Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1534827
label
1975/10/03 - Congressmen Teague and Mosher
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1534827
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
1975/10/03 - Congressmen Teague and Mosher
citationUrl
collections
James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)
James Cannon's Meetings Files
subjects
President (1974-1977 : Ford). Office of Science and Technology Policy. (5/11/1976 - 1/20/1977)
Legislation
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1534827
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-10-31
month
10
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1975-09-01
month
9
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
a6b3f82eb3994432
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 52, folder "1975/10/03 - Congressmen Teague
and Mosher" of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 52 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
$ wo burnes is
MEETING WITH CONGRESSMEN TEAGUE
AND MOSHER
RE: Office of Science and
Technology
Friday, October 3, 1975
11:30 (Teague)
2368 RHC
12:15 (Mosher)
2311 got ROOB
& or on 0 Ash To wh
Tuger my countro on
form a your and 5th be
Hetder why cooned NC you - to
Hulm He could you my GERALD R. FORD
woquest , t.
LIBRARY
E 1
counts This m wr V 6 - Belling
Soun the Y - Y by need at
wu- That are pers
P Betun
\
mulus out
Ham vale
Come Th agreement
Boris of something
H was on
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
9/29/75
DRAFT
COMMENTS ON H.R. 9058 (Sept. 16 Committee Print)
Source
House Sci. Tech.
Title/
of Prop. Ctte. Staff
Section Page Subject/Problem
Proposed Change
Change
Conclusion
I.
NATIONAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY POLICY
102 (b)
6
Role of Executive Office of the Pres. (EOP)
Reword Sec. 102 (b) (1)
Goldwin
Do not want to
(1)
Problem: Overstates or perhaps
change; feel
misstates the role that is appropriate
strongly that
for the EOP, particularly with respect
OSTP role is
to assisting agencies with "mobilizing
already quali
resources" and "securing funding".
fied.
Problem: The word "central" before
Eliminate word central
"
policy planning turns out to be
Won't change.
offensive in conotation. It doesn't
Have already
appear necessary to the section since
toned down
the second sentence makes clear that
emphasis on
the focus is on the EOP
central role
102 (c)
(3)
10
Importance of stability of S&T institu-
Delete the word "paramount" or
Understand Prob-
ions:
substitute an adjective that
O'Neil
lem; have pres-
"Paramount", or similar words modifying
reflects the need for balance,
sure on them to
the importance of stability of
such as "relative", "high".
keep; will
institutions, on line 15, really aren't
change to
correct.
"singular", with
Stability is important but shouldn't
intent of meanig
take precedence over quality of
"separate"
research or timliness. Balance among
rather than
these concepts should be the objective.
highest priority
Reference to education in needed discip-
lines: (line 19)
'Neil
Won't change.
Wording suggests prejudice in favor of
Slight rewording to focus
Cong. Mosher &
education in disciplines when the real
emphasis on the end objective.
Esch insist on
objective- of scientific knowledge--
proper context.
DERALD FORD LIBRASHI
some emphasis a
would cover educational needs in their
science educ.
(This is part of
long-standing
dif. of opinion-
OMB & Ctte.
DRAFT
9/29/75
COMMENTS ON H.R. 9058 (Sept. 16 Committee Print)
2.
Source of
House Sci & Tech.
theld/
Proposed
Ctte. Staff
loction Page Subject/Problem
Proposed Change
Change
Conclusion
I (con'd)
102 (c) 11
Antitrust
(5)
Problem: The words "to compel competitive Merely delete the clause.
Goldwin
Accepted. Change
economic pluralism" are objectionable to
will be made
some, in part because they may not
by Committee Staff
reflect fully and accurately the purposes
of antitrust regulation. Words aren't
necessary to paragraph, and could even
have the effect of limiting it.
II
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
204 (b)
14
Role of OSTP in Budget formulation.
