industry has discovered a new and profitable line of business, and I think we ought to use this a little bit more.

You know, education doesn't stop with college, nor does growth of one's realization of what the world is like and growth of one's capability of contributing stop with college. It still takes place when people are in their working life. People can convert later. I really don't think right now we are trying to make industry the whipping boy on a number of these problems, and yet right in industry's bag of tricks are solutions to some of these problems.

We can get them to shift. In fact, I know some industries that are asking for essentially the support of our whole country to get them into these new areas.

Mr. WINN. Mr. Chairman, the Government and scientists have to show industry that there is a profit motivation for them to change direction. They are not doing this for fun. I don't know where some of us up here get the idea that industry might be the whipping boy and we tell it what to do and we don't show them where there is a potential profit.

Dr. STEVER. If we were to do that, I think we could use their tremendous capability.

Mr. WINN. I do, too.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Pettis.

Mr. PETTIS. I have no more.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Brown?

Mr. Fulton, we are glad Pennsylvania is represented here by other than the witness this morning.

Mr. FULTON. I might add, Pittsburgh, Pa., where there is a pawnshop on every corner, as goes the song.

Mr. DADDARIO. Is there such a song?

Mr. FULTON. "There is a Pawnshop on the Corner in Pittsburgh," is one of the hit songs of the last few years.

Mr. DADDARIO. Do you have a few more lines?

Mr. FULTON. I must say that democracy is always hovering between a pawnshop and just pure, plain catastrophe. We are always, just by the greatest of effort, pulling it back from bankruptcy, plain desertion, or disruption and simply falling apart at the seams. Democracy is a very loose fabric, and I think science is in about the same condition. It goes off into so many directions.

Science is like the Greek king who had the 50 daughters, all of them different and all off in different directions.

The witness should be complimented on the order in which he stated various categories, which I think should be especially appreciated, Mr. Chairman, by this subcommittee. He mentioned lawmakers, administrators, and industrialists. I thoroughly appreciated the order in which he stated them. I thought that was fine.

Dr. STEVER. If I were in the administration, sir, I would probably have listed them first.

Mr. FULTON. Referring to your statement, I am one of those who has favored the creation of a Department of Science in the Federal Government on a Cabinet level.

Secondly, my position is that it should be a policy forming department rather than an administering department. It should not supersede or cancel out any of the present agencies.

The next point is it should operate as a coordinating and correlating department at the Cabinet level. This would place the force of the President directly behind the activities of the Cabinet member who would have the duty of overseeing science policy.

Within the policies themselves, he would determine recommendations to Congress, directly from the President, the order of priorities. Likewise, he would look for coordination within the agencies that now exist which are engaged in either pure or applied science. The Cabinet minister would also watch to see that there is no duplication of either research, development, or application, and that there would be no overlapping of agencies or activities. He would be in a different position than the Science Advisor to the President.

My comment on the Science Advisor to the President is that he sits on a cloud and his contact is only to the top. He has no direct relationship to Congress; nor do we have any particular influence with him other than through the President. The President's Science Advisor is not empowered to make decisions on priorities. He can only make recommendations through the President. They then possibly come to us. He can have no influence on Government departments other than through the President as an intermediary.

His staff is so unknown to this committee that I only know two of them at the present time. There is no direct liaison or communication with the congressional committees nor the subcommittees having jurisdiction. This makes a situation where we in Congress cannot call the staff members because the President's Science Advisor has people who are assisting him in developing recommendations to the President. They are then doubly removed from Congress.

One other point. He has no direct relationship with the Bureau of the Budget except as an adviser of the President. It makes him an anomaly in the Government structure, almost as big an anomaly as the President's Advisor on Security Matters, Dr. Kissinger. Under those circumstances, Congress cannot call Dr. Kissinger to account. Therefore, the people's representatives do not have the required influence in determining the policy that comes to the head of the Government, the President. The give and take between the executive department and the legislative department is, in the case of the President's Science Advisor, missing.

