Science and Technology (1989) [1]

Originally Processed With FOIA(s): FOIA Number: 1998-0004-F[1]; 2005-0336-F S FOIA MARKER This is not a textual record. This is used as an administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential Library Staff. Record Group/Collection: George H.W. Bush Presidential Records Collection/Office of Origin: Chief of Staff, White House Office of Series: Sununu, John, Files Subseries: White House Offices Files OA/ID Number: 29183 Folder ID Number: 29183-003 Folder Title: Science and Technology (1989) [1] Stack: Row: Section: Shelf: Position: G 15 25 5 7 Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet (George Bush Library) Doc. No. / Type Subject/Title Date Restriction Classification 01a. Memo From D. Allan Bromley to John Sununu 11/3/89 Re: New, Nov 1, EPA Regulations on Radionuclide Emissions (1 pp.) 01b. Report EPA Radionuclide Emission Standard (1 pp.) n.d. 02. Memo From D. Allan Bromley to John Sununu 10/13/89 P Re: Mexican S&T Bilateral (1 pp.) 03a. Memo From D. Allan Bromley to John Sununu 9/22/89 Re: Possible S&T Cooperation w/Mexico (1 pp.) 03b. Memo From D. Allan Bromley to POTUS 9/22/89 Re: Possible Head of State S&T Initiative in Mexico (2 pp.) 04a. Memo From D. Allan Bromley to John Sununu 9/22/89 Re: Possible S&T Cooperation w/Mexico (1 pp.) 04b. Memo From D. Allan Bromley to POTUS 9/22/89 Re: Possible Head of State S&T Initiative in Mexico (2 pp.) 05a. Memo From D. Allan Bromley to John Sununu 9/20/89 Re: PCAST (1 pp.) Page 1 of 3 Collection: Record Group: Bush Presidential Records Office: Chief of Staff to the President, Office of the Series: Sununu, John, Files Subseries: White House Offices File WHORM Cat.: File Location: Science and Technology (1989) [1] Pinksheet Number: KO0524 OA/ID Number: 29183-003 Date Closed: 12/1/2004 FOIA/Sys Case #: 1998-0004-F[1] Re-review Case #: 2005-0426-S P-2/P-5 Review Case #: Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet (George Bush Library) Doc. No. / Type Subject/Title Date Restriction Classification 05b. Memo From D. Allan Bromley to POTUS 9/14/89 Re: Presidential Approval of Members for the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (CAST) (1 pp.) 05c. List From D. Allan Bromley to POTUS 9/14/89 (b)(6) List of Nominees for the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (CAST) (4 pp.) 06a. Memo From D. Allan Bromley to John Sununu 9/19/89 1989 Presidential Awards for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Teaching (1 pp.) 06b. List From D. Allan Bromley to John Sununu 9/19/89 (b)(6) List of Recommended Awardees for 1989 Presidential Awards for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Teaching (12 pp.) 07. Note From POTUS to Allan Bromley 9/9/89 P-5 Re: Your Memo of Aug 31 (2 pp.) 08. Memo From Allan Bromley to POTUS 8/31/89 P-5 Re: Background Information on the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) (8 pp.) 09a. Memo From Allan Bromley to John Sununu 5/12/89 Re: The President's Council of Science and Technology Advisors (2 pp.) Page 2 of 3 Collection: Record Group: Bush Presidential Records Office: Chief of Staff to the President, Office of the Series: Sununu, John, Files Subseries: White House Offices File WHORM Cat.: File Location: Science and Technology (1989) [1] Pinksheet Number: KO0524 OA/ID Number: 29183-003 Date Closed: 12/1/2004 FOIA/Sys Case #: 1998-0004-F[1] Re-review Case #: 2005-0426-S P-2/P-5 Review Case #: Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet (George Bush Library) Doc. No. / Type Subject/Title Date Restriction Classification 09b. List From Allan Bromley to John Sununu 5/12/89 (b)(6) Re: Suggested Nominees for the President's Council of Science and Technology Advisors (3 pp.) 10. List Candidates for Deputy Secretary for Science and Technology, n.d. (b)(6) Department of Commerce (1 pp.) 11. List Candidates for Director, National Institutes of Health (1 pp.) n.d. (b)(6) 12. Memo From Allan Bromley to John Sununu 5/18/89 P-5 Re: Council of Science and Technology Advisors (2 pp.) 13. Memo From Allan Bromley to John Sununu 5/18/89 P-5 Re: OSTP Changes (3 pp.) 14. Memo From William Graham to Brent Scowcroft 6/2/89 P-5 Re: Background for Discussion of Cooperation on S&T Matters Between the NSC and OSTP (3 pp.) 15. Memo From William Graham to John Sununu, Brent Scowcroft 4/20/89 X Re: Sixth U.S.-China Joint Commission Meeting (3 pp.) 16. Memo From Allan Bromley to John Sununu 5/12/89 (b)(6) Re: Listing of Senior Science and Technology Positions in the U.S. Government (2 pp.) Page 3 of 3 Collection: Record Group: Bush Presidential Records Office: Chief of Staff to the President, Office of the Series: Sununu, John, Files Subseries: White House Offices File WHORM Cat.: File Location: Science and Technology (1989) [1] Pinksheet Number: KO0524 OA/ID Number: 29183-003 Date Closed: 12/1/2004 FOIA/Sys Case #: 1998-0004-F[1] Re-review Case #: 2005-0426-S P-2/P-5 Review Case #: 7/ THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON has THE seen CHIEF of STAFF December 28, 1989 MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN H. SUNUNU FROM: D. ALLAN BROMLEY Anan SUBJECT: CARNEGIE COMMISSION STUDIES The Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government -- established in April 1988 and funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York -- has sponsored several studies to assess the process by which scientific and technical knowledge are incorporated into governmental decision making. Studies completed or underway relate to the judicial and legislative branches of government, as well as the executive branch. Perhaps the best known report is the October 1988 one on "Science and Technology and the President." A copy is attached. Currently underway is another study on "Improving the Research and Analysis Capability of the Office of Science and Technology Policy," with a report expected in the first quarter of 1990. A copy of the plan for this study is also attached. I welcome the interest of this distinguished Commission in carrying out such a study, and hope its report will be useful. I shall share that report with you as well when it is available, should you be interested. In the meantime, I would welcome any comments you have have on the October 1988 report. Attachments of THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON November 29, 1989 MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN H. SUNUNU FROM: D. ALLAN BROMLEY Duar SUBJECT: American Academy of Achievement Many thanks for your letter of October 2, which was somehow delayed in transmission, in which you invite me to join you and a very distinguished group for the 29th annual Salute to Excellence weekend in Chicago. I shall be most happy to join you on this occasion and will take this occasion to express to you, to Brent and to Leon Lederman my appreciation of the honor that the Awards Council selection conveys. Governor - See attached le SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 11-30-89 ; 4:12PM ; 2023953261-> 2024562397;# 2 AMERICAN GOLDEN PLATE AWARDS COUNCIL* WALTER H. ANNENBERG Publiching and Public Service EDWARD ASNER Seven Emmy Awarda ACADEMY OF ACHIEVEMENT ERMA BOMBECK Author and Humarial DR. HERBERT W. BOYER Ca-Founder, Genenrech Inc. HON. JIMMY CARTER 39th President of the United States JOHNNY CASH Country Music ADM. WILLIAM J. CROWE, JR. Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff MICHAEL E. DeBAKEY, M.D. Oardiovascular Surgery WILLIAM C. DeVRIES. M.D. NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS: P.O. BOX 4089 MALIBU, CALIFORNIA 90265 (213) 457-8052 Artificial Haan implanation OLIVIA DE HAVILLAND Rive Obtain for *Bout Actress" CLINT EASTWOOD Motion Picture Preduction WAYNE R. REYNOLDS AHMET M. ERTEGUN Executive Director Recording industry SUZANNE FARRELL Dr. D. Allan Bromley Ballerina Extraordinaire HON. GERALD R. FORD A.W. Wright Nuclear Structure Laboratory 3818 President of the United States JOHN FORSYTHE Yale University October 2, 1989 Television Production DR. MURRAY GELL-MANN New Haven, Connecticut 06520 Nobal Prime in Physics GORDON P. GETTY Composer and Patron of the Arts DR. SHELDON L. GLASHOW Dear Dr. Bromley: Nobel Prize in Physics ROBERTO c. GOIZUETA Chairmen. The Coos-Cola Company DR. STEPHEN JAY GOULD On behalf of the American Academy of Achievement, we have the privilege of extending to Evolutionary Theorier ALAN C. GREENBERG Bear, Co. you this Invitation to be a guest of honor at the 29th annual Salute to Excellence weekend WAYNE GRETZKY Hockey's Moet Valuable Player program In Chicago, Illinois, June 28-30, 1990. The occasion will culminate with a black-tle CHRISTOPHER B. HEMMETER Real Estate Development Banquet of the Golden Plate on the evening of Saturday, June 30, at the Chicago Hilton Hotel JIM HENSON Creator of The Mupper' & Towers. WILLIAM R, HEWLETT Co-Founder, Howiest-Packard DR. ROBERT HOFSTADTER Nebal Prize in Physica Fifty eminent "exemplars of excellence" 25 of the Academy's Illustrious past honorees now GEN. DAVID c. JONES. USAF Former Chairman, Jaint Chiefs serving on the Golden Plate Awards Council and 25 new guests of honor - each a QUINCY JONES 68 directly Nominations "representative of the many who excel" in his chosen profession, will meet one another In a MAX M. KAMPELMAN Law and Public Service unique gathering of leaders and innovators. HENRY R. KRAVIS Kahiberg Kravis Roberts & Co. DR. LEON M. LEDERMAN Nobal Prize in Physics SAMUEL J. LEFRAK During the Salute program, the adult guests of honor will share their experiences with 450 Real Estate Development SOL M. LINOWITZ brilliant young scholars, the most outstanding high school honor students from all 50 states. Law and Public Service WYNTON MARSALIS Jan Musician ROBERT K. MASSIE On the final evening, each guest of honor will be presented with the Golden Plate Award...as Pullizer Prize for Biagraphy MICHAEL R. MILKEN a memento of his role In an Inspiring and unforgettable occasion. Finance EDMUND MORRIS Pulitar Prize for Biography PAUL H. NITZE The 1990 events -- getting underway with the Reception and Dinner on Thursday evening, Arms Centrol Advisor JOSEPH PAPP June 28 - will also include the symposlum series (where each honoree may reminisce on Theatrical Production DR. LINUS c. PAULING career highlights), and outings/tours/dinners at The Art Institute of Chicago, Wrigley Field, Recipient of Two Nobel Priza DR. ARNO A, PENZIAS and the Museum of Science and Industry. Nobel Prize in Physics GEN. COLIN L. POWELL Milliary and Public Service LEONTYNE PRICE National Medal at Area The Academy will be pleased to host each guest of honor (and spouse) at the Chicago Hilton LLOYD RICHARDS Theatrical Direction Hotel & Towers. The Academy will also provide your plane transportation. DR. HENRY ROSOVSKY Education and Economics STEVEN J. ROSS Chairman, Warner Communications The Academy looks forward to your participation in this 29th annual program - ideally for the DIANE SAWYER Procident Joumaham full program, but at the convenience of your schedule If that is not manageable. We DR. ARTHUR L. SCHAWLOW Nobol Prize in Physica congratulate you on your selection. ARTHUR M. SCHLESINGER, JR. Recipient of Two Pulltzer Prizes GEN. BRENT SCOWCROFT Military and Public Service FOR THE GOLDEN PLATE AWARDS COUNCIL DR. GLENN T. SEABORG Nebel Price in Chemistry HON. WILLIAM 8. SESSIONS Director of the FBI WILLIAM E, SIMON Business and Public Service HON. JOHN J. SIRICA Watergate That Judge WILLIAM FRENCH SMITH leaver Law and Public Service STEVEN SPIELBERG Motion Plature Production JAMES STEWART Owner for Batt Actor" ELIZABETH TAYLOR Two Oscare for "Best Aptress" DR. EDWARD TELLER Gen. Brent Scowcroft John H. Sununu Dr. Leon M. Lederman Nuclear Physics DR. CHARLES H. TOWNES 1988 Honoree 1989 Honoree 1982 Honoree Nobel Prize in Physics HERSCHEL WALKER Feotball All-Amarican GEN. VERNON A. WALTERS Milliary and Public Service DR. JAMES D. WATSON Nobel Prize in Madicine HON. WILLIAM H. WEBSTER Director of Central imelligence DR. ROBERT A. WEINBERG Cancer Research AUGUST WILSON Pulliser Price for Drams A non-profit, tax-exempt organization, dedicated to the Inspiration of Youth--to raise their sights high; GEN. CHUCK YEAGER, USAF Aviation Hall of Fame to excel in their endeavors--through the dramatic annual salute at the Banquet of the Golden Plate.. "partial list. Each member is a past recipient of the Golden Plate Award. to Captains of Achievement from America's great walks of life and honor students from across the nation. THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON November 3, 1989 MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN H. SUNUNU FROM: D. ALLAN BROMLEY Auan SUBJECT: NEW, NOVEMBER 1, EPA REGULATIONS ON RADIONUCLIDE EMISSIONS A great deal of controversy surrounds EPA's promulgation of their new standard on radionuclides where it concerns NRC-licensees. A 90-day stay for reconsideration of this category of emitters was requested but the justification given was focused mainly on the nuclear medicine facilities alone. The main issue should have been the dual regulating of all the NRC-licensed facilities by EPA as well as by the NRC. Some would argue that the best way to handle the situation now, is to have a jointly signed letter go to the Congress requesting legislation to eliminate dual regulation for radionuclides. The sponsors of the letter would be NRC, DOE, NIH, and EPA. (EPA agrees to do this but they have a different text than the other agencies.) Since a similar tactic was used for mixed waste and could never get resolved by Congress, I don't believe this process has any chance of success -- no matter how many stays EPA requests from the Court. When the stays cease, EPA will then have to regulate unless the Court rules otherwise. UNLIKELY! I believe there is a way to resolve this problem. It is a regulatory, not legislative, solution. My staff informs me that OMB's regulatory oversight group (OIRA) can require EPA to submit to OMB's OIRA the technical justification for such dual regulation of the NRC-licensees. A reason such as EPA gave in their new regulation (see attached) -- "EPA has decided to regulate this category to insure that the current levels of emissions are not increased." -- does not form the basis for the duplication and redundancy the dual monitoring would create. Assuming EPA cannot make an adequate justification, OIRA can then require the removal of that category -- NRC-licensees -- from these new radionuclide regulations. Attachments EPA's Radionuclide Emission Standard SYNOPSIS: Released 11/1/89 sets a 10m rem/yr limit on nuclear licensees' radionuclide emissions. A 90-day stay for reconsideration (with a 60-day comment period) was requsted for NRC licensees, ostensibly due to "recent" input from NIH and NRC regarding duplicative regulation and negative effects of the rule on medical treatment. However, the wording of the stay is unclear whether nuclear power plants are included in the reconsideration. CONCERNS UNDER THE NEW RULE: Dual regulation of nuclear power facilities would continue. Additionally, states may seize the opportunity to set more stringent limits. This rule sets an emissions limit despite EPA having determined that the risks from our plants "are acceptable" (p. 73 of new rule). However, other source categories with acceptable risks were not regulated under the Benzene policy, which EPA cites as its fundmental policy. In addition, this ruling appears to be counter to the intent of the Clean Air Act which requires regulation to be based on control of risk. The reason given by EPA for setting a limit for nuclear plants is "to insure that the current levels of emissions are not increased" (p. 77 of new rule). No justification is provided to substantiate the basis for that speculation. ALARA applies to nuclear plants under NRC rules. EPA recently has been expressing concern to avoid dual regulation, but their actions indicate they insist on EPA regulation of all emissions despite creation of a dual regulation situation. EPA appears unwilling to agree with NRC, DOE, and HHS in preparing a joint letter to Congress on the inadvisability of dual regulation and asking Congress to resolve. NRC, DOE, and HHS are clearly in support of eliminating dual regulation. RESOLUTION: EPA should decide that the existing EPA and NRC regulations for radionuclide emissions from commercial nuclear power plants and fuel fabrication facilities are properly controlling the public health risks. Additional regulation for these facilities should not be imposed because it will expend regulatory and industry resources and will not result in human health benefit. This approach 1s proper because 1) it complies with the Clean Air Act, 2) complies with the court's ruling in the Vinyl Chloride Case, and 3) the current EPA and NRC regulations very effectively control the risks for nuclear power plants. 