« PreviousContinue »
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS
GEORGE P. MILLER, California, Chairman OLIN E. TEAGUE, Texas
JAMES G. FULTON, Pennsylvania JOSEPH E. KARTH, Minnesota
CHARLES A. MOSHER, Ohio KEN HECHLER, West Virginia
RICHARD L. ROUDEBUSH, Indiana EMILIO Q. DADDARIO, Connecticut
ALPHONZO BELL, California JOHN W. DAVIS, Georgia
THOMAS M. PELLY, Washington THOMAS N. DOWNING, Virginia
JOHN W. WYDLER, New York JOE D. WAGGONNER, JR., Louisiana GUY VANDER JAGT, Michigan DON FUQUA, Florida
LARRY WINN, JR., Kansas GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., California
JERRY L. PETTIS, California EARLE CABELL, Texas
D. E. (BUZ) LUKENS, Ohio BERTRAM L. PODELL, New York
ROBERT PRICE, Texas WAYNE N. ASPINALL, Colorado
LOWELL P. WEICKER, JR., Connecticut ROY A. TAYLOR, North Carolina
LOUIS FREY, JR., Florida HENRY HELSTOSKI, New Jersey
BARRY M. GOLDWATER, JR., California
CHARLES F. DUCANDER, Executive Director and Chief Counsel
PHILIP B. YEAGER, Counsel
RICHARD P. HINES, Staff Consultant
K. GUILD NICHOLS, Jr., Staff Consultant
FRANK J. GIROUX, Clerk
JAMES A. ROSE, Jr., Minority Staff
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT
EMILIO Q. DADDARIO, Connecticut, Chairman JOHN W. DAVIS, Georgia
ALPHONZO BELL, California JOE D. WAGGONNER, JR., Louisiana CHARLES A. MOSHER, Ohio GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., California
D. E. (BUZ) LUKENS, Ohio EARLE CABELL, Texas
LARRY WINN, JR., Kansas BERTRAM L. PODELL, New York
JERRY L. PETTIS, California JAMES W. SYMINGTON, Missouri
Technology, accompanied by Robert B. Ellert, Assistant General
Management, Hugh F. Loweth, Assistant Director (General Sci-
Harold Brown; California Institute of Technology-
CENTRALIZATION OF FEDERAL SCIENCE ACTIVITIES
THURSDAY, JULY 10, 1969
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in room 2325, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Emilio Q. Daddario, (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. DADDARIO. This meeting will come to order.
Dr. DuBridge, we are happy to have you here this morning as our first witness. As we open hearings today on centralization of Federal science activities, the status of American science and technology is in serious question. We have recently witnessed the rejection of the National Science Foundation's growth by the House for the second year in a row. The Department of Defense is challenged by academic dissidents and congressional budget cutters to get out of all research that is not obviously and immediately applicable to its mission. The National Institutes of Health feel the pressure for tangible results at the expense of continual exploratory research. The new agencies for housing, urban development, and transportation are under the gun to produce service now, not research. NASA struggles with its future, and has seen its university sustaining program seriously curtailed.
The draft has had some effect on our graduate schools, and undergraduate enrollments in engineering and the hard sciences have slowed. The need for geographical distribution of science centers calls for new campuses and facilities while State budgets are strained, and private donations become more limited. Sophisticated instrumentation requirements and general inflation eat into the amount of research that a dollar will buy
At the same time, every single important national goal is dependent on better, cheaper, more reliable, and more versatile technology. Population, food supply, environmental quality, transportation, housing, education, defense, communications, medicine—all need an expansion of human knowledge for satisfactory progress.
Now I am not a believer in reorganization as a means of solving the problems of science support or any other malfunction of government. But the justification of spending increasing amounts of tax revenues to strengthen American science is obviously under critical examination. And the way in which these budget requests come to the Congress is a function of the executive branch organization. It may be that centralization would simply present a more compact target.
Aside from funding, organizational patterns affect the planning and coordination of science and engineering programs. The allocation of resources within any given budget is determined by the administrative structure used.
Thus, a number of aspects will be considered in these hearings. We have no preconceived stand in this subcommittee. We have talked to a number of experienced students of organization. The National Institutes of Research and Advanced Studies described in our background report is useful for focusing discussion but is not endorsed for implementation. Alternatives not yet presented may be added to the discussion by the testimony taken. No concentrated look at this problem has been taken by the Congress in some years, and the conditions of 1969 may give some surprising answers to old questions.
There are three parts to the executive science organization problem as we see it. First, the mission agencies have a continued need for research results which they must be free to pursue. Second, the patronage of university research and advanced training must be assured at an appropriate level. Finally, the White House science apparatus must be sustained and strengthened to serve the President, the Congress, and the executive departments. Any reorganization or centralization must preserve these features which, along with industrial and private sector institutions, have made American science great.
Our hearings rightfully begin with Dr. Lee A. DuBridge, who was a member of the science and technology panel of the full Committee on Science and Astronautics for 10 years, until he became the Director of the Office of Science and Technology this year.
We are pleased to have Dr. DuBridge here. Beyond being Science Adviser to the President, he is Chairman of the Federal Council for Science and Technology, Chairman of the President's Science Advisory Committee, and Executive Secretary of the recently created Environmental Quality Council, which is possibly just a prelude to other organizations which will be heaped on his back over the time ahead and which I am sure causes him continuing strain.
We are pleased to have you here, Dr. DuBridge.
Mr. MOSHER. Well, of course, I associate myself with your comments, Mr. Chairman. It would seem almost an imposition—a very serious imposition on Dr. DuBridge, on his time, to have him appear before another congressional committee. I am sure he is on the Hill a great deal of the time.
Nevertheless, the subject of these hearings is so timely and so significant and so fascinating that I am delighted that he will take the time to be here with us.
Dr. DuBRIDGE. Thank you.
Mr. DADDARIO. Well, Dr. DuBridge, the chairman, who I see has come in, has something to say.
Chairman MILLER. All I want to say is that I welcome Dr. DuBridge. I am very happy to have you. We feel like it is old home week when you are around, because you are, after all, sort of an alumnus of the committee.
Dr. DuBRIDGE. Thank you very much.