present time what it might be if there were one economic adviser to the President rather than the Council with the staff.

Mr. MOSHER. You suggested that such a council should be created by legislation, and two or three pages on, on page 21, if I understand correctly, you are saying that as a matter of strategy, almost any change that is proposed should be done not by Executive order, not by that route, but by action on the part of Congress.

Now, is that in part so that Congress will more fully understand and the Congress will commit itself, that any effective reorganization has to have the support of Congress and can't be done just by Executive order is that your suggestion as a matter of strategy?

Dr. BENNETT. My suggestion is simply because I think that a step as important as this should be accomplished by something other than a reorganization plan where Congress has the opportunity to wait 60 days and do nothing and accede to it. But I think that the fact that it were sought by actual legislation would offer the opportunity for debate and for hearings and ideas might come out that might better be included in the plan than the original plan that was invented by the Executive. And I think that with legislation there would be a congressional endorsement of this particular structure that really doesn't exist, it seems to me, when there is simply a polite agreement to reorganization plans.

Mr. MOSHER. Mr. Chairman, I certainly would agree with that

comment.

Dr. BENNETT. I might say that this is a political judgment, and it it is based purely on my personal views.

Mr. MOSHER. It is a matter that has to be of concern to the Congress, as it thinks this problem through, and as a matter of strategy.

Dr. SHANNON. There would be an added advantage as I see it. I discussed precisely the same concept in the attachment I submitted and, indeed, mentioned the level of the Council of Economic Advisers as the appropriate level for operation of such a council. But if this comes about as the result of congressional action, as I would hope, then there is one aspect that neither one of us has discussed. There would be a need to modify the responsibilities of some of the committee structure within the Congress in order to interact effectively with this new agency. I believe it would be most presumptuous for the executive branch to set up the type of council Dr. Bennett and I are proposing through an Executive order and then expect the Congress passively to comply with those arrangements. So I would personally support the concept that the subject should be thoroughly discussed by the Congress, that it should be developed if at all as the result of congressional initiative. This would permit free discussion with the executive branch. But the Council should be created by a body of law and not by an Executive order.

Mr. MOSHER. I think that is certainly true. And I think we all recognize that any effective reorganization has to be reflected in jurisdictional changes in the congressional committees.

Dr. BENNETT. Mr. Mosher, if I might comment, I think as you are undoubtedly well aware that there is always a certain reluctance in the executive branch, whether it be in the Executive Office or in the operating agencies, to open up something of this sort to congressional

discussion because of the fear they may get back an unwanted authority or responsibility or something of that sort. I made my recommendation in full recognition of the fact that if such an initiative were taken by the executive in seeking legislation, there would be some reluctance to open things up for discussion because something unexpected might happen. And I think this is really the reason for the reorganization plan technique, rather than seeking additional legislation. But in this particular instance and because of the type of problem we are dealing with, a problem of long standing and that is going to be with us for a long time and a problem whose solution appears to be essential if science and technology are to be properly used to achieve social goals. I think in this particular situation there can be no question but what the only way to do this would be through additional legislation and with the debate, advice, and approval of Congress and a thorough understanding of Congress as to what it was authorizing.

Mr. DADDARIO. This committee certainly would agree with that. The restructuring of the National Science Foundation, which was a reorganization of an agency of government, did initiate with this committee. I would agree not only is it necessary to have the involvement of both the executive and legislative branches, but that the initiative, considering what the future is going to be and the requirements placed on us, must come from the Congress.

Mr. Brown?

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to add to what has been said about the importance of this testimony. I think it has been certainly exceptional in the specificity of the points made and in the breadth of the recommendations offered. I am sure it is going to be extremely valuable.

I might offer the comment, too-I don't know whether this is justified or not-but it seems that the effect of leaving an administration seems to add to the perception of statesmanlike evaluation of individuals and we possibly ought to create some arrangement whereby we can take advantage of the wisdom that seems to be generated after people leave the administration.