10 mrem/y ede, will protect public health with an ample margin of safety. EPA has decided to regulate this category to insure that the current levels of emissions are not increased. The requirements of the rule assure that UFC facilities will keep emissions at or below the level of the standard, thereby insuring an ample margin of safety. The reporting provisions also provide the public with information on the emissions from the facility and provides them with assurance that the emissions will remain safe with an ample margin of safety, regardless of changes in the facility or the local population. Moreover, because each facility subject to this rule must demonstrate compliance with the 10 mrem/y ede emissions standard, it is likely that most, if not all, exposed individuals will receive a dose significantly less than 10 mrem/y ede. Therefore, EPA is promulgating a NESHAP mandating that radionuclide emissions from UFC facilities shall not cause any individual to receive a dose greater than 10 mrem/y ede. 4. Implementation EPA has determined that the same level of regulation is appropriate for both UFC facilities and NRC- licensees. Therefore, EPA has removed the exemption for UFC facilities in the NRC-licensee NESHAP and will regulate them exactly the same as other licensees, including reporting and recordkeeping requirements. EPA approves the use of the current version of NRC regulatory guidances for use in determining the emissions from 77 S THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON October 13, 1989 MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN H. SUNUNU FROM: D. ALLAN BROMLEY SUBJECT: Mexican S&T Bilateral Enclosed herewith is a copy of my earlier memorandum on this matter, as requested. Unfortunately, it was overtaken by the Salinas visit, but I remain convinced that it is a good idea, subject to the criteria outlined. It also highlights the importance of OSTP getting into the loop early enough with respect to such visits -- where science and technology matters may be involved -- so that we can do the necessary staff work so that the President can be adequately briefed -- or protected from surprises. Attachment CIMON vun Environmental Protection Public Attains (A-107) Agency Washington DO 20460 EPA Environmental News FOR RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1989 EPA SETS NEW RULES FOR RADIOACTIVITY FROM INDUSTRIAL SOURCES Dave Ryan (202) 382-2981 Final rules controlling radon and other radionuclide emissions from. industrial sources such as nuclear weapons plants, nuclear power plants and uranium mines were announced today by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A radionuclide is a type of atom which spontaneously disintegrates into a different atom. People are exposed every day to radionuclides from a variety of natural and manmade sources. Natural sources of radiation include cosmic rays, radon gas and other terrestrial sources. Manmade sources include medical and dental x-rays, fallout from above-ground nuclear weapons testing and industrial facilities. Today's air pollution rules apply only to airborne releases from industrial facilities. Industry uses hundreds of different radionuclides in solid, liquid and gaseous forms. Industrial radionuclide emissions occur either as a result of an inability to contain the radioactive materials or as an unintended consequence of other activity, such as radionuclide emissions (usually radon) from mining or milling. An example of this second category is phosphogypsum piles. These piles emit radon because radium (from which radon gas is produced by radioactive decay) is found naturally in the same soils that are the source of phosphate rock. "Today's rules will protect public health from the risks of industrial radioactivity, said William G. Rosenberg, EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. "As a result of these regulations, over 90 percent of all Americans in the vicinity of these industries will have less than one chance in a million of contracting fatal cancer from radionuclides." Numerous studies have demonstrated that radiation is a carcinogen. Although hereditary and developmental effects were considered in this rulemaking, cancer generally occurs more often and its effects are more severe. EPA believes that the level of protection mandated by this rule against cancer is sufficiently stringent to protect against hereditary and developmental effects. (more) -2- Rosenberg expressed frustration with the hurdles EPA must overcome in protecting the public from radioactive and other hazardous air pollutant risks: "Radionuclides provide a good example of the difficulties EPA faces in trying to reduce hazardous air emissions under the existing Clean Air Act. EPA officially designated radionuclides as hazardous air pollutants in 1979 and proposed standards for them in 1983. Yet lengthy litigation and related battles on health risk assessment issues has meant it's taken 10 years to get final rules on the books. "Since the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, EPA, despite its best efforts, has been able to regulate only eight hazardous air pollutants. Reducing hazardous emissions under the current legislative structure and various court mandates is a lengthy, complex and cumbersome process, due in part to unresolved debate on acceptable levels of risk. The air toxics portion of President Bush's clean air proposal is a much better way to go. The President's bill gives Americans significant protection from toxic emissions right up front through the use of maximum achievable pollution-control technology. I urge speedy Congressional action to pass the President's bill to give Americans the health and environmental protection they want." Today's rule covers an estimated 6300 facilities in the following source categories: Source Category Approximate number of active facilities 1. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6000 and non-Department of Energy federal facilities 2. Nuclear power reactors & 135 their support facilities 3. Disposal of uranium-mill 46 tailings piles 4. Department of Energy 45 facilities 3. Phosphogypsum piles 40 6. Licensed uranium-mill- 4 tailings piles 7. Elemental phosphorus 5 plants (more) -3- 8. Department of Energy radon 5 sources 9. Underground uranium mines 15 These final regulations are issued under authority of the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants provision of the Clean Air Act (Section 112). Under this section, EPA is required to establish emission standards for hazardous air pollutants at a level which provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health. Radionuclides are the second set of hazardous air pollutant regulations issued (after those set for benzene in August) since the landmark 1987 ruling by the Federal Appeals Court of Washington, D.C., on vinyl chloride. In that decision, the court mandated a two-step process for regulating hazardous air pollutants under Section 112. In the first step, EPA must establish an "acceptable" level of risk based solely on health considerations. In the second step, the Agency must then set enforceable standards that provide an "ample margin of safety" to the public. In determining the ample margin of safety, EPA may take pollution-control costs and technological feasibility into consideration. The final enforceable standard developed in the second step can be tougher, but not weaker than, the "acceptable" level of risk developed in the first step. In protecting public health with an ample margin of safety under this rule, EPA is seeking to protect the greatest number of people possible, BO that their lifetime risk of developing cancer from these sources is less than one in a million. EPA is limiting the estimated risk of a person living in close proximity to a radionuclide emission source to no greater than approximately one in 10,000, assuming that person was exposed to the maximum pollutant concentrations for 70 years. The NRC-licensees source category covers a large variety of different types of facilities licensed to process radioactive material, including hospitals, radiopharmaceutical manufactureres, laboratories and research reactors. EPA has granted a reconsideration on this source category due to some recent information supplied by NRC and the National Institute of Health, indicating that this rule may adversely affect the ability of some medical facilities to use certain types of radiotherapy. In addition, the reconsideration will examine ways to reduce the regulatory burden caused by the dual regulation of these facilities by EPA and NRC. EPA is also issuing a 3 month stay of this part of the rule as provided in the Clean Air Act. (more) -4- Besides radionuclides, EPA has proposed or set final uniform, national hazardous air pollutant emission standards for asbestos, beryllium, mercury, vinyl chloride, arsenic, benzene and coke oven emissions. The final rules will appear soon in the Federal Register. For further information, contact Terrence McLaughlin, Environmental Standards Branch, Criteria and Standards Division (ANR-460), Office of Radiation Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460; or call 202-475-9610. ### THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON September 22, 1989 MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN SUNUNU 345 FROM: D. ALLAN BROMLEY SUBJECT: POSSIBLE S&T COOPERATION WITH MEXICO Enclosed herewith is a self explanatory memorandum for the President following upon a request from President Salinas of Mexico, transmitted through his Science Minister, Guillerano Soberon, who met with me recently. I think that the proposed cooperation merits our support. THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON September 22, 1989 MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT FROM: D. ALLAN BROMLEY DAR. SUBJECT: POSSIBLE HEAD OF STATE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE IN MEXICO President Salinas of Mexico has instructed his Minister for Science, Professor Guillermo Soberon, to discuss with me the possible preliminary steps that might lead, if you approve, to the establishment of a Head of State initiative in science and technology similar to those that President Reagan established with Indira Gandhi in 1982, and with Jose Sarney in 1986. Soberon has proposed that he and a few of his associates meet with me prior to President Salinas visit with you early this October to try to agree on four or five areas of possible cooperation and that you and President Salinas might then wish to make the formal establishment of initiative part of your agenda for the meeting. I have obtained such as, Soberon's agreement that the four principal criteria that would govern the choice of areas of science and technology to be selected are these: 1. That both countries bring a record of solid achievement to the cooperation so that it is quite apparent that we have a cooperation between, in some sense, equals and not foreign aid or anything similar 2. That both countries have a demonstrated need for new knowledge and progress in the selected area 3. That there be a realistic expectation of concrete results from the cooperation within àn 18 to 24 month period so that initial interest and momentum can be maintained 4. That the areas be generally perceived as sufficiently important, at both national and international levels, to merit Head of State attention. If you approve, in principle, with this possibility I shall move forward with the necessary preliminaries. We have relatively little time but, I would recommend that we open this new channel of communication with Mexico because once established and working my experience in both the Indo-U.S. and Brazil-U.S. cases has been that the channel can be broadened to encompass issues that are fundamentally more troublesome politically than the initial, relatively value-free, issues of science and technology. THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON September 22, 1989 MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN SUNUNU ans FROM: D. ALLAN BROMLEY SUBJECT: POSSIBLE S&T COOPERATION WITH MEXICO Enclosed herewith is a self explanatory memorandum for the President following upon a request from President Salinas of Mexico, transmitted through his Science Minister, Guillerano Soberon, who met with me recently. I think that the proposed cooperation merits our support. THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON September 