I GOVERNMEN7

Storage

4

• Sc; Z.

89-

CONSIDERATION OF SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS .26' 1,)'-‘-

fc)

HEARING 

BEFOREBEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS

U.S. 110-USE OF REPRESENTATIVES

EIGHTY-NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION—

ITS PRESENT AND FUTURE

MASTER PLANNING OF NASA INSTALLATIONS

JANUARY 18, 1966

[No. 2]

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Science and Astronautics

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1966
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS

GEORGE P.

OLIN E. TEAGUE, Texas

JOSEPH E. KA RTH, Minnesota

KEN HECHLER, West Virginia

EMILIO Q. DADDARIO, Connecticut

J. EDWARD ROUSH, Indiana

BOB CASEY, Texas

JOHN W. DAVIS, Georgia

WILLIAM F. RYAN, New York

THOMAS N. DOWNING, Virginia

JOE D. WAGGONNER, JR., Louisiana

DON FUQUA, Florida

CARL ALBERT, Oklahoma

ROY A. TAYLOR, North Carolina

GEORGE E. BROWN JR., California

WALTER H. MOELLER, Ohio

WILLIAM R. ANDERSON, Tennessee

BROCK ADAMS, Washington

LESTER L. WOLFF, New York

WESTON E. VIVIAN, Michigan

GALE SCHISLER, Illinois

II

MILLER, California, Chairman

JOSEPH W. MARTIN, JR., Massachusetts

JAMES G. FULTON, Pennsylvania

CHARLES A. MOSHER, Ohio

RICHARD L. ROUDEBUSH, Indiana

ALPHONZO BELL, California

THOMAS M. PELLY, Washington

DONALD RUMSFELD, Illinois

EDWARD J. GURNEY, Florida

JOHN W. WYDLER, New York

BARBER B. CONABLE, JR., New York

CHARLES F. DUCANDER, Executive Director and Chief Counsel

JOHN A. CARsTARPHEN, Jr., Chief Clerk and Counsel

PHILIP B. YEAGER, Counsel

FRANK R. HAMMILL, Jr., Counsel

W. H. BOONE, Chief Technical Consultant

RICHARD P. HINES, Staff Consultant

PETER A. GERARDI, Technical Consultant

JAMES E. WiLsoN, Technical Consultant

HAROLD A. GOULD, Technical Consultant

PHILIP P. DICKINSON, Technical Consultant

JOSEPH M. FELTON, Assistant Counsel

ELIZABETH S. KERNAN, SCientifiC Research Assistant

FRANK J. GIROUX, Clerk

DENIS C. QUIGLEY, Publications Clerk

\
CONTENTS

Page

Consideration of report of the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and

Development, "The National Science Foundation—Its Present and

Future" 1

Consideration of 1st Interim Report on Master Planning of NASA Installations 7

III

CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE

ON SCIENCE, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT, " prh.

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION—ITS PRE4ENT -173

rta

AND FUTURE" 

lt 18

TUESDAY, JANUARY 18, 1966

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES) -Wirral.

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTIC ,

Washington, D.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in room 2318,

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. George P. Miller (chairman of

the committee) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order.

Let the record show that there is a quorum present.

The next item is the consideration of the report of the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development, "The National

Science Foundation—Its Present and Future."

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Chairman, following your instructions of last

year, the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development

proceeded with its work and has culminated this activity in a report

which is entitled "The National Science Foundation—Its Present and

Future."

The subcommittee's intention this morning is to submit this for

approval by the full committee so it may become a full committee

report.

When the subcommittee began its activities last year, its beginning

point was the basic national goals report, which you have referred

to and which we had issued from this committee some time back, it

was emphasized by the National Academy that the National Science

Foundation, placed in proper focus, showed growing needs which

forecast future Federal support of academic sciences, and spelled out

the critical position of the National Science Foundation among the

family of Federal agencies that sponsored research.

Following your instructions, the subcommittee met, and I would like

first of all to point out that, over a period of 29 days of hearings and

executive sessions, the average attendance of the subcommittee was

73 percent, and I wish further to point out that the chairman of the

full committee, Mr. Miller, attended many of those meetings, although

we did not figure you into the average, Mr. Chairman.