I believe Dr. DuBridge is as fine a selection as you could get for the position. May I finish just a couple more comments that I make on your statement. Could I have another few minutes?

I concur with your comment on page 2 of your statement; "rather strengthening the existing agencies to do a better job of supporting both faces of science." To me, these agencies are badly in need of upgrading; made more efficient and their jurisdiction firmly fixed so there is no infighting. That cannot be done by a President's Science Advisor because he does not have the statutory authority which a Cabinet-level position would give him.

In your next paragraph on page 2, you say, "particularly the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and some parts of the Office of Education." We are willing to give stronger Federal support in Congress, but as you recall, when we put an extra billion dollars into the HEW Department for educational purposes, the comment was that first this is not necessary and, secondly, the money will not be used. So it is not as easy as it sounds.

Now, the point I would make is that the funding of the agencies at the Executive level is actually decided in the Bureau of the Budget by faceless people that Congress does not know nor have any or much contact with. For example, with regard to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration budget, I was checking--and I can't give it in detail but I found there were five people making the budget decisions. I understood that three of them had no competence; engineering, scientific, or otherwise, to make the decisions in these scientific fields but were rather accountants.

If we in Congress are to have priorities made on these tremendously involved scientific programs that have far-reaching impact on our future, we need people who can make the decisions on these priorities on a much broader foundation, than whether or not the cash_box is full or empty, I am afraid this is what is happening. That is why I feel that you need the Cabinet minister to bring directly to the American people from his statutory position, as well as to the President, the making of fundamental policy on these diverse fields in the application of science as well as in pure research.

I disagree with you that the National Science Foundation should expand into the social fields. We have National Institutes of Health and other agencies. I believe that every dollar that the National Science Foundation spends on social problems, is taken from their physical sciences programs. I want the physical sciences protected. I don't want the National Science Foundation engaging in what is called basic social science, whatever that might mean. I have fought that, unfortunately on the floor rather unsuccessfully at times, as the chairman will recall.

Mr. DADDARIO. And a good thing, too. [Laughter.]

Mr. FULTON. We have quieted this basic disagreement.

On page 3; I would caution the witness slightly when he says, "the National Aeronautics and Space Agency for exploring the moon." Actually the NSF Act of 1968 provides a much broader base than National Aeronautics and Space Act because it gives NSF jurisdiction for all science, military or peaceful, whatever, all through the Government. That would be the equivalent of me saying that the CarnegieMellon University is operating a very successful cafeteria system, but that is not quite enough. It is true, but not enough.

Mr. DADDARIO. You raise so many points I am trying to keep them all in my mind. They are staggering my memory.

Mr. FULTON. On the bottom of page 3, you state, "which bring right to the top of the administration and of the legislative bodies of our Government the programs and progress and problems in science and its applications." This is an excellent, fine statement; in order to have that done, we do need a different organization. We don't need to cancel our agencies, but we certainly need a coordination, a correlation, and a Cabinet-level position that has this statutory power.

On page 4; I agree with you, if you mean at the top of page 4, “I believe in the fundamentals of our current organization rather than in a highly centralized department of science." To me it is impossible to centralize an administrative department of science with the many ramifications in the Federal Government and now with State governments moving into the same field. Administratively, it would not be

an effective organization. But for policy making, the ordering of priorities and the determining of various agency jurisdictions as well as preventing the overlapping and the duplication of research and development, I think it is vitally necessary.

I liked your statement in the third paragraph on page 4; "Another reason often cited for a centralized agency is to work out priorities of action and funding before they come to the higher levels of Government." If this is done as you say, it should then be done at an administrative level rather than as it is now, on the budgetary level by people who are of an accounting background rather than looking at the broad, vast, shifting field of these tremendous scientific programs for which policies must be made. I have many times put this in my minority remarks to our committee report. The decisions in the Bureau of the Budget and the General Accounting Office are not being made on a broad enough base but rather on a cash box and accounting level.

I believe with you when you say, "I would rather have the leaders of science and the leaders of science application appealing directly to you than going through many intermediaries." If by "you" you mean "you, the Congress, and the Executive," I agree with you thoroughly.

