COORDINATION WITH FOREIGN POLICY SEC. 15. (a) The authority to enter into contracts or other arrangements with organizations or individuals in foreign countries and with agencies of foreign countries, as provided in section 10 (c), and the authority to cooperate in international scientific research activities as provided in section 12 (a), shall be exercised in such manner as is consistent with the foreign policy objectives of the United States as determined by the Secretary of State after consultation with the Director. (b) If, in the exercise of the authority referred to in subsection (a) to carry out the purposes of this Act, negotiation with foreign countries or agencies thereof becomes necessary, such negotiation shall be carried on by the Secretary of State in consultation with the Director. Passed the Senate May 5 (legislative day, May 4), 1948. CARL A. LOEFFLER, Secretary. Mr. HINSHAW. The committee will please come to order. The purpose of the hearing this morning is to hear witnesses on H. R. 6007 and a similar bill, S. 2385, an act to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes, passed the Senate on May 6. It will be remembered that another bill, S. 526 was passed by both the House and the Senate in the first session of the Eightieth Congress, and was vetoed by the President. The first witness to be heard will be Dr. Lawrence R. Hafstad, executive secretary of the Research and Development Board. Is Dr. Hafstad here? Dr. HAFSTAD. Yes, sir. Mr. HESELTON. In connection with the reference to H. R. 6007, there are other bills pending on the same subject. If I recall correctly Mr. Priest filed one. I know that I filed one on February 24, H. R. 5532, and in that connection I filed a statement in the appendix in the record, a portion of it being a memorandum prepared at my request by the Legislative Reference Service dealing with the basic objections of the President in regard to the act. I would like to have the statement I made on February 19 included in the committee record, which will include the memorandum prepared by the Legislative Reference Service. Mr. HINSHAW. We will insert in the record a letter from the Executive Office of the President, Bureau of the Budget, under date of May 28 in reference to H. R. 6007 and S. 2385; a letter from the Research and Development Board under date of May 14 referring to the same bills; a letter from the Department of Agriculture under date of May 20 referring to the same bills; a letter from the Treasury Department under date of May 14 referring to the same bill; a letter from the Atomic Energy Commission under date of April 26 referring to the same bills; another letter under date of May 3 from the Atomic Energy Committion referring to H. R. 6007; also a letter from the Department of State under date of April 28 referring to these bills; a letter from the United States Civil Service Commission under date of April 22 referring to these bills, and a letter from the Secretary of the Navy under date of May 14 referring to H. R. 6007. (The letters referred to are as follows:) EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, Washington 25, D. C., May 28, 1948. Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. WOLVERTON: This letter is in reply to your request of May 13, 1948, for comments on H. R. 6007 and S. 2385 as passed by the Senate, bills relating to the establishment of a National Science Foundation. H. R. 6007 The provisions of H. R. 6007, in general, seem workable and appear to meet substantially the objections of the President to S. 526, passed by the Congress last year. It recognizes the primary responsibility of the chief executive officer of the Foundation to the President for the disbursement of public funds through scholarship aids and research grants and contracts, at the same time requiring that he operate within the framework of general policy established by the parttime board. A further important improvement is the modification of the powers of the part-time divisional committees, which would be limited to advice and recommendations concerning the programs of the divisions. It is noted, moreover, that the present bill eliminates the earlier provision for an interdepartmental committee with coordinating powers over Federal research activities, a revision which is consistent with the President's action in establishing the Interdepartmental Committee on Scientific Research and Development by Executixe Order 9912, dated December 24, 1947. As to the remaining features of the bill, some improvements might be made to clarify certain provisions bearing upon internal relationships. Section 5 (a), lines 22-24, on page 6, provides that the executive committee "shall implement the policies developed by the Foundation," whereas section 6 (b), line 6, on page 8, states that the Director "shall exercise the powers set forth in this act within the general policies developed by the Foundation." These provisions, taken together, are construed to signify the intent of Congress that the term "Foundation" as used here shall mean the 24-member body, rather than the Foundation as an agency, and that, moreover, the 24-member group will establish general policies for the guidance of the executive committee which will translate them into "general directives" issued to the Director. In order to bring out more clearly these distinctions, it might be helpful to insert the words "the