Merely delete "and the agencies"
O'Neill
Can't accept. Under
(4)
Problem: The words "and the agencies"
strong pressure to
on line 6 suggests that OSTP should
increase role of
take on a promotional role--which
OSTP in the
most now seem to agree is inappropriate
Budget process.
for an EOP office. Role in Budget
formulation is reflected fully without
these words. (Fact is that there is an :
excellent market in the EOP for good
sound S&T advice, including advice in,
the budget formulation stage. This
market plus the competence that OSTP can
develop will be the determinants of
impact!)
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
DRAFT
9/29/75
COMMENTS ON H.R. 9058 (Sept. 16 Committee Print)
3.
Source of House Sci & Tech
Proposed
Ctte. Staff
Page
Subiect/Problem
Proposed Change
Change
Conclusion
II (Con'd)
204 (b)
Criteria for determining S&T activities
(6)
14-
for Federal support:
15
Problem: Current wording does not
Reword somewhat to tie S&T clearly
Accepted. Change
O'Neill
(inadvertantly) overcome a problem noted
to overall efforts to achieve
will be made as
in earlier version; i.e., the suggestion
national objectives.
a clarifying
Amendment intro.
that S&T activities may be ends in
themselves rather than means to achieve
by Chairman in
national objectives.
Ctte. mark-up.
204 (b)
(5)
14
Review of statutes and regulations affecting
R&D:
.
Problems:
Reword somewhat to state purpose
Schleede
Accepted. As above
- Purpose of review isn't stated.
and assure that Federal actions
- As now stated, is somewhat too narrow in
covering non-Federal sectors
that Federal actions (e.g., regulations)
are within scope of review.
affecting other sectors' activities are
not clearly covered.
204 (b)
(9) & 15
Reports and recommendations. For organiz- Slight change in wording.
Buchen
Accepted. Change
(10)
ational purity, it should be clear that
will be made by
reports from OSTP go first to the President
Ctte. Staff.
who would transmit to the Congress
206
16
Question has been raised as to the meaning
?
(Change if necessary to make
Buchen
This has been checkd
of words on lines 20-22 beginning with
it correct. Sure no policy
FORD
out by OMB and
"without". They were in Administration
issue is involved.)
bill and we are checking the meaning.
GERALD
LIBRARY
by House Legis.
Council & found OK.
(Relates to contract authority)
as is.
DRAFT
9/29/75
4.
COMMENTS ON M.R. 9058 (Sept. 16 Committee Print)
Source of
House Sci & Tech
Title/
Proposed
Ctte. Staff
Scotion
Page
Subject/Problem
Proposed Change
Change
Conclusion
II (con'd)
208 (b) 17
Reorganization Plan
Buchen
Accepted. Change
Problem: As now worded, seems to
Merely eliminate words "provision
will be made by
provide an "item veto" in reorganization
contained in a" on line 23, page 17.
Ctte. staff.
plan provisions which is inconsistent
with the concept of reorganization plans
and with apparent intent of the rest
of the section. Very bad precedent.
III
FEDERAL S&T SURVEY COMMITTEE
301 (a)
(1)
19
Absolute deadline on appointment of
Buchen
Committee:
Can't accept since
there would be no
Absolute deadlines can be very
Remove 90 day deadline.
deadline and there
difficult to meet and still get good
is some fear in
people. Prefer adding some
Ctte. that Survey
flexibility.
never would begin.
301 (b)
20
Appointment of Survey Committee personnel
Schleede
Can't accept. Point
(1)
Problem: If personnel are subject to
Make parrallel with Sec. 205&206
out that wording
all civil service laws, there is
really permits a way
almost certainly to be an unnecessary
(suggested wording in the draft
out. Put in here
delay--particularly in getting the
we've marked up is inartful.
specifically in
kind of people needed for this
needs better fix.)
attempt to molify
activity. (Cf. with sec. 205 on OSTP)
House PO & Civil
Svs. Ctte--and to
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
preserve excepted
status for OSTP.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 1, 1975
JMC:
Either you or the Vice
President should call
Cong. Teaque and Mosher
regarding the attached.
