For the most part, once organized and functioning, the Foundation carried out its programs in an atmosphere of relative quiet and moderate growth. Its contacts with Congress were, and until recently have remained, casual and generally confined to an annual inspection of the NSF budget.

A significant change began to take place in the post-Sputnik era. From a technological point of view, public opinion crystallized around the concept that basic science was no longer an ancillary, but a primary, instrument needed to guard the public safety, health and economy. From an organizational point of view, Congress responded to the new emphasis on science in a variety of ways— including the establishment of the House Committee on Science and Astronautics, which was given legislative jurisdiction over the Foundation as well as scientific research and development in general, space exploration, and other matters:

While the Science and Astronautics Committee does not have authorization authority in regard to the NSF budget, it has continually endeavored to educate itself to the workings and growth of the Foundation-both of which lately have accelerated rapidly in scale and, to some extent, in scope.

Late in 1964, pursuant to a directive from the full committee chairman, Representative George P. Miller, the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Development began a comprehensive review of the Foundation and its operations.

At that time the subcommittee arranged with the newly formed Science Policy Research Division of the Library of Congress for a complete background report on the Foundation. The report, entitled "The National Science Foundation: A General Review of Its First 15 Years," was completed and submitted to the subcommittee in May 1965. Shortly thereafter the subcommittee met in executive session over a period of time to familiarize itself with the contents of the study-which was a factual one and made no effort to evaluate NSF performance. The purpose was to assimilate a still more detailed working knowledge of the Foundation, its operations, and place in the scheme of the executive family.

In June 1965 the subcommittee began its public review of the Foundation in hearings which ran through the first week of August. In its hearings, the subcommittee sought to produce useful information about: (1) How well had the National Science Foundation performed the tasks which Congress set out for it in the act of 1950? (2) What roles, responsibilities, and missions should the NSF assume in the future? (3) What tools would the Foundation need in the years ahead to accomplish its work?

The main topics discussed in the testimony and fully examined by the subcommittee were

The authority and mission of the Foundation.

National science policy.

The internal organization of the National Science Foundation and its related National Science Board.

The external relations of NSF with other agencies of the government, academic institutions, and professional associations.

Programs of basic research and applied research.

The support of science education.

The availability of manpower and money.

Science in relation to foreign policy.

The dissemination of scientific and technical information.

During the course of the hearing, 41 witnesses representing 14 agencies of government, 13 educational institutions, and 9 professional and nonprofit associations appeared before the subcommittee or submitted statements. To supplement the testimony, a total of 565 written questions in nine categories was prepared by the subcommittee and staff for subsequent submittal to the witnesses. More than 100 of these questions were addressed to the Director of the Foundation, Dr. Leland J. Haworth. The record of hearings and supporting material have been published in two indexed volumes entitled "Government and Science: A Review of the National Science Foundation."

In September and October 1965, the subcommittee resumed its executive sessions. The testimony and other data were reviewed and analyzed; findings and conclusions worked out, and preliminary instructions for the drafting of legislation to amend the Foundation's organic act were delineated.

In December 1965 the subcommittee issued a comprehensive report entitled "The National Science Foundation-Its Present and Future," which subsequently was adopted unanimously by the full committee. The report outlined the difficulties and problems which have been uncovered in the previous hearings, and set forth a number of recommendations for legislative and non-legislative change, together with a number of observations concerning matters which will require continuing oversight.

The report states quite candidly that it is, and is intended to be, a critical one. I will not go into the specific legislative recommendations contained in the report since they, for the most part, have been incorporated into the bills before you today. However, I would like to explain what we mean by the use of the term "critical" in the report since I believe it was the central issue in our hearings and served as a basis of what we attempted to achieve in the legislation.

The report states:

"The subcommittee does not mean critical in the sense of pointing fingers at failure, mismanagement, or nonfeasance but critical in the sense of evaluating a major ongoing operation of government against the backdrop of the future and the needs of the nation.

