Sec. 9. Repeal.

4

"Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of

Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1962 (76 Stat. 1253) and

Section 2 of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1973 (87 Stat. 1089) are repealed.

The CHAIRMAN. Our first witness this morning will be representing the administration and will cover all general aspects of the legislation. He is Dr. H. Guy Stever, the President's science adviser and director of the National Science Foundation.

STATEMENT OF DR. H. GUYFORD STEVER, SCIENCE ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT

Dr. STEVER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is my pleasure to be here today to testify for the Administration in connection with the President's recent decision regarding the establishment of a new Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President in order to continue to strengthen the role of science and technology in this Administration. In my earlier appearances before this committee on this question I have consistently supported the concept of a strengthened science and technology presence which responds to and serves the President's needs. The proposal for the new office with the director also serving as science and technology adviser to the President is evidence that the President and his Administration are committed to the use of science and technology in decisionmaking. I urge prompt enactment of the legislation proposed by the President.

Mr. Chairman, in my testimony this morning I will first comment on the context in which this action is proposed, including a brief review of some current activities, the specifics of the Administration's proposal, and the bill introduced by you and Mr. Mosher, H.R. 4461.

As both an observer and a participant in the process of bringing science and technology into a closer and more effective relationship to Federal policies and the operation of Federal programs, it has become clear to me that there are several functions that contribute to this process, and several of those functions have been addressed by the present bill:

First: Provision of advice and counsel to the President and his toplevel staff on the scientific and technological aspects of policy questions. Second: Coordination of interagency science and technology activities, with special priority to those issues which may not be within the charter of a specific agency or may fall within the area of responsibility of several agencies, where duplicative and overlapping programs or program gaps could result.

Third: Identification of discoveries in science and engineering that may be important in dealing with major national problems.

Fourth: Advice on the distribution of R. & D. resources to insure effective utilization of national capabilities in government, industry, and academia. In this particular area, many of the members of your committee, Mr. Chairman, recognize the old saying that a budget is a policy statement and to influence the budget is a very important part of real advice to the President.

The President's proposal and the recommended legislation to create an Office of Science and Technology Policy would clearly provide for these functions to be performed in the interest of assuring effective and wise input from scientists and engineers into the decisionmaking process at the policy level.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the R. & D. capabilities of many departments and agencies have been strengthened in recent years. While there will be study and analysis carried out by the OSTP staff, it is expected that they will draw upon the mission R. & D. agencies, the Academies, the National Science Foundation, and the scientific and engineering communities for a wide range of supporting studies and policy research. It is also intended that the primary role of the department and agency leadership in directing or carrying out R. & D. be maintained and indeed strengthened. I will return to this point later in my testimony.

Mr. Chairman, deviating from the testimony, in the 2 years we have been involved in this process of science advice, we discovered that a very heavy load of study and analysis came upon us. Some of the things we have learned, I hope, will be factored into the new arrangement; and I also hope that the new Director of the OSTP and the White House will be able to work out a way of tapping the tremendous capabilities and experience of all of these groups.

As you know, I have served as science adviser during the past 2 years in addition to my duties as the Director of the National Science Foundation. It would appear appropriate, therefore, to review the actions that have been taken during this period and to assess the status of our Nation's science and technology enterprise at this point as you consider the establishment of the proposed Office of Science and Technology Policy. I believe these past 2 years have been productive, as the administration, with the support of Congress, has moved vigorously to implement program initiatives in the various fields of energy R. & D. and to expand support for basic research, particularly in the physical sciences.

During this period we have brought a new focus to emerging problems regarding the cost and availability of food and natural resources, both renewable and nonrenewable. The National Science Foundation science policy offices have played an important role in stimulating attention to the importance of R. & D. activities in such widely diverse areas as effects of fluorocarbon compounds on the atmospheric ozone layer, the quality of the technical inputs related to water treatment facility investments, materials requirements in the near-term energy program, important aspects of the tradeoffs between environmental and energy questions for atmospheric emissions from mobile and fixed sources, and better understanding of critical paths in our pursuit of the goal of energy self-sufficiency, just to name a few of the major activities.

The FCST (Federal Council for Science Technology) has been strengthened. New committees have been organized in such areas as materials, technology transfer in the domestic environment, astronomy, and the international geodynamics program. Several outdated committees or committees whose work is better done elsewhere have been terminated or transferred and the operating procedures for the Federal Council have been restructured to make it a much more effective forum for interagency dialog.

Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, in response to the question of Mr. Bell earlier, to the Vice President, concerning a central reference point for the States as to what should be done, we expect later this week at a meeting of the Federal Council for Science and Technology to issue a

200-page directory of Federal technology transfer programs for use by State and local governments and private industry. Fourteen thousand copies are being printed for distribution, and a task force already exists in the form of the Committee on Domestic Technology Transfer to continue that work.

