opments in our time offer greater promise for the Nation's future growth than the $25 billion, 13-year program enacted by the Congress last year for a national system of interstate highways.

A number of other actions have been taken in the last four years to add to our public assets and improve our natural resources. Expenditures for flood control have been increased. Specific Federal grants have been authorized for assisting the construction of pollution abatement works and sewage treatment facilities and for upstream watershed protection. Federal loans have been authorized for small irrigation projects. The tax laws have been revised to encourage private expenditures for conservation. A start has been made on Mission 66, a ten-year program of major improvements in our national parks. A unit has been established within the Executive Branch to encourage and coordinate long-range public works planning at all levels of government. Urban planning has been strengthened through grants to the States for assisting small municipalities and metropolitan or regional agencies in this activity and through the expanded Urban Renewal Program. Provision has also been made for interest-free advances for planning local public works and for loans to construct public works, if financing on reasonable terms is otherwise unavailable. Priority for these loans is given to smaller communities. Sound principles have been developed for sharing the responsibility for improving public assets and natural resources among Federal and State and local governments. The Nation's mineral resource base has been strengthened by a number of Federal programs, including those of the Department of Interior for mapping, exploration, and research in mining methods and metallurgy.

Special efforts have been made in recent years to develop nuclear technology as a constructive resource. Progress was accelerated by the 1954 amendment of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 and subsequent administrative actions of the Atomic Energy Commission. The new law has facilitated the advance of our international leadership along lines laid down in the "Atoms for Peace" proposal made to the United Nations in December 1953. Increasing use of radioisotopes is being made, here and abroad, in research, medical therapy, and industrial processes and operations. Government policy places particular stress on private development of large-scale reactors that use the heat of atomic fission in the generation of electricity at competitive prices. This new source of energy will acquire increasing significance as accessible and high-grade reserves of coal, oil, and gas are progressively consumed. Other nations not so well endowed as our own with relatively low-cost fossil fuels could benefit sooner from the availability of atomic energy. The possibility of developing thermonuclear (fusion) reactors for generating low-cost energy from abundant hydrogen is also being explored.

On the whole, there appears to be adequate incentive for participation by non-Federal interests in the development and application of nuclear technology. But if there is a lag in the construction of large-scale commer

cial power reactors by these interests, it may be necessary to request funds at a later date for direct Federal construction.

The Congress is requested to authorize partial governmental insurance against industrial atomic hazards. If provision were made for Federal insurance of liability, in excess of the amounts covered by private companies, additional encouragement would be given to the private undertaking of extensive projects, including the construction and operation of commercial reactors.

Federal assistance in the development of public assets must be extended to help meet needs in certain areas of vital national interest. None of these is more important than the speedy expansion of school classroom facilities. The Congress was requested last year to enact a program of Federal assistance to help overcome the critical shortage of schoolrooms. This program was designed to supplement the already large efforts of State and local governments to the extent necessary to meet the backlog of these needs within five years, after which time full responsibility for school construction would revert to the State and local governments. The Congress is again urged to act on these recommendations. To make up for lost time, provision should be made for completing the program in four instead of five years.

The President's Advisory Committee on Water Resources Policy has reported on the problems of providing the rapidly increasing amounts of water required by population growth and economic expansion. It made certain organizational proposals, urged the development of more consistent policies of cooperation and cost-sharing with State and local governments and other interests, and stressed the importance of long-range, basin-wide planning. Recommendations for any legislation necessary to accomplish these purposes will be submitted to the Congress as they are developed.

The partnership principle, which encourages local leadership and participation in the development of water and power resources, should continue to receive close attention in current authorizations and appropriations. Federal responsibilities in specific projects should be so defined as to stimulate and facilitate cooperative efforts with State and local governments and private enterprise. Except for complex multipurpose projects of paramount national interest, for which local resources are clearly insufficient or in which local benefits cannot be clearly equated with local cost burdens, the partnership principle assures maximum benefits and speed of completion within appropriate limits of Federal participation. One such multipurpose development which the Congress is requested to authorize is the Fryingpan-Arkansas project. This undertaking would provide water, supplemental irrigation, and power in parts of several States.

The prospects for long-term population growth present a challenge to the numerous governmental units responsible for providing community facilities. Large increases in population may be expected to occur mainly in metropolitan areas, where they will intensify certain already familiar

difficulties of State and local governments. These difficulties include the division of authority among governmental units and a lack of jurisdictions furnishing area-wide services; the unequal distribution within metropolitan areas of taxable capacity relative to needs for public services; State constitutional and other restrictions on local taxing and borrowing powers; and inadequate provision for the preparation of long-range capital expenditure and revenue programs.

The main responsibility for resolving these difficulties lies with the State and local governments. Tangible evidence of an increasing awareness of this responsibility is provided by the recent report of the Council of State Governments. This report, prepared at the direction of the Governors' Conference, recommends specific approaches to solving the governmental problems of metropolitan areas. Also, a few metropolitan areas are preparing to consolidate their planning or service functions, and a number of private foundations and citizens' groups are working toward a better understanding of metropolitan problems. But still greater efforts are required to arrive at early practical solutions.

The Federal Government has taken steps to assist these efforts in accordance with the recommendations of the President's Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. Consideration is being given to the need for better coordination of Federal programs affecting urban areas. Ways of helping State and local governments plan more adequately for future growth are being explored. The initiative and major resources for solving the problems of urban growth must come, however, from the local government units and, basically, from an enlightened citizenry.

