his. And I do think it is a shame that that example hasn't been picked up with greater vigor in more places. I think that it is too much to expect great initiative from individual laboratory directors without a design behind it, without some kind of policy that says this is a desirable thing.

The function of a centralized activity, for my money, could be to develop the kind of policy that says interactions between Federal laboratories and universities of the JILA type are appropriate, are desirable, and ought to be actively sought after.

So I do agree one needs it.

I think it is even more the case in the question of extending the activities of a given laboratory. I, without being in any sense certain of this, have always felt that the Oak Ridge activity was a tribute to the imaginative activities and ideas of Al Weinberg. It is a fact that there has been not very much following of that pattern. I would hope that a centralized Federal activity would treat this as something that was important and desirable and could in some way both inform national laboratories, big laboratories of this, but also goad them a bit.

Mr. DADDARIO. You can see a coincidence at Oak Ridge, Dr. Weinberg's tremendous influence and his desire to do something else at a time when the laboratory was having some difficulty in being used to 100-percent efficiency.

Therefore putting the sponsors in danger of a loss of fund if some activity was not generated. So it was more the coincidence of the situation rather than by any particular plan.

We have talked in this committee from time to time about the possibility of designating several laboratories when I say several, it could be four or five, 10 or 12. If we could only come to some rating judgment. And see if somewhere the Bureau of the Budget sees no reason why this can't be done. To give the director of these x number of laboratories a certain amount, 5 or 10 percent of the moneys available to many each year, to spend as he would like in keeping with what he believes his laboratory could offer, in a multiple of areas, whatever those might be. This could be a step in the direction of developing the kind of attitude within which this country could encourage multiple-agency use of the ongoing laboratories as you recommend.

Dr. LONG. I would be delighted to see that. I have been particularly close to this with respect to another AEC laboratory; namely, Brookhaven, a large, very able laboratory. It may not feel the loss of mission to the degree of Oak Ridge, I don't know. But the university consortium involved, AUI, is interested in seeing to it that we actively consider new missions. I think our encouragement and support will be something, but a national policy along these lines would be enormously more helpful, particularly if the national policy carried as you suggest 5 or 10 percent of the budget along with it.

I think that kind of thing does need encouragement, and I have much hope the committee considers this sort of thing.

Mr. MOSHER. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Mosher.

Mr. MOSHER. If you gave each one of these Government laboratories the go sign in terms of discretionary authority and encouragement to

use a certain percentage of their budget for a variety of work outside their regular mission, depending on their own imagination that discretionary authority, in itself would imply some form of coordination and central authority to whom these people would report what they are doing.

There would have to be some such oversight.

Dr. LONG. I agree.

Mr. MOSHER. I guess coordination is the best word.

Mr. DADDARIO. You don't see any particular difficulty, however, in developing that coordination mechanism, do you?

Dr. LONG. I don't see any difficulty for three reasons: One reason and a very important one is of course that virtually all of these laboratories will wish to be involved in important activities. A laboratory I am sure doesn't find it comfortable to sense a feeling of obsolescence. So I think there would be a real tendency for these laboratories to turn to significant new problems as they picked up added things. I think on the other hand the coordination aspect is not a trival one. I assume that one wouldn't want everyone of them to turn to ecology, for example.

Mr. DADDARIO. It would obviously open up the opportunity for these laboratories to compete for some of the best young graduate students. It would give them some flexibility that they don't presently have. It would impose upon them not only a better use of the capabilities inherent in those laboratories because the managers and directors are the best ones to promote some more communication amongst themwhich could stand improvement in itself.

Dr. LONG. There are certain areas where one really needs the benefit of a rather large operation. I would be very glad to hear President Walker speak to this. I myself am persuaded that the computer business needs, in addition to all the independent industrial and university programs, some rather large approach to the problem of universities as applied to certain very big national needs, of which I put the libraries as one, development of consistent administrative procedures for universities being another. One could think of several places where a really large nationally oriented facility could be very helpful. And if a particular laboratory, like the Oregon National Laboratory, were to pick this one up as its main non-AEČ activity, I would find it at least worth pretty serious thought.