During the past 2 years, as a result of strong administration interest and congressional support, total Federal support for the conduct of R. & D. has increased from $17.4 billion to almost $22 billion in the bills now before Congress. The 2 years I am referring to are fiscal years 1975 and 1976. This increase in Federal support for R. & D. follows a period of 7 years of little or no growth, and, Mr. Chairman, as you know, during those periods of little or no growth, the growing inflation in fact decreased the actual level of effort. In the fiscal year 1976 budget, the President has proposed a 20-percent increase in the Federal support for R. & D. In times of economic constraint, I think this attests to the President's strong commitment to R. & D.

In my view, Mr. Chairman, despite the impact of inflation, which has hit all sectors of our economy, our scientific enterprise does remain generally healthy. We been able to preserve the vigor of our research and technology effort and to insure an ability to respond to our present and emerging needs and to continue to maintain our world leadership both in terms of the scope of our efforts and in their quality. Even so, Mr. Chairman, the ratio of our effort to the efforts in other countries is definitely not as great as it was 10 or 15 years ago.

With this brief overview, Mr. Chairman, I will proceed to discuss specific points in the legislation now before your committee. The task for the new OSTP is an extremely challenging one that will, of necessity, require strong support from other parts of the executive branch. In order to appreciate the nature of this relationship, I think it will be useful to highlight the major features of the President's decision and the proposal which he has submitted to the Congress. First, the President indicated that he recognizes the importance of having a mechanism within the Executive Office that can aid in relating science and technology to the major Presidential issues that he must face. He recognizes the diversity in the content of these issues, but prefers the management responsibility for the new Office of Science and Technology Policy be vested in a single individual. The Vice President has addressed that issue and, I think, he outlined the features of it. The Director of the OSTP would also be designated as Science and Technology Adviser to the President and would have staff assistants with expertise in major disciplines or functional areas.

By the way, Mr. Chairman, I am delighted that the word "technology" is entering with science, because it is very clear that the material that was covered by past science advisers included technology in a growing proportion, and this is finally being acknowledged.

The staff of up to 15 professionals would be supported by ad hoc consultative groups of experts drawn from the science and engineering communities, both within and outside of government for specific topical assessments and by the study and analytical capabilities of the agencies, including the NSF. In answer to a member of your committee, the DSF was consulted during the composition of this legislation and included in the discussions from which it evolved.

It is expected that the new office would address both domestic and military or national security issues as appropriate and would coordinate its activities with the National Security Council in the latter area. The Director of the OSTP would also participate in those issues associated with R. & D. budgets. In the 2 years that I served, Mr. Chairman, one of the first things that I did was to check with former science advisers and others who were informed on science policy. They pointed out that having an influence on the budget was perhaps the most important thing that the science adviser could achieve and, in fact, having learned that, we set out to try to maintain that role in these 2 years.

Interagency coordination, which is becoming increasingly important as R. & D. plays a role in dealing with more and more civil sector issues, will continue to be aided by the Federal Council for Science. and Technology. The science and technology adviser to the President, or the equivalent, has traditionally served as chairman of the FCST, and it is intended that the new Director of OSTP would also be appointed to this position. I would anticipate continued efforts to make the FCST a more effective instrument for interagency coordination.

In summary, the President's proposal for the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President and the appointment of the Director as the science and technology adviser to the President should be major steps forward in improving our national capability for more effective utilization of science and technology.

Mr. Chairman, I have also been asked to comment on some of the specific provisions of H.R. 4461, legislation introduced earlier this year as part of your committee's consideration of national science and technology policy issues. First, let me compliment the chairman and Mr. Mosher for conducting, over a period of years, an extensive series of hearings on science and technology policy and the conduct of research and development. Many of the issues in science and technology have been with us for a number of years. This fact illustrates their complexity and the difficulty in dealing with them. I believe that our American system of support for research and development contributes to the inherent complexity of the issues that the committee is addressing now. I believe also that our system, which is pluralistic and associates R. & D. with the various primary missions of Federal departments and agencies, insures that we consider science as a means, which is as it should be. Thus I am not certain that it will ever be possible to construct the model science and technology policy or a large agency of science. Instead, as in other elements of our American system, there is and probably should continue to be much diversity. Again, Mr. Chairman, deviating from the testimony, I do not mean by that that the Congress and the administration shouldn't look to better organization for science and technology. I think there are lots of opportunities for that, but whether it all should go in under one umbrella is the question that I would raise. There are quite obvious combinations of agencies which would lead to the pursuit of a specific mission more effectively. Looking into the future, the similarity of the kinds of activities of a NASA and NOAA should be taken into account, and the