cluding the social sciences in the bill or making certain that their exclusion will not be accomplished by implication. FUNCTIONS The proposed functions of the National Science Foundation appear to be suffi ciently broad in scope and appropriate to the task in view. The Foundation is directed to develop and encourage basic research by initiating basic research programs through research contracts, by granting scientific scholarships, by correlating its program with that of other private research groups. and by fostering the interchange of scientific information among scientists. To accomplish these functions the Foundation is granted authority to contract, to make advance payments, to purchase property, to use donated funds, to publish findings, to accept the services of uncompensated personnel, and, among other things, to appoint and fix compensation of personnel. The Foundation is authorized to made appointments of scientific personnel without regard to the civil-service laws and the Classification Act of 1923, if deemed desirable by the Director. The authority given to the Foundation with respect to personnel, contracting authority, and financial matters is necessarily quite broad and the Foundation is exempted from certain laws which are unduly restrictive for research operations. This has been a general trend as new agencies are created, and while it is here appropriate, it should be noted that there are existing scientific agencies which are also in need of many of the provisions of this proposal. It would be most desirable if legislation could be enacted which would grant existing scientific agencies similar authority. SCHOLARSHIPS AND GRADUATE FELLOWSHIPS It is the opinion of this Department that this provision would be of the utmost importance in promoting American science. It is assumed by this Department that Federal Government employees who are qualified shall be eligible to receive such scholarships. There are a great many employees of the Federal Government engaged in scientific work who should be eligible for such awards. PATENT POLICY The patent section of these bills, with the exception of H. R. 359, are similar. The first paragraph is concerned with contracts relating to scientific research and states that each contract "shall contain provisions governing the disposition of inventions produced thereunder in a manner calculated to protect the public interest and the equities of the individual or organization with which the contract or other arrangement is made." This section is short, simple and free of objections which have been raised against patent provisions in previous Science Foundation bills. Under its provisions the Foundation would have to study all the factors affecting a particular contract and incorporate a patent clause designed for the particular situation. The provision is very flexible and would allow for the accumulation of experience in dealing with different situations. The Commissioner of Patents has no objection to a provision of this type. The second paragraph relates to inventions made by an officer or employee of the Foundation "in connection with performing his assigned activities and which is directly related to the subject matter thereof." The ownership of any resulting patents will be in the Government or at the disposition of the Government. There is no objection to such a provision which, incidentally, would be of only limited application if the Foundation does not have employees conducting research. The patent provisions of H. R. 359 are far more extensive in detail and in scope than the other Foundation bills. Without commenting on each specific provision, it is the Department's opinion that the detailed elaboration of H. R. 359 on patent policy would be very likely to result in excessive rigidity and those provisions which would establish patent policy for all Government agencies would seem more appropriately the subject of separate patent legislation. I am advised by the Bureau of the Budget that they would impose no objection to the submission of this report to the Committee. Sincerely yours, CHARLES SAWYER, Secretary of Commerce. Hon. ROBERT CROSSER, ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, Washington 25, D. C., March 3, 1949. Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN CROSSER: This is in reply to a number of recent letters from you requesting the comments of the Atomic Energy Commission on H. R. 12, H. R. 185, H. R. 311, H. R. 1845, H. R. 2308, and H. R. 2751, bills to establish a National Science Foundation. These bills can appropriately be considered as a group; however, H. R. 359 introduced by Mr. Celler raises additional questions, and we will therefore comment on this bill in a subsequent letter. In commenting on previous legislation on this subject, the Commission has consistently taken the position that it was strongly in favor of the establishment of a science foundation-particularly from the point of view of its formulating a national policy for the promotion of scientific research, coordinating Government support in this field, granting fellowships, and encouraging the interchange of scientific information. While we have not gone into the details of the administrative structure as provided in the various bills, we have examined the provisions of these bills as they might relate to the operations of the Atomic Energy Commission and we conclude that we would have no objection to their enactment. It is noted that there is a section in each of these bills which provides that "nothing in this section shall supersede or modify any provision of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946." It is further noted that the same section provides for the prior concurrence of the Commission in the case of research and development activities in the field of atomic energy undertaken by the Foundation. Such provision should make it possible to establish a sound coordination of activities of the two agencies in this field. The Atomic Energy Commission has not been advised by the Bureau of the Budget as to the relationship of these bills to the program of the President. Sincerely yours, UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, Washington 25, D. C., March 30, 1949. Hon. ROBERT CROSSER, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, DEAR CONGRESSMAN CROSSER: This is