If you want the Vice
President to do this, Dick
Allison suggests tomorrow
morning as the best time
for him to place the call.
I'll suggest that
the
the V.P. make the
call (Memo attached)
I will make the
call.
P
B.FORD is LIBRAR 0779
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 1, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT
FROM :
JIM CANNON
SUBJECT :
Legislation to Create the Office of
Science and Technology
Policy (OSTP)
With regard to the above, I recommend that you call
Congressman Teague and Mosher, preferably tomorrow
morning, Thursday, October 2, 1975, and make the
following points:
--
The bill, while different from the one
submitted by the President on June 6, looks
like a good bill and the Administration can
support it actively if it emerges from the
Committee and House essentially as it now
stands.
--
We hope they can head off major changes that
might give problems and lead to delays.
--
Administration staff has worked closely with
Phil Yeager on some changes to the bill (HR 9058)
originally introduced by Teague and Mosher on
July 30. Both Phil Yeager and Bill Wells of the
staff have been very helpful and cooperative.
Changes from the July 30 version have been
worked out which solve some relatively minor
problems while retaining fully the basic
features of the bill.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
ACTION
September 30, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
GLEN SCHLEEDE
SUBJECT:
LEGISLATION TO CREATE THE OFFICE
OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
(OSTP)
During a conversation yesterday with Phil Yeager (Counsel
of the House Science and Technology Committee, Chaired
by Congressman Teague) he asked that you or the Vice
President call Congressman Teague and Congressman Mosher
and inform them that the latest version of the Teague-
Mosher bill is acceptable to the Administration and would
be supported if reported by the Committee and passed by
the House in its present form. He would like the calls
to occur as soon as possible but not later than October 7.
The Committee meets to consider the bill on October 8.
Congressmen Teague and Mosher want the call (a) as a clear
signal of Administration support, and (b) to strengthen
their hands against amendments that they expect to be
offered in the Committee and perhaps on the floor.
A full updated report on the status and outlook for the
bill and a description and evaluation of its contents is
attached at Tab A.
A review of the actions taken within the Administration
and with the Committee staff -- which I believe justify
the recommendations that follow -- is included at Tab B.
The latest bill (which doesn't reflect a few minor changes
obtained yesterday) is at Tab C.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The bill has been reviewed thoroughly with the senior
staff (summarized below), but has not been submitted
to the President for formal approval. I recommend that
- 2 -
you seek the President's oral approval during your
next review session with him.
2. I also recommend that you or the Vice President call
both Teague and Mosher by October 7, preferably
making the following points:
The bill, while different from the one submitted
by the President on June 6, looks like a good bill
and the Administration can support it actively if
it emerges from the Committee and House essentially
as it now stands.
We hope they can head off major changes that might
give problems and lead to delays.
Administration staff has worked closely with
Phil Yeager on some changes to the bill (HR 9058)
originally introduced by Teague and Mosher on
July 30. Both Phil Yeager and Bill Wells of the
staff have been very helpful and cooperative.
Changes from the July 30 version have been
worked out which solve some relatively minor
problems while retaining fully the basic features
of the bill.
CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS STAFF
I haven't briefed Max Friedersdorf or his staff on the
latest developments summarized above. You may want to
consider giving him a copy of this memo or otherwise
bringing him up to date.
Attachment
P.S. Phil Yeager just called and asked that, assuming
we can support the bill, we also get the word to
other members of the Committee, particularly
Congressmen Wydler and Fuqua, and hopefully to
all Minority members of the Committee who are
anxious to know the Administration's position.
TAB A
TAB A
9/30/75
STATUS AND EVALUATION OF THE LEGISLATION TO CREATE AN
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY IN THE EXECUTIVE
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
STATUS AND OUTLOOK
House. A revised version of a bill (HR 9058) introduced
in the House by Congressman Teague and Mosher on
July 30, 1975 will be marked up by the House Science
and Technology Committee on October 8, 1975. The bill
is likely to be reported to and passed by the full
House during the week of October 20.
