there is little doubt but that the 24-member group would wish to create an executive committee for the efficient conduct of its business, this could be appropriately provided for if the committee considers it necessary, by the introduction into section 4 of a paragraph along the lines of paragraph 4 (e) of S. 247, which reads as follows:

"(e) The Foundation is authorized to appoint from among its members an executive committee and from time to time to appoint from among its members or otherwise, such other committees as it deems necessary and to assign to such executive committee or other committees such powers and functions as it deems appropriate for the purposes of this act."

Directly related to the suggestion that section 5 be deleted and replaced by a permissibe paragraph in section 4 is the suggestion that the words "Executive Committee" be replaced by the word "Foundation" (or by the word "Board"; see the first section of these suggestions) wherever they now appear in the bill, except on lines 20 and 21 of page 7, where all after the word "Foundation" on line 20, page 7, would be stricken.

4. Director's right to vote

It is suggested that the word "nonvoting" be deleted from section 6 (a) of the bill, on lines 19 and 20 of page 7; it would appear that the Director ought not be denied the right to vote in his capacity of an ex officio member of the Foundation.

5. Authority of Director over contracts and grants

The spirit of paragraph 6 (b) in H. R. 12 meets adequately the need for clarification of the authority of the Director with respect to contracts and grants. However, it is believed that, if the proposal in the first section of these suggestions relative to the idea of a board is accepted, the sense of paragraph 6 (b) could be clarified and made more meaningful by revision along the following lines: Subsection 6 (b): "The Director shall carry out the policies established by the Board, 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 Board."

6. Compensation of the Director

It

Section 6 provides for the appointment and compensation of a Director. is suggested that the committee may wish to give consideration to increasing the rate of compensation of the Director to $17,500 per annum, thereby bringing it up to a level consistent with pending Federal pay legislation.

7. Divisions within the Foundation

Section 7 of the pending bill enumerates the four principal divisions to be established in the Foundation. Inasmuch as this provision does not seek to prescribe the permanent organization of the Foundation, and since the Board is empowered to disestablish even the enumerated divisions, it would appear to be sound to strike paragraph (a) in entirety, enabling the Board under subsection (b) to determine from the outset the internal structure best suited to effectuate whatever program the Board may evolve.

8. Authority of the Foundation

It is recommended that in section 11, on page 11 at line 12, after the word "empowered" there be inserted the following qualifying language: "within the limits of available appropriations."

This amendment has the purpose of limiting the Foundation's authority to enter into contracts by requiring that funds be appropriated as a condition precedent to the incurring of contractual obligations. It is a standard fiscal provision which will not in any way interfere with the proper administration of the Foundation's business.

9. Research contracts

With reference to subsection 11 (c), on page 12 at line 3, it is noted that the use of the qualifying adjective “basic" before the word "research" is more limiting on the authority of the Foundation than is the case in subsection 11 (d), 11 (e), and 11 (i). In the latter cases the legislation speaks of research without qualifying it as "basic." It is further noted that while the Foundation is empowered by subsection 4 (a) (3) to conduct research (without qualification of that term) in connection with matters relating to the national defense, the Foundation is limited by subsection 11 (c) to contracts for "basic" research. Accordingly, it

is suggested that the committee may wish to consider deleting the term "basic" on page 12 at line 3, thereby rendering that subsection consistent with other provisions of the bill. This should in no sense run counter to what is believed to be the intent of the committee that the main focus of the Foundation shall be upon basic research.

10. Appropriations

Section 14 authorizes funds to be appropriated for the purposes of the legislation. It is noted that subsection (b) extends the availability of such funds for 4 years for expenditure purposes, but the language infers that the Foundation is limited to only 1 year's availability for obligation purposes. It has been our experience that the very nature of research requires flexibility in appropriation structure permitting either freedom or restrain in the light of changing conditions. For this reason, the Bureau considers it desirable to avoid specific provisions on the availability of research funds insofar as enabling legislation is concerned, preferring to leave the decision to be resolved in the appropriation acts. Accordingly, it is recommended that the committee consider a substitute for subsection 14 (b), to read as follows:

"(b) Appropriations made pursuant to the authority provided in subsection (a) shall remain available for obligation, for expenditure, or for obligation and expenditure, for such period or periods as may be specified in the acts making such appropriations."

11. Compensation of the Deputy Director

On page 16 at line 18, it is recommended that a period be placed after the word "Director," and that the words "and who shall receive compensation at a rate not to exceed $12,000 per annum" be deleted. The Deputy Director's rate of compensation would be handled, instead, under general legislation dealing with revision of the Classification Act.