in response to your notification of hearings to be held on a number of bills to establish a National Science Foundation. The Commission has on numerous occasions expressed its support for the establishment of a science foundation, and recently forwarded comments to your committee on bills which are presently scheduled for consideration. We do not, therefore, think it necessary to request further opportunity to express our views on the bills as presently drafted at this time; but we would, of course, be ready to discuss and questions regarding which your committee thinks our views might be of use in its consideration of these bills. On March 28 a, member of your staff, Mr. Borchardt, requested by telephone that we comment on a suggested amendment to the section relating to atomic energy which is contained in almost all of the bills being considered. This section provides: "The Foundation shall not support any research or development activity in the field of atomic energy, nor shall it exercise any authority pursuant to section 11 (e) in respect to that field, without first having obtained the concurrence of the Atomic Energy Commission. Nothing in this Act shall supersede or modify any provision of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946." The proposed amendment would substitute for the words "in the field of atomic energy" the words "involving fissionable material as defined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1946." We will forward our comments as soon as possible. Sincerely yours, CARROLL L. WILSON, General Manager. Hon. ROBERT CROSSER, ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, Washington 25, D. C., April 1, 1949. Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House Office Building, Washington 25, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN CROSSER: This is in further reference to a request of a number of your committee's staff, Mr. Borchardt, for comment of the Atomic Energy Commission on a suggested amendment to the section in the National Science Foundation bills relating to atomic energy. The section as presently drafted provides: “SEC. 14. (k) The Foundation shall not support any research or development activity in the field of atomic energy, nor shall it exercise any authority pursuant to section 10 (e) in respect to that field, without first having obtained the concurrence of the Atomic Energy Commission that such activity will not adversely affect the common defense and security. Nothing in this Act shall supersede or modify any provision of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946.” The suggested amendment would substitute for the words "in the field of atomic energy," the words. "involving fissionable material as defined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1946.” The section quoted above was first inserted in S. 526 during the first session of the Eightieth Congress. At that time, its terms and meaning were discussed at considerable length on the floor of the Senate. The primary purpose of the section as we understand it is to provide a general framework for the coordination of the work of the Foundation and the Commission and, at the same time, to preserve the basic responsibilities of the Commission for research and development activities in the field of atomic energy. We understand that it was considered more advisable to use general language in the statute with reference to the area of activity requiring Commission concurrence than to attempt to define in advance the specific areas in which there was to be such concurrence. We concur in the desirability of the general language presently in the bill. At the same time, we have viewed this section primarily as a proposed legislative framework within which more specific working arrangements with the Foundation can be set up. We have not viewed it as a provision which would result in constant referral to the Commission every time the Foundation takes any step in the field of atomic energy. We believe that the areas that require specific concurrence, and those that do not, are not now susceptible of adequate definition in advance, and that they are better left to the two agencies to agree upon, as concrete problems make the distinctions clearer. For this reason, we consider the suggested amendment limiting the necessity for prior concurrence of the Commission to activity of the Foundation involving fissionable material to be unduly restrictive. In this connection, it should be emphasized that there are certain fields of highly classified atomic energy research which do not involve fissionable material. Accordingly, we recommend that the section be preserved as presently drafted. We are advised that the Bureau of the Budget would interpose no objections to the views expressed in this letter. Sincerely yours, CARLETON SHUGG, Deputy General Manager. NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS, Hon. ROBERT CROSSER, M. C., House of Representatives, United States Congress, Washington 25, D. C. DEAR MR. CROSSER: Receipt is acknowledged of your letters of February 1 enclosing for comment bills H. R. 12, H. R. 185, H. R. 311, and H. R. 1845; your letter of February 2 enclosing for comment bill H. R. 359; and your letter of February 7 enclosing for comment bill H. R. 2308. All of these bills concern the establishment of a National Science Foundation. These bills were considered by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics at its meeting on February 10, 1949. It is the judgment of the NACA that it is timely to establish in the Federal structure such a National Science Foundation as is proposed in these bills. Sound American business principles recognize the effectivenes of a board of directors guiding the policies and operations of an organization through officers who are subject to the board. An organization similar to this is proposed in all of the bills except H. R. 359, which would place the whole authority in an administrator with a board which would be merely advisory to him. It is believed that highly qualified men who can best guide the destinies of a National Science Foundation would be reluctant to serve under an administrator who would be free to act without regard to their considered judgment. For this reason, the NACA suggests that the form of organization proposed in H. R. 359 is less