Senate. Three Committees involved. Committees and
the key players are: Aeronautics and Space (Moss);
Commerce (Tunney) and Labor & Welfare (Kennedy).
Senator Moss has been pushing for acceptance of the
President's bill and for prompt action. House bill
is acceptable to him as it now stands.
Latest assessment is that other players generally
accept the Teague-Mosher bill but (a) may want to
make a few changes and additions, (b) want some
public exposure, and (c) don't want to be accused
of holding up the bill.
Current agreement among Committees is that each key
player will hold one day of hearings with Kennedy
(October 28) and Tunney (not yet set) to hear witnesses
from scientific community and Moss to hear the Adminis-
tration (Guy Stever) on November 14.
Final Action is still possible before Christmas. Bill
should provide the basis for a good bipartisan signing
ceremony.
THE TEAGUE-MOSHER BILL (HR. 9058)
Teague and Mosher introduced the President's bill
(which was sent up on June 26) to create an Office of
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), but shortly
thereafter -- July 30 -- introduced a new bill (HR 9058)
which the Committee will consider instead of the
President's bill.
- 2 -
After a series of staff level discussions, the House
Committee staff has revised the bill, obtained the
approval of Teague and Mosher, and is now reviewing
it with other members of the Committee, with the
objective of having most if not all problems ironed
out before October 8.
The latest available version of HR 9058 is attached.
HR 9058 has three principal titles:
Title I - declares a national policy on science
and technology.
Title II - creates an Office of Science and
Technology Policy as proposed by the President, with
three exceptions:
The Director would be subject to Senate
confirmation.
The President would have the discretion of
appointing up to four assistant directors, to be
compensated at rates not to exceed Level III.
(This provision is designed to allow this
President and his successors to structure the
Office as they prefer; e.g., a Director and
Deputy; a 3 or 5-man Council; etc. This
should head off the fight that was expected
over whether an office or council should be
created.)
The functions of the Office are spelled out in
more detail.
Title III - establishes in the Executive Office of
the President -- either as a part of the OSTP or
in such other manner as the President may direct --
a Federal Science and Technology Survey Committee,
with staff.
The Committee is to consist of from 5 to 12
members, appointed by the President within 90
days after confirmation of the OSTP Director.
The OSTP Director shall be chairman of the
Committee.
Members may be from within or outside the
Government.
The Committee is to survey and examine the overall
context of Federal science and technology effort,
including missions, goals, funding, organization,
etc., and submit a report of its findings and
conclusions within 24 months.
- 3 -
The President shall transmit the report to the
Congress with comments and recommendations within
60 days thereafter.
EVALUATION
Overall: The bill submitted by the President would be
preferable, but the latest version (attached) is a
good compromise between the President's bill and
other bills that have been considered in the House.
Title I - The science and technology policy statement
is a modified version of one introduced earlier by
Teague and Mosher (HR 4461). The whole idea of legis-
lating an S&T policy is questionable, but the statement
is rather harmless. The Committee will insist on having
a policy statement.
Title II - The Congress will insist on confirmation for
the Director. The discretionary authority for up to
four assistant directors is a clever compromise. As
now written, the statement of OSTP functions should be
acceptable but there are pressures to make them more
specific -- particularly with respect to the OSTP role
in advising on scientific and technical aspects of the
Budget.
Title III - The bill would be better without the
requirement for a Survey Committee but the House Committee
is unlikely to go for its deletion. The Committee idea
is being used by Teague and Mosher to head off a wide
variety of proposals from other members of the Committee --
proposals which range from making the OSTP functions
broader to the creation of a Department of Science and
Technology and the creation of a statutory interagency
S&T committee.
TAB B
TAB B
9/30/75
DISCUSSIONS WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATION
AND WITH TEAGUE COMMITTEE STAFF
Initial Review and Discussions. In mid-August, I
obtained high level staff views and comments on the
July 30 version of the Teague-Mosher bill (HR 9058)
from OMB, NSC, and Office of the White House Counsel
and also had the benefit of suggestions from Guy
Stever, Hans Mark, Si Ramo, Bill Baker and Dick Allison.
