Page images

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 particular person. Dr. DuBridge does have this kind of support. At least I have felt that he does. Through it, he can exert great influence, both by dealing with the Congress and other agencies.

Mr. FULTON. Could I make a comment?

We must distinguish the levels on which we are speaking. I believe that the President should give full latitude and leeway to his Science Advisor, to be in many fields and have an extensive and as broad an approach as the President can give him authority. But I would like to point out what the levels would be.

At the top is the policy level. Secondly, and the next level down, is implementation. The third level down is method and the fourth level down is operation. At the policy recommendation level the President's Science Advisor should have as full and free rein as can be given to him. On the implementation of policy-for example, we could take Medicare, whether to have it for everybody or just people over 65— and how you implement it, I would think that he would be able to operate at that level by advising the President. When you come to method, the method would involve what particular agency would assume responsibility for a given policy. I think recommendations could be made in this case by the President's Science Advisor.

But when we come to operations, I believe that it is wrong for the President's Science Advisor to get down to the level of the operations of agencies in science, engineering, research and development fields. I think that would be better undertaken by the particular agency. I put the top level policy advice in a Cabinet officer because he then will translate that directly to the particular agencies involved and coordinate and correlate it. Even the Cabinet officer will not do any operations. He is to be separate and apart from that. That is why our good friend, the witness, I feel is on the correct track.

Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. Stever, in your contemplation of the organization and its problems, how do you see the Science Advisor?

Dr. STEVER. I think if a Cabinet agency is made or if there is a Cabinet appointment in science, whether it includes administration of all the agencies or whether it takes up the function that we concentrated on which is the planning and the policy thinking and the policy directions and so on, that that will become the focal point of science and it will be the place where scientists report in, the place to which we all come to tell our problems and to ask for help and to give advice and have these relationships. So I would believe that the Science Advisor would become much less important.

For the President to have a separate advisor, I guess that he could have an advisor on anything, but I am not sure this would constitute anywhere near the same focal point of interchange of scientific ideas that we have today in the President's Science Advisor. I would think the reorganization that has been talked about today, which essentially is to get a Cabinet officer who is to do the policy and advance planning in science, that would be a natural downgrading of the current role of the President's Science Advisor who has that hat and he has the hat of the President's Scientific Advisory Committee. It is the place where all scientific leaders go when they come to Washington.

I think that would shift to the other office.

Mr. Fulton. I have a question then. Would you correlate that with the present setup for advice on foreign affairs in the executive department? There is the President's Advisor, Kissinger, and there is the Secretary of State who heads the department as well as a Security Council which also advises the President, Mr. Kissinger certainly has a fine area of reference within which he operates. Those of us who have talked with him on various subjects find him very accessible. I don't believe he is downgraded in any way.

Mr. DADDARIO. The analogy is good unless you compare the tremendous influence of the State Department and the wide area of its activities. You don't have that kind of support for science policies as you do for foreign policy for a multitude of reasons. Kissinger is important because it is so broad and far-reaching. We have a problem in having science placed at that importance. If we had the same feel for science policy as we do for foreign policy, it would fit in.

The problem here is how you get it organized so you get the kind of support to lift it up from where it is. This is still a long way from the kind of support you have in this other area you are drawing the analogy to.

Mr. Fulton. Could I then comment on that and ask you a question. How can anybody outside of the Defense Department have any effect on science within the Defense Department unless that person in the executive department has the authority of a cabinet ministerial post equal to the Secretary of Defense? The obvious answer is he can't. There is one reason why I insist on this science cabinet minister so that he can deal equally with the other cabinet ministers.

Mr. DADDARIO. That is another point, Mr. Fulton.

Dr. STEVER. You asked me, Mr. Chairman, to comment. I really think that while there might be a science advisor to the President it would be much less of a focal point than it now is.

Mr. DADDARIO. And difficult to attract a man of high talent.

Dr. STEVER. I suspect so because the natural path of a person who comes up in science does not necessarily include a government post as it does in some other fields, and I think that it would be harder; but if one were attracted, I presume that he could carry out some functions.

Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. Stever, we have already overburdened you. We have had a great deal added to the deliberations of this committee by your testimony.

Dr. STEVER. Any time.

Mr. DADDARIO. It will be important to forward Mr. Fulton's remarks to you so you can analyze them in your spare time. The committee will continue to deliberate. We will have some staff work. Once we get to the point where we do make some recommendations, we intend to run them around through you and other witnesses and get your comments.

Dr. STEVER. I will be glad to help any time.

Mr. FULTON. Mr. Chairman, at this point in the record could I submit my bill for the Science Department to be placed in the record.

Mr. DADDARIO. Haven't you already done that?
Mr. Fulton. Not yet.


(The bill, H.R. 464 follows:)

[H.R. 464, 91st Cong., first sess.)

A BILL To establish a Department of Science, Research, and Technology Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there is hereby established an executive department to be known as the Department of Science, Research, and Technology (hereinafter referred to as the “Department”), which shall be headed by a Secretary of Science, Research, and Technology (hereinafter referred to as the “Secretary') appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and shall include such other officers and employees as may be necessary or appropriate.

SEC. 2. It shall be the purpose of the Department to bring together scientific research and technological development programs, without duplication; to set national goals in science and technology ; to bring together military and civilian scientific interests; to supervise basic scientific efforts regardless of the agencies or departments involved; to crossfeed scientific developments now compartmentalized at the Federal level; to make scientific and technical discoveries more generally available; to form overall policies for scientific guidance; and to perform such other functions in the various fields of science and technology as the Secretary may deem appropriate.

SEC. 3. The organization and administration of the Department shall be determined and supervised by the Secretary, who shall prescribe such regulations for the purpose as may be necessary or appropriate.

SEC. 4. All laws relating to the executive departments and their officers and employees shall, to the extent not inconsistent or inapplicable, apply to the Department and its officers and employees.

Mr. DADDARIO. This committee will adjourn to the call of the Chair.

(Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.)

« PreviousContinue »