WHEREAS, in developing their strategic nuclear offensive capability the Soviets have emphasized their intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs), and have been modernizing that force, stressing improved readiness, greater throw-weight, increase accuracy, better command and control; and

WHEREAS, they have also increased the number of re-entry vehicles, and provided hardened silos to improve survivability; and

WHEREAS, the development of new capabilities and rapid deployment of Anti-Ballistic Missiles (ABMs) including laser and other scientific break throughs, would enhance the survivability of our ICBMs, strategic bomber bases, defense communication sites, military facilities and the civilian populace; and

WHEREAS, at the present time, the U.S. has no effective defense against an attack by Soviet strategic aircraft; and

WHEREAS, the improvement of our manned and unmanned capability to intercept and destroy Soviet aircraft and cruise missiles would appreciably add to the deterrence of enemy attack; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, by The American Legion in National Convention assembled in Honolulu, Hawaii, September 1-3, 1981, that we adopt a new strategic nuclear policy, which will lead the U.S. to develop the needed strength to destroy Soviet strategic offensive capabilities, rather than the destruction of soft targets; and, be it further

RESOLVED, that together with the development of these new capabilities that the United States develop the force structure necessary to defeat the Soviet Union, while minimizing destruction to the United States.

WHEREAS, the United States today is in greater danger than at any time since those early days of World War II after the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor; and

WHEREAS, over the past few years the over-all effectiveness of the United States armed forces has been eroding for various reasons, including the unsatisfactory recruitment of qualified applicants through the concept of a volunteer Army, the increased costs of modernization, the escalation of research and technological development costs and the inflationary rise of operations and maintenance costs; and WHEREAS, during the Vietnam era research and development efforts were minimized in order to maintain and equip the forces in being for combat operations, depreciating and aging the operational vehicles and equipment that were the mainstay of our Navy, Army, Air Force and Marine Corps; and

WHEREAS, during this same period of time, the Soviet Union has been devoting massive resources out of its weak economy to building up its military might and has achieved military superiority in many areas; and

WHEREAS, the American people must recognize the threat to all peace loving, independent and open societies in the face of Soviet expansion and their use of surrogate forces in the spread of communism; and

WHEREAS, the United States is now faced with the choice of rapidly rebuilding our military forces so as to assure our survival as an independent, strong nation or we can accept the ultimate fate of the perilous course which we have been pursuing and prepare to live under the terms and conditions which will be dictated by the Soviet Union; and

WHEREAS, given such options there is no question but that the American people are prepared and willing to make such sacrifices as may be required of them to restore the military strength of the United States to a position where it cannot be challenged; and

WHEREAS, positive action has been taken in recent months to start the needed rebuilding of our military forces to the necessary levels of readiness with sufficient modern equipment; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, by The American Legion in National Convention assembled in Honolulu, Hawaii, September 1-3, 1981, that we fully support all such action by the Administration and the Congress to provide the personnel and equipment needed by our armed forces.

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES, AMERICAN COUNCIL OF EDUCATION, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE UNIVERSITIES AND LAND-GRANT COLLEGES, ASSOCIATION OF GRADUATE SCHOOLS, AND COUNCIL OF Graduate SCHOOLS IN The United STATES

STATEMENT OF JAMES BROPHY, VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF UTAH, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES, AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE UNIVERSITIES AND LAND-GRANT COLLEGES, ASSOCIATION OF GRADUATE SCHOOLS, AND COUNCIL OF GRADUATE SCHOOLS IN THE UNITED STATES

READINESS OF UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY

Senator GARN. Next I would like to invite to the witness table Dr. James Brophy, vice president of the Association of American Unversities.

Mr. Brophy, I am pleased to welcome you here this morning, not only on behalf of the subcommittee, but personally as a fellow Utahan.

Mr. BROPHY. Thank you, Senator.

The staff gave me a promotion. I am not vice president of the AAU. I am vice president of the University of Utah, but I will accept the promotion anyway.

Senator GARN. I just assumed that you were vice president of both. You have the same title both places, but the correction is probably more important as a graduate of the University of Utah than the whole association and we will accept that.

Mr. BROPHY. Thank you, Senator.

Mr. Chairman, I am here today to talk about the readiness of the university community, particularly the research universities to contribute to national security through research and teaching.

The Department of Defense budget for fiscal 1983 proposes several initiatives designed to strengthen the responsiveness of universities to the Nation's national security requirements.

My message on behalf of our research universities is a simple one. We urge your full support for the President's budget request for Department of Defense research, fellowship, and instrumentation programs.

My statement is presented on behalf of several higher education associations, the American Council on Education, the Association of American Universities, the Association of Graduate Schools, the Council on Graduate Schools in the United States, and the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges.

I have submitted a formal statement supporting our position for the record, but in order to conserve time this morning I would like only to highlight that more detailed document.

For 40 years or more the working relationship among the university community, the military services and the Defense Department has been characterized by good science, good education, and good management. This relationship has not proceeded without interruption, but I believe that it has worked well in the long run.

The network of relationships springs from a tradition that extends backward at least as far as the Morrill Act of 1862. During the Second World War the Manhattan Project, the MIT Radiation

Laboratory, and many other scientific enterprises in support of the war effort drew heavily on the cooperation of scientists and our universities to pursue their missions. And in the immediate postwar period the Office of Naval Research became a major and a welcome center for fruitful scientific cooperation between universities and the Federal Government.

UNIVERSITY ROLE DURING VIETNAM WAR

Now during the Vietnam war the Defense Department's role in supporting university research and education was put under considerable strain, to say the least, and not the least because of the Mansfield amendment. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the time has long passed to put that period behind us with its unhappy stresses and its formidable difficulties.

There are at least two reasons to do so.