desirable than that proposed in the other bills. Section 5 of H. R. 359 would require geographical apportionment of the funds available for research and development activities. It is the opinion of the NACA that such a limitation would not permit sufficient freedom in the Foundation to apportion funds where the greatest national interest would indicate. The patent provisions of all of the bills except H. R. 359 approach the patent problem realistically and in a manner best calculated to protect the interest of the public and of persons and organizations having relations with the Foundation. The patent provisions of H. R. 359 are set out in greater detail than in the other bills and might be construed so as to discourage individuals and organizations from undertaking federally financed research. The NACA recommends that the patent provisions governing the operations of a National Science Foundation be as simple and realistic as may be consistent with the greatest national interest. It appears that the establishment of a National Science Foundation will be not inconsistent with the operations of the NACA, since all of the bills except H. R. 359 provide that the Foundation's activities shall supplement and not supersede those of other Government agencies; and H. R. 359 provides that the Foundation shall not operate laboratories, pilot plants, or other such scientific or technical facilities. In summation, the NACA recommends the passage of legislation to establish a National Science Foundation consistent in form and operation with the foregoing comments. Sincerely yours, Hon. ROBERT CROSSER, J. C. HUNSAKER, Chairman. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Further reference is made to your request for the views of this Department on H. R. 12, H. R. 185, and H. R. 311, identical bills to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes. The subject matter of these bills does not primarily involve the activities of the Treasury Department. Certain provisions of interest to the Department, however, are commented on below. Section 11 (b) of the bills would authorize the National Science Foundation to make such expenditures as may be necessary for administering the provisions of the legislation. Executive Order 6166 of June 10, 1933, established the Division of Disbursemnt in the Treasury Department as a centralized disbursing service for the executive branch of the Government. The Foundation would be established in the executive branch, and it would be desirable, to avoid possible uncertainty, that section 11 (b) of the bills explicitly provide that disbursements be made by the Division of Disbursement. This could be accomplished by adding “through the Division of Disbursement, Treasury Department," after the word "make" in the subsection. Section 11 (f) of the bills would authorize the Foundation to receive and use funds donated by others. The Department recommends that the subsection be amended to provide that the donations be deposited as trust funds in the Treasury and appropriated for the stated purposes. The Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the submission of this report to your committee. Very truly yours, JOHN W. SNYDER, Secretary of the Treasury. Hon. ROBERT CROSSER, TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Further reference is made to your requests for the views of this Department on H. R. 359, H. R. 1845, H. R. 2308, and H. R. 2751, bills to establish a National Science Foundation. On March 24, 1949, the Department submitted a report to your committee on H. R. 12, H. R. 185, and H. R. 311, similar bills. The comments in that report, a copy of which is attached, are applicable to corresponding provisions in sections 10 or 11 of H. R. 359, H. R. 1845, H. R. 2308, and H. R. 2751. MY DEAR MR. CROSSER: The views of this Department have been requested on H. R. 12, H. R. 185, H. R. 311, H. R. 359, H. R. 1845, H. R. 2308, and H. R. 2751, bills to establish a National Science Foundation and for other purposes. Among the bills in question, H. R. 12, and those other bills which contain the same provisions, appears to provide the most desirable framework for a National Science Foundation. There is no doubt that national support of scientific research, especially of fundamental and background research, can be expected to yield rich dividends to our national economy. The last war provided ample evidence of the invaluable contributions that can be made by the results of research to warfare; it is high time that we sponsor, as a Nation and under civilian auspices, the research that can make similar contributions to our everyday life in peacetime. A necessary corollary to a research program of this sort is a mechanism to secure the necessary number of adequately trained scientists to participate in it. The scholarship provisions of the several bills, therefore, seem to me most desirable. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report to your committee. Sincerely yours, OSCAR L. CHAPMAN, Under Secretary of the Interior, Hon. ROBERT CROSSER, UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House Office Building, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. CROSSER: This is with further reference to your communication of January 14, 1949, requesting an expression of the Commission's views on the bill H. R. 12, for the establishment of the National Science Foundation. This report is confined tothe provisions of section 15 (a) of the proposed bill relating to the appointment of technical and professional personnel. Section 15 (a) would permit the Director, subject to such general directives as may be prescribed by the Executive Committee, to employ such technical and professional personnel and fix their compensation without regard to the provisions of the civil-service laws and regulations and the Classification Act of 1923, as amended. During the last Congress the bills introduced to establish the National Science Foundation, one of which (S. 526) was vetoed by the President, contained similar exempting language. The Commission in its reports to the Members of Congress sponsoring the legislation and to the committees to which the bills were referred, stated its objections to excepting the employment of technical and professional personnel from competitive procedures and the Classification Act of 1923, as |