Mr. DADDARIO. As Dr. Bennett has put it, they are now "thens." Mr. BROWN. Well, I think it is a tribute to the fact that each of these gentlemen have a great deal of wisdom and judgment which when untrampled is able to reflect itself in very clear-cut ways.

Let me make or offer a question or two which may be somewhat peripheral, but in discussing the importance of this role of supporting academic science and providing it with the maximum freedom, which is the historical tradition of academic science in this country, you make some statements, Dr. Bennett, which relate to or bear upon another piece of legislation that this committee has been considering, and that is the institutional grants bill.

Did you have the mechanism of that bill in mind when you made your comments? You made a statement with regard to the need for a very careful evaluation of the formula by which institutional grants could be made, but your comments certainly did stress the importance of institutional support per se. Do you have any comments to offer about the specific mechanism the committee is studying?

Dr. BENNETT. Well, Mr. Brown, in the paper, the one point that I make is this: That the general underpinning of higher education, and by that I include higher education outside of the realm of science, should not be dependent for its funding on mechanisms that were based in science. Since the so-called Miller bill is one that I think for understandable reasons has its basis in science, although it is very broadly defined, it seems to me that it is not an appropriate mechanism to meet the long-term commitment that the Federal Government will have to make to support universities.

Now, I realize that it has been supported heartily by many educators, but know if your tongue hangs out long enough almost anything tastes like water.

I also would like to emphasize that the type of institutional grant that I was referring to is one where the formula would be based somehow on the amount of Federal science money that is going into the institution, to balance that, and would not be a general, or generally distributed subsidy to all institutions.

Now the point that is made in this longer paper I have submitted is that there has been a surprisingly rapid increase in nonscience university funding from the Federal Government in the past 5 years, but these funds are not a substitute for the more specifically targeted science funds. So if one looks at the overall amount of Federal money going into universities, it looks like it has been increasing in the past 5 years in a respectable fashion.

Mr. BROWN. Well, you are referring there, aren't you, to funds for student support and for construction of facilities and things of that sort?

Dr. BENNETT. I am, indeed. So that if one looks at the total Federal funds that go to universities, you get the impression that, well, there is a lot of money going there and things should be all right, but I want to emphasize that the general distribution of funds is not really a substitute for the more specifically targeted funds that go in for academic science. So that one really must look at the details of this support, and it is at this interface between general and specific support that the problems are beginning to develop and certainly will continue to develop into what will become an emergency. If you look at the allocation of funds to universities in the past 5 years and if you listen to statements such as that made recently by the Commissioner of Education and look at projections that say it won't be long before the Federal Government is supporting 40 percent of higher education in this country, it is quite clear that there must be some mechanism that enables one to examine the problems of science and production of scientific manpower and the overall problem of graduate education in science and in other areas. And there now exists no way in which these problems can be faced up squarely. They are approached rather obliquely and there are occasional discussions, but we have really paralled policies rather than any opportunity to look at these problems at the interface. This is why rather than a council or science advisers, I recommend a council of advisers on science and education.

Mr. BROWN. You made the point that the proposals which you have offered imply at least some change in the organization of Congress, and the underlying rationale for the Miller bill, I think, is due to certain of the problems within the Congress more than anything else.

33-257 0-69-20

Dr. BENNETT. Yes, of course.

Mr. BROWN. The sort of thing that you are hinting at is obviously a congressional committee on science and education, rather than the present division which has education and labor and science and astronautics. The Committee on Science and Astronautics would become, in effect, a mission-oriented committee, devoted to the space and aeronautics program, a committee on Science and Education that would then be playing somewhat the role for the Congress as you are envisioning the Council would be playing for the Executive Office, a committee in which science and educational matters could be brought together regardless of the specific mission and considered as a whole by the

House.