22, 1989 MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT FROM: D. ALLAN BROMLEY SUBJECT: POSSIBLE HEAD OF STATE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE IN MEXICO President Salinas of Mexico has instructed his Minister for Science, Professor Guillermo Soberon, to discuss with me the possible preliminary steps that might lead, if you approve, to the establishment of a Head of State initiative in science and technology similar to those that President Reagan established with Indira Gandhi in 1982, and with Jose Sarney in 1986. Soberon has proposed that he and a few of his associates meet with me prior to President Salinas visit with you early this October to try to agree on four or five areas of possible cooperation and that you and President Salinas might then wish to make the formal establishment of initiative part of your agenda for the meeting. I have obtained such as, Soberon's agreement that the four principal criteria that would govern the choice of areas of science and technology to be selected are these: 1. That both countries bring a record of solid achievement to the cooperation so that it is quite apparent that we have a cooperation between, in some sense, equals and not foreign aid or anything similar 2. That both countries have a demonstrated need for new knowledge and progress in the selected area 3. That there be a realistic expectation of concrete results from the cooperation within an 18 to 24 month period so that initial interest and momentum can be maintained 4. That the areas be generally perceived as sufficiently important, at both national and international levels, to merit Head of State attention. If you approve, in principle, with this possibility I shall move forward with the necessary preliminaries. We have relatively little time but, I would recommend that we open this new channel of communication with Mexico because once established and working my experience in both the Indo-U.S. and Brazil-U.S. cases has been that the channel can be broadened to encompass issues that are fundamentally more troublesome politically than the initial, relatively value-free, issues of science and technology. THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON September 20, 1989 MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN SUNUNU FROM: D. ALLAN BROMLEY МБ SUBJECT: PCAST The Executive Order that we found to be essential for the establishment of PCAST has worked its way laboriously through the system. Two weeks ago it finally got to Jim Cicconi's office and he sent it out for final EOP reviews. I hope that it will be available for Presidential signature within a matter of days. I would like to meet with the President to discuss where we are and a few issues relating to making PCAST finally operational. I have kept in touch with the members we had previously agreed upon (in June) and all remain willing to serve if, and when, invited to do so. I sent a list of these names to Jim Cicconi at his request in the prescribed Presidential approval format; a copy is enclosed here so that you do not have to try to find yours. I consider it very important both for the President and for science and technology that we get PCAST functioning as soon as possible and would much appreciate your help. Enclosure EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506 September 14, 1989 ACTION MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT SHOE FROM: D. ALLAN BROMLEY SUBJECT: PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL OF MEMBERS FOR THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (PCAST) I. ACTION-FORCING EVENT: The names of 12 persons are being submitted for your approval as members of the new President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). Upon approval, these individuals will undergo the normal clearance process for members of a Presidential Council. II. ANALYSIS: The formation of PCAST is one of the Presidential initiatives outlined in Building a Better America. Pursuant to our meeting on June 23, 1989, we discussed the membership for PCAST. During that meeting, you gave verbal agreement to a list (attached) of candidate members. I am now seeking your formal approval of these individuals. III. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend approval of the attached list of candidate members. IV. DECISION: approve approve as amended reject no action Attachment A - List, candidate members Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet (George Bush Library) Document No. Subject/Title of Document Date Restriction Class. and Type 05c. List From D. Allan Bromley to POTUS 9/14/89 (b)(6) List of Nominees for the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (CAST) (4 pp.) Collection: Record Group: Bush Presidential Records Office: Chief of Staff to the President, Office of the Series: Sununu, John, Files Subseries: White House Offices File WHORM Cat.: File Location: Science and Technology (1989) [1] Date Closed: 12/1/2004 OA/ID Number: 29183-003 FOIA/SYS Case #: 1998-0004-F[1] Appeal Case #: Re-review Case #: 2005-0426-S Appeal Disposition: P-2/P-5 Review Case #: Disposition Date: AR Case #: MR Case #: AR Disposition: MR Disposition: AR Disposition Date: MR Disposition Date: RESTRICTION CODES Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)] Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)] P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA] (b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA] P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA] (b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA] agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA] P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or (b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA] financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA] (b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President information [(b)(4) of the FOIA] and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA] (b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA] personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA] (b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA] C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of (b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of gift. financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA] (b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile. THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON September 19, 1989 MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN H. SUNUNU FROM: CHIEF OF STAFF TO DAB THE PRESIDENT D. ALLAN BROMLEY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SUBJECT: 1989 PRESIDENTIAL AWARDS FOR EXCELLENCE IN SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS TEACHING. The enclosed package is self explanatory and I wanted to be sure that you were kept informed as we proceed. All the listed teachers have been cleared by White House Security (we did have to eliminate two candidates who turned out to have police records!) and I hope to have the alternates cleared by COB tomorrow. I would ask your help in making sure that this comes to the President's attention -- and, in particular, -- convincing the President to participate in the Opening Ceremony at NAS on October 24. Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet (George Bush Library) Document No. Subject/Title of Document Date Restriction Class. and Type 06b. List From D. Allan Bromley to John Sununu 9/19/89 (b)(6) List of Recommended Awardees for 1989 Presidential Awards for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Teaching (12 pp.) Collection: Record Group: Bush Presidential Records Office: Chief of Staff to the President, Office of the Series: Sununu, John, Files Subseries: White House Offices File WHORM Cat.: File Location: Science and Technology (1989) [1] Date Closed: 12/1/2004 OA/ID Number: 29183-003 FOIA/SYS Case #: 1998-0004-F[1] Appeal Case #: Re-review Case #: 2005-0426-S Appeal Disposition: P-2/P-5 Review Case #: Disposition Date: AR Case #: MR Case #: AR Disposition: MR Disposition: AR Disposition Date: MR Disposition Date: RESTRICTION CODES Presidential Records Act [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)] Freedom of Information Act [5 U.S.C. 552(b)] P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA] (b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA] P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA] (b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA] agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA] P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or (b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA] financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA] (b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President information [(b)(4) of the FOIA] and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA] (b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA] personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA] (b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA] C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of (b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of gift. financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA] (b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile. THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON September 18 1989 ACTION 1989 OCT -3 PM 2: 19 1989 OCT -3 PM MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT FROM: D. ALLAN BROMLEY DAB. SUBJECT: PRESIDENTIAL AWARDS FOR EXCELLENCE IN SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS TEACHING I. ACTION-FORCING EVENT: The names of 112 persons who have been nominated to receive this year's Presidential Award for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Teaching are submitted herewith for your approval. If approved, brief remarks by you at the Opening Ceremony activities and an appearance, together with the Vice President in the Rose Garden during the teacher's V.I.P. White House tour would be much appreciated by the awardees. II. ANALYSIS: The Presidential Award for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Teaching was established in 1983 and represents the highest honor that any science or mathematics teacher can receive. President Reagan greeted the teachers on the South Lawn in 1984 and 1985, and in the EOB ceremonies in 1987. In 1986, you, as Vice President participated in the White House Ceremony. With the Governor's Summit now scheduled for September 27-28, your participation and that of the Vice President's would reinforce the importance you have placed on the nation's educational activities. I hope you will recommend that the Vice President also participates in this important event. III. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend approval of the attached list of nominees, and would request that you participate in the Opening Ceremony and that you receive the awardees in the Rose Garden during the V.I.P. White House tour. IV. DECISION: approve approve as amended -reject no action Attachment A - Memo, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology Attachment B - Approval, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology Attachment C - Tentative Awards Ceremony Schedule - October 23-27, 1989 Camp Dand 9-9-89 THE PRESIDENT To Allan B romley Re: You Memo of Aug 31 I read your 8-31 with intent, not understanding all the science but fascounted by the concept. what is the plan for getting foreign participation The mather did not come up with the Japanese. amm the uncertainty there it might be hert to wait for the Japarese electrons. Thank for the good paper. GB/ THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON September 18, 1989 MEMORANDUM TO THE PRESIDENT FROM: D.. ALLAN BROMLEY DAB. SUBJECT: 1989 Presidential Awards for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Teaching Beginning in 1983, each year outstanding high school teachers in each state and territory - one in science and one in mathematics - have been selected by a high level review panel to receive Presidential awards. They are considered as representatives of all the excellent teachers in the U.S. education system and the program emphasizes this representa- tional aspect. Each year roughly 100 teachers are brought to Washington, as your guests, to receive their awards, to participate in an Honors Workshop, and to attend several special functions arranged in their honor. The National Science Foundation covers the costs involved and the Office of Science and Technology Policy collaborates closely with NSF in the organization and implementation of the program. I enclose a summary schedule for the 1989 event - now tentatively scheduled for October 23-27. If it is possible, your brief welcoming and congratulatory remarks to the teachers at the Opening Ceremony on Tuesday October 24, at 7:00 pm, at the National Academy of Science, would be much appreciated. Your brief appearance together with the Vice President Wednesday afternoon (October 25) in the Rose Garden, during the teacher's V.I.P tour of the White House would, perhaps, provide a further opportunity to highlight the importance of their contributions to the Nation. I consider this a very important program in giving recognition, nationwide, to a truly endangered species. THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON September 18, 1989 ACTION MEMORANDUM FOR D. ALLAN BROMLEY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FROM: JACKELINE J. CLAWSON SUBJECT: PRESIDENTIAL AWARDS FOR EXCELLENCE IN SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS TEACHING I. ACTION-FORCING EVENT: The names of 112 persons who have been nominated to receive this year's Presidential Award for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Teaching are submitted herewith for your approval. When approved, they will be forwarded to the President for approval. II. ANALYSIS: Established in 1983, the awards are given to 104 teachers, two from each state, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Changes in legislation in 1988 increased the awards to 108, including two from the U.S. Trust Territories and Department of Defense Dependents' School. Due to late 1988 legislation in regards to funding appropriations, the additional four awardees for 1988 were held over for presentation in 1989 (Background information attached). This award represents the highest honor that any science or mathematics teacher can receive in the United States. President Reagan greeted the teachers on the south lawn in 1984 and 1985, and in the EOB ceremonies in 1987. In 1986, the Vice President participated in the White House Ceremony. With the Governors Summit in September, The President's and Vice President's participation would reinforce the importance the Administration has put on the nation's education. Your recommendation to the President and Vice President for their participation in the award activities would be appreciated. III. