JPK / G8/22/78 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOP- MONDAY, MARCH 3, 1975 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m., in room 1318, Everett McKinley Dirksen Office Building, Hon. William Proxmire (chairman) presiding. Present: Senator Proxmire. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION STATEMENT OF DR. H. GUYFORD STEVER, DIRECTOR ACCOMPANIED BY: DR. LOWELL J. PAIGE, ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND ASSIST- DR. EDWARD C. CREUTZ, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR RESEARCH DR. ROBERT E. HUGHES, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR NATIONAL ELDON D. TAYLOR, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ADMINISTRA- DR. RUSSELL C. DREW, DIRECTOR, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DR. JOEL A. SNOW, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PLANNING AND THEODORE W. WIRTHS, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT CHARLES F. BROWN, GENERAL COUNSEL DR. PAUL F. DONOVAN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ENERGY R. & D. LEONARD L. LEDERMAN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF NATIONAL BUDGET REQUEST Senator PROXMIRE. The subcommittee will come to order. The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on HUD-Independent Agencies is meeting this morning to receive testimony from the National Science Foundation on its fiscal year 1976 budget request. Dr. Stever, I welcome you and your colleagues. It is good to see you again. (1) The National Science Foundation is requesting $755,400,000 in new obligational authority for fiscal year 1976, coupled with $20 million that was deferred by the President from fiscal year 1975, bringing your total fiscal year 1976 estimate to $775,400,000. This represents an increase of $78,300,000 over your current fiscal year 1975 plan, or an increase of approximately 11.2 percent. In your justifications you state that your major increases are in Scientific Research Project Support, up by $39,365,000, national and special research programs up by $29,506,000, and national research centers up by $11,800,000. Your major reductions are in the research applied to national needs program down by $3,210,000, and in science education improvement down by $7,150,000. Dr. Stever, although I am concerned about the size of the Foundation's budget this year, I am more concerned with the internal implementation and management of your various programs that cost the American taxpayer over $750 million a year. As you know, on November 1, 1974, I wrote you and expressed my concerns about the lack of a comprehensive procedure for evaluating project results at the agency, the lackluster performance of NSF in coordinating applied research with mission agencies, and the haphazard manner in which study results are disseminated to potential users. Your report of January 3, 1975, in response to my letter, admitted that weaknesses do, indeed, exist, but I am still not convinced that the National Science Foundation has decided exactly what it is going to do to correct these deficiencies. I intend to find out in the course of these hearings this week. I am also concerned that the National Science Foundation is rapidly becoming "big business", complete with its elite club of 10 or 15 established "clients" in the form of the large, "brand-name" east and west coast universities. The large universities get the major portion of the grants, your advisory panels are packed with their representatives, and the smaller yet equally qualified colleges are being forced out of the grant "market." It also appears that these universities operate in relative autonomy and that there is virtually no agency monitoring of the performance of the grantees. At the agency itself, there are still serious questions to be asked about the effectiveness and objectivity of NSF's internal audit of program performance and management. Add one of the worst EEO profiles in the Federal Government to these weaknesses, and you have some serious problems at the National Science Foundation. I am hopeful that in the next few mornings, we can begin to get a handle on what your agency is going to do to tackle these difficulties head on. Dr. Stever, I see that there are copies of your prepared statement before each member of the subcommittee. You may present a summary of your statement at this point, if you wish, and, of course, your complete statement will be printed in full in the record. Before you start, perhaps you could introduce the other members of your staff who have accompanied you here today. INTRODUCTION OF ASSOCIATES Dr. STEVER. Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be here. I would like to introduce the other members of my staff. On my immediate left is Dr. Lowell J. Paige, Acting Deputy Director and also Assistant Director for Education. Next, Dr. Robert Hughes, Assistant Director for National and International Programs, and next Dr. Edward Creutz, Assistant Director for Research. On my immediate right is Dr. Joel Snow, Director, Office of Planning and Resources Management, and, next, Dr. Alfred Eggers, Assistant Director for Research Applications, and, next, is Mr. Eldon Taylor, Assistant Director for Administrative Operations. We also have with us today Mr. Theodore Wirths, Director of the Office of Government and Public Programs; Mr. Charles F. Brown, General Counsel; Dr. Paul F. Donovan, Director of the Office of Energy R. & D. Policy, and Mr. Leonard Lederman, Director, Office of National