"The subcommittee's inquiry has, inevitably, disclosed some shortcomings of the first type. On balance, however, their effect has been so far submerged by the main positive thrust of the Foundation's usefulness that concentration on them by the subcommittee could not be considered warranted at this point.

"Shortcomings of the second type are something else again. Still, these stem less from personal aptitudes, or lack thereof, than from the swift tempo of contemporary living and the unparalleled growth of science and technology. The moment and impact of each is having a highly significant effect upon the other, to the point of much mutual dependence. Put another way, the problems of current government, as well as everyday life, clearly depend upon science and technology for at least a part of their solution-an important part. Correspondingly, science and technology, which today more than ever cannot afford to become stagnant, must rely to a large extent upon government and the motives provided by the pressing difficulties of modern society to induce a satisfactory rate of evolution. "It is within this context of scientific, political, and social interaction that the subcommittee evokes its cardinal criticism; namely, that the Foundation is operating, and is largely organized to operate, in a manner which was satisfactory a decade ago but which does not appear adequate for either today or tomorrow. Using the committee's report as a basis, I introduced a bill, H. R. 13696, on March 16, 1966, proposing a number of changes in the organization and operation of the Foundation. Three days of hearings were held on the bill in April, and testimony was heard from representatives of the Foundation, the Office of Science and Technology, the Department of State, the Bureau of the Budget, and the National Academy of Sciences. At the conclusion of these hearings, the subcommittee met in executive session to consider the recommendations for changes in the bill which had been suggested by the witnesses. Certain changes were made in the bill, and on May 3 I introduced a clean bill, H. R. 14838 which later was approved unanimously by the subcommittee and full committee. The bill was passed by the House with minor amendments on July 18, 1966, but was not acted upon by the Senate prior to the close of the 89th Congress.

On February 15, 1967, Î introduced H. R. 5404 which is basically the same as H.R. 14838. H. R. 5404 was approved by the full committee on February 21, 1967, and was passed by the House on April 12.

I would now like to discuss, if I may, what I believe are some of the major provisions of H. R. 5404.

FUNCTIONS OF THE FOUNDATION

The bill would authorize or direct a number of new NSF activities:

(1) Support for applied research is authorized, but is made permissive and is at the discretion of the Director. It must be borne in mind that NSF was established to further basic, or fundamental, research, and it was not our intent to change that element of the Foundation's character. Nonetheless, there are important occasions when Foundation backing for applied research appears warranted. These include, but are not limited to, research necessary for the solution of major national problems involving the public interest and the furthering of engineering research into early phases of application, after which other groups may take over the hard facets of applied research and development.

(2) NSF is presently required to collect and collate data on national scientific and technical resources. The bill would have the Foundation analyze and interpret the data as well. This is most important because it is an essential input to the decision making processes of Congress and of the scientific offices of the President, particularly as science and technology more and more become critical links in the chain of our national well being.

(3) In order to facilitate information on where Federal research money goes, NSF is given a new task of keeping tabs on the pererginations of such funds.

This requirement is intended to make it possible for Congress or the executive branch to find out quickly how much Federal research money finds its way to what educational institution, nonprofit organization, or private contractorand from what agencies.

(4) If the Secretary of State requests it, NSF is authorized to undertake the support of scientific activities relating to international cooperation and foreign policy. National objectives abroad may thus be supported by NSF, at the discretion of the Director but with the concurrence of the State Department and utilizing funds available to either. The new authority represents an extension of that already given to NSF with regard to international cooperation. It permits NSF support of scientific "activities," not merely research or education, and in support of objectives broader than the promotion of science or science education so long as they coincide with national policy. This authority thus joins that already provided in connection with the Defense Department and national security, but gives the NSF Director power to determine whether or not to comply with such requests from either department.

(5) The Foundation is enjoined in this bill to give support to the social as well as the physical sciences. The authority for such support already exists, but the bill spells it out more specifically by way of emphasis. The intent of the amendment is by no means to direct a disproportionate amount of total NSF support for the social sciences, but to insure that an adequate effort is made to permit advancement in these scientific areas which, while still relatively primitive, are extremely important to human welfare.

The bill would also remove one of the Foundation's functions.