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend approval of the attached list of nominees, the forwarding of the awardees list to the President for approval of scheduling, and a personal request to the President and Vice President to participate in the award activities as tentatively scheduled. IV. DECISION: approve approve as amended reject no action 9/28/89 Revision 1989 PRESIDENTIAL AWARDS FOR EXCELLENCE IN SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS TEACHING Tentative Schedule for Awards Week October 23-27, 1989 Monday, October 23 4:30 pm - 6:00 pm Registration (Mayflower Hotel) 6:00 pm - 8:00 pm Buffet and Orientation (Mayflower Hotel) Tuesday, October 24 9:30 am - 11:30 am Awards Ceremony (Rose Garden or EOB Room 450) 11:30 am - 1:00 pm Reception and Press Interviews (Renwick Gallery) 1:30 pm - 2:30 pm V.I.P. Tour of White House 2:30 pm - 5:00 pm Visits to Congress and/or Free Time 6:00 pm - 6:30 pm Photo Session (National Academy of Sciences) 6:30 pm - 9:30 pm Ceremony and Reception (National Academy of Sciences) Wednesday, October 25 8:30 am - 3:30 pm Honors Workshop (Mayflower Hotel) 6:00 pm - 9:30 pm Reception and Banquet at State Department (Benjamin Franklin Room) Thursday, October 26 7:30 am - 11:30 am Breakfast Meetings by Discipline 12:30 pm - 4:30 pm Planned Tours and/or Free Time 6:00 pm - 9:00 pm Reception and Dinner with Cooperating Organizations (Mayflower Hotel) Friday, October 27 8:30 am - 11:30 am National Science Foundation Breakfast Banquet and Meeting (Mayflower Hotel) Afternoon Visits to Congress and/or Free Time THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON 89 AUG I P12 : 04 August 31, 1989 THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN INFORMATION 9/11/89 MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT FROM: D. Allan Bromley DAB SUBJECT: Background Information on the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) I. SUMMARY The SSC is a large, expensive, accelerator construction V project requiring over $1 billion in funds from other nations for completion. It is the single largest research instrument ever proposed. A complete background on what the SSC is, how it fits within the spectrum of currently designed or in-use high energy physics particle accelerators, and a sketch of present plans for international cost-sharing is presented. II. DISCUSSION Attached is a fairly long paper on high energy physics and the SSC construction project; the key aspects are covered in a one page summary. The major reason for providing you with this information at this time is that, as noted in my recent did memorandum, OSTP staff have been informed of the possibility that the Japanese Prime Minister will bring up with you the issue of his eountry's financial participation in the SSC. = Several recent developments make this likely: toy Both Houses of Congress have finally declared support for SSC construction. of The SSC Laboratory in Texas has been established and has begun the real design and development work of the project. The leadership in the Japanese Government has changed to one interested in excellent relations with the United States. Several other countries -- including Canada and the European nations supporting The European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Switzerland -- are asking the Japanese for substantial contributions to their own high energy physics accelerator facilities. International support for the SSC has been, from the outset, an integral part of this Administration's proposal to build this high energy physics facility. Visible Presidential support for this concept of international ready cooperation is essential in such high level meetings as the upcoming one with the Japanese Prime Minister if the necessary cooperation and participation are to be obtained. The Prime Minister needs to be aware of how important you believe such an agreement would be to both nations: that this cooperation will benefit both nations not only through people-to-people exchanges and consequent mutual cultural understanding but also through the mutual expansion of mankind's scientific knowledge and horizons. The SSC promises to take its researchers back to the conditions existing only tiny fractions of a second after the initial "Bang of Creation", it promises to resolve one of the greatest mysteries left in the study of our universe - why and how does matter acquire mass? -- and it promises to take us ever closer to, if not indeed to the realization of Einstein's dream of a complete understanding of the structure of all matter and of the forces through which it acts. This is truly a great adventure and one of the triumphs of the human intellect. I would welcome the opportunity to provide you with any further information regarding SSC and its planned utilization that you might find of interest. The Superconducting Super Collider: A High Energy Physics Facility Summary The Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) will be the largest basic research facility ever built. It will collide two beams of hydrogen nuclei (protons) together by accelerating them through nearly 10, 000 superconducting magnets in a tunnel 53 miles in circumference. It will take eleven years to build and cost almost $6 billion. Your Administration is committed to the construction of the SSC. The commitment was made with the understanding that funding the V SSC would not be at the expense of other ongoing science programs and that one-third of the total project funding should be provided by non-Federal sources such as the host state and foreign countries that will share in the scientific and technological benefits accruing from the SSC. Cost-sharing in a project of this size is entirely appropriate since other nations as well as the U.S. will have access to, and benefit from, the facility. The SSC will be a facility operating within the well developed traditions of international scientific collaboration in high energy physics experiments. The SSC will be operated by DOE for the benefit of all qualified scientific users, foreign and domestic. As currently envisaged, the SSC will be a truly international facility, with mutual and equitable contributions and benefits shared by the participating nations. Depending upon the nature and extent of their financial commitments, the participating nations will be allocated an appropriate share either in the development or management structure of the SSC. The SSC should provide many incentives for participation by foreign countries. In addition to the prestige associated with involvement in the world's largest frontier science facility, collaboration on the SSC will provide unique educational opportunities for young scientists and valuable engineering experience on challenging, state-of-the-art systems. The major potential contributing foreign countries include Japan, Canada, Italy, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, South Korea, India, and Switzerland. These same countries are also expected to contribute detectors for specialized experiments and, perhaps, operating funds once the SSC facility has been completed and is in operation. BACKGROUND Experimental research in high energy physics involves accelerating beams of elementary particles - protons and electrons - essentially to the speed of light, aiming the beams at various targets, and then studying the new forms of matter resulting from the collisions. That these new forms of matter result can be seen by applying Einstein's equation E=mc2. This relationship implies that the energy of a particle (E) and its mass (m) are alternate characteristics. The "trick" in high energy physics is to deliver ever more energy into ever smaller volumes so that some at least of this energy materializes in the form of new, previously unknown particles or states of matter. Thus, in this field there is a continual push to accelerate the beams of protons or electrons to ever higher energies -- to probe ever deeper into matter. To perform such studies, the structure of physicists continuously push the state of the art of technology. They have developed advanced detectors, high speed electronics, new concepts in particle accelerators and new approaches in which beams of protons (or electrons) are aimed at each other and collide with twice the energy of either beam. Federal funding programs supporting such research continually face the problem of bringing large accelerators and expensive state-of-the-art detector systems on-line to enable this field to continue to make progress. Currently our high energy physics programs support three major U.S. facilities used to accelerate elementary particles: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center in California (SLAC) managed by Stanford University, Fermi National Laboratory (Fermilab) Batavia, Illinois, managed by the University Research Associates (URA), and Alternating Gradient Synchrotron (AGS) at Brookhaven on Long Island managed by Associated Universities Incorporated (AUI). These facilities are available to all qualified experimenters from national laboratories and universities and to similarly qualified foreign scientists. In this country alone, these basic research programs provide support and operating expenses for 148 experimental groups from 72 universities and laboratories to use these facilities. (The total American community is about 2,000 to 2,500 professional physicists.) Fermilab, just outside of Chicago, is currently the most powerful high energy physics accelerator in the world. It holds the world's record for accelerator energies at one trillion electron volts (TeV). Its projected lifetime is ten years or longer, depending on the wealth of physics it will uncover from proton-proton collisions. Planned Spending on SSC as presented to Congress for FY 1990 (BA $ in Millions) 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Totals Total Project Funding $33 $99 $278 $593 $694 $750 $760 $832 $882 $833 $140 $5,894 Est. non-Federal Share 0 0 $28 $200 $200 $300 $300 $300 $300 $172 0 $1,800 Federal Share $33 $99 $250 $393 $494 $450 $460 $532 $582 $661 $140 $4,094 SLAC, an electron accelerating facility, is also competitive with the other most powerful electron accelerator in Europe, the Large Electron Positron (LEP) Ring at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland. The AGS at Brookhaven, a currently operating joint high energy and nuclear physics facility, will be the "front-end" for a unique future new accelerator, called RHIC (Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider), designed to investigate collisions of large atomic nuclei. Operating together, the AGS and RHIC will give the U.S. a nuclear physics capability unmatched in today's world. The Superconducting Super Collider The Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) is the name given to the "next generation" high energy physics accelerator facility. The main accelerator will have a beam energy of 20 TeV. This is 20 times more than the world's currently most-energetic accelerator located at Fermilab. The Collider itself will consist of two rings of superconducting magnets (nearly 10,000 in all) and associated electrical systems in a common tunnel. The magnets will channel a beam of protons around the tunnel. The tunnel is 53 miles in circumference. The project also includes the associated office and laboratory facilities (buildings, structures, and utilities) required to support the technical systems. The total project cost is currently estimated to be $5.9 billion over 11 years with the facility becoming available to researchers in FY 1998. This estimate is based on a conceptual design report that does not take into account, for example, site-specific features nor the actual difficulty of mass producing super- conducting magnets and thus the cost estimate is acknowledged to be very approximate. The Reagan Administration committed to the project in January 1987. The commitment was made with the understanding that funding for the SSC would not be at the expense of other ongoing science programs and that one-third of the total project funding should be provided by non-Federal sources such as the host State and foreign countries that will share in the scientific and technological benefits accruing from the SSC. (See attached.) Cost-sharing in a project of this size is entirely appropriate since other nations as well as the U.S. will have access to and benefit from the facility. In January of this year, the site for the project was chosen to be Waxahachie, Texas, thirty miles from Dallas. It can be argued that the spin-offs from SSC-related research should be of considerable value to American industry. For example, U.S. industry does not currently have the capability to produce superconducting magnets in large quantities. These magnets can be useful to the "computer chip" industry and the nuclear medicine instrumentation industry. Currently, only Japan has this capability but the Europeans are now attempting to develop it. The detectors necessary for the facility are another example. They will require both new materials for high radiation environments and new signal processing techniques and software. Such electronics will have a myriad of other uses particularly in defense systems such as are envisioned in current Strategic Defense Initiative projects. In the past, many if not most, of the breakthroughs in the signal processing area have come from basic research projects in the physical sciences. The SSC, it can also be argued, would be of considerable benefit to education. Such a facility would inspire young people to V pursue careers in science and technology because of the unique challenge it would provide both to build and to use in the pursuit of new fundamental knowledge. Over 100 U.S. universities are currently projected to utilize this facility. Congress, State and local governments, leaders of major academic institutions and some business leaders have expressed strong support for the SSC and have encouraged the timely construction of this unique scientific facility. Finally, several countries including Japan and Italy, after visits from Department of Energy over the past 18 months, seem likely to support the project with financial or in-kind contributions and through participation during construction, operation, or in