Views and suggestions were generally consistent. After
compiling views and developing specific suggestions for
word changes, I met with Phil Yeager and Bill Wells of
the Committee staff. Yeager and Wells accepted and
subsequently incorporated in a September 16 revision
of HR 9058 almost every change we proposed. The most
important changes were:
1. Revising the statement of science and technology
policy to:
make clear that science and technology are views
as means to achieve national objectives -- rather
than ends in themselves.
remove the concept that there should be a centrally
developed strategy or centralized management of
Federal (or national) R&D. Again attention was
focused on end objectives.
2. Revising the provisions on the OSTP to:
remove the requirement for Senate confirmation
for OSTP Assistant Directors.
clarify the OSTP role in the Budget formulation
and justification process -- to avoid creating
(a) an OMB-OSTP rift and (b) another place where
agencies have to justify their budgets.
emphasized scientific and technical advice to the
President rather than central strategizing and
management of Federal R&D activities.
3. Revising the section creating a Science and Technology
Survey Committee to:
give the President the discretion to organize the
Survey Committee as a part of OSTP or separately.
make the Director of OSTP the Chairman of the
Survey Committee.
- 2 -
make scope of survey more flexible.
give 24 rather than 15 months for the survey.
have Committee report to the President who would
transmit report to Congress with his recommenda-
tions -- rather than having Committee report
directly to the Congress and the President.
Senior Staff Review
On September 22, you circulated a Committee Staff Revision
of the bill to Senior Staff for review and comment. The
reactions were as follows:
Buchen (Lazarus) - Could accept bill but would like
some changes.
Friedersdorf - Recommend accepting revised bill.
Hartmann - Accept revised bill.
Lynn (O'Neill) - Could accept bill but would like
some changes.
Marsh - No response
Rumsfeld - Cheney indicated no specific comments.
Scowcroft - Accept revised bill.
Seidman - No problems with bill.
Goldwin - Would like to see some word changes.
My view is that the changes suggested by O'Neill, Lazarus
and Goldwin were useful but not critical. I summarized
them and made one more run at the Committee staff on
September 29. The comments and results are summarized
in the attachment. Briefly, of the 14 changes suggested:
4 were accepted and will be fixed by Committee staff
and technical changes in language.
2 were accepted and will be introduced as clarifying
amendments by the Chairman.
1 (by Lazarus) was withdrawn when another provision
of the bill solving the problem was pointed out.
1 technical problem was reviewed with lawyers and
found not to be a problem.
6 won't be accepted -- largely because of counter-
vailing pressures from Committee members.
- 3 -
Summary Review
I think we've:
obtained all the critical changes (and a fair number
of the cosmetic ones) so that OSTP can become a
useful addition to the OSTP.
bent over backwards to consider views of others in
the EOP thus, hopefully, have helped pave the way
for acceptance of the new organization by those
who haven't been enthusiastic about creation of
OSTP.
TAB C
Does Not include
Changes stallon
cHe 9/29.
[COMMITTEE PRINT]
H.R. 9058 WITH SUGGESTED REVISIONS
September 16, 1975
Showing matter to be deleted in linetype and matter to be
inserted in italic
94TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 9058
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JULY 30, 1975
Mr. TEAGUE (for himself and Mr. MOSHER) introduced the following bill;
which was referred to the Committee on Science and Technology
[Omit the part struck through and insert the part printed in italic]
A
BILL
To establish a science and technology policy for the United
States, to provide for scientific and technological advice
and assistance to the President, to provide a comprehensive
survey of ways and means for improving the Federal effort
in scientific research and information handling, and in the
use thereof, to amend the National Science Foundation Act
of 1950, and for other purposes.