I wish to commend the members of the subcommittee—Mr. Roush,

Mr. Mosher, Mr. Davis, Mr. Bell, Mr. Waggonner, Mr. Conable,

Mr. Brown, and Mr. Vivian—for the attention they have paid to the

subject matter during the entire course of the discussions.

During the hearings we were reminded again and again of the critical

importance of science as an instrument to assure our military security
2 CONSIDERATION OF SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS

and economic growth, of science's potential contribution to foster

public health and to meet problems in population, health, and urban

living.

We were reminded of the creation by Congress in 1950 of the

National Science Foundation as the agency to sustain the momentum

of U.S. science which had begun to flourish directly after World War

II, growing upon the basis of talent transplanted from Europe in the

1930's.

After a modest beginning we have seen this agency's budget take on

a characteristic growth over the last 10 years, growing from $14

million to $480 million in the last year's budget. We have seen many

accomplishments from these expenditures. The public funds spent

for basic research, for training and education of scientists and en0-

neers, for strengthening research institutions and for effective dissemination of the results of research all have helped to produce a

scientific capability in this Nation that is without peer throughout the

world.

But, saying that, we do not by any means indicate that there are no

problems. During the 15 years of its existence the Foundation's

programs have grown from initial small individual projects, grants,

and fellowships to a broad range of research grants, contracts, fellowships, traineeships, national research programs, national laboratories,

science information activities, and data collection and analysis for

internal and Government-wide policy planning.

During these years there was no comprehensive effort by the

Congress to ascertain whether the concepts of the Foundation and

the mission assigned to it in 1950 had remained valid over the years.

Individual programs received annual attention through the congressional budget review, but the total agency mission did not.

Some of the Foundation's original policy and coordinating responsibilities were removed in 1962, and this committee expressed concern

over the possible impact on the Foundation's operations. Thus, the

comprehensive review of the Foundation and its operation undertaken late in 1964 was motivated not by a presumption of agency

mismanagement, but by a recognition that new problems are developing and to assure scientific research manpower and facilities adequate

in quality and quantity to meet the future needs of this Nation.

So, we as a first step asked the Legislative Reference Service of the

Library of Congress to make a background study. That background

study, Mr. Chairman, is entitled 'The National Science Foundation—A General Review of Its First 15 Years." That is still in the

state of being a report by the subcommittee to the full committee.

Copies of that report are all gone. For the purpose of establishing

the possibility of getting more copies and to give this review the

prestige which I believe it needs, I would also like to ask this morning

that this report be made a full committee report, because this is a,

basic background document which includes a great deal of information which can be brought to the attention of all people who are

interested in an analysis of the Foundation at this time.

Without going into any particular aspect of the report as such, I

think it is important for us to recognize that the emerging role of the

Foundation has been a matter of discussion within the scientific community, as brought to our attention through the Basic National Goals

report to which I have referred. Therefore, a fundamental question
CONSIDERATION OF SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS 3

arises: Is the Foundation adequately equipped in the management

sense to serve as a steward of public funds and public responsibilities?

The subcommittee came to the conclusion that it is not. The Foundation has neither kept pace with the demands of science nor has it adequately asserted itself within the evolving machinery of government.

It has not developed substance, form, or direction of program support.

It needs to supplement its traditional philosophy with energetic, forward-looking plans and programs.

As a Government agency, the National Science Foundation is

operated primarily as a source of funds fostering the growth of

scientific competence wherever it resides throughout the Nation. It

has been passive in style. Initiatives have come mainly from individual scientists and collectively from the National Academy of Sciences.

More recently, initiatives have come frequently from the White House

and the Office of Science and Technology.

With projected massive programs to correct problems—for example,

in transportation, water pollution, and water shortages far more

engineers will be needed in this country in the future. It is essential,

therefore, that resources, the manpower of research laboratories and

of educational institutions, serve the Nation through the social

sciences and engineering as well as the national sciences.

The subcommittee, therefore, has made certain recommendations.

Among them are:

That the Office of the Director be strengthened by clarifying his

duties and by providing him with additional policy level management

assistance.

That the National Science Board of the Foundation be emphasized

as the policymaking board which reflects the diversity of viewpoint

of all non-Federal producers and users of science resources and as a

check and balance to prevent the Federal Government from inadvertently harming the integrity of science in the universities.

That the National Science Board join with the Foundation in

providing an annual report to the Congress on the health of science

and related problems of the future.