Mr. DADDARIO. When I was at Penn State some time in the last several months and went through their underwater laboratory—is that what it is called, Dr. Walker?

Dr. WALKER. Yes.

Mr. DADDARIO. We had just finished in this committee our deliberations which lead to the passage of the fire safety and research bill. A few of the people there thought considering their knowledge of water, its flow and what not, that they could add considerably to the research in that particular area. Yet, the feeling that I got was that the control by the sponsor would be a very difficult thing to overcome. Dr. WALKER. That is right.

Dr. LONG. Yes. Well, that, again, is why I think central Federal policies are so important.

Well, I should go ahead.

Mr. MOSHER. Mr. Chairman, could I just inject one other question here?

Mr. DADDARIO. Go ahead, Mr. Mosher.

Mr. MOSHER. If you gave the national laboratories this new, freewheeling mandate and opportunity, would this open up new opportunities perhaps for the National Science Foundation? Could the National Science Foundation by contract with these laboratories encourage certain work to be done that it sees the need for? Would this be good for the National Science Foundation or would it take them off on a tangent away from the universities that would be bad? By contract with the various Government laboratories the NSF might encourage some very valuable and different sort of work.

Dr. LONG. This is certainly true. I suppose I ought to comment that there is one concern in the laboratories which is not trivial. One of the great pluses to a laboratory like Brookhaven is that a particular agency, in this case AEC, does take fundamental responsibility for the well-being of that laboratory. The position in which it had become essentially an entrepreneur in applied science, and if the price of becoming an entrepreneur was for AEC to cut it loose and say you are on your own, we will give you some support if your programs look good, but we won't any longer accept fundamental responsibility, that could worry the laboratories very badly. That is why I am sure, again, that some general Federal understanding of how this is done would be important.

Well, I can be very brief on the one or two other things I wanted to say. I am apologetic in not being very bright on mechanisms. I studied with a good deal of interest the mechanism proposal of the committee which we were supposed to keep in the back of our minds. I will make some comments on that.

I have to say that in the process I found myself looking with a good deal of interest as to what might be done by expanding and modifying an interesting and already existing office; namely, the Office of Science and Technology. I don't think OST as it now is can take on these significant added centralizing responsibilities. But if it were permitted to grow if it were elevated in status with perhaps two or three Presidential appointed Deputy Directors, if there were new arrangements in which OST participated more formally in some budget preparation for science support, if, and I think this is most important, provisions for much closer and continuing liaison with Congress were established, and if OST was formally changed by Congress for some of these areas, I could imagine OST making a very substantial contribution.

Mr. DADDARIO. Under those circumstances, Dr. Long, do we put OST in such a situation so that its operating head can still function as he should as the Science Adviser to the President? Do you place him at some stage of a development beyond the point where he can effectively discharge both these responsibilities?

Dr. LONG. I think so. I would be very uneasy if this expanded OST with substantial added responsibilities, closer congressional liaison and so on, if the head of that were so associated with the White House via PSAC and via the job of science adviser, I would worry if the OST that one would see would still be almost an arm of the White House,

whereas I think this agency we are talking about ought to be looking very much more like an independent Federal agency. So I think for this to work, I would feel the need of some decoupling of these several functions that the Director of OST now has.

Mr. DADDARIO. What harm would that do to the President's authority in this overall area? Wouldn't it appear that if you were to do this, the science adviser would not have the authority and the relationship so that he could be an effective adviser and sort of go between to the Congress and other places, if he were to be so detached?

Dr. LONG. I have no easy answer to that. Is it a partial answer to note that Mr. Kissinger seems to have modest authority without any agency under him.

Mr. DADDARIO. Moynihan.

Dr. LONG. Influence is the word I am looking for.

Mr. DADDARIO. Kissinger, Moynihan. That question is what I had in mind.

