« PreviousContinue »
Mr. Watkins. What I'm really saying is I think there is a beautiful role that NSF can play. I think it's so beautiful it could outshine MIT's effect on its surrounding area. If you thought Boston was a deteriorated area, you would think this area that I'm talking about is dead. It would bring it back to life. It's Lazarus and we've got to bring it back to life.
Dr. ATKINSON. Mr. Watkins, I don't know what an innovation center in that area would be like, but I would be interested in drawing together a group of business leaders from that part of the State and telling Oklahoma State, “Look, we want to work with you. We want to raise some Federal funds to develop ideas that will lead to new developments and new activities in our part of the State.”
I think you fill find expertise at the university. Scientists there should be able to work with the people from your part of the State to help develop some of these activities.
Mr. WATKINS. We are doing exactly that through an innovation center which is a working partner with Southeastern State University. There is an application in your office today, a couple of them, along these lines. I think a beautiful thing could develop out of this whole idea, replicating what has happened in some other areas.
Are there any other specific questions the staff might have? Dr. Moss. This is a specific followup to some of the questions from Mr. Brown and Mr. Watkins on technology transfer. It's related to the new functions of the Smithsonian Information Exchange and the NTIS and the Department of Commerce. Do you see this combination as having the potential—let's say a triumvirate of NSF, the Bureau of Standards and the Department of Commerce—of really being a better information center for technological information transfer.
Dr. ATKINSON. That is certainly the aim; the past situation was unsatisfactory. But to date, how SSIE, NTIS, and the Bureau will interact has not been planned. It is an important issue, one I have called attention to throughout my years in Washington. I have been distressed that we have made such slow progress. I hope this is a step that will initiate more activity.
I know that Congressman Brown is much concerned about longrange planning and the balancing of funds across fields of research. An underlying factor in that planning should be a data base which permits us to know what we are doing in different fields of science and different parts of the country. We don't have such a data base; it is the sort of data base that SSI should provide us.
Dr. Moss. I wondered if Dr. Sanderson would comment on the percentage of projects in the applied science and engineering directorate? Do you think the data base is very high in that case ?
Dr. SANDERSON. All projects are entered into the SSIE data base. We have a standard form. Indeed, as part of making the award, the document is sent to SSIE. I will say that in the past, we have been one of the few agencies that has gotten them in quickly and on time.
Some other agencies report on an annual basis. So, there is a good deal of scattering of the quality of the data that is there. NSF has always taken that reporting requirement very seriously.
Dr. ATKINSON. NSF does enter its information, but NSF is one of a small group. There must be either a Presidential directive or a con
gressional requirement that agencies enter this information. And the system must be costed out so that an agency can afford to use the system.
Dr. Moss. I'm obviously raising that because as you know, the chairman has been very interested. I guess I would ask whether you agree with what I think is his thinking; that is, the transfer of SSIÈ to Commerce and the innovation proposals and the strengthening of the technological innovation function in the Department of Commerce are all a good opportunity to really think about what we need to build that data base and make it a useful one for technology transfer?
Dr. Atkinson. It is a Presidential initiative, and we agree with the President.
Mr. WATKINS. Let me say, Dr. Atkinson and Dr. Sanderson and other members of the panel, we appreciate your being here today and we are going to stand adjourned until toinorrow, February 13 at 2 p.m. in room 2325.
[Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
1981 NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1980
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in room 2325, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. George E. Brown, Jr. (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Brown. The subcommittee will come to order.
Gentleman, I think that we might start with the suggested changes in the Science Foundation Act of 1950 and related laws which I don't foresee any particular problems with, but I would like to have the record reflect what you are suggesting and the reasons for it. So if we could just take these up seriatim I think we could dispose
. I guess, Dr. Atkinson, you have suggested in a letter to the chairman, as I recall, some of these changes, all of these changes. The first one being to delete subsection 5–C, and reletter subsection D to reflect that with regard to Civil Service Commission's security check.