the particular experiments carried out in the facility by highly qualified physicists from these nations. In short, there will be many supporters for this project both inside and outside the community it will serve. International Cost Sharing Your Administration has proposed that the SSC be located in the U.S. and built mainly with Federal funds. Of the one-third non-Federal funding for the project, the State of Texas has raised $1 billion and offered as much as $700 million to defray the cost of the construction project. That leaves at least $1 billion to be obtained through international participation in the project. The high energy physics community has traditionally been international and cooperative. The increasing costs of high energy physics accelerators and the number of smaller machines that have been or will be decommissioned because they are no longer competitive, will reinforce this tradition. The SSC is not the only possibility for the "next generation" high energy physics machine. An upgrade to a European accelerator -- the so called LEP machine (Large Electron Positron Ring) at CERN -- to be called the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), is considered to be a less powerful alternative to the SSC, if the U.S. would not go forward with current SSC construction plans. Because LHC would be based upon the existing LEP facility, it could be built much faster and more cheaply than the SSC. It would, however, have an energy of only one-third that of the SSC (i.e., 5-8 TeV) and would have only one-tenth of the possible collisions thus making very rare forms of matter undiscoverable. Although the LHC would not be competitive with the SSC, if it were the only "next generation" facility, it would enable the Europeans to retake the lead in high energy physics research. In addition to the LHC, the Soviets, Japanese and Chinese have large particle accelerators under construction, all of which will be very expensive. Of these, only the Soviet accelerator at Serpukhov would be a competitor for the LHC. Recognizing the cooperative character of research in high energy physics, the SSC has been designed to be a facility operating within the traditions of international scientific collaboration in high energy physics experiments. The SSC will be operated by DOE for the benefit of all qualified scientific users, foreign and domestic. As currently envisaged the SSC will be a truly international facility, with mutual and equitable contributions and benefits shared by the participating nations. Depending upon the nature and extent of their financial commitments, the participating nations will be allocated an appropriate share either in the development or management structure of the SSC. The SSC should provide many incentives for participation by foreign countries. In addition to the prestige associated with involvement in the world's largest frontier science facility, collaboration on the SSC will provide unique educational opportunities for young scientists and valuable engineering experience on challenging, state-of-the-art systems. In addition, options currently under consideration in the organization of the SSC Laboratory which could help stimulate greater foreign investment may include a seat on the Board of Overseers, special recognition of country contributions, seats on advisory committees, management positions, appointment of distinguished fellows/professors, and direct hire of foreign professional nationals. The major potential contributing foreign countries include Japan, Canada, Italy, France, Federal Republic of Germany, South Korea, India, and Switzerland. These same countries are also expected to contribute detectors for specialized experiments and, perhaps, operating funds once the SSC facility has been completed and is in operation. Formal international cooperative agreements will be pursued in the immediate future through diplomatic channels once the current interagency plan for International Cooperation on the Superconducting Super Collider has been cleared. THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON MEMORANDUM TO: DR. BROMLEY 9/22 REVISED R 9-25-89 FROM: JOSEPH W. HAGIN SUBJECT: APPROVED PRESIDENTIAL ACTIVITY EVENT: Presidential Awards for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Teaching DATE: October 24, 1989 - Tuesday TIME: 3:15 pm 10:00am. DURATION: 20 minutes LOCATION: Rose Garden (Backup 450 OEOB) ATTIRE: Business Suit REMARKS REQUIRED: Yes MEDIA COVERAGE: TBD FIRST LADY PARTICIPATION: Optional ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: CONTACT: , TELEPHONE: OFFICE HOME NOTE: PROJECT OFFICER, SEE ATTACHED CHECKLIST Ed Rogers Marlin Fitzwater David Bates James Cicconi David Demarest David Valdez Fred McClure Jean Lamb USSS. PPD Susan Porter Rose Sig Rogich Gary Walters Patty Presock John Keller WHCA Audio/Visual Chriss Winston Tim McBride WHCA Operations Laurie Firestone J. Bonnie Newman C. Boyden Gray William Kristol Paul Bateman Bruce Zanca file Bromley THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON 9/11 DATE: NOTE FOR: D. ALLEN BROMLEY The President has reviewed the attached, and it is forwarded to you for your: information action Thank you. James W. Cicconi Assistant to the President and Deputy to the Chief of Staff (x-2702) b cc: The Chief of staff WAIGHT NUCLEAR R STRUCTURE Yale University A. W. Wright Nuclear Structure Laboratory 272 Whitney Avenue, P.O. Box 6666, New Haven, Connecticut 06511 D. Allan Bromley Henry Ford II Professor and Director 203-432-3082 Memorandum to: Governor John Sununu Chief of Staff, The White House From: Alla Allan Bromley, Yale University Re: The President's Council of Science and Technology Advisers Date: May 12, 1989 At your request, I am forwarding herewith a listing of possible nominees for memberships on the above mentioned Council. I agree fully that the sooner such a group can be pulled together, the sooner the President can begin to benefit from their collective experience and wisdom. I agree with your feeling that twelve is a good round number for such a group, although given the very busy schedules of such persons, I suspect that we may want to hold open the possibility of adding one or two more persons later, both to provide expertise in areas that may become clear to us as the Council begins to function and to make it more probable that we have something like twelve members at our meetings. I have given you twelve names so that in addition to myself, as chairman, we would have a size 13 Council. If triskaidekaphobia is a consideration, my first choice for a 14th member would be Paul Gray, whom you know well as President of MIT. I have worked with him in a study of the FAA and in the study that Dave Packard chaired on the Health of U.S. Colleges and Universities. He is outstanding but we may have too many university presidents involved. I would also like to respond more fully to the President's desire for geographic distribution and to offset the Eastern Corridor somewhat. I am talking with Dave Packard and others in an attempt to identify a southwestern entrepreneur in a relatively small, high technology industry. Such a person would add an important additional dimension to our Council discussions. Although he was President Carter's DDR&E William Parry, now with the Hambrech and Quest high technology venture capital firm in San Francisco, has a wealth of relevant experience. I am hoping, however, to find a Republican with direct hands-on management responsibility for a relatively small entrepreneurial operation. Governor John Sununu Chief of Staff, The White House May 12, 1989 Page 2 My reason for suggesting inclusion of a social scientist--an economist-like Harold Shapiro is that I feel that the Reagan Administration made an early mistake in alienating a large fraction of the social science community and that Shapiro's inclusion would send an important and much appreciated message to that community that the Bush Administration takes a different view. Picking the wrong social scientist could, of course, be a disaster since many of them find it impossible to communicate easily in predominantly physical science and engineering discussions without endless, disruptive questions about terminology and the like. In putting together this list I have tried to cover as broad a spectrum of expertise, experience, and affiliation as I could while giving primary weight to the requirement that I have personal experience with each person as having what I would characterize as professionalism, statesmanship, and the sense of loyalty that is essential to a successful and effective Presidential advisory group. I believe that it is very important, from the outset, for us to avoid a possible pitfall that would result were the Bush Council to be viewed as a reincarnation of the former PSAC-The President's Science Advisory Committee. Were this to happen many would consider that we were implementing the Dukakis Science and Technology platform plank in which reinstituting PSAC was much discussed. For others, the PSAC acronym itself is loaded with negative baggage from the latter PSAC days under President Nixon when to a significant degree it-or at least some of its members-ran amok, publicly opposing Presidential decisions with which they disagreed. Although it may sound trivial, I think that if it is important for us, from the start, to have a quite different sounding acronym and might suggest PCAST, pronounced P- cast, as sounding better and less open to corruption than the more literal PCSTA ! I was very pleased by the President's evident interest in, and enthusiasm for, the idea of meeting initially and occasionally with the PCAST. It will be good to put a firm Bush stamp on all its activities. I would welcome an opportunity to discuss aspects of the PCAST and its operation with you at your convenience. In particular, if PCAST members are to spend as large a fraction of their time as I believe we both intend on its activities and if we are to use the convening power of The White House effectively in structuring appropriate Panels and working Groups under its aegis, we will need to discuss questions of budgets and staffing. If further information concerning any of the people on my list would be useful to you immediately, I shall try to provide it; it may well be that we will want to consider some of these people for full time appointments in the Bush Administration and you and the President-and others-may well have other names to include in our considerations. It was good to see you on Wednesday. I am working on Boydon Gray's forms and will get them back to him as soon as possible. Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet (George Bush Library) Document No. Subject/Title of Document Date Restriction Class. and Type 09b. List From Allan Bromley to John Sununu 5/12/89 (b)(6) Re: Suggested Nominees for the President's Council of Science and Technology Advisors (3 pp.) Collection: Record Group: Bush Presidential Records Office: Chief of Staff to the President, Office of the Series: Sununu, John, Files Subseries: White House Offices File WHORM Cat.: File Location: Science and Technology (1989) [1] Date Closed: 12/1/2004 OA/ID Number: 29183-003 FOIA/SYS Case #: 1998-0004-F[1] Appeal Case #: Re-review Case #: 2005-0426-S Appeal Disposition: P-2/P-5 Review Case #: Disposition Date: AR Case #: MR Case #: AR Disposition: MR Disposition: AR Disposition Date: MR Disposition Date: RESTRICTION CODES Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)] Freedom of Information Act [5 U.S.C. 552(b)] P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA] (b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA] P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA] (b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA] agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA] P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or (b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA] financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA] (b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President information [(b)(4) of the FOIA] and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA] (b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA] personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA] (b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA] C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of (b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of gift. financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA] (b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile. Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet (George Bush Library) Document No. Subject/Title of Document Date Restriction Class. and Type 10. List Candidates for Deputy Secretary for Science and Technology, n.d. (b)(6) Department of Commerce (1 pp.) Collection: Record Group: Bush Presidential Records Office: Chief of Staff to the President, Office of the Series: Sununu, John, Files Subseries: White House Offices File WHORM Cat.: File Location: Science and Technology (1989) [1] Date Closed: 12/1/2004 OA/ID Number: 29183-003 FOIA/SYS Case #: 1998-0004-F[1] Appeal Case #: Re-review Case #: 2005-0426-S Appeal Disposition: P-2/P-5 Review Case #: Disposition Date: AR Case #: MR Case #: AR Disposition: MR Disposition: AR Disposition Date: MR Disposition Date: RESTRICTION CODES Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)] Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)] P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA] (b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA] P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA] (b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA] agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA] P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or (b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA] financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA] (b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President information [(b)(4) of the FOIA] and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA] (b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA] personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA] (b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA] C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of (b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of gift. financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA] (b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile. Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet (George Bush Library) Document No. Subject/Title of Document Date Restriction Class. and Type 11. List Candidates for Director, National Institutes of Health (1 pp.) n.d. (b)(6) Collection: Record Group: Bush Presidential Records Office: Chief of Staff to the President, Office of the Series: Sununu, John, Files Subseries: White House Offices File WHORM Cat.: File Location: Science and Technology (1989) [1] Date Closed: 12/1/2004 OA/ID Number: 29183-003 FOIA/SYS Case #: 1998-0004-F[1] Appeal Case #: Re-review Case #: 2005-0426-S Appeal Disposition: P-2/P-5 Review Case #: Disposition Date: AR Case #: MR Case #: AR Disposition: MR Disposition: AR Disposition Date: MR Disposition Date: RESTRICTION CODES Presidential Records Act - |44 U.S.C. 2204(a)] Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)] P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA] (b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA] P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA] (b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA] agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA] P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or (b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA] financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA] (b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President information [(b)(4) of the FOIA] and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA] (b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA] personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA] (b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA] C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of (b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of gift. financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA] (b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile. $ Are / 21 our Now RAUT - THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON May 18, 1989 28% Conanzes AROUND Will VATES MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN H. SUNUNU FROM: ALLAN BROMLEY Allan SUBJECT: COUNCIL OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ADVISORS One of our goals in putting together the above mentioned Council, beyond getting the very best people as members, is to be perceived as being open and wideranging as possible in our consideration of candidates for membership. It seems to me that we might be able to combine that goal with an opportunity for President Bush to follow up on some of his important statements concerning science and technology -- both before and following the election. Might I suggest then that at some appropriate public occasion in the near future -- press conference, talk, meeting with an appropriate group, etc. -- the President might wish to include something like the following: "There is something that I would like to say concerning this Administration's approach to science and technology. As you will have noted, I am working toward the goals that I have already enumerated. I am about to nominate a distinguished scientist, D. Allan Bromley, as Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. He brings a broad background of experience in science and technology and in public policy -- both nationally and internationally -- to this important post. He will also serve as my Assistant for Science and Technology and as Chairman of my Council of Science and Technology Advisors -- a group of leading scientists, engineers and distinguished executives from the private sector with whom I plan to meet frequently and who will advise me on matters of science and technology policy. I am currently considering nominations for membership on this Council and have asked Dr. Bromley to make its establishment one of his first assignments. I want to have - 2 - the Council, PCAST, functioning as soon as possible. To make sure that we have the strongest possible membership I am taking this occasion to extend an open invitation to the scientific, engineering and technological communities to send me their nominations of persons whose breadth of experience, expertise and general wisdom in scientific and technical matters would make them particuarly attractive candidates." Should you or the President feel that this represents too broad a net and that it might result in our being swamped with nominations, a lower-key alternative would be for the President, or me if he should so wish on his behalf, to extend this invitation to the Presidents of all the major scientific and engineering societies. You may also feel that this direct approach by the President might well lead to possibly embarrassing situations in the political arena where, for example, a particular member of the Congress might feel very strongly about a particular nominee and harbor some ill will were that nominee not chosen. Either way, I feel that it is important for the scientific and technological communities to feel that either directly or indirectly they have an opportunity to nominate members for what promises to be a very influential body. Please let me know your thoughts on this because there is very substantial external interest in the Council and prompt action would send a strong message of forward momentum and interest. THE white HOUSE WASHINGTON May 18, 1989 MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN H. SUNUNU FROM: ALLAN BROMLEY Allan SUBJECT: OSTP CHANGES I would like to make some substantial changes in the OSTP structure. My goal is to follow through on a number of the President's statements made during the campaign and subsequently to structure OSTP so that it can be more responsive to areas that the President has selected for emphasis. Among the changes are the following: a) Designate an Associate Director for Industrial Technology both to highlight this Administration's commitment to bringing S&T to bear on economic competitiveness and industrial strength and to make sure NAME that we track and coordinate federal activity in this sector. b) Designate an Associate Director for Congressional liaison. I sense strong feeling on the Hill that far too little of this occured during the Reagan years (see last Tomplead stoff V year's House and Senate language, Attachment A) and believe that the Congress would respond extremely well to this -- both in terms of actual performance and symbolism. c) Designate an Assistant Director for Regional and ? State Science and Industrial Technology Initiatives. As Governor of New Hampshire you made major progress here. So did Governor Celeste of Ohio and James Martin of North Carolina. I believe that OSTP could play an effective role in expanding and assisting this leadership across a much broader spectrum of the States. d) Designate an Assistant Director for Education and Social Sciences. Education in science and technology is one of the President's areas of major emphasis and as I have noted previously. I believe that we can gain important support and credibility by specifically identifying a focus in OSTP for social sciences. I also am convinced that the right person in this area can make major contributions to the entire OSTP activity. - 2 - e) Designate an Assistant Director for Environmental and Energy Sciences. Again this is an area of growing importance and one already selected by the President for special emphasis. I have looked at these initiatives carefully, together with the more standard aspects of OSTP's function, and it is clear that the presently projected FY 1990, 2 million budget does not allow such changes. In the Reagan years, OSTP has been reduced to begging detailee staff members from other federal agencies and to carrying a tin cup to other agencies to support such activities as receptions for foreign scientific delegations, the support of international science and technology activities, and the like. I am convinced that it would represent better government, be more acceptable to the Appropriations Committees, and, most important, give a much more realistic measure of the actual level of OSTP activity were we to have all the funding associated with these activities channeled directly through OSTP. This is not a budget-busting request but rather corresponds to a request for rearrangement of relatively minor resources at the margin; and it would provide concrete evidence that the President was following through on his frequently-stated goal of strengthening federal science and technology policy. I have examined the OSTP structure carefully. We could accomplish all of the above goals if we were to return the OSTP budget, through such rearrangement, to 4 million dollars in FY 1990 -- as compared to the current projection of 2 million. It bears emphasis that the OSTP budget (in constant 1990 dollars) was at 4.7 million in 1978 in the later years of the Carter Administration as compared to this 2 million projection (please see bar chart, Attachment B). It bears emphasis too that in the Carter Administration there was no external advisory body corresponding to WHSC or PCAST and that the entire OSTP operation was at a lower level in the Executive Office of the President than that now established by President Bush. The suggested doubling of this current FY 1990 2 million budget to 4 million -- what it was at the end of the Carter Administration would enable us to assemble what I would strongly argue to be the most able staff yet seen in OSTP, - 3 - would enable us to really follow through on the President's stated desire that it [OSTP] "play a central role in developing and coordinating Federal science and technology strategies, and in analyzing cross cutting issues in research and development." And above all, it would send a very clear message both within and outside this country that the Bush Administration means business in terms of strengthening its science and technology enterprise -- perhaps its strongest edge in an increasingly competitive world. What I would request from you and the President is an agreement, in principle, that I should explore the approaches listed above. I would emphasize that I am not requesting any substantial budget increase but rather a rearrangement of marginal budgetary items to more correctly reflect the actual activity within OSTP. This modest rearrangement, it would seem to me, can provide substantial political payoff in addition to that which appears likely from the Appropriations Committees of the Congress. It establishes the credibility of the President's commitment to increased science and technology advice; it is responsive to the strong recommendations made during the recent campaign by the Industrial Research Institute (IRI), the Council on Competitiveness chaired by John Young and Paul Gray, and a large number of mainstream scientific and engineering organizations. I shall look forward to discussing these matters with you. file EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506 April 18, 1989 INFORMATION MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN H. SUNUNU FROM: WILLIAM R. GRAHAM wey SUBJECT: Current OSTP Staffing Levels In response to your request at our meeting yesterday, here are the current OSTP staffing level numbers: FULL-TIME PERMANENT Professional (including the * Director and one Associate Director ) 3 Support Staff 4 Total 7 DETAILEES Professional 7 Support Staff 4 Total 11 FELLOWSHIPS Professional 2 Support Staff 0 Total 2 TOTAL Professional 12 Support Staff 8 Total 20 * The establishing legislation for the Office provides for a Director at Executive Level II and up to four Associate Directors at up to Executive Level III. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506 June 2, 1989 MEMORANDUM FOR BRENT SCOWCROFT FROM: WILLIAM R. GRAHAM upy SUBJECT: BACKGROUND FOR DISCUSSION OF COOPERATION ON S&T MATTERS BETWEEN THE NSC AND OSTP I have advised you of my concern about the process by which NSD-10 and the NSD on ICBM Modernization and Strategic Defense Initiative were created. Your April 17, 1989, memorandum stated your commitment to thorough coordination within the EOP and specifically cited your commitment to coordinate with OSTP on scientific and technological issues. However, I would like to point out several recent instances in which your policy has not been implemented by your staff -- instances significant enough, I believe, to warrant your personal attention. These may simply be cases of poor staff procedures, but I believe that they do not serve the interests of the President. In NSD-10 the formulation of the PCC's on "International Oceans, Environment, and Science Affairs" and "National Security Telecommunications" concerns me. Even though that NSD addresses matters that are to be addressed by OSTP on the basis of statute and Executive Order, I became aware of the proposed draft of NSD-10 only by accident, since although it was widely circulated, it was not sent to this office for review and comments. I nevertheless offered comments on April 17, 1989. These comments were ignored in the final version of the NSD. Further, I had specifically requested an opportunity to review the final draft so that I might advise the President directly if necessary. While this seemed to be the minimum responsible staff coordination, it too was ignored, so that the President was denied another view from his staff without knowing that such a view was being deliberately denied to him. In addition to seemingly random White House coordination procedures, my concern is that cross-cutting responsibilities for policy development and consistency properly executed by the EOP are being relegated by NSD-10 to Departments and Agencies whose institutional views clearly bias objective policy development. I speak specifically of the chairmanships of the two above-mentioned PCC's, which I still recommend should be retained within the EOP. 2 Specifically, the International Oceans, Environment, and Science Affairs PCC issue cuts across virtually all Federal Departments and Agencies. The purpose of PCC's is to coordinate policy development. The integrity of this process in this area is compromised if foreign policy interests are perceived to be driving domestic policy. For these reasons I believe the chairmanship should reside somewhere besides the State Department -- preferably within the EOP, where the NSC, DPC, EPC, and OSTP are already assigned leadership responsibilities in assuring proper policy coordination. Within the EOP I believe the chairmanship of this PCC should lie with the Office of Science and Technology Policy. To do otherwise would be inconsistent with the statutory responsibilities given to OSTP. Furthermore, with OSTP chairing this PCC, there will be full recognition of the roles of the President's Domestic and Economic Policy Councils in this arena. We also have observed that PCC meetings held thus far have focused on global warming and environmental issues for the Economic Summit, issues which clearly are not based on national security concerns. Concerning the National Security Telecommunications PCC, I recognize the need for such a PCC, but, in this case, EO 12472 defines the EOP responsibilities of the NSC, OMB, and OSTP for the activities. It is unclear how ASD (CI) would chair this PCC with the responsibilities of the NSDD97 Steering Group, whose members are all from the EOP. Further, the sharp contention among Departments and Agencies over funding of the NLP argues for resolution at a higher level. I believe the NSC should chair this PCC based on the EO. Should this not coincide with your views on the role of your staff, I offer OSTP as chair of this PCC. In any event, the chairmanship should remain within the EOP, or else the EO should be rescinded or revised. I have also heard of a proposed NSD on strategic systems. I believe this would directly involve my areas of responsibility, but I have not been consulted. I understand that the process is evolving, but I believe the present process does not serve the President as well as it could. I suggest: - that requests for good staff work and procedures be honored by the NSC as well as by OSTP; - that national security issues involving S&T be provided to OSTP for review. OSTP will continue to do the same on OSTP initiatives that involve national security issues; and that the President's Science Adviser and the National Security Adviser establish and maintain close regular interaction with weekly meetings so that areas of common responsibility can be identified before rather than after they become formal policy. 