Dr. LONG. I think to be the Science Adviser to the United States is in itself-it brings really very great influence and if in addition one is Chairman of the President's Science Advisory Committee, I think that is a very influential position.

Mr. DADDARIO. Well, then, the answer really is it depends upon how the President uses the office and the man.

Dr. LONG. Yes, sir.

So given then some worries about using OST, even though in principle it looks very attractive, I looked at the structure that the committee had discussed and I am a little uneasy about going the whole way of the National Institutes of Science. I would rather prefer an attempt to be evolutionary and set up some significant components that hopefully could be consistent with the bigger plan.

Mr. DADDARIO. I would like to again, Dr. Long, at this point detach the committee from the idea that it is proposing as its own, the National Institute of Research of Advanced Studies. It is one of several we have thrown on the table, and from these deliberations we would hope that some model will develop which we will then propose

Dr. LONG. I accept that.

Mr. DADDARIO. So, we are not really for anything.

Dr. LONG. I am quite sure that this was a target for discussion purposes, and if I have implied otherwise, my apology.

Mr. DADDARIO. No; I just wanted to make that clear, because it keeps popping up that we are for this first, last, and always, and we

are not.

Dr. LONG. But I guess my belief is that-if OST were not to be used, that I would myself hope that an office be established which did have a responsibility in this centralizing area concern hopefully with all but perhaps at least one or two of these areas that I just delineated. One would like to think that it would be consistent with growth so that it might lead into a Department of Science if that continued to look interesting or it might lead into another one of your models. But I do believe that there is a strong case to be made for some first steps, pretty soon. And I should be glad to end on that note.

Mr. DADDARIO. Thank you, Dr. Long. We hope you will continue to participate here during the discussions.

General Schriever.

STATEMENT OF GEN. BERNARD SCHRIEVER, SCHRIEVER & MCKEE ASSOCIATES, INC.

General SCHRIEVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DADDARIO. I guess there is a doctor somewhere in the background.

General SCHRIEVER. Oh, well I have a few honorary ones, if you

want to use that.

Mr. Chairman, first of all let me say that my comments are from a background of having been involved in much R. & D. activity in the Department of Defense, having worked very closely with such agencies as the Atomic Energy Commission and NASA, and also having used and had support from laboratories of the other departments of the Department of Defense, and having had to translate research, both basic and applied, into hardware downstream.

Since retiring I have spent considerable time on matters relating to the Department of Transportation, to HUD, and to a lesser degree HEW. So I speak from a somewhat different background, I think, than Dr. Long. And I have a very strong feeling that these agencies, the ones I have mentioned, and others, too, have a very strong requirement for their own research and development activity. And here I am talking about basic and applied research, and I think Dr. Long made that point also.

I perhaps feel a little more strongly on that point even than he does.

Now, my feeling here is that whenever any problems arise, and I have had them arise in the past a number of times, centralization seems to be the standard answer. You know, reorganize and centralize and you are going to have everything all fixed up nice and pretty. I just am very skeptical of this as a solution to the problem.

I feel that better coordination might well be accepted as a meansand I would like to put it this way: I favor giving science and technology more emphasis, rather than putting it in a management straitjacket. I think a centralized agency, would tend to put bureaucratic management procedures into an area where I don't think it really belongs. It certainly doesn't belong, in my opinion, in the basic research and applied research areas.

So, I would be very-well, I think I could say right now, based on my background, I would be opposed to a centralized agency. I would certainly support improved coordination.

I think what really is lacking in many of the agencies, and this has been an evolutionary process within the Department of Defense and NASA and AEC, is better planning, advanced planning, wherein the technologies, the state of the art, assumes an important factor with respect to what the objectives and mission of that agency or those agencies are.

I have found this to be almost completely lacking in the Department of Transportation. As a matter of fact, there are several congressional reports which point this out. I don't see it in HUD. I don't think you will ever have the basic and applied research programs that really tie into the missions of these organizations, until you improve the advanced planning activities in those departments. I think there is an awareness