First, when you look at the relationship between universities and the Federal Government from a broad perspective, that is from the end of World War II to the present, it is clear that the university community has valuable contributions to make to the security needs of the Nation and it has been traditionally willing to make them.

Second, national security more than ever demands a complete array of scientific, engineering, and other professional capacities. It also requires an educated populace and a productive economy. In many important ways, all of these depend upon the efforts of people in our colleges and our universities.

The University of Utah faculty, staff, and alumni have made important contributions to the public interest over the years, including the Nation's needs for security. As a matter of fact, research support from the basic research agencies in the Department of Defense at the University of Utah has increased more than 50 percent in the current academic year alone.

Therefore, I am happy to have this opportunity to give my views about the preparedness of the university community to reaffirm an old commitment and to realize that commitment in the form of new contributions to the Nation's security.

DOD/UNIVERSITY PRIORITY CONCERNS

In talking about the Defense Department's program to work with universities, I would like to emphasize the following three priority

concerns.

No. 1. Insure a strengthen sustained commitment to the Nation's investment in research.

No. 2. Provide effective incentives to encourage our best students to pursue careers as scientists and engineers in those fields critical to our national security.

No. 3. Renew the research instrumentation and facilities of universities that perform DOD research programs.

With regard to the first concern, that is a sustained investment in research, the basic research programs of the Federal Government, including the Department of Defense, play an essential role in the Nation's continued economic development and defense.

The benefits to the country of sustained commitment to science are to some extent obvious. Basic research makes possible discoveries that can dramatically increase our ability to use natural phenomena for society's benefit. Achieving an understanding of electromagnetism, for example, vastly enlarged our ability to transmit energy and communicate with each other. Coming to understand the properties of materials ultimately led to the microprocessor. Understanding quantum theory has given us lasers. Understanding the chemistry of polymers has led to the production of a vast array of synthetic materials. And all of this is not new. Research by the Quartermaster Corps during the Civil War resulted in the development of left shoes and right shoes in contrast to the uncomfortable uniform boot common before that time.

American technology, in other words, draws its strength from that wide array of fundamental investigations into the nature of the universe, and this basic work goes on principally in academic environments.

In recent years, despite a strong bipartisan commitment to the continuing Federal responsibility for research, the Nation's support of our research enterprise has lagged seriously behind our foreign competition. The recent "Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on University Responsiveness to National Security Requirements" highlights some distressing trends in national research and development funding. For example, from 1968 to 1980 research and development funds as a fraction of the Federal budget are down 36 percent. Also research and development funds as a fraction of the gross national product are down 19 percent. And scientist and engineers engaged in R&D as a fraction of the labor force are down 9 percent.

Now the fiscal 1983 Department of Defense budget request for research, that is the 6.1 category, is $821.1 million. Of this the Defense Research Sciences programs of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and DARPA, which fund most of the DOD-supported university research programs, account for $768 million or about 93 percent.

Now the Department's basics research programs are a small but a vitally important part of the total effort. This effort measured in constant dollars remains below 1971 levels and, despite recent gains, is now restored to only two-thirds of the fiscal 1965 level.

The Senate Committee on Armed Services has supported the fiscal 1983 request for research and related programs. We urge you to join with the Armed Service Committee and fully support the President's request for DOD reserch.

My second concern about the Nation's need for scientists and engineers states that in many fields of science and engineering essential to the Nation's security and economic recovery we do face a shortage of Ph. D. engineers and scientists. Fields adversely affected include computer science and many subspecialties of engineering.

LACK OF STUDENTS PURSUING GRADUATE STUDIES

Talented U.S. undergraduates simply are not pursuing graduate studies in these fields in sufficient numbers to meet our Nation's needs. Many students now reject doctoral education for more prom

ising and a highly competitive job market. And in that market universities frequently are at a competitive disadvantage in recruiting talented young faculty.

The present situation in our schools of engineering is particularly serious and illuminating. Undergraduate engineering enrollments are soaring toward record heights. The 1980 feshman engineering class nationwide was the largest ever recorded. Universities, however, lack the faculty and the talented graduate student assistants to handle that load efficiently and productively, and as a result more than 20 universities have announced limitations on enrollments rather than allow a decline in the quality of their educational programs.

The Defense Science Board gives several indicators of the problem's dimensions.

On of these is that between 1972 and 1980 the number of engineering Ph. D.'s granted declined 27 percent, all attributable to a decline in awards to U.S. citizens.

Another one is that the proportion of full-time graduate students enrolled in science and engineering rose from 16 percent in 1974 to 20 percent in 1979.

Now the problem here is not the number of foreign students enrolled in our programs. We have an excellent record and a responsibility to provide advanced education to students from other nations. The problem is that too few of the best American students are choosing graduate education over the job market and as a nation we are failing to attract our most able students into research and education careers.

In this connection, and if you will forgive a personal item, I would like to note that as a young research physicist I was fortunate enough to attract research support from the Office of Naval Research in the late 1950's and early 1960's. This funding helped me direct 10 graduate students to their advanced degrees in physics and electrical engineering. I cannot imagine a more effective expenditure of public moneys.

We are encouraged that the Department of Defense has responded to the requirements of the 1980's. DOD has announced a small125 awards are planned in fiscal year 1983-targeted program of graduate fellowships in engineering and the sciences to attract the most able U.S. undergraduates to graduate programs in fields critical to our national security and economy. Under this new program stipends will be competitive in the job market.

We fully support the Department's proposal and we urge the committee to support it also. As the program is implemented we hope it will be possible to strengthen it further.

Finally, my third concern is on the obsolescence of research and laboratory facilities. Obsolete research instrumentation and outdated science and engineering laboratories are seriously hampering the efficiency and competitiveness of many Federal university research programs, including those that perform DOD-supported research.