1981 NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

AUTHORIZATION

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1980

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY,

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 of them quickly.

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 ASSISTANT DIRECTORS, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Dr. PIMENTEL. Mr. Brown, the implication of this proposed change is not that the Civil Service Commission security check will be deleted, 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?

Dr. PIMENTEL. Yes, sir.

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 mem

bers 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. BROWN. By all means.

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

man Resources Committee of the Senate knew anything about the codification. I would think, if anyone wanted to send us a signal, it would be someone associated with these committees.

Mr. ERTEL. OK, thank you.

Mr. BROWN. Are there any other questions on that point?

If not, I would like to go over a few other matters in such detail as may be useful.

Dr. ATKINSON. Excuse me, Mr. Brown, there is one other change in the act which is substantive in nature. Are you going to get to that? It deals with the 5-year outlook.

Dr. PIMENTEL. That is the fourth of our proposed changes.

Dr. ATKINSON. That is the only one with substance.

Dr. MURRAY. We don't have it on our list.

Dr. ATKINSON. Should I comment on it?

Mr. BROWN. Why don't you go ahead and comment on that and see if there is any question.

Dr. ATKINSON. As you recall, the OSTP Act requires two science and technology reports: An annual report and a 5-year outlook. Those activities were transferred to the National Science Foundation, so that NSF has responsibility for both on an annual basis.

We proposed that we continue the annual report on an annual basis, but that we generate the 5-year outlook only once every 4 years. In the interim we will provide information appropriate to the process of preparing the 5-year outlook.

An you know, the first in the series of 5-year outlook reports will be completed this year. The second 5-year outlook will be completed about 2 years from now. We then would move to a 4-year cycle. Thus a President elected in November would send to the Congress 5-year outlook about 1 year later-at the time he submitted his budget. To put it another way, the report would be prepared, but then there would be a year after an election in which a President could put his own imprint on it.

Have I made myself clear?

Mr. ERTEL. No.

Dr. ATKINSON. As originally conceptualized in the OSTP Act and transferred to NSF, a 5-year outlook on science and technology was required every year. In our view, that is too often for the job we would like to do to do a good job of addressing some of the major policy issues. We believe the 5-year outlook should be done once every 4 years. Our proposal is to produce the next outlook 2 years from now and then change it to a 4-year cycle. We believe the outlook would be more meaningful.

Mr. BROWN. Well, I think any way that would deal with it that would. provide us with an outlook would be helpful. I am not, and I'm sure the committee is not rigid in its views with regard to the frequency of the 5-year outlook. At the present time it is required on an annual basis, I'm sure you considered the possibility of a 2-year cycle as well as a 4-year cycle.

Dr. ATKINSON. Yes.

Dr. BROWN. And it is your view that the magnitude of the work involved requires or makes it desirable at least that we take the 4 years so that during the course of each Presidential term there would be one 5-year outlook?

Dr. ATKINSON. With the understanding that in the interim we would transmit relevant information to the Congress.

Mr. BROWN. Did you submit some proposed language to accomplish this goal?

Dr. ATKINSON. Have we submitted the language?

Mr. HERZ. No, sir, we have not formally submitted an authorization bill even yet, I believe we are on the verge of doing so. We have had some discussions with others in the executive branch about it. I believe there were earlier discussions with the committees involved about the 2-year cycle. In considering formalizing that idea, we came around to the view that the longer 4-year cycle would be more feasible in terms of what we could do and do well, but also that at some point in the interval we ought to be sending you up some additional material. That is the nature of the language proposed.

Mr. BROWN. We would like to see this language. This is more than a casual matter.

Mr. HERZ. Indeed so.

Mr. BROWN. Because in the discussions I have had with the people at the Academy who have worked on the outlook, and with others, there have been indications that this is a matter involving substantial national effort, it has potential great value both from an educational and a planning point of view. It is something we should think very carefully about in order to get the maximum utility out of it.

The general understanding I had was that the Academy looked forward to doing a report every 2 years, but not comprehensive; but over a 4-year cycle they would be expected to cover broadly the whole. field of science. I am personally willing to be guided by the best view of the Foundation, assuming that they have consulted with the contractor, and that this fits in with the administration's general feelings and so forth.

But I think the committee would want to discus all the ramifications of this in some detail.

Dr. ATKINSON. Mr. Brown, my own feeling is that a report done too often does not receive the attention it should receive, and does not receive enough care in preparation. I believe a 4-year cycle will draw attention to the outlook and raise it as a key issue in the administration's planning activities.

Mr. BROWN. Well, I think possibly the committee had overly ambitious views on it when they originally put the requirement into the act. But I think the committee would want to discuss just how to go how to go about it in the most effective way.

Can I assume that you still plan to continue with the procedure of having the Academy do by contract the document some of which they prepared last year?

Dr. ATKINSON. That is one component of the report. The second outlook report is scheduled to be issued 2 years after the first; we already have let the contract with the Academy to provide a similar document for the second outlook report. Certainly for this next step, the answer is "yes."

Mr. BROWN. Would it be desirable to change not only the Foundation Act, but the Science Policy Act to reflect the organization changes that have taken place as well as the scheduled changes?