Dr. BENNETT. Well, Mr. Brown, I think what you suggested is a possibility, but the point that I would like to emphasize is that brought out by Dr. Shannon, that the very reason that this should be created by legislation is that in the creation of this by legislation, Congress would have to give thought to what receptor mechanisms it would set up in the form of committees or subcommittees so as to take advantage of whatever came from this new organization in the executive branch. Mr. BROWN. I think that is exactly right. It is a direction in which I think this committee should be giving some thought, although this is not our responsibility. This is the responsibility of another committee of Congress to consider ways of restructuring the committee system in the Congress.

I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Winn?

Mr. WINN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Shannon, on page 4 of your testimony, the bottom 3 lines— I will wait until the bells stop ringing-you say "The means to provide such centralized and nationalized resources essential for complex research of a fundamental nature but not reasonably replicable in multiple-university settings." Could you elaborate on that a little bit? Dr. SHANNON. Öh, I have in mind such things as large telescopes, be they optical or radio, accelerators-large physical resources. Mr. WINN. I see.

Dr. SHANNON. Those are absolutely essential for some of the more important parts of academic science, but are better centralized or distributed in a limited number of sites rather than

Mr. WINN. Being moved around.

Dr. SHANNON. Replicated in many universities.
Mr. WINN. I see.

Dr. SHANNON. In other words, even the best supported university, with the most vigorous program, can't possibly have all the machines of science that are essential for graduate education, nor should they try to. That is what I had in mind.

Mr. WINN. That clarifies this in my mind.

It is amazing, it is almost the identical statement that another gentleman made yesterday or the day before, almost the same thing as you have stated it here."

Well, I, too, want to thank you for some very thought-provoking statements, that both of you gentlemen have made, and will appreciate your time and your knowledge of the subject.

I would hope that some time in the future, Mr. Chairman, that we might be able to submit to these gentlemen, like we have agreed in some of the other witnesses, some additional questions as they pop through our minds, because when we start fighting bells about this time we get a little jittery.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Winn, I have also already made an aside to Mr. Carpenter, that these two papers are going to add considerably to his work.

Mr. WINN. Fine.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Cabell?

Mr. CABELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the course of these hearings I sense almost a unanimous thought on the part of the witnesses, that some restructuring of our activities in this field is necessary and is desirable. It seems to tend toward a little more to vertical restructuring than a continuation of our horizontal structures.

The question is: Has your major thrust in these suggestions been with the idea that an agency could be created or restructured that would enable us to widely expand our efforts in this present field and be successful in getting better funding for what we are doing, or is your major thrust toward a more efficient use of our present level of funding

I will leave that open to either of you.

Dr. SHANNON. I would be glad to start off. It is both, basically. But let me be very specific about a field that I really know in detail. Let's talk about biomedical science.

The staff may wish these figures. But I will read some of them. The Federal Establishment in 1969 will have spent an estimated $1.677 billion. Now this is not as large as it seems because during the past 5 years wholly new areas have been established. Some of these deal with the health of the Nation; others do not. For example, there is now a large and vigorous research effort in the field of the delivery of health services. This is an operational research type of activity and very essential to the health of the Nation. On the other hand, there is also a new program in support of NASA's Apollo programs actually at the level of something above $100 million. This makes little contribution to the health of the Nation. Importantly then, a good deal of increase in funds in this category is due to the addition of new functions. But the important point is that those dollars, the 1.6 billion, are being spent by 10 agencies and some of them in very substantial amounts for quite diverse purposes.

Now, NIH generally is commonly designated at the Federal instrument selected by the Congress and the executive branch to implement a program of biomedical research aimed at the conquest of disease. It spends about 55 percent of what can be covered by the term. Now, it knows generally the activities of other agencies in respect to their general programs. It does not know their 5-year projections and is only vaguely aware of their priorities. These are not usually available. The Congress puts together this $1.6 billion of new authorizations each year as the result of about 10 different appropriations actions. There is little regard for one area of science as compared to another. And in the biomedical area, there is no capability to view the aggregate activity and determine its likely net worth.