« PreviousContinue »
The time to stop these projects should be at a time before commitments are made. That would be the time to make the saving.
Chairman Dawson. Mrs. Granahan?
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Staats, in a nutshell what effect would this plan have on the present work of the National Science Foundation ?
Mr. STAATS. We do not see that it would have a major effect on the Science Foundation. Our view would be that the Science Foundation should make a number of studies in the field of basic research and education which would be useful to this office as they have in the past.
This has been something that has developed, I think, quite successfully under both Dr. Kistiakowsky and Dr. Wiesner. We do not feel as far as the transfer of authorities are concerned here that this will injure their effectiveness in anyway.
We do think that the modest proposals we have made here to strengthen the position of the director of the Science Foundation should be very helpful in improving the internal management of the Science Foundation. The Science Foundation, as I pointed out, has grown very rapidly since 1950 from an $8 million appropriation to a $358 million appropriation.
This is now a very sizable operation. We feel the Director needs the kind of strengthening that we have recommended here to enable him to do an efficient job.
Mr. HENDERSON. As Mr. Smith raised the question, under section 3(a)(1) "so much of the functions now conferred upon the Foundation will be transferred to the new office.”
Is there any way to determine at this time how much of those functions will in fact be transferred ?
Mr. Staats. There would be no way that you could precisely
Mr. HENDERSON. Would they be done all at once or over a period of time, in successive stages?
Mr. STAATS. I think it would be a shared responsibility and will take place really as individual matters are brought up for policy decisions.
Mr. HENDERSON. You don't see any possible confusion that might make this worse than the present condition?
Mr. Staats. We discussed this at great length with the entire Science Board. I think all of us feel that this is a perfectly workable arrangement and should present no difficulty as far as the administration of either program.
Mr. HENDERSON. It seems that many of the functions to be handled by the new Office were originally contemplated for the National Science Foundation when it was established in 1950. What has happened over the years that makes this a better device for coordinating the work on the Federal level and recommending programs, and so forth, to the President?
Mr. STAATS. You will recall that the Science Foundation is concerned solely with the field of basic research and with education. It is not concerned with applied research or in the field of technology.
The second point I would make is that the Science Foundation was set up in 1950 when expenditures for these programs were considerably smaller than they are now.
We feel that in the light of experience that we need to strengthen the President's own office in this area. Therefore it is logical that some of the programs and policy functions that we had in mind-we and the Congress had in mind--for the Foundation can be more appropriately located now in the Executive Office.
Mr. HENDERSON. Is there any overlapping presently between the functions of the President's Advisory Committee and the National Science Board, as such? Are they completely different and distinct and handle different types of problems?
Mr. STAATS. Your question is a very good one. The Science Advisory Committee is like the Science Board, part time; and there is some duplication in membership. But the essential difference is that the Science Advisory Committee meets on specific problems which are of concern to the Executive Office, and meets in panels. These panels are expanded with the use of consultants, depending on the nature of the problem that the President wants some help on.
The Science Board is a continuing board. It meets periodically and passes on grants for research programs and develops policies for basic research grants, science education, and for carrying on the general activities of the Science Foundation.
In other words, it is limited to the program of the Science Foundation.
Chairman Dawson. Mr. Carlson ?
Our next witness will be our colleague, Congressman Dingell from Michigan, who has a statement to make to the committee on this subject.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my warm gratitude to the Chair. I am aware of the extraordinary courtesy accorded me by the Chair and by the committee.
I had hoped to have an opportunity to prepare testimony and to appear in a more orderly fashion before the committee, but personal problems—including a death in the family—has precluded me from handling the matter in that way.
I wanted to endorse and to support the proposal of the administration before the committee this morning. I do so as chairman of the Subcommittee on Oceanography of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
We have had a great deal of concern within that subcommittee on the coordination between the various branches of the Government, particularly the agencies, which have operated in this field.
As you know, the Government operation in the field of oceanography is a growing one. We spent this year something on the order of $123 million. It is anticipated that with the defense applications and the other applications which concern our people of oceanographic knowledge and the need for oceanographic knowledge, that this program and this expenditure will grow substantially in years to come.
This has been, I think, perhaps after space and atomic energy and a couple of other defense fields of science perhaps one of the largest and fastest growing endeavors of the Federal Government in this field of science.
As I indicated, Mr. Chairman, my subcommittee has been greatly concerned with the problem of coordination within the executive department of these various programs. We held extensive hearings just recently on the whole Federal endeavor in the field of oceanographic research.
We concentrated on a number of aspects of this field, but we put particular emphasis on this business of coordination.
Certain things came to light. One, that there is a sincere effort and has been a sincere effort in the field of oceanographic research to achieve a wholesome coordination, a limitation on duplication, and on waste of both scientific effort and appropriated dollars.
We did, however, discern certain significant failures in this field, both in regard to significant evidences of duplication, duplication of facilities, duplication of scientific endeavor.
We noted—and I think this was a happy thing—that these matters when brought to the attention of the White House and of the appropriate agencies usually received a fair response, and where possible, received corrective action.
We did not note, however, that the Federal program in this field was working as we felt it should.
Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the committee, too, at this time that I do not feel that this reorganization plan is the final answer in the field.