12. Compensation of members of the Board

It is noted that the bill in subsection 15 (d) would compensate Board members and other part-time officials at a rate not to exceed $25 per day. It is recommended that this provision be changed to substitute a rate of $50 per day for members of the Board, and $35 per day for members of divisional committees and special commissions. These revisions would provide a scale of compensation directly comparable with provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (Public Law 585, 79th Cong.), which provides $50 per day for members of AEC's General Advisory Committee, and the National Security Act of 1947 (Public Law 253, 80th Cong.), which provides $35 per day for persons serving in an advisory capacity to the Secretary of Defense.

13. Exemptions from prosecution

Subsection 15 (f) exempts members of the Board, divisional committees, and special commissions from prosecution under certain legislation of general applicability. It is believed that the committee should consider revisions and further exemptions enacted by the Eightieth Congress. Specifically, reference is made to sections 281, 283, and 284 of title 18, U. S. C. (Public Law 772, 80th Cong.), and section 190 of the Revised Statutes (5 U. S. C. 99).

14. Relationship to other Government agencies

Subsection 15 (h) provides that the activities of the Foundation shall be construed as supplementing and not superseding, curtailing, or limiting any of the functions of other Government agencies authorized to engage in scientific research or development. It is felt that this subsection might, at some future time, constitute an obstacle to the improved coordination of research acivities.

15. National scientific roster

Subsection 15 (j) refers to the National Roster of Scientific and Specialized Personnel, which was created early in the war by Executive order, but which has been inactive for some time past. It is located in the United States Employment Service, which was transferred to the Federal Security Agency by the Eightieth Congress. It is suggested, therefore, that "United States Employment Service" be substituted for "Department of Labor" in paragraph 15 (j); this solution is deemed preferable to substituting "Federal Security Agency" in view of the possibility that USES may be returned to the Department of Labor. It is suggested, further, that "the Director of the Bureau of the Budget" be substituted for "the President" on lines 10 and 12, page 19.

The attention of the committee is invited to the fact that a postwar roster of scientific personnel has been established by the Office of Naval Research; it is intended that this roster would be transferred to the Foundation by administrative action upon its establishment.

16. Coordination with foreign policy

It is suggested that the structure of the bill might be simplified by transposing section 16 in its entirety to section 13, which deals with the same general subject matter. The result would be that section 13 would be lengthened by the addition of the two subsections which presently comprise section 16.

Mr. PRIEST. Before proceeding with hearing testimony, the Chair desires to make a statement giving in brief some of the background to the legislation now before the subcommittee. The bills before us today and on which we will hear testimony during these hearings have a rather long history.

It all started perhaps with the birth of the Republic when George Washington suggested to Dr. Benjamin Rush of Pennsylvania that it might be well for the United States Government, in the interest of the promotion of science, to establish a University of the United States. The more recent history of the Science Foundation legislation begins in November 1944 when President Roosevelt wrote a letter to Dr. Vannevar Bush, Director of the wartime Office of Scientific Research and Development asking him to prepare for him a report on a postwar science program.

President Roosevelt had passed away when Dr. Bush submitted his report in July 1945. His report was entitled "Science, the Endless Frontier." It became the basis for Science Foundation legislation which we are considering today because it recommended the establishment of a National Research Foundation with broad powers and functions for fostering American science.

Shortly after the submission of the report and essentially based on its recommendations, identical Science Foundation bills were introduced in the Seventy-ninth Congress by Senator Magnuson and Representative Mills. Other measures were introduced by Senators Kilgore and Fulbright.

When, in September of 1945, President Truman called Congress into special session to enact a 21-point postwar domestic program, one of the points urged the establishment of a single Federal research agency. Following the President's request, hearings were begun in the Senate on the various Science Foundation bills which continued through October of 1945.

Three principal points were in dispute: (1) the question of the organization of the Foundation, (2) the inclusion or exclusion of the social sciences, and (3) what kind of patent provisions should be included in the bill.

In the following year, the Senate committee reported out S. 1850which would have made extensive changes in the patent laws of the United States with respect to inventions made with the financial support of the Federal Government. The bill, as pointed out, would further have included a social science division and would have placed considerable control in the President of the United States.

Our own committee, late in May of 1946, held hearings on H. R. 6448, introduced by Representative Mills. This bill was a revised version of his original Science Foundation bill.

In July of 1946, the Senate passed S. 1850 by a vote of 48 to 18. The House took no action and all bills died with the close of the Seventy-ninth Congress.