Would you like to explain that to us briefly and what the need for it is?
STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD C. ATKINSON, DIRECTOR AND ASSIST
ANT DIRECTORS, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Dr. PIMENTEL. Mr. Brown, the implication of this proposed change is not that the Civil Service Commission security check wi leted, the check will still be required. It need not be specified in the NSF Act because it is specified elsewhere.
Mr. Brown. So this is really just a redundancy?
Mr. Brown. Could you indicate the degree to which personnel in the Foundation deal with matters involving classified materials or other security-type activities?
Dr. ATKINSON. We will do that for the record. (The information referred to is as follows:)
INVOLVEMENT OF NSF PERSONNEL WITH CLASSIFIELD MATERIALS NSF does not originate any classified materials. Consequently, clearances for access to classified materials are granted to those staff members whose interagency relationship require such access. As of April 1, 1980, there are 50 staff members who have been cleared for access to top secret materials and 318 staff members have been cleared for secret. On April 1, 1980 the NSF Central Control Registry recorded for fiscal year 1980, the receipt of 456 secret and 2,147 confidential documents.
Security clearance determinations are based upon the results of investigations conducted by the Office of Personnel Management for NSF. All staff members have been the subjejct of the required investigations (NAC and NACI) associated with Federal employment. In addition, employees requiring a top secret clearance must have a full field investigation.
Mr. Brown. That will be fine.
Do you have any questions with regard to that matter, Mr. Ertel, the proposal ?
Mr. ERTEL. No, sir, as I understand, it is strictly a tidying up matter.
Mr. Brown. Proposed change No. 2: To change the language of present section 16 which has references that are outdated, going back to 1970; and that again is a matter merely of removing obsolete provisions?
Dr. PIMENTEL. Yes, sir. The single sentence proposed for retention restates that material in paragraph A, which is still current. The rest that is deleted is obsolete. Paragraph B is in the Authorization Act, and hence it is not needed in the Organic Act.
Mr. BROWN. And the change in No. 3, if you could make similar explanation with regard to that proposal?
Dr. PIMENTEL. Yes, sir. The purpose was to establish a resource center, as provided in the Authorization Act of 1978. It was also codified unnecessarily, but it does not cause additional centers to be funded. In fact, we are proceeding to fund a third center, and we are proposing another. The entry is merely a useless provision in the codification. We have our general counsel here if you would like to hear more.
Mr. Brown. I don't think so. It is fairly clear cut as far as I can see.
As a matter of fact if you can find any ways of reducing the size of the codes in other ways, we would appreciate hearing that, because it would make it a lot easier on all of us.
Mr. ERTEL. If I may ask a question, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ERTEL. There had to be a reason for us going into the code, to put in the codes. It seems to me—I would like to know what the original reason was.
Dr. ATKINSON. We believe it was a mistake. This is Mr. Herz, our general counsel. Mr. Brown. We are happy to see you again, and please reassure Mr. Ertel if you can.
Mr. Herz. I wish I could be more precise, Mr. Ertel. The Office of the Law Revision Counsel goes through authorization legislation and similar legislation each year to see what needs to be codified. I suspect that they thought that this was a new kind of authority for the Foundation, and therefore put it in the code to make that authority clear. In fact, we have ample authority in the Organic Act for science education programs of all sorts, including this one.
Whether they had other things in mind, I don't know. We do not know why this was codified; we did not suggest it. It simply appeared in the code, and so far as we can see, it is surplus verbiage.
Mr. ERTEL. Would it be a possibility if they put that there to make sure you did it, to give added emphasis on the fact it should be done.
Dr. PIMENTEL. You realize we have done so.
Mr. ERTEL. I understand that, but I am wondering if that is the reason it was initially done.
Mr. HERZ. I would doubt it considering the source. As far as we can determine, nobody on this committee or on the Health and Hu