The establishment of this committee to look into broad aspects of our national science policies is in itself a heartening development. The expenditure of research and development funds should not be measured in volume alone but in their long-term economic effect on regional growth and stability. Changes may be in order: Changes that could foresee a more equitable participation of regions, States' resources and talent, an increased vitality to our national program of research and development, and an increasing number of our States realizing stable economic growth.

Senator HARRIS. Thank you very much, Governor, for an excellent

statement.

I share generally the views you have expressed. And much of what you say about Arkansas and its future needs applies, as you know, to my own State.

What is the Valley Educational and Research Foundation that has been established there? Is that a private or public institution?

Governor ROCKEFELLER. It is a privately endowed organization that was established about 3 or 4 years ago. They have participated in several outstanding programs to draw attention to the State of Arkansas, one being the International Conference on Air Technology, which has been held twice now in the State of Arkansas. But they are small, and they are privately supported. They are, however, making good progress, I think, they are making a true contribution such as we like to see.

Senator HARRIS. And they are financed from within the State? Governor ROCKEFELLER. From our State and from your good State, sir. It relates to the Arkansas River Valley. And we have some members of the board from the State of Oklahoma.

Senator HARRIS. What about the Arkansas Center for Research, Development, and Graduate Education which is to be established? Is that a State institution?

Governor ROCKEFELLER. That would be State supported. However, I am very happy to say that our generous citizens have in many instances contributed to the assistance of establishing these programs on a voluntary basis. As an example, in order to get our Ph. D. program going in the Graduate Institute of Technology, a group of Little Rock citizens contributed the sum of $50,000 for the supplementation of salaries over a 3-year period to get the program going. I am glad you asked the question, because I think it is important that you distinguished gentlemen be aware of the fact that in Arkansas our private citizens' as well as our State funds are going into the "Operation Bootstrap," if you will.

Senator HARRIS. As to your statement in connection with those two institutions, we are aware that large investments must be made on the part of the State if we are to participate in the growth of the socalled "think" industry. That points out what this subcommittee has concluded, and that is that excellence is primarily a local responsibility, though we think that there are things that can be done on the Federal level to add to the effort to acheive it.

What about the concept of planning? Every institution, as you heard me say earlier, can't build excellence, at least not in the immediate future, in every field. And I know you have been very interested in the

original development concept. I think we already have some things going in planning on a regional basis for excellence in education. Governor ROCKEFELLER. Right. I think that our original efforts in that area are going to be more on the primary and the secondary level to start with.

And I say that knowing that I haven't made all of the colleges and the universities happy, in that we have put an emphasis on primary education. But I don't believe that the colleges and universities can do a first-rate job if the boys and girls coming to them are inferior students from the beginning. And we are making a very strong effort in that particular area.

And there is another area that might be interesting to this subcommittee. Being the first Republican Governor of the State of Arkansas in 94 years, I am not as strongly surrounded-practically all my surrounding support is right beside me. But we have been working, diligently studying the long-range educational program of the State of Arkansas to see whether we might not, to the advantage of the colleges and the universities, plus the students, in view of our financial bind, go to a university system of the colleges across the State.

We will have, for instance, at Monticello-which, as you know, is in the heart of the timber area of Arkansas-an outstanding school of forestry. An arrangement has been made between those two institutions, the university and the college at Monticello, to grant a university degree in forestry, because of the feeling that that degree is more meaningful. And if you can measure up to those standards of excellence, then you can get that degree. And I think this is a step in the right direction, because it is making our resources go further.

Senator HARRIS. Let me apologize for what I am about to say. I wish there were more time for more discussion and questions.

And I wish also, Congressman Hammerschmidt, that it would be possible to hear your statement orally. But we have to go for this rollcall. So if we may, we will accept into the record without objection, the statement which you have prepared for delivery.

Would that be all right with you?

Mr. HAMMERSCHMIDT. That would be fine with me, Senator Harris. I am very pleased to have this opportunity to present it for the record.

TESTIMONY OF HON. JOHN PAUL HAMMERSCHMIDT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

Mr. HAMMERSCHMIDT. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee on Government Research, it is an honor to come before you today. I am also happy to see our esteemed Governor of Arkansas testifying and participating in your hearings.

In discussing the search for proper distribution of research funds, I would like to make some observations about what goals appear to be desirable and what roads might be followed in seeking these goals. But, before I make these comments, I would like to talk with you about Arkansas' present position among the States in terms of research funds.

Since Arkansas ranks 50th among the States in per capita expenditure for research and development funds, I thought that as low man on the totem pole (so to speak) I might make some points for many States and regions with the same dilemma as ours.

Research and development expenditures for all departments and agencies of the Federal Government averaged $79.84 per person throughout the country in 1964. In Arkansas, only $2.81 was spent per person. This, as has been observed, earned us the 50th position with our sister States.

The present distribution of R. & D. funds may not, in the future, fully serve the national interest in its ultimate resource development. As to the equitability of the distribution at the present time, Arkansas received $5,030,000, less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the total funds spent in 1964. Of this amount, $3,205,000 went to educational institutions.

If the concern you have shown in studying the geographic distribution of R. & D. funds was only in a context of present economic situations, then the fact Arkansas is on bottom of the list might not be significant. But, as I understand, you are looking to the future and seeking new ways to better use R. & D. funds which become available. In recent days, a number of people have appeared before this body and have made meaningful presentations about the impact of R. & D. on economic development. They have also discussed the environment which breeds R. & D. activities.