This is section 14 of NSF's current act which was amended in 1958 to give the Foundation responsibility for research, basic and applied, on weather modification. The bill repeals section 14 in its entirety for a number of reasons. One is that the ramifications of weather modification are so broad as to encompass far more issues than scientific ones. Another is that research in this area has reached the point where it requires much developmental work as well as continued basic reaearch; NSF retains ample authority to continue support for the latter-and it clearly should. Still another is that in view of recent administration reorganization with regard to responsibility for the application of the environmental sciences, it would appear unrealistic and improper to permit the current legal requirement on NSF to stand. The Departments of Commerce and Interior are assuming much of the responsibility in this area, which the Foundation may continue to back up with apt support for some of the fundamental research still needed.

COMPOSITION AND ACTIVITIES OF THE BOARD

The National Science Board, which is the governing body of the Foundation' has no counterpart elsewhere in Government. It is a 24-member group that bears almost complete legal responsibility for exercising the authority vested in the Foundation in spite of the fact that it is a part-time non-Government-employed Board without direct responsibility to the administration. The reason for this arrangement, which was set up by Congress in 1950 after a long controversy, is to assure an adequate voice-through the Board-for the scientific community in matters involving Government support of basic science and science education. The Board may, however, and in actual practice does, delegate much of its authority and function to NSF's chief executive officer, the Director. H.R. 5404 would update and clarify a number of the Board's characteristics and duties.

(1) Qualifications for membership on the Board have been slightly revised and expanded so as to assure the representation of a broader range of interests and scientific disciplines. Particular attention is directed to the fact that the Board should include members representing the social sciences, engineering and industry-in addition to the basic, life and agricultural sciences. It may be noted that while there is no specific mention of industry representatives, such persons are eligible by permitting the appointment of those eminent in "public affairs". (2) The Board is made primarily responsible for establishing and overseeing the policies of the Foundation and is relieved of operational duties. This is consistent with what has become a de facto method of operation through delegation of Board powers to the full-time Director—who, incidentally, is an ex officio member of the Board.

(3) In view of the fact that Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1962 removed from the Foundation any previous authority to coordinate or evaluate the scientific research conducted or supported by other Federal agencies, the language of

xisting law which pertains to NSF responsibilities toward national science policy as been left confused and relatively meaningless. Accordingly, the bill now proides that "the Board shall recommend and encourage the pursuit of national olicies for the promotion of basic research and education in the sciences." By his language it is intended that the Board have a strong advisory voice in the letermination of national science policies as promulgated by the administration. (4) The Board has been given a major new responsibility-that of rendering n annual report to the Congress on the status and health of science and its various lisciplines. Such a report will be of inestimable value to Congress in its deliberaions on policy matters which depend or impinge upon science and technology. (5) To assist the Board in its new tasks the bill provides for a small professional staff to be made available to the Board at its discretion. The staff is not intended to serve the Board as advisers in its policy determinations nor to lapse into a competitive position with the staff of the Foundation. The staff is limited to five professionals, plus clerical help, but the Director may provide such additional help as the Board may from time to time request in accordance with its needs. It is intended that such staffing be kept flexible. If the Board wishes to maintain a permanent staff, this is permissible. If it prefers a rotational arrangement, this may also be arranged. Within the limits of numbers and salaries set out, the mode of staff operation is at the discretion of the Board and the Director.

NSF DIRECTOR AND STAFF

The bill makes a number of important changes in the legislative philosophy governing the Office of the Director.

(1) All authority relating to the management and operations of the Foundation is vested in the Director. This proposal is intended to increase the administrative stature of the Director, to give him the authority and flexibility he needs for fast and efficient decisions, and to cut down on redtape.

(2) The Director is given specific statutory authority to delegate such of his duties and powers as he deems appropriate. Such authority has already been extended to the Director through Reorganization Plan No. 5 of 1965, and this legislation merely incorporates it. However, one new limitation is imposed. The Director may not redelegate any policymaking functions which may have been passed on to him by the Board. The reason for this is to insure that basic responsibility for policy is retained in the Board, on which the Director also serves as a voting member, and thus to guard against undue attenuation of policy responsibility.

