of which you are chairman. He told the committee of the great lack in this country of the essential books and materials needed to learn and use certain foreign languages. It is the purpose of this letter to endorse his views and to support his plea that steps be taken to remedy the situation. From this letterhead, you can see that my professional field is mathematics and not language. Nevertheless, I feel that I can speak on the subject of language because I have had considerable training in that field and, for some 25 years, I have studied the Middle and Far East from Egypt to China inclusive. My interest started with the history of mathematics and astronomy in that portion of the world but soon broadened to include languages, literature, history, art, geography, philosophy, and religions of the Middle and Far East. As for languages, I studied Sanskrit, some Pali, and Arabic at the University of Chicago. For a year I worked on Chinese with a graduate student from China. Of several other languages I have picked up a working knowledge, either formally or informally, as I needed them or became interested in them. As time has permitted, after performing the duties of head of a large and active department, I have published a small number of papers on the scientific achievements of peoples in this part of the globe. These are my credentials to enable you to decide whether I am qualified to speak on the matter under discussion. That there is a great lack of adequate materials for the study of foreign languages I can testify from personal experience. One example must suffice. A few years ago I wished to investigate Pashto, the native language of Afghanistan (certainly a sensitive area). After failing to secure anything in this country, I sent to Luzac in London and ordered all the grammars, texts in native character, and dictionaries they could supply. Most of these were written between 1865 and 1901 by officers of the British Army serving in the northwest Provinces of India. The only modern dictionary was an Afghan-Russian one published in Moscow in 1950. Fortunately I knew enough Russian to use this with a Russian-English dictionary. I am glad to report that the American Council of Learned Societies published a Pashto grammar by Penzl in 1955. I believe that it is very important to have adequate foreign language material available for several reasons. First, I think every representative of our country abroad should be vitally interested in the land to which he is assigned. This implies that he should know considerable of the language and much about the culture of the people among whom he is situated. Perhaps this is too much to expect in the near future but it should be possible to have one or more cultural attachés to each country who would know these things. Second, in order to be of most assistance to peoples of other lands, we need to understand them and their aspirations. By reading the literature, current affairs, and the like, we can approach more nearly such an understanding. This reading requires adequate language training. Third, we wish to make our democracy available to other countries. This necessitates that we explain it to other peoples by the written and spoken word and this demands language study. Fourth, although we now hear much about the need for scientific strength, it must not be forgotten that the struggle for men's minds must be carried on by language and, in truth, science is only one of the many aspects of intellectual activity which should go to make up our culture. There are a few more points I should like to mention briefly. Materials prepared for language study should be supplied at as low a price as is possible. It would be desirable to have a source of world-wide publications in this country so that texts would be available to research workers, and students. In setting up institutes and centers for foreign languages, not only should colleges be considered but also many libraries where books, tapes, and records, and other equipment could be available for individual study for it is possible to learn, given adequate materials, without attending formal classes in a subject. The plan to set up a science information service is most commendable but I agree with Dr. Burkhardt that it should include information available in many languages and in subjects other than science. I cannot stress enough my firm conviction that we should make adequate provisions for the learning of all the important foreign languages by our citizens. Our country is in a position of world leadership but we do not seem to be able to understand those who wish to be our friends or those to whom we could contribute much. We are separated by barriers of language, customs, culture, and lack of sympathy. Let us resolve to seek to remove these barriers by first attacking the problem of communication through adequate and accessible materials for foreign language study. I am sure that you can call on people well trained in languages for such advice as you feel will be helpful to you. I should be glad to assist in any way I can but I am sure that you can consult many who are more expert in the several fields than I am. Nevertheless, if you think I can be of any assistance, please feel free to call upon me. Yours sincerely, EDWIN BROWN ALLEN, Head of the Department of Mathematics. STATE COLLEGE OF WASHINGTON, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: Very recently I read an article in the Wall Street Journal purporting to tell of the scholarship situation in the whole United States. The sense of the article was that there was a considerable excess of scholarships and many were going begging. While I personally do not believe that the real solution to the forthcoming pressure lies in scholarships, I am concerned that you might have seen this article and think that the situation applies here in the Pacific Northwest. It is certainly not the case. The real point of this letter is to emphasize one thing which concerns me both as president of WSC and as a member of the executive committee of the Land-Grant College Association. National scholarships such as the National Merit Scholarship awards have gone overwhelmingly to young people who have entered the big-name schools of the country. It is easy to see why this is true. If a Pullman high student who was a National Merit Scholarship winner were to attend WSC, he would get approximately $100 as his award. If he were to choose MIT or some other big-name eastern college, he could collect from $2,000 to $3,000 in transportation, tuition fees, and the like. It is not hard to see why the glamour of the latter would attract him. The chairman of our scholarship standards committee recently checked all National Merit winners of the Northwest to see where they went. Only one went to a college in Washington (Whitman). It seems to me, therefore, that if there is to be a national scholarship program one of the purposes which it should help accomplish is a distribution of students among accredited institutions in several States. Certainly as an adopted Washingtonian I hate to see the State lose its top-quality young people through this kind of a scholarship program. Sincerely yours, C. CLEMENT FRENCH, President. DEAR SENATOR HILL: The New York office of the American Council of Learned Societies has sent me a clipping from the New York Times reporting the presentation made to your Committee on Labor and Public Welfare by my successor as |