members of" before the term "Foundation" not only in this context but likewise wherever in the bill it is desired to differentiate between the functions of the 24-member board, the Foundation as an agency, and the executive committee. Thus, the Director is authorized to exercise the powers of the Foundation (sec. 6 (b)), but it is not entirely clear whether the bill intends to reserve to the 24-member group the exclusive authority to create special commissions, or whether this is one of the responsibilities of the Director. A similar doubt is cast upon the locus of final authority for the creation of additional divisions within the Foundation. As the bill is now written, it is difficult to determine which powers are intended to vest exclusively in the 24-member group. From the present wording in section 6 (b), it appears possible to misconstrue the intent of the section. The language might be interpreted to mean that the Director's authority to enter into grants and contracts under paragraph (c) of section 11 is conditioned upon the delegation of such authority to him by the executive committee. The real objective of the provision, on the other hand, is doubtless to recognize the Director's primary responsibility over the disbursement of the Foundation's funds, and at the same time to provide a check and balance upon his authority by requiring that contracts and grants be approved by the executive committee. In order that the bill may express this viewpoint more clearly, a proposed amendment is respectfully suggested, to read as follows: "Section 6 (b) * * *: Provided, That contracts and grants awarded by the Director under paragraph (c) of section 11 shall have the approval of the Executive Committee." 77488-48 Section 4 (a) (7) requires the Foundation to establish, for such periods of time as it may determine, special commissions dealing with such medical problems as cancer, heart disease, and poliomyelitis. While the Bureau of the Budget has no strong views on the matter, it is believed that from an administrative standpoint there would be considerable advantage in placing full discretion as to the creation of special commissions in the 24-member group. Section 8 deals with the question of divisional committees. Paragraph (d) of this section requires that these committees shall make recommendations to, and advise and consult with, the executive committee and the Director on matters bearing on the work of the divisions. While it may be implied that the divisional committees are also advisory to the heads of the respective divisions, the committee may wish to clarify this point. S. 2385 (AS PASSED BY THE SENATE) With respect to S. 2385, there is enclosed a copy of my letter of May 5, 1948, addressed to Senator Alexander Smith, which was placed in the Congressional Record of that date. While the bill appeared unobjectionable for the most part, it was the opinion of the Bureau of the Budget that without some clarification along the lines suggested in that letter, the responsibility of the Director with respect to grants and contracts would be open to serious doubt. It was suggested, therefore, that a new section 5 (b) be included in the revised bill, to remove any doubt as to the role of the Director in making grants and contracts. In the discussion which took place on the floor of the Senate following the reading of this letter, Senators Smith and Lucas expressed the view that there was no difference of opinion on the issue involved as between the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare and the Bureau of the Budget, and that there was no intention to remove the Director as executive officer from his logical place in the handling of contracts. Accordingly, the suggested amendment was not considered. It would appear, therefore, that the intention of the Senate as to the role of the Director is clearly consistent with the views expressed in my letter. While the Bureau has a preference for language in the bill which would leave no room for doubt as to the responsibility of the Director with respect to grants and contracts, it would appear from the debate in the Senate that the suggested amendment may not be essential. However, if the House committee has any question on this point, it is recommended that clarifying language be inserted in section 5. The Bureau's suggested amendment of this section, contained in the letter to Senator Smith, was as follows: "The Director shall carry out the policies established by the Foundation and is authorized to exercise the authorities vested in the Foundation in section 10 of this Act: Provided, That he shall exercise the authority granted in paragraph (c) of section 10 only with the approval of the Foundation." Attention has been called to a possible construction of this language to require the Director to have the permission of the 24-member Foundation before exercising the authority granted in paragraph (c) of section 10. It has been assumed, in suggesting the language above, that the required approval could be delegated to the executive committee authorized in section 4 (e). As noted earlier with reference to section 6 (b) of H. R. 6007 any doubt on this point would appear to be resolved by revising the proviso to read as follows: "Section 5 (b) * * *: Provided, That contracts and grants awarded by the Director under paragraph (c) of section 10 shall have the approval of the twentyfour-member