3 I believe that my concern is consistent with the President's stated objective of enhancing the role of his Science Adviser, rather than diminishing it as proscribed by NSD-10. It would be grossly unfair and counterproductive to leave this problem with its consequences unaddressed for my successor. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506 April 20, 1989 MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN H. SUNUNU BRENT SCOWCROFT FROM: WILLIAM R. GRAHAM my SUBJECT: SIXTH U.S.-CHINA JOINT COMMISSION MEETING This year marks the tenth anniversary of U.S.-China cooperation in science and technology. To commemorate this occasion, the VI Joint Commission Meeting on Science and Technology will be held in Washington on October 16-20, 1989. I am writing to you today to solicit your views and support for this important event. I plan to seek the President's participation at the appropriate time. Conceived initially as a political instrument, activities under the S&T Agreement with the People's Republic of China have matured to the point that cooperation now is motivated by scientific, technological, and commercial interests of both countries, as well as diplomatic relations. Today, China is our most active partner in government-sponsored and -supported research and development, with 29 protocols now in place. Each protocol is managed by an operating agency under the policy guidance of the Joint Commission which is co-chaired by the Chinese Minister in charge of the State Science and Technology Commission and the U.S. Science Adviser to the President. This year's Joint Commission meeting will coincide with the signing of the renewal of the S&T Agreement between China and the United States, if negotiators can work out remaining differences in the renewal document. In view of the President's close association with China, and the significance of science and technology in our relationship with that country, I anticipate that the President may wish to participate at some point during the week. I am attaching a preliminary agenda. In my view, the colloquium, scheduled for the second day, will be the centerpiece of the week's activities and would be an appropriate event for the President to open. I would welcome your support on this and other matters relating to the Joint Commission meeting. Attachment TENTATIVE SCHEDULE FOR US/PRC JOINT MISSION MEETING 16 OCTOBER-20 OCTOBER 1989 Monday: 0930-1000: Meeting, Science Adviser and Song Jian 1000-1200: Opening Plenary A. Welcome (by senior US official) B. Introduction of US Commissioners, Science Adviser C. Introduction of PRC Commissioners, Song Jian D. Introduction of delegation members E. Opening remarks by Science Adviser F. Opening remarks by Song Jian G. Remarks by Chinese Principals H. Remarks by US Principals (Suggested speakers: Commerce, USIA, NSF, USDA) 1215-1415: Agency hosted lunches 1415- : Counterpart meetings 1830-2030: Banquet, OSTP hosting Tuesday: 0815-0900: Coffee and doughnuts 0900-1500: Colloquium: Topic: US/China S&T Cooperation: The next ten years We view the colloquium as an opportunity to open the proceedings to a broader audience, including private industry and academia (by invitation). A possible format is for the morning to focus on S&T policies in the two countries over the next decade and the afternoon on several discrete issues of interest to both Chinese and American attendees. Possible Speakers: Song Jian Science Adviser Additional speakers from the PRC Speakers from industry (S&T and economic development) Speakers from academia (S&T and education) Director of National Academy of Sciences Congressional speakers Chinese/American scientists 1830- : Reception or dinner Location and host to be arranged Wednesday: 0900-1200: Success stories We envision three "success stories" presented by each side, each about 20-30 minutes in length. The goal would be to present projects in which US/PRC cooperation has been particularly fruitful. The US side will probably choose two success stories from projects of the past two years, and one especially successful project from the past ten years for presentation. 1200-1345: Lunch of senior delegation members (State Department hosting) 1400-1615: Closing Plenary A. Brief reports of Counterpart meetings B. Introduction and approval of US/PRC Joint Report C. Signing ceremony: In addition to the Joint Report, USG hopes that the documents to be signed will be: US/PRC umbrella S&T agreement and all protocols that may have lapsed during the negotiations of the umbrella agreement. D. Closing remarks by Minister Song E. Closing remarks by Science Adviser 1630-1700: News Conference 1830-2030: Final Banquet (host to be determined) Thursday: 0930-1030: Transit to NIST 1030-1230: Tour of NIST facilities 1230-1400: Lunch at NIST 1400-1600: Tour of NIST facilities, continued Friday: Site visits: Possible sites include: A. Pittsburgh Energy Research Center B. Carnegie Mellon: biotransistors research C. Smithsonian Front Royal: Conservation biology research D. U.S.Geological Survey E. National Aquarium in Baltimore F. Goddard Space Center G. IBM Robotics Laboratory H. North Carolina, Research Triangle SENATE 53 OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY up to 1988 appropriation d in a $1,888,000 1989 budget estimate to be House allowance 1,787,000 Committee recommendation 1.587,000 es in- 1,587,000 es and sposal, PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ed by The Office of Science and Technology Policy [OSTP] was created by lot in- the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priori- lations ties Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-282) and provides advice to the Presi- dent concerning policies in science and technology and on the utiliza- tion of science and technology in addressing important national prob- lems. OSTP also supports other organizations within the Executive AL Office of the President with regard to issues involving science and tech- nology considerations; reviews and analyzes the research and develop- ment budgets and programs of the Federal Government, in concert 826,000 870,000 with the Office of Management and Budget; coordinates research and 870,000 development programs of the Federal Government; and fulfills other 850,000 obligations, duties, functions, and activities mandated by the National Science 1976. and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of hental COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION y Act 0 and The Committee concurs with the House in recommending an ap- incil's propriation of $1,587,000 for OSTP, which is $200,000 less than the ngress budget estimate and a decrease of $300,000 below the current budget. on to The Committee does not concur with the House-passed bill in requir- 3 pol- ing that the cost of all detailees be reimbursed and, therefore, recom- EPA. mends the deletion of House language prohibiting the existing policy of gency providing for one-half the personnel compensation costs under this ac- ry of count. $ im- The Committee continues to be disturbed by OSTP's lack of respon- g and siveness to Committee requests and general indifference to the uality Committee's requirements. The Committee notes that a report regarding tal ac- intiatives taken to work with the Soviet Union on a joint United States/Soviet Union nuclear winter study called for in Senate Report 100-192 is due on January 1, 1989, and expects this report to be sub- mitted by that date. yiron- d the FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 1988 appropriation .orbed 1989 budget estimate $632,337,000 House allowance 698,396,000 vels. Committee recommendation 733.932,000 658,712,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $658,712,000 for the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] in fiscal year 1989. This amount is $39,684,000 less than the budget estimate and $75,220,000 less than the House allowance. 34 HOUSE OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY 1988 appropriation $1,888,000 Estimate, 1989 1,787,000 Recommended in bill 1,587,000 Decrease below estimate -200,000 The Office of Science and Technology Policy was created by the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Prior- ities Act of 1976. It serves as a source of science and technology policy analysis for the President with respect to major policies, plans and programs of the Federal Government. The Office also as- sists in evaluating and coordinating the Federal effort in science and technology. The Committee is disturbed by OSTP's extreme slowness in its reponse to requests. Unfortunately, this is a continuation of an at- titude of general indifference to the requirements of the Commit- tees on Appropriations. The bill includes $1,587,000 for the Office of Science and Technol- ogy Policy in fiscal year 1989. The amount is $200,000 below the budget request. The reduction is to be taken at the Office's discre- tion. The bill also contains two limitations. The first proviso limits the amount of obligations in the first four months to $400,000-ap- proximately the amount obligated in the first four months of 1988. The second proviso requires that the costs of all detailees be reim- bursed. The Committee is not critizing the use of detailees, but shifting the personnel compensation costs to other agencies clearly circumvents the appropriations process. This proviso has not been added to limit activities of the OSTP-but to ensure that the Ad- ministration requests all funds it believes are necessary. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 1988 appropriation $632,337,000 Estimate, 1989 698,396,000 Recommended in bill 733,932,000 Increase above estimate +35,536,000 The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was cre- ated by Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978. The Agency operates under the following authorities which carry a wide range of pro- gram responsibilities for emergency planning and preparedness, disaster response and recovery, and hazard mitigation: -Under the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, as amended, re- sponsibility for administering a national program for defense of the population and industry in the case of an attack upon the United States. -Under the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974, programs to reduce national fire loss, including training and education. -Under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, administration of a national program to provide flood insurance and to en- courage better flood plain management. -Under the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, as amended, programs to provide assistance to individuals and State and local govern- PUBLIC LAW 100-404-AUG. 19, 1988 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT-INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1989 19-139 0 - 88 (404) 102 STAT. 1024 PUBLIC LAW 100-404-AUG. 19, 1988 CONSTRUCTION GRANTS For necessary expenses to carry out the purposes of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, and the Water Quality Act of 1987, $1,950,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which $941,000,000 shall be for title II (other than sections 201(m)(1-3), 201(n)(2), 206, 208, and 209) of the Federal Water Pollu- tion Control Act, as amended; $941,000,000 shall be for title VI of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended; and $68,000,000 shall be for title V of the Water Quality Act of 1987, consisting of $20,000,000 for section 510, $3,000,000 for section 512, $25,000,000 for section 513, and $20,000,000 for section 515. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION None of the funds in this Act shall be available for any indemnity payment under section 15 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY For necessary expenses of the Council on Environmental Quality and the Office of Environmental Quality, in carrying out their functions under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-190), the Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-224), and Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977, including not to exceed $500 for official reception and representa- tion expenses, and hire of passenger motor vehicles, $850,000: Pro- vided, That not to exceed $290,000 of these funds shall be available for obligation in the first four months of fiscal year 1989. OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY For necessary expenses of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, in carrying out the purposes of the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6601 and 6671), hire of passenger motor vehicles, services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, not to exceed $1,500 for official recep- tion and representation expenses, and rental of conference rooms in the District of Columbia, $1,587,000: Provided, That the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall reimburse other agencies for not less than one-half of the personnel compensation costs of individ- uals detailed to it: Provided further, That not to exceed $400,000 of these funds shall be available for obligation in the first four months of fiscal year 1989. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY DISASTER RELIEF For necessary expenses in carrying out the functions of the Disas- ter Relief Act of 1974, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), $100,000,000, to remain available until expended. 100TH CONGRESS REPORT 2d Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 100-817 MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND FOR SUNDRY INDEPENDENT AGENCIES, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, CORPORATIONS, AND OFFICES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1989 AUGUST 3, 1988.-Ordered to be printed Mr. BOLAND, from the committee of conference, submitted the following CONFERENCE REPORT [To accompany H.R. 4800] The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 4800) making appropriations for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, com- missions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending Sep- tember 30, 1989, and for other purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows: That the Senate recede from its amendments numbered 4, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 20, 21, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 43, 47, 48, 53, 55, 59, 61, 65, 67, 72, 74, 77, 78, 79, 82, 83, 84, 85, and 86. That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendments of the Senate numbered 5, 22, 26, 33, 41, 42, 49, 52, 54, 63, 66, 69, 71, and 80, and agree to the same. Amendment numbered 2: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 2, and agree to the same with an amend- ment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert $480,106,000; and the Senate agree to the same. Amendment numbered 7: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 7, and agree to the same with an amend- ment, as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment insert $46,500,000; and the Senate agree to the same. 87-624 19 through a more aggressive enforcement program. The agency is di- rected to submit a report to the Appropriations Committees by De- cember 31, 1988, on management changes which will create mean- ingful incentives for regional administrators to leverage resources to maximize total cleanups. Finally, the focus of the program must be redirected from study- ing sites to cleaning up sites. The program's heavy reliance on con- tractors creates a substantial risk of resources being wasted. The conferees note that in less than three years, both the cost and time required to complete RIFS have almost doubled. Regional adminis- trators must be held accountable for controlling costs and assuring the relevance of all RIFS work. Amendment No. 42: Deletes language proposed by the House and stricken by the Senate prohibiting the expenditure of funds for nat- ural resource damage claims. These claims were made ineligible for funding by the SARA amendments. Amendment No. 43: Appropriates $1,950,000,000 for construction grants as proposed by the House, instead of $2,100,000,000 as pro- posed by the Senate. Amendment No. 44: Earmarks $941,000,000 for title II construc- tion grants, instead of $934,000,000 as proposed by the House and $1,050,000,000 as proposed by the Senate. Amendment No. 45: Earmarks $941,000,000 for title VI revolving funds, instead of $934,000,000 as proposed by the House and $1,050,000,000 as proposed by the Senate. Amendment No. 46: Earmarks $68,000,000 for four special projects authorized by title V of the Water Quality Act of 1987, in- stead of $82,000,000 as proposed by the House and zero as proposed by the Senate. Bill language has been included to earmark funds for the following projects: $25,000,000 for Boston Harbor (section 513). $20,000,000 for Tijuana sewage (section 510). The conferees un- derstand that the full Federal cost of an operational defensive system is estimated to be $27,000,000. However, the schedule for completing certain design work makes it unlikely that full con- struction funding would be required much before the beginning of fiscal year 1990. The conferees recognize the special nature of this international problem and expect to provide the remaining $7,000,000 next year. $20,000,000 for Des Moines, Iowa (section 515). $3,000,000 for Oakwood/Redhook (section 512). Amendment No. 47: Makes change in center heading. Amendment No. 48: Deletes language proposed by the Senate providing that up to $30,000,000 in fees may be collected by EPA for deposit in a special fund in the Treasury to remain available until expended to carry out activities for which the fees were col- lected. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT Amendment No. 49: Appropriates $850,000 for the Council on En- vironmental Quality as proposed by the Senate, instead of $870,000 as proposed by the House. 20 Amendment No. 50: Restores language proposed by the House and stricken by the Senate requiring that the Office of Science and Technology Policy reimburse other agencies for all personnel com- pensation costs of individuals detailed to it, amended to require that OSTP reimburse other agencies for not less than one-half of the personnel compensation costs of individuals detailed to it. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY Amendment No. 51: Reported in technical disagreement. The managers on the part of the House will offer a motion to recede and concur in the amendment of the Senate with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment, insert the fol- lowing: $100,000,000 The managers on the part of the Senate will move to concur in the amendment of the House to the amendment of the Senate. The disaster relief funding level is ultimately a function of the number, frequency and magnitude of disasters occurring during any given year. Any unusual increase in the number of intensity of disasters could necessitate additional resources. In recent years, the disaster activity level has been below the historical average. The reduction of $100,000,000 below the budget estimate assumes lower- than-average level of disasters in fiscal year 1989. Amendment No. 52: Appropriates $137,274,000 for salaries and expenses as propose by the Senate, instead of $137,494,000 as pro- posed by the House. The Committee of Conference is in agreement with the following changes from the budget estimate: +$704,000 for 16 FTE in the Disaster Relief Administration. This increase is to be allocated only to the regional office. +$660,000 for 15 FTE in the radiological emergency prepared- office. ness program. This increase is to be allocated only to the regional + $176,000 for 4 FTE in the U.S. Fire Administration. + $132,000 for 3 FTE in the acquisition management program. Amendment No. 53: Deletes language proposed by the Senate re- quiring that FEMA, during fiscal year 1989, maintain 140 full-time permanent duty-stationed employees at Emmitsburg. The conferees have agreed to delete the Senate amendment re- quiring a statutory floor on employment at FEMA's Emmitsburg facility. At the same time, the conferees are deeply distressed that FEMA has failed to make even a good faith effort to reach the 140 FTE level which the Director personally agreed to reach at Em- mitsburg by March 31, 1988. Therefore, the conferees direct the Di- rector to fully comply with the Senate language upon enactment of the conference agreement. In addition, unless FEMA complies with the 140 FTE level by the time its fiscal year 1990 budget is submit- ted to the Committees on Appropriations, the conferees will seri- ously consider relocating the agency's entire Office of Training to Emmitsburg. Executive Office of the President Office of Science and Technology Policy HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS In Constant Dollars Fiscal Years 1978 - 1990 (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) 4,800 4,737 4,400 4,187 4,048 4,000 3,600 3,200 2,892 2,730 2,800 2,522 2,400 2,336 2,355 2,130 2,060 2,030 2,027 2,000 1,644 1,600 1,200 800 400 0 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet (George Bush Library) Document No. Subject/Title of Document Date Restriction Class. and Type 16. Memo From Allan Bromley to John Sununu 5/12/89 (b)(6) Re: Listing of Senior Science and Technology Positions in the U.S. Government (2 pp.) Collection: Record Group: Bush Presidential Records Office: Chief of Staff to the President, Office of the Series: Sununu, John, Files Subseries: White House Offices File WHORM Cat.: File Location: Science and Technology (1989) [1] Date Closed: 12/1/2004 OA/ID Number: 29183-003 FOIA/SYS Case #: 1998-0004-F[1] Appeal Case #: Re-review Case #: 2005-0426-S Appeal Disposition: P-2/P-5 Review Case #: Disposition Date: AR Case #: MR Case #: AR Disposition: MR Disposition: AR Disposition Date: MR Disposition Date: RESTRICTION CODES Presidential Records Act [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)] Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)] P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA] (b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA] P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA] (b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA] agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA] P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or (b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA] financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA] (b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President information [(b)(4) of the FOIA] and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA] (b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA] personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA] (b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA] C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of (b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of gift. financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA] (b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile. Congress of the United States house of Representatives Mashington, DC 20515 May 2, 1989 The Honorable Dan Quayle Vice President The White House Washington, D.C. 20500 Dear Mr. Vice President, In his testimony before the House Armed Services Committee April 25, Defense Secretary Cheney revealed his plan to place the National Aerospace Plane (NASP) and $100 million in DoD funds under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA officials have made it clear that withdrawal of DoD support for NASP would ultimately kill the program. Secretary Cheney also revealed that the National Space Council, which you chair, will review future funding and administrative questions that currently surround the NASP. Knowing of your keen interest in U.S. space technology, we are joining in this expression of our active support for continued joint agency funding of NASP as an experimental research vehicle with equal value as a civilian or military system. In concluding that NASP is strictly a civilian aviation program, the Department of Defense has failed to recognize that the aero-space plane is a technology that promises national security means well into the 21st century. The National Aerospace Plane is a natural product of our intense need to return to the forefront of space technology. It is an idea almost universally viewed with enthusiasm by the civil, military and industrial world. The U.S. NASP research and development program has already drawn an incredible investment of over $700 million from a consortium of private industries. It is the envy of all other industrial nations. The Japanese have identified aero-space plane research as the means to becoming "the world's premier manufacturer of composite materials and advanced propulsion systems". The debate over Department of Defense participation in NASP research and development is mindful of the post-World War II era when some very hard lessons were well understood by General Marshall, Secretary Forrestal, and Air Force Chiefs Vandenberg and White. The Congress shared their understanding of those hard lessons: that the strength of the nation rested in the muscle of 2 its weapons technology and the foresight of its leaders. Out of that experience came an unparalleled Air Force of B-52s and Mach 2 fighters and visions of a growing technical base to sustain our strength. However, Defense Secretary McNamara cancelled that emerging technology. He placed our research advances on hold. Pressed by budget constraints, he led decisions to refurbish old technologies rather than develop new ones. Thirty years later, we have the same Air Force of B-52s, Mach 2 fighters and 1950s technology. Mr. Vice President, it is with utmost urgency that we express our support for a sustained government commitment to NASP. As Vice President, as Chairman of the National Space Council and as one who advocates U.S. competitiveness in the world, you have a key role in U.S. technological development. To cancel the National Aerospace Plane in 1990 is to ensure our technological mediocrity beyond. Thank you for your valued leadership on this vital issue. Sincerely, Dave Dear McCurdy, Mclardy M.C. Bob Living M.C. X Robert A. Roe, M.C. Robert Walker, M.C. Beverly Bev Byron, Byron M.C. Bill Young, M.C. Ronnie Flippo, M.C. Roune Feirro Robert Davis, M.C. Van Valentin Tim Valentine, M.C. Duncan Hunter, M.C. Dan Dan Glickman, Gliclaner M.C. Denny Smith, M.C. Smith 3 George George Brown, E. M.C. Broun J. Jacu Jack Buechner, Enech M.C. Elton Elter Gallegly, Say M.C. Tom Lewis Tom Lewis, M.C. Dana Rohrabach James Inhofe, M.C. Dana Rohrabacher, M.C. Christopher Shays M.C. 37078 NUCLEAR STRUCT Yale University VRIGHT LABORATORY A. W. Wright Nuclear Structure Laboratory 272 Whitney Avenue, P.O. Box 6666, New Haven, Connecticut 065 11 D. Allan Bromley Henry Ford II Professor and Director 203-432-3082 MEMO TO: Governor John Sununu Chief of Staff The White House FROM: Allan Bromley Yale University and Re: OSTP Staffing Date May 12, 1989 If you can find half an hour anytime in your schedule from 9:00 a.m. Wednesday May 17 to 3:30 p.m. on Thursday May 18, I would welcome an opportunity to discuss with you some thoughts about some restructuring of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Although you may well feel that this is premature, there are a few outstanding candidates for OSTP positions who will tend to evaporate unless given some encouragement to hold off other permanent commitments. DAB:mts