With regard to the problem of coordination and integration of the whole Federal program of oceanographic research, we had a bill before the committee. Unfortunately, I was never able to sell the majority of the committee on the virtues of the particular bill in view of the White House's opposition to the measure.
But I did feel that it was an excellent bill and still do, and if I were able to get the votes of the subcommittee I would have tried to bring the matter to the floor.
I was assured by the White House and by the President's science adviser that this measure was coming up and that it would accomplish significantly what the bill which I have favored would carry out. And I would note to the Chair that, after a survey of this, I feel that substantially what the bill we had in the subcommittee to do by legislation is done here by this reorganization plan.
I think it is particularly useful to us to analyze the whole situation in the light of the problem of how we coordinate this vast scientific endeavor which we have in the country. I am sure the Chair recalls that questions were asked this morning—and I am sure questions in other connections of how we can coordinate this without establishing a department.
I do not favor the establishment of a Department of Science and Technology. I do not feel that it would be useful for the reasons set forth by the previous witness, and I believe that it would just add additional duplication.
The problem is one of horizontal coordination between the various departments with retention of existing responsibilities in the departments.
An example of this would be, for example, the commercial fisheries aspects of our Government operations, things which involve fishery resources maybe in the interior.
Conceivably the Department of Defense will do some work in this area. Conceivably the Weather Bureau, conceivably the Hydrographic Office of the Navy or the Coast and Geodetic Survey will do this thing.
Very frequently we find that there are budgetary problems that arise in connection with this. For example, during this last year we noted that the budgets of almost every one of the agencies which were involved in this field of endeavor were increased but slightly; whereas a tremendous increase went in the budget of the Office of Naval Research, which has been really one of the wheelhorses in this field of oceanographic scientific endeavor.
It is the feeling of my subcommittee that, had there been a more close and a more careful scrutiny with more authority behind it—as is included in the reorganization proposal before the committeeconceivably there would have been a fairer emphasis on the nondefense research which is done in this field.
This does not mean that ONR does exclusively defense-oriented research. As a matter of fact, a great deal of research done by that agency is not defense-oriented but is in the nature of basic research and determinations and studies which are useful to many other branches of Government in this field.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, one of the defects which we found in the whole aspect of the operation within the Federal Government with regard to oceanography was the fact that there was no single individual who had responsibility for a direct scrutiny of the whole program below the President himself.
As we know, the President in any administration is an immensely busy and pressed man. This does establish a Director and an Assistant Director and a certain small staff which will devote itself to coordination and to the elimination of duplication and waste.
I feel particularly this is a wholesome thing. I think our scrutiny of this matter would indicate to me and my subcommittee that the establishment of such an office would result not in additional bureaucracy but rather in a substantial saving to the taxpayer, and in a saving of skilled scientific manpower, which is a critically short item in this country today.
So, Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chair very gratefully for the kindness and courtesy you have shown me, as well as that of the members of the committee. I hope the committee will report this bill out.
I regret it is not possible to amend it. I feel there are certain matters in which it could be perfected further. But I feel that, on the basis of the whole, it is a useful and a worthwhile piece of legislation. I commend the committee for these hearings today. Chairman Dawson. Mrs. Granahan? Mrs. GRANAHAN. No, thank you. Chairman Dawson. Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. You say it would save skilled scientific manpower. It would do that through eliminating projects that didn't have a high enough priority. Would there be other ways, too?
Mr. DINGELL. Yes, it would eliminate duplication. My feeling is it would eliminate duplication, which would be the significant thing. It would also eliminate duplicating projects.
For example, we found recently that there were no less than three shellfish laboratories set up by two different agencies of the Government to do significantly the same kind of research.
Mr. Smith. And one of those agencies had set up two laboratories?
Mr. DINGELL. One of the agencies, as a matter of fact, set up two. Another agency set
up one. As far as I am concerned, one problem with shellfish which concerns one agency might just as well concern another agency and this work could be done on a contract basis.
This is the kind of thing it would do.
Our next witness will be Dr. Alan T. Waterman, Director of the National Science Foundation. We are happy to have you with us again, Dr. Waterman. We have vivid memories of your last hearing before us.
STATEMENT OF DR. ALAN T. WATERMAN, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
SCIENCE FOUNDATION; ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM J. HOFF, GENERAL COUNSEL; AND CHARLES B. RUTTENBERG, DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL
Dr. WATERMAN. I have with me Mr. William Hoff, General Counsel, and the Deputy General Counsel, Mr. Ruttenberg. Also present, in a more independent capacity, is the Chairman of our Board, Dr. Bronk, who I believe is a witness. But they are not concerned with my testimony.
I have a brief statement, Mr. Chairman. Then I will be glad to answer any questions you have.
I am happy to appear before you today to present my views regarding. Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1962 providing for certain reorganizations in the field of science and technology.
The organization of the Federal Government for science and technology has been a matter of absorbing interest to me over the entire period since World War II. It has been my privilege to serve during that period in two positions, both of which had responsibilities concerned with this subject.
In the first of_these as Deputy Chief and Chief Scientist of the Office of Naval Research, following the act establishing that Office in 1946, I had the responsibility of planning and initiating research designed to meet the objectives of the Department of the Navy in carrying out its mission.
Since 1951, as Director of the National Science Foundation, the question of organizing, planning, and putting into effect programs