Foundation or of such committee authorized to be established by section 4 (e) as may be determined." The Bureau of the Budget has no strong preference on whether the provision for an executive committee should be mandatory or permissive. There are advantages in the permissive approach taken by S. 2385 in that thereby the allocation of duties and responsibilities between the 24-member group and the executive committee becomes a matter for decision by the members of the Foundation rather than one of statutory prescription. In any event, it would seem that the 24-member group inevitably would find it necessary to establish a subcommittee in order to discharge its responsibilities efficiently, particularly since the larger group is not required to meet more frequently than annually. In other respects, S. 2385 in the form passed by the Senate appears to meet satisfactorily the objections which were made to S. 526 when that bill was passed in the previous session of the present Congress. Very truly yours, JAMES E. WEBB, Director. Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, NATIONAL MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. WOLVERTON: This is in reply to your letter of April 16, 1948, requesting my views on H. R. 6007 a bill to establish a National Science Foundation. That letter was addressed to me as president of the Carnegie Institution of Washington. As you know, however, I also hold the position of Chairman of the Research and Development Board, and after consultation with and at the direction of the Secretary of Defense, I am replying in that capacity as representative of the Military Establishment. You and the members of your committee are familiar with the various considerations which make the establishment of a National Science Foundation both desirable from the standpoint of maintaining our technological progress and necessary in the interests of national defense. I need not discuss these matters in detail for they have been very thoroughly discussed with your committee both in the Seventy-ninth Congress and in the first session of the present Congress. It will suffice to say that all of the factors then considered which then pointed toward the need for a National Science Foundation still exist. Costs of conducting basic research are even higher than they were last year and university incomes have not increased in proportion. Nonprofit research institutions are therefore finding it increasingly difficult to finance basic research even with the assistance of the Military Establishment. Moreover, the shortage of trained scientists is still acute and it is apparent that the benefits of the GI bill of rights Iwill not be sufficient to make up our accumulated deficit. At the same time there is an even greater need today for us to increase the scale of our total basic research effort and to broaden its scope. Now, as you know, the Military Establishment sponsors some basic research and, in my opinion, it should continue to do so-particularly in fields which are related to military needs and which might not be investigated by civilian groups. Such sponsorship is of great value both to military personnel and to civilian scientists by providing a medium for personal contacts and the exchange of ideas among them. Moreover, it frequently occurs in the course of a project of applied research that an area is met in which necessary data of a fundamental nature is not available. It is of great value for the contractor or service laboratory engaged in such a project to develop the missing information and to be able to do so without suspending the entire project until some outside organization engaged in basic research investigates that particular area. Nevertheless, the basic research which will be performed by the Military Establishment will always be a relatively small proportion of its entire research and development effort. Moreover, the Military Establishment cannot and should not attempt to perform basic research in all fields. Yet, a well-grounded program of basic research in all major fields of science is essential if we are to have continued progress in our applied research, and if this country is to occupy its full position as the leading scientific country of the world. This is properly the function of civilian groups, though I am confident that there will be the closest cooperation between the Foundation and the Military Establishment and I trust that the Foundation will provide a channel by establishing an appropriate unit within its organization. It must not be thought that the Foundation will duplicate or conflict with the Research and Development Board. This Board, which the Congress established at its last session, was designed to coordinate and plan the research and development of the Military Establishment. This, I assure you, is a full-time job in itself and the Board was not only not intended to fill the need which the Science Foundation is designed to supply, but also its activities make the establishment of the Foundation the more imperative. The Board has made a great deal of progress, in its brief period of existence, toward the accomplishment of the purposes which the Congress had in mind in creating it. The research and development programs of the Military Establishment are now being coordinated in a way that I feel will be effective, and they are making sound progressmostly in applied research. At