The views expressed by these people have varied. But, most seem to indicate that it is not possible to show a definite correlation between having R. & D. and having growth and economic development. Further, a number of commonly assumed criteria for attracting R. & D. institutions have been shown to have little or no influence in the actual attraction of these facilities.

We are discussing the future potential of economic development which may now lie dormant in several regions of our Nation, and may only need the catalyst of R. & D. investment to unlock this great potential.

Arkansas has a man of vision who is working toward the development of our State along these lines, which will enable us to meet some of the needs of the future. Gov. Winthrop Rockefeller recently made an impressive presentation before the Institute of Southern History at Johns Hopkins University. At that time, he made a number of observations about the problems of the South and the potential solutions that might be applied.

He asked, "What are to be the big growth industries in the next century?" He answered this question by suggesting

First the future will bring about tremendous growth in the highly technical so-called "Think" industries. (Second) *** the world seems somehow bent on proving correct Parson Malthus' theory that people will go on repro

ducing to the limit of the available food supply **(therefore) a great industry must arise in food technology. (Third) * * * leisure time can become one of the Nation's great blessings, or one of its great problems.

I don't believe Arkansas or any of these regions with latent underdeveloped resources are looking for a panacea, or an overnight solution to this problem. They are seeking a longrun solution. A solution which will enable them to work to solve their own problems and to improve their own welfare and, in turn, that of the Nation.

The question of whether or not R. & D. funds can act as a stimulant to other forms of economic development has been debated before the subcommittee and in many other places. Examples can be cited to show that R. & D. has aided in development and other illustrations can show that R. & D. has not had a significant effect.

This debate is much like that surrounding education. How much should a country invest in education? Where should the emphasis be placed? How should geographic distribution be made? Will the investment produce results of economic growth and benefits?

How much should be invested in R. & D.? Where should these investments be made? What is the desirable geographic distribution of the funds?

I don't know the answers to these questions. I do know that the existence of R. & D. has made this country great. The application of the stimulant-R. & D.-is intangible, but the response economic growth-is visible. Education of the vast majority of the people of our country has also produced great results. We have learned a great deal and are continuing to learn in the debate on education. I assume that one of the goals of your committee is to try to search out these intangible truths of end results of R. & D.

Therefore, to me the search for an answer to this dilemma is a complex one for you gentlemen, but perhaps not futile. I realize that in some ways you are confronted with the old problem of the primacy of the chicken or egg. Arkansas and many other underdeveloped regions do not have very much R. & D., nor do they have economic development on a significant level. There must be a correlation in this somewhere.

Do underdeveloped regions of the Nation need R. & D.? I say yes. We need R. & D. in specific areas. We do not ask that logic and past experience be scrapped in preference of locating R. & D. facilities in potential developing areas. What we ask is to have the opportunity for an unbiased, objective group such as this committee, to take a close look at what might happen if these funds were invested in our growth potentials.

If I might illustrate my point by a reference to a situation within my own congressional district;

One of the most ambitious construction projects ever undertaken is currently nearing completion in Arkansas and Oklahoma. The development of the Arkansas River should be finished by 1972. We will then have a great navigable stream extending from Oklahoma through Arkansas to the Mississippi River.

If we in Arkansas and Oklahoma do not research the potentials of this asset and develop these potentials we will have nothing more than a navigable river with the obvious benefits of recreation and power generation. Arkansas must make studies to see what material resources

can be further exploited for exportation to the other parts of the country and world. We must see what imports would best utilize human resources for the greatest economic impact.

Arkansas has great resources waiting to be properly utilized. The State has abundant supplies of minerals, forest products, petroleum, natural gas, agriculture, and recreational areas. Learning how to best develop these resorces is why we need R. & D. funds for future study and planning. With these resources we can definitely participate in the future if we successfully act to research and develop the potentials that exist today.

But, in all of our efforts we are somewhat like the young man trying to obtain his first job. He finds he can't get a job without experience nor experience without a job. Arkansas, for example, can't seem to improve education facilities without improved economic conditions nor attain better economic standards without improving the educational standards.

Are we back to the chicken and the egg again? We may be, but we can't simply sit by and agree that the problem is complicated. We want to help ourselves but we need some assistance.

In fiscal year 1968 the Federal Government will spend around $17.7 billion on R. & D. Arkansas will probably receive less than one-tenth of 1 percent of these funds.

Of course, it goes without saying that while awaiting any Federal R. & D. assistance that might be forthcoming, we in Arkansas plan to continue to work to develop our fullest potential. We will begin to try to solve the problems dealing with air and water pollution, maximization of agriculture productivity, expansion of export potentials, improvement of educational facilities, and the improvement of the quality of life in rural and urban areas. We can better attain these goals if you establish a policy of encourging the Government to better distribute its R. & D. funds.

I am also under quite a bit of pressure on the other side over there. So I appreciate very much this opportunity to be here.

Senator HARRIS. With that explanation, may I say again, Governor Rockefeller, how much we appreciate your presence, lending your own prestige and the prestige of your office in appearing here today. We are very grateful to you.

The committee will be in recess until 10 o'clock a.m., tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, May 18, 1967.)