1
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 That this Act may be cited as the "National Science and
4 Technology Policy and Organization Act of 1975".
J.59-097-0-1
2
3
1
TITLE I-NATIONAL SCIENCE AND
1
dignity, and well-being by enlarging the contributions
2
TECHNOLOGY POLICY
2
of American scientists and engineers to the knowledge
3
FINDINGS
3
of man and his universe, by making discoveries of basic
4
SEC. 101. (a) The Congress, recognizing the profound
4
science widely available at home and abroad, and by
5 impact of science and technology on society, and the inter-
5
maximizing the dissemination of utilizing technology in
6 relations of scientific, technological, economic, social, polit-
6
support of United States national and foreign policy
7 ical, and institutional factors, hereby finds and declares—
7
goals;
8
(1) that the general welfare, the security, the eco-
8
(2) increasing the efficient use of essential ma-
9
nomic growth and stability of the Nation, the conserva-
9
terials and products, and generally contributing to eco-
10
tion and efficient utilization of its natural and human
10
nomic opportunity, stability, and appropriate growth;
11
resources, and the effective functioning of government
11
(3) assuring adequacy of food and energy for the
12
and society require vigorous, perceptive support and
12
Nation's needs;
13
employment of science and technology in achieving na-
13
(4) contributing to the national security;
14
tional objectives; and
14
(5) improving the Nation's health and medical
15
(2) that the many large and complex scientific
15
care; and
16
factors which increasingly influence the course of national
16
(6) preserving, fostering, and restoring a healthful
17
and international events require appropriate provision
17
and esthetic natural environment, and developing im-
18
to incorporate scientific and technological knowledge in
18
proved housing and urban and rural systems.
19
the national decisionmaking process.
19
DECLARATION OF POLICY
20
(b) As a consequence, the Congress finds and declares
20
Principles
21 that the Nation's goals for science and technology should
21
SEC. 102. (a) In view of the foregoing, the Congress
22 include contribute without being limited to the following
22
declares that the United States shall adhere to a national
23
National goals:
23 policy for science and technology which includes the follow-
24
(1) fostering world leadership in the quest for
24
ing principles:
25
international peace and progress toward human freedom,
25
(1) the continuing development and implemen-
4
5
1
tation of a national strategy strategies for determining
1
base for science and technology in the United States,
2
and achieving the appropriate scope, level, direction,
2
including: (A) strong participation of and cooperative
3
and extent of scientific and technological efforts based
3
relationships with State and local governments and the
4
upon a continuous appraisal of the role for science and
4
private sector, (B) the maintenance and strengthening
5
technology in achieving goals and formulating policies
5
of diversified scientific and technological capabilities in
6
of the United States, and reflecting the views of States,
6
government, industry, and the universities, and the
7
municipalities, and representative public groups;
7
encouragement of independent initiatives based on such
8
(2) the enlistment of science and technology to
8
capabilities together with elimination of needless bar-
9
foster a healthy economy in which the directions of
9
riers to scientific and technological innovation, (C)
10
growth and innovation are compatible with the prudent
10
effective management and dissemination of scientific and
11
and frugal use of resources and with the preservation
11
technological information, (D) establishment of es-
12
of a benign environment;
12
sential technical and industrial standards and test
13
(3) the conduct of science and technology opera-
13
methods, and (E) promotion of increased public under-
14
tions SO as to serve domestic needs while concurrently
14
standing of science and technology; and
15
promoting foreign policy objectives, and, through the
15
(6) the recognition that, as changing circumstances
16
allocation of research and development resources, to
16
require periodic revision and adaptation of title I of this
17
maintain & proper ratio balance in the development and
17
Act, the Federal Government is responsible for identify-
18
export of technology between aid to lagging foreign econ-
18
ing and interpreting the changes in those circumstances
19
omies and attainment of an equitable balance in world
19
as they occur, and for effecting subsequent changes in
20
trade markets;
20
title I as appropriate.