That the Foundation be permitted to sponsor applied as well as

basic research for the separation of the two is no longer clear and the

Foundation should be able to stimulate research in areas outside

certain traditional lines.

That increased attention be given to schools of engineering and

social sciences.

That the Foundation be enabled to improve its collection and

analysis of information on manpower and policy planning functions

to better serve the President and the Congress, OSD, other Federal

agencies, and the private sector, especially universities whose destinies

are so linked with Federal policies and funds.

The subcommittee believes these steps will strengthen the Foundation and will also help improve confidence by the Congress in its

operation. These steps are essential, we believe, if the National

Science Foundation is to grow to meet the responsibilities with which

it is charged.

I want to stress one further aspect of these recommendations.

They are intended to help the Foundation do its job more effectively

and efficiently. Most of the changes recommended relate to organization of the Foundation. If carried out, these changes will clarify
4 CONSIDERATION OF SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS

lines of authority, assure that the Foundation is more responsive

both to the President and to the Congress, and delineate more clearly

certain functions for which the Foundation has had implied authority

and responsibility. We do expect the proposed changes should assure

more effective use of funds appropriated by the Congress for the

functions the Foundation was designated to carry out.

Mr. Chairman, we have indications that this report is creating a

dialog within the scientific community, and that as a result of this,

too, there will emerge in time ahead an opportunity for us to establish

a better perspective, insofar as the attitude of the scientific community

is concerned, as to the Science Foundation and its relationship both

with that outside community and with the other agencies of Government involved in the area of basic research.

Mr. Chairman, therefore, I ask that basic report to which I referred, "The National Science Foundation: A General Review of Its

First 15 Years," be approved by the committee as a full committee

report, and that the report of the subcommittee itself, "The National

Science Foundation—Its Present and Future," also be so approved.

Mr. MOSHER. I think it significant that the recommendations

which have just been made by Mr. Daddario and the recommendations of the subcommittee come to this committee with the unanimous

support of the subcommittee, with minority side support. I want

to second Mr. Daddario's motion.

I think I should say, also, that I know I speak for the members

of the minority of the subcommittee in commending Mr. Daddario

for his leadership in this study. He has taken a tremendous amount

of time and effort. I think it has been well worth it.

I also want to add there is involved in these reports a great deal

of work and effort by the agency and by the staff people and by the

science staff of the Library of Congress. I think the subcommittee

owes a great debt to these staff members.

Mr. DADDARIO. I want to thank Mr. Mosher for what he said. I

had inadvertently forgotten to call to the attention of the chairman

and the committee the fine work done by Mr. Yeager and the other

members of the staff, and by Dr. Wenk and his staff who have worked

continuously with us and without whose ,able assistance the report

could not have been written certainly, and it would have been a longtime effort had they not applied themselves in the manner they did.

Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Chairman, has the subcommittee considered

printing the two documents together?

Mr. DADDARIO. We didn't consider it, Mr. Teague. It is my

recommendation that they not be printed together because they are

separated in two ways: both in time, one having preceded the other

by about a year, and because the first is a report as it should be by

the Legislative Reference Service, Library of Congress, containing

within itself no recommendations but, rather, a review.

I would not want to be put in the position where even inadvertently

it might be tied together so that the recommendations we make might

cause problems. I would like them to remain completely objective

and apart.

Mr. WYDLER. Mr. Daddario, first I want to say that I think the

report that you and the subcommittee have made is an excellent one.

One question I have, however, is the reason why there was no
CONSWERATION OF SUBCOMMITTEE BEFORTS 5

recommendation regarding the placing of the authorizations of the

foundation on something less than an open end basis.

In other words, we have seen there has not been a review of this

foundation for 15 years. What is to stop another review from going

15 years?

Mr. DADDARIO. We have not gotten into the appropriation aspects of

the committee. I do think, however, that this is a matter which can

be simply handled by the attention which this committee can pay to

the problem. That has already indicated itself in the Chairman's

establishment of this responsibility as an issue for the subcommittee

to take up as we have, and it would be my hope that in the time ahead

we will not only continue to watch this more closely but perhaps over

the course of time, even though we do not have any authorization

and control over the National Science Foundation, we still can be

useful in the budget phases of its activities.