R. & D. Assessments, and also Dr. Russell Drew, Director, Science and Technology Policy Office. Now then, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee. I am happy to appear before this subcommittee, once again, to request appropriations for the programs of the National Science Foundation. This subcommittee plays a significant part in the shaping of NSF programs, and the constructive dialogues we have each year serve to strengthen the activities of NSF. In my remarks today, which I will try to shorten for you, I will cover some items that characterize the Foundation's operations, provide illustrations of the value of science to society, discuss briefly the NSF fiscal year 1976 program, and address some areas in which the subcommittee has shown special interest. I also have a further written statement covering details of the Foundation '76 Program, which I would like to submit for the record. Senator PROXMIRE. The full statement, including the tables, will be printed in the record following your remarks. REQUESTS FOR SUPPORT Dr. STEVER. The next section of my written remarks characterizes NSF operations. I should point out that we have more than 18,000 projects underway with NSF funding. We get about 24,000 requests for support each year which are carefully evaluated and judged against competing requests. More than 25,000 scientists outside the NSF help us in this process. We have 1,290 staff positions authorized for the Foundation this year, and we are asking for the same number for fiscal year 1976. VALUE OF SCIENCE TO SOCIETY With your permission I will not discuss this section of my prepared statement since I have a feeling that most of us will agree that science is of great value to society. The section on long-term payoff on basic research is another factor which I believe is generally understood in the Congress, and in society. I will dispense with a discussion of this section with your permission. Mr. Chairman, I do hope that you pursue the points that you made in your opening statement, because there are some points in which we disagree on the data. These are big issues, and I would hope that I would have a chance to discuss each one of them. I would like to ask whether you would like me to discuss them before I give the rest of my statement, or after? Senator PROXMIRE. Why not complete your statement, and give any response you would like to my opening statement, and then we can get to questions. Dr. STEVER. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, for the three central elements of the NSF contibution to U.S. science, we seek continued support for basic research, including special emphasis on research instrumentation and on the national research programs and centers under our jurisdiction; we seek continued selective investments in applied research that can quickly contribute to national needs which are not being met by other Federal agencies or other sectors of society; and we seek continued support of innovative means to improve science education at all levels of learning. Briefly, the items that account for the major increases included in the proposed fiscal year 1976 program are: A $39.4 million increase in scientific research project support to strengthen research in the scientific disciplines and engineering. A $29 million increase in national and special research programs. A major part of this increase, $18 million, provides for two LC-130R aircraft that are vital to the continued effective U.S. presence in Antarctica. Other major increases in the program area are for research efforts related to natural resources and climate, including $4 million for a climate dynamics program. A $9.8 million increase for national research centers. Nearly 50 percent of this increase is needed to augment computer capacity, including equipment and facilities, at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. The remainder will be used primarily for advanced instrumentation and to cover the increased cost of research at Foundation-supported astronomy facilities. Two of our major program activities-RANN and Science Education Improvement-are reduced below the fiscal year 1975 levels. Reductions in new obligational authority for the programs are partially offset by the application of funds deferred from fiscal year 1975. The net results are: A $3.2 million decrease in RANN, which reflects the transfer of solar and geothermal research to the Energy Research and Development Administration. The nonenergy portion of RANN is increased in the areas of productivity, environment, resources, and problem assessment. A $7.2 million decrease in the Science Education Improvement program. The decrease is mainly in programs aimed at the elementary school level, where other Federal, State, and local agencies have major responsibilities. SOCIAL SCIENCES Mr. Chairman, one area of research that has often been discussed with this subcommittee is the social sciences. We have been giving particular attention to this area in the past several months to insure that the research activities we support are well designed and of high quality. We have studied these programs internally, both through a staff group and through my Director's Program Reviews. The National Science Board has established a subcommittee to examine social science programs, and the Advisory Committee for Research, which brings the views of outside scientists to bear on NSF programs, has initiated a social sciences task group to examine the opportunities and achievements in these fields. |