During the Eightieth Congress, the Senate saw the introduction of S. 526 sponsored by a bipartisan group of six Senators and the House had also before it a number of Science Foundation bills. The Senate bill was passed by the Senate in May by a vote of 79 to 8. In the House, this committee held extensive hearings and as a result of the hearings, H. R. 4102 was introduced, reported favorably by the committee, and passed by the House, striking out the text of S. 526.

S. 526 then went to conference and both Houses approved the conference report. It was this bill which died by pocket veto. President Truman stated that he had vetoed the bill with great reluctance for he was convinced of the urgent need for the establishment of the Foundation but he felt that the bill passed by Congress vested the determination of vital national policies and the expenditure of large public funds in a group of individuals who would be essentially private citizens. This, the President stated, was a marked departure from sound principles for the administration of public affairs that he could not give his approval.

In 1948 during the second session of the Eightieth Congress, new bills were introduced both in the Senate and in the House S. 2385 and H. R. 6007. These bills were identical and constituted a compromise worked out following conferences between some Members of Congress and White House advisers. In May 1948, the Senate passed the new measure by a voice vote. In the House our committee held brief hearings and reported favorably H. R. 6007 which differed in a few respects from S. 2385 passed earlier by the Senate. The bill failed. to reach the floor and, therefore, the Science Foundation legislation did not materialize during the Eightieth Congress.

In the Eighty-first Congress, in the Senate, there was introduced S. 247 which is identical with S. 2385, the last Science Foundation bill passed by the Senate during the second session of the Eightieth Congress. This bill passed the Senate without amendment and is now before us.

In the House seven bills have been introduced which fall into three groups. Four of these bills are identical with H. R. 6007, reported favorably by this committee during the Eightieth Congress, which differs in some respects from S. 247. These bills are H. R. 12, introduced by myself, H. R. 185, introduced by Mr. Harris, H. R. 311, introduced by Mr. Wolverton, and H. R. 2751 introduced by Mr. Biemiller.

The second group consists of H. R. 1845, introduced by Mr. Van Zandt, and H. R. 2308, introduced by Mr. Mills, which are in all respects identical with S. 247 which, as I have already stated, is also before us today.

The third group consists of a single bill, H. R. 359 introduced by Mr. Celler, which differs substantially from the bills in the first two groups with respect to the organization of the Foundation, the inclusion of social sciences, and patent provisions.

The purpose of the hearings this morning is, primarily, to give the new members of this committee and the many new Members of the House the benefit of up-to-date testimony on the need for Science

89560-49- -4

Foundation legislation, and give witnesses who may desire to be heard an opportunity to be heard on the legislation.

We have a number of witnesses scheduled for today, tomorrow, and Monday.

I was told just a few minutes ago that Dr. Bronk had been unavoidably delayed and might require a little longer time. Dr. Bronk, we will be glad to hear you now.

STATEMENT OF DR. DETLEV W. BRONK, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, AND PRESIDENT OF THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY

Mr. PRIEST. It is the custom of this subcommittee, as of the full committee, to permit witnesses to make their original statements insofar as possible without interruption and then to answer questions by members of the committee.

Dr. Bronk, will you give your full name and your identification? Dr. BRONK. My name is Dr. Detlev W. Bronk, chairman of the National Research Council and president of Johns Hopkins University.

I have had the pleasure of appearing before Mr. Priest on many occasions, and it is a great pleasure to meet him again and the members of the committee.

I am much impressed for the great care and thought which the committees of the Senate and the House have given to this science legislation over the past years. I think it is extraordinarily desirable that great wisdom should be exercised in the development of new legislation which is directed toward the creation of a new agency, and I think it is highly desirable that there should be careful consideration as to the method for the creation of a new agency.

If I may speak briefly to that point, I would say that I consider that one of the bases for the need for a Science Foundation which is under consideration and these several bills stems from the recent war which has shown the possibility of domination by country which is scientifically powerful.

I need not remind you gentlemen that numbers of men are relatively less important than they used to be and the importance of scientific preparation is more important than it ever has been before.

Living as we do in a state of international tension, it is unthinkable that our country, or any of our allies, should not be alive to any information maintaining the high stage of scientific development in order that we may be prepared for any eventuality which might arise.

I need not remind you that certain potential enemies of this country are fully aware of the power of science in their efforts for military strength and military power.

Because of that consideration alone, I take it that a National Science Foundation is of utmost importance to the Nation and to the security of the Nation.

I would say that a second basis for the need for a National Science Foundation grows out of the fact that our geographical frontiers no longer exist. If we are to maintain an expanding economy and maintain an ever-increasing standard of living, we cannot depend, as we did in the early days of this country, upon new geographical fron