The subject matter of the open endedness of this certainly is one

which can be brought up at any time, and it is an issue which will

apply depending on the National Science Foundation and other

agencies as well.

Mr. WYDLER. I would like to request permission in some manner

to put additional views into the report on the present and future of

the National Science Foundation.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not know whether that is possible. There is

nothing to prevent you later on from submitting it, but I want to say

to the gentleman with respect to his statement that it has been 15

years since a review was made, that only until this committee was

established was the National Science Foundation ever assigned to a

committee which had jurisdiction over it.

I am sorry that it has taken the committee 5 years to perfect this

report, but you know as well as I do the problems of a new committee.

We were confronted with a huge budget. That is one of the reasons I

mentioned earlier that I hoped we could get through with our authorization bill so we can get into more of these things.

There is the National Bureau of Standards which is within our

jurisdiction and we have hardly touched that. That is also something

we should get into.

I think personally that this is an excellent report. It has had fine

reception within the community, and I want to join with others in

recognizing our staff, headed by Mr. Yeager, and the work he has done,

the work done by the Library of Congress. It may be interesting to

realize that the establishment of Dr. Wenk's work in the Library of

Congress was the result of the work undertaken by this committee for

the first time. I think we can feel very proud of this committee.

I know of no procedure by which this can be amended. This is

not a legislative matter which is before the committee.

Mr. WYDLER. Do I understand at this time we're being asked to

adopt this as a committee?

The CHAIRMAN. To adopt it. You are being asked now, and it

has been moved and seconded, that this be adopted as a report of the

committee.

Mr. WYDLER. The views that I propose to place into this certainly

would affect the future of the National Science Foundation. I

don't know where it would be more appropriate to set it.
6 CONSIDERATION OF SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS

The CHAIRMAN. I think you can set it forth here or you might

present it to the committee for its consideration. They may or may

not adopt it.

This is not a report on a bill. This does not go to the House as a

whole.

Mr. DADDARIO. I might mention one point which might help

clarify the situation so far as Mr. Wydler is concerned. It is the

subcommittee's intention to offer amendatory legislation which will

be heard by the full committee. On that occasion there should be

sufficient opportunity to submit any proposal and to discuss it at

length and ask anyone to come before the committee with reference

to those changes.

This is not the end of it by any means. Legislative recommendations now are being prepared. We will see to it that they get proper

consideration within the committee and we shall be happy to discuss

with any member any idea he might have with regard to that.

The CHAIRMAN. This is the committee's report to you which you

are accepting whether or not you like it, and we go on from this.

Mr. RUMSFELD. Just a point of clarification. I have no desire to

attach minority views and I have no opinion as to whether this would

be the desirable place to do it, but in view of the fact that this is being

adopted as a report of the committee, just as a matter of information

to me—is it not correct that any member of the committee has the

opportunity to attach views to any report of the committee, whether

it is a so-called legislative report or not? That was my understanding.

If that is not correct I would like to know what the correct procedure

The CHAIRMAN. After 21 years I have never heard of this being

done. I wo ild not say it is not right. It is an entirely new proced are

so far as I am concerned. I would not want to make a ruling on it.

I would want to go to the Parliamentarian.

However, I do think that this is a report of the committee. We

accept the report whether we are favorable to it or unfavorable to it.

It is the basis for future legislative work coming ap.

You have heard the motion. Are you ready for the question?

All those in favor signify by saying 'aye"; contrary minded? The

ayes have it. It is unanimous.

Without objection, the motion will be considered laid on the table.

is
CONSIDERATION OF 1ST INTERIM REPORT ON MASTER

PLANNING OF NASA INSTALLATIONS

The CHAIRMAN. There is now a document by Mr. Teague.

This is an updated staff study of master planning of NASA installations, following up our original master planning report of a

year ago. The proposed review report which you have before you in

page proof form is for reference to the committee. I will entertain a

motion now for its adoption.

Mr. HECHLER. I SO move.

The CHAIRMAN. It has been moved and seconded that this staff

study be accepted by the committee.

All those in favor signify by saying aye; contrary minded, no.

The staff study is unanimously adopted and without objection the

motion to reconsider laid on the table.

I don't know of any other business right now.

I want to thank you for being here. I want to thank the Daddario

committee and its members for the very fine effort they put into this

report and particularly Mr. Mosher who was never absent.

The committee stands adjourned.

0