(3) While the Director is given operational authority over the affairs of the Foundation as distinguished from the policymaking function of the Board, it is recognized that the formulation of the programs of the Foundation, and the relative magnitude of the resources to be assigned thereto, transcends the boundary between operations and policy, and involves an element of each. Consequently, the bill provides that the formulation of programs in conformance with the policies of the Foundation shall be carried out by the Director in consultation with the Board.

(4) The bill also places a limitation upon the Director with regard to making grants, contracts, etc., with other organizations or persons. If the grant or contract in question involves a new type of program or an annual commitment of over $500,000 or a total commitment over $2 million, prior approval of the Board must be obtained-subject, of course, to such waiver as the Board may promulgate. (5) In keeping with the view that the Foundation deserves, and should be accorded, a top-level role in the Federal scientific structure, the bill elevates the Director from level III to level II of the Executive Schedule Pay Rates. The Director is thus placed on a par with the heads of most other independent agencies, a position he should clearly have, considering the Government-wide nature of the Foundation's mission and the many important relationships it must maintain both in and out of the Federal environment.

(6) For the same reasons as set out in the preceding paragraph the bill elevates the NSF Deputy Director from level V to level III. This again is consistent with the structure in other independent agencies.

(7) The bill further provides the Director with four Assistant Directors who are deemed essential if the Foundation is going to have the supply and caliber of help necessary to do its job in the future. The assistants are to become part of the Office of the Director and be assigned by him to their duties. They are appointed by the President and subject to Senate confirmation.

87-071 0-68- -9

ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE OF NSF

Rather than stipulate the Foundation's internal structure around particular branches of science as does present law, the bill leaves such organization to the Director. This is necessary in the modern fluid world of science and technology where an important prerogative of chief executives is flexibility of operation.

THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

The law has always provided authority for the Board to operate, at its option, through a subgroup known as the Executive Committee. In 1962 the Executive Committee was set up on a permanent basis, composed of five voting members with the Director as Chairman. The Board could delegate such of its powers and functions to the committee as it saw fit-policymaking functions excepted.

This bill incorporates the provisions of the reorganization plan. It also removes the restriction against the delegation of policy functions to the Executive Committee if the Board wishes to delegate these.

Since the convening of the 24-member Board is at times difficult and time consuming, this added facility should aid and expedite NSF programs where quick decisions or approvals are needed. It is to be noted that the Board retains authority to withdraw any powers or functions it may assign either to the Executive Committee or to the Director.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, I believe H.R. 5404 and the bill you have introduced (S. 2598) represent an important and practical method of improving the organization and operation of the Foundation. I am confident that whatever differences that may exist between the two bills can be resolved, and that the enactment of this legislation will result in a significant improvement of our national capability for research and education in the sciences.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. We welcome Senator Harris to the committee. Senator Harris, I made a brief statement earlier this morning in which I reviewed your interest in this whole problem, and the works of the committee you have been chairing, the Senate Subcommittee on Government Research. We know that you have written about the case for the National Social Science Foundation. So, you come before this special subcommittee with a considerable background and interest and experience in this area, and I want to say how delighted we are to have you appear here and how much we appreciate your comments and the work that you have done in the past on this subject.

STATEMENT OF HON. FRED R. HARRIS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Senator HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Senator Griffin. I am honored you invited me here to testify in regard to S. 2498. I commend you for holding these hearings to focus attention on the National Science Foundation and to help improve its operations. I might say that I am honored also to follow as a witness this morning Representative Daddario, whose very real and lasting contributions in the whole field of science and technology are rightly deserving of great praise. As you know, Mr. Chairman, I share your great interest in the health, progress, and development of American science and your belief in the basic importance of science and technology to the future of this Nation. May I say, also, that, as chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Government Research, which has held rather extensive hearings and seminars on the whole subject of Government science policy, the application, development, and use of biomedical knowledge, the health of the social sciences, and the distribution of Government research and development contracts