Then, I think it would be possible to dovetail Federal and State plans on a better basis than is now the case, and we could then move toward establishing additional centers of excellence. As I say, that cannot be done altogether in this bill, but I think some of those things might be encouraged either in the bill or in the report.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. One of the aspects of NSF expenditures is the development and improvement of institutional science programs. Looking through the last year's program, for example, you see a pretty good geographical balance as far as the funds being expended to improve the institutional capabilities.

Senator HARRIS. That is right, and that is why they are such an important factor.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. There are more obvious geographical differences for basic and fundamental research. It does appear that NSF is attempting, with regard to the institutional development funds they expend, which are 16 percent of their total program grants, to even things out. They do reasonably well, at least in a rather preliminary examination, in the funds they have provided to the various States. I think this reaches the points which you have talked to, and they are the importance of building, of establishing the institutions themselves. I think that this is of some encouragement. I order printed at this point a tabulation of National Science Foundation activities for fiscal year 1966, by State.

(The information referred to follows:)

Senator HARRIS. Those funds are going to become increasingly important, too, because the Congress this year has drastically cut the amount of money that NASA, for example, had for institutional development. Initially, they had $46 million for that purpose. The last 2 years it was $30 million. This year it has been cut to $10 million in the recommended budget. So, the NSF funds are becoming increasingly important.

Now, with regard to the social sciences, I support section 3(a), which specifically includes the social sciences within the authority of the National Science Foundation. While this language will not expand the present authority of the National Science Foundation to support research in the social sciences, because they already have that authority and are exercising it, it is nevertheless worth while and will give added and greatly needed recognition to the social sciences. Despite the greatly increased complexity of modern social, economic, and political problems, research and education in the social sciences continues to be sadly underfunded.

In 1965, basic research of all types funded by the Federal Government amounted to $1.69 billion, of which the social sciences received only $37 million, or 2.2 percent. The estimated obligations for 1966 and 1967 were about the same, 2.5 and 2.8 percent. Nor is there much difference when Federal support for applied research is considered. For 1965, Federal social science expenditures for applied research amounted to only 2.8 percent of the $3.16 billion the Federal Government spent for all types of applied research, and for 1966 and 1967, estimated expenditures are only 3.9 and 4.8 percent.

Even more revealing is the decline in the social science share of Federal research funds over the last 30 years. In 1938 the social sciences received 24 percent of total Government expenditures for research. By the early 1950's, however, the percentage had diminished to about 8 percent, and for the last 10 years the share of the Federal research dollars not including development-devoted to research in the social sciences and psychology has varied narrowly between 31⁄2 and 5 percent.

It should be made clear, however, that the enactment of section 3(a) does not by any means obviate the tremendous need for speedy enactment of S. 836, a bill which I cosponsored with 20 other Senators, including, I am proud to say, yourself, Mr. Chairman. to create a separate National Foundation for the Social Sciences.

The Subcommittee on Government Research, where this bill is now pending, has completed hearings and is in the process of preparing its report. We have heard from more than 90 witnesses, primarily from the American social science community, and they have been overwhelmingly in support of the bill. Supporters of a separate National Foundation for the Social Sciences included such organizations as the American Bar Association, National Education Association, American Historical Association, and such distinguished American academicians

as:

Dr. Kingsley Davis, chairman of the international population and urban research at the University of California;

Dr. Vincent Davis, the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver;

Prof. Louis Pollack, dean of the Yale Law School;

Dr. Henry King Stanford, president of the University of Miami; Dr. Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr., executive director of the American Bar Foundation;

Wex S. Malone, president of the Association of American Law Schools, Louisiana State University Law School;

Dr. Rensis Likert, director, Institute for Social Research, the University of Michigan;

Dr. Fred Harvey Harrington, president of the University of Wisconsin;

Dr. F. Max Millikan, Center for International Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology;

Arthur Schlesinger, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Margaret Mead, Robert Sears of humanities and sciences, Stanford University;

Dr. Harold D. Lasswell, Edward J. Phelps, professor of law and politics, Yale University Law School;

Dr. Gwendolen M. Carter, director, program of African studies, Northwestern University;

Dr. Myron Glazer, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Smith College;

Myres McDougall, Sterling professor of law, Yale University Law School;

Dr. Warren Miller, Inter-University Consortium for Political Research, Ann Arbor, Mich.;

Dr. Samuel P. Hayes, president of the Foreign Policy Association, New York, N.Y.;

Paul L. Ward, executive secretary of the American Historical Association.

Social science needs a constituency, and it will get one only when people become aware of the contribution it can make to the solution of their problems. We cannot expect that awareness to come so long as the Federal support for the social sciences is confined to missionoriented Federal agencies or the natural-science-oriented National Science Foundation.

I do not believe that the National Science Foundation, 90 percent of whose budget is spent in the natural and physical sciences, will ever be able to foster the kind of innovative-and, therefore, sometimes controversial-social science research which complex modern problems require, for fear of endangering the support for their less controversial natural and physical science efforts. Further, I believe that we need a quantum leap in the amount of support for social science research which will only come with the added visibility, status, and prestige of a separate social science foundation.

The National Science Foundation is greatly to be lauded for its increased funding of social science research, but I believe it will continue to be strongly oriented toward social sciences. Such disciplines as political science, law, and social or applied anthropology, for example, have little prospect, in my view, for increased funding so long as they remain under the umbrella of the natural and physical sciences. Nourishment and encouragement of such disciplines will come in a separate foundation in which the social science community will have primary responsibility for the full and complete development of all the social sciences.

I would like to furnish for the record, Mr. Chairman, a more complete statement on this matter which I wrote for the August 1967 issue of Science magazine.

(The article referred to follows:)