the same time, however, as a result of that very progress we are pressing harder and harder against the limits of our accumulated fundamental knowledge of our environment. The further we press our applied research toward these limits the more imperative it is to extend them and it has long been apparent that private resources are not sufficient to extend those limits adequately. The large-scale research effort of the Military Establishment has clearly demonstrated the present shortage of adequately trained scientists and technologists. Even now it is difficult to establish new research projects for lack of manpower to carry them on intensively. We are in a position, therefore, of weighing the relative urgency of desirable projects and diverting scientific talent from those less urgent to those more pressing. We must provide now for our future security by assuring the training of scientists in adequate numbers. There exists in this country a vast reservoir of technical ability, much of which will be irrevocably lost to science without the scholarship and fellowship program envisioned for the Foundation. It is of utmost importance, therefore, that we begin at once to tap the supply of young men and women with scientificability regardless of the economic status of their families. Of the three National Science Foundation bills with respect to which the Military Establishment has been asked to comment-H. R. 6007, H. R. 6238, and H. R. 4852-the first, I understand, is the product of extensive discussions between yourself and representatives of the Senate, scientific groups, and the President. I am gratified indeed that the final issue in controversy-the form: of organization of the Foundation--has been resolved to the satisfaction of the principal groups concerned. It is the view of the Military Establishment that the organization intended by the bill is sound and workable. It would assure full responsibility of the Foundation to the President on those administrative. matters which are properly the function of the Executive. At the same time, real authority is matched with responsibility in a representative group of scientists with respect to matters involving scientific evaluation and basic policies. This arrangement can be effective and it has the tremendous advantage of being acceptable to the interested groups. H. R. 6238 being identical with H. R. 6007 is, of course, subject to the same considerations. In view of passage by the Senate of S. 2385, I feel that some comment may be helpful with respect to the changes made in that bill as originally introduced. The debate on the floor indicates that the Senate and the Director of the Bureau: of the Budget are not really in disagreement as to the functions of the Directorand his place in the Foundation organization. I share the desire of the Senate to clarify this matter, for I too have been troubled by the relevant language of H. R. 6007. Accordingly, in the attached memorandum, I am suggesting certain amendments which I believe will more clearly express the evident pur-pose of H. R. 6007 as well as carry out the objectives of the Senate and the Bureau of the Budget. I notice that the Senate has struck out specific mention of special commissions: on cancer, heart diseases, and poliomyelitis though retaining authority on the part of the Foundation to establish such commissions if it so desires. I have no doubt that the Foundation would wish to do so for special commissions of the type prescribed in both bills would be valuable wherever particularly close integration of public and private research is necessary. Such integration would be especially useful in fields of research in which large and active private organizations exist, particularly where they derive the bulk of their financial support from popular contributions. Placing such commissions within the Foundation would assure that the Government's effort in their special fields is properly balanced with other fields and that whole is carried on under uniform general policies. Specific provision in this legislation for special commissions on cancer, heart and intravascular diseases, and poliomyelitis would serve to accelerate their creation and therefore appears to be desirable. In case you do not wish to go this far, a commission on cancer would be particularly helpful. H. R. 4852 retains the administrative features of S. 526 in the form vetoed by the President last year except that the Director is to be appointed by the President confirmed by the Senate. However, his powers and duties would be prescribed by the Executive Committee and exercised under its supervision. There is some doubt, therefore, whether H. R. 4852 would cure the defects of S. 526 set forth by the President last year. In addition, H. R. 4852 reintroduces a highly controversial issue concerning patent policies by providing for the dedication to the public of inventions by employees of the Foundation. I feel very strongly that legislation of this type is not the place to settle the complex problem of disposition of Government-owned inventions either as applied to one small portion of the executive branch of the Government or on a Government-wide basis. Finally, H. R. 4852 would require revision to reflect the changes in the military departments made by the National Security Act of 1947 and the creation of an interdepartmental coordinating committee by Executive Order 9912. |