IMPROVING SKILLS AND TECHNOLOGY

Shortages of trained manpower exist in virtually every field. Although the supply of scientific, engineering, and other technical and skilled manpower has grown rapidly in recent decades, the demand has increased even more rapidly. Present limitations on the supply of trained manpower are traceable to many factors, including the low birth rates of the 1930's, the failure of many talented youths to complete high school or college, relatively long training periods, shortages of qualified teachers, and inadequacies of facilities and equipment for research and training. Current heavy demands for specialized personnel reflect the requirements of military and atomic programs, the increasing complexities of the underlying technology, and the expanding needs of private industry as good times sustain markets, encourage diversification of lines, and stimulate civilian application of defense-related innovations.

The intensity of current operations on the technological frontier is indicated by the magnitude of research and development expenditures. Although estimates vary according to definition, the magnitude is notable by reference to any standard. National Science Foundation figures show an

average annual expenditure of more than $3 billion by the Federal Government in the fiscal years 1955-57, if certain admissible Department of Defense items not normally included are taken into account. A still broader definition would raise the 1957 estimate for the Department of Defense alone to $5.2 billion. The 1954 revision of the Internal Revenue Code with respect to treatment of research expenditures encouraged the formalization and expansion of industry research programs. Since private outlays amount to about $3 billion, the total annual national expenditure for research and development now ranges from about $6 billion to about $9 billion.

The Federal Government has taken many steps to meet its specialized manpower needs and to improve the supply in general. Various departments and agencies maintain training programs for essential skills, administer grants and fellowships, help provide necessary equipment and facilities, and make research contracts with universities, other institutions, and business concerns. The National Science Foundation is devoting increasing funds to the encouragement of education in the sciences. It pays particular attention to the development of personnel for the basic research on which applied science rests, and to the improvement of high-school and university teaching of sciences and mathematics. Efforts are being made to secure more effective use of scarce technical manpower in research undertakings that received Federal financial support. The services of the Department of Labor's apprenticeship and training programs are being strengthened and broadened.

Two Presidential Committees were established last year to deal with problems of improving our human resources. The Committee on Education Beyond the High School is focusing attention on the need for providing teachers and buildings for the expected rising tide of college enrollments and on ways of reducing the loss of talent that results from premature discontinuance of schooling by capable students. The National Committee for the Development of Scientists and Engineers is assessing the occupational shortages within its scope, exploring related problems, and enlisting the aid of interested organizations in working out solutions. Legislative recommendations may emerge from the work of these two Committees.

Federal actions have been directed not only toward alleviating the current manpower shortages in particular fields but also toward strengthening the Nation's basic educational system, which supports all subsequent instruction for working and living. In November 1955, a White House Conference on Education reviewed the many facets of the public school problemthe provision of qualified teachers, the development of appropriate curricula, and the supply of needed classrooms. The Conference was the culmination of a series of almost 4,000 State and local meetings attended by a half million citizens. Prompt action is requested on the program of Federal assistance for school construction recommended earlier in this chapter.

PROMOTING AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENTS

A persistent tendency toward excessive carry-overs indicates that full agricultural adjustment to peacetime conditions has not yet been accomplished. The Administration has made great efforts to move accumulated surpluses into consumption, at home and abroad, without seriously disturbing commercial markets. The disposal overseas of surplus stocks has received particular attention. This has involved direct and indirect export aids, sales for foreign currencies under bilateral agreements, and barter transactions. Although these programs have serious disadvantages, they have been helpful as short-run measures. Accordingly, it is recommended that Title I of the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act be extended by the Congress for one year beyond the current expiration date of June 30, 1957, and the present limit on permissible losses under this program be raised $1 billion. The short term of the extension and the limited dollar authorization would serve to emphasize the temporary nature of the program.

Greater progress must be made toward correcting the conditions that generate surpluses if costly Government acquisition and disposal programs are not to become permanent, if our relations with competing export countries are not to deteriorate, and if farmers' freedom of action is not to be increasingly curtailed. The approach through severe restrictions on acreage planted to the basic crops has been only partially successful. Statutory minimum allotments have prevented the full reductions in acreage warranted by carry-overs of wheat, cotton, and rice, and actual reductions have been considerably offset by increases in yields per acre. The diversion of considerable acreage from the basic commodities to other crops, notably feed grains, has caused surplus conditions to spread. A new approach to output adjustment was initiated in 1956 by the Soil Bank Act. Under this Act, growers of basic crops are encouraged to plant less than their full allotments and are compensated for part of the net income that they forego. While participation in the program was encouraging, its net contribution to reduction of output in 1956 was nominal. Most crops had already been planted when the law was enacted, and the yield prospects on much of the land placed in reserve had been reduced by drought.

The real test of the Soil Bank Program will come in 1957. Nearly 11 million acres of winter wheat land have already been placed in the 1957 acreage reserve, and participation by growers of other crops may raise the total to 25 million acres. A 1957 goal of 20 million acres has been set for the conservation reserve program, under which farmers may receive annual payments for transferring cropland to specified conservation uses and may be reimbursed for much of the initial cost incurred. If these targets are reached, 1 out of every 9 acres of cropland would be taken out of production. Output would not be reduced in the same proportion, however, since there will be a tendency to put relatively low-yielding land into the soil bank