On page 5 you say, "A centralized department of science might perform this function of upgrading and updating various laboratories more effectively than is now done in our Government." That certainly is necessary. What is happening now in JPL, for instance, which I have objected to, is the establishment of a programing, administrative process governing the various programs which require the scientists and engineers to fit into. It prevents the cross pollination to develop among programs on a basis broader than just programs, like cans, into which we are putting a certain scientific output. It is becoming a military type organization in my judgment, not complete, but along the lines. The target date is set, the program is set, the applications are to be met and the specifications made out, and then everybody works just within that narrow framework. I believe JPL is getting too narrowly constructed on an administrative level.

Finally, you say on page 5, "A centralized department of science might be capable of shifting the focus of science to such issues more quickly." Yes, because these are to be of high level with statutory authority that can set policy within which the administering agencies can operate overall, and avoiding the responsibility of administering a particular program from a Cabinet level.

I would like to compliment you on your statement. It is very provocative and it gives many of us a good perspective into these problems that are so vast and which this subcommittee is facing.

Dr. STEVER. Thank you.

Mr. DADDARIO. That is a magnificent critique, Mr. Fulton. There is in it a great deal which we can agree with and some of which we can disagree, but it analyzes Dr. Stever's paper very well. It is helpful, extremely helpful.

Because we won't have time to go into all of it, it might be a good idea when we get the record to ship it along to you, Dr. Stever, and you may have some comments on various parts.

Mr. FULTON. Thank you very much for your comment. I appreciate that.

Mr. DADDARIO. There was point Mr. Fulton raised, Dr. Stever, which perhaps he could clarify. Then, we could get some comment from you. I didn't quite understand whether or not in the formation of the Cabinet-level position Mr. Fulton meant that the Science Advisor, who would still continue under that program, should be more remote or less remote in his dealing with the Congress than he presently is. Mr. FULTON. I believe that the President has need of an independent Science Advisor who has a broad scope, a broad view and really unlimited authority on behalf of the President to advise. I believe he should be wide-ranging and should not be held within ordinary departmental or agency limits.

Next, I think that he should not be a person who is actively sponsoring particular programs or particular policy avenues as such. He must be the eyes and ears of the President with advice as to the directions. The President's Science Advisor should not be under nor be responsible to Congress nor to any agency. He should be just as distant as he is now. He should have the support and he should have people that are assisting him who are not within the civil service system.

Mr. DADDARIO. I wonder if Dr. DuBridge would be attracted from the level of the presidency of Cal Tech to sit on this cloud that you are talking about.

Mr. FULTON. He is sitting on a cloud because he has no support directly in Congress. Secondly, Dr. Dubridge makes no reports to Congress. Thirdly, on his recommendations to the President, they are not cleared with the Congress first as witnessed by the appointment and recommendation to the President

Mr. DADDARIO. Don't bring that up.

Mr. FULTON. (continuing) Of the head of the National Science Foundation. It certainly wasn't cleared with Chairman Miller, with Mr. Teague, with Mr. Daddario or Mr. Fulton or members of the committee. It was a complete surprise, which caused some reactions.

Coming back to your point, though; the Secretary of State, you see, at the present sitting, has the same relationship, vis-a-vis Dr. Kissinger, as the President's Science Advisor would have vis-a-vis the Cabinet minister in the Department of Science.

Mr. DADDARIO. Well, we see the Science Advisor-it is nice of you to sit here and listen to this.

Dr. STEVER. This is very instructive.

Mr. DADDARIO. We have a different view of the Science Advisor. It appears to me under the present setup that the Science Advisor's position is an extremely important one. One which allows him to deal with the Congress and the various agencies, depending upon the relationship he has to the President. If the President gives him his ear and authority, he can do a great deal. If the President isolates him from the presidential office and doesn't give him the ability to use that office, then you run into difficulty. I doubt that you could change this much by developing even a cabinet level post. Whatever you have, the President must have faith and give support to that