21
(4) the recruitment, education, training, and re-
21
Implementation
22
training, and beneficial use of adequate numbers of scien-
22
(b) To implement the policy enunciated in subsection
23
tists, engineers, and technologists, and insuring their full
23
(a) of this section, the Congress declares that:
24
utilization; technologists;
24
(1) There should be a central policy planning ele-
25
(5) the development and maintenance of a solid
25
ment in the executive branch to guide executive agencies
7
6
1
in mobilizing resources for essential science and tech-
1
President so that the Chief Executive may have available
2
nology programs, to present to the Congress the justi-
2
independent, expert judgment and assistance on policy
3
fication of such programs, to aid in securing appropriate
3
matters which require accurate assessments of the com-
4
funding for those programs, and to review systematically
4
plex scientific and technological features involved.
5
Federal science policy and programs and to recom-
5
(2) It is a responsibility of the Federal Govern-
6
mend legislative amendment thereof when needed. A
6
ment to insure promote prompt, effective, reliable, and
7
major component of this structure should be an advisory
7
systematic transfer of science and technology informa-
8
mechanism within the Executive Office of the President
8
tion by such appropriate methods as: the funding of
9
so that the Chief Executive may have available inde-
9
technical evaluation centers, cost sharing of information
10
pendent, expert judgment and assistance on policy
10
dissemination programs conducted by such nongovern-
11
matters which require accurate assessments of the com-
11
mental organizations as industrial groups and technical
12
plex scientific and technological features involved.
12
societies, and or assistance in the publication of properly
13
(1) The Federal Government should maintain cen-
13
certified science scientific and technology technological
14
tral policy planning elements in the executive branch
14
information. In particular, it is recognized as a respon-
15
which assist Federal agencies in (A) identifying public
15
sibility of the Federal Government not only to coordinate
16
problems and objectives, (B) mobilizing scientific and
16
and unify its own science and technology information
17
technological resources for essential national programs,
17
systems, but to facilitate the close coupling of institu-
18
(C) securing appropriate funding for programs so iden-
18
tional scientific research with commercial application
19
tified, (D) anticipating future concerns to which science
19
of the useful findings of science.
20
and technology can contribute and devising strategies for
20
(3) It is further an appropriate Federal function
21
the conduct of science and technology for such purposes,
21
to support science and technology efforts which are in-
22
(E) reviewing systematically Federal science policy and
22
tended expected to provide results beneficial to the pub-
23
programs and recommending legislative amendment
23
lic but which the private sector may be unwilling or
24
thereof when needed. Such elements should include an
24
unable to support.
25
advisory mechanism within the Executive Office of the
25
(4) Science and technology activities which may be
8
9
1
properly supported exclusively by the Federal Govern-
1
grams should be centrally reviewed to assure rational
2
ment should be distinguished from those in which inter-
2
allocation of funds and resources, to identify public prob-
3
ests are shared with State and local governments and
3
lems and objectives, to anticipate future concerns to
4
the private sector. Cooperative Among these entities, co-
4
which science and technology can contribute, and to
5
operative relationships should be established that which
5
devise strategies for the conduct of science and technol-
6
encourage the sharing of science and technology de-
6
ogy for these purposes.
7
cisionmaking, funding support, and program planning
7
(7) (6) Comprehensive legislative support for the
8
and execution among all interested elements of society.
8
national science and technology effort requires that the
9
(5) Ways and means should be developed by which
9
Congress be regularly informed of the condition, health
10
the Federal Government can determine and establish the
10
and vitality, and funding requirements of science and
11
level of national effort in science and technology which
11
technology, the relation of science and technology to
12
should be sustained, taking into account competing pub-
12
changing national goals, and the need for legislative
13
lie needs and available resources.
13
modification of the Federal endeavor and structure at all
14
(5) Ways and means should be developed by which
14
levels as it relates to science and technology.
15
the Federal Government can assess and help assure that
15
Procedures
16
an adequate national effort is maintained in science and
16
(c) The Congress declares that, in order to expedite
17
technology, taking into account competing public needs,
17 and facilitate the implementation of the policy enunciated
18
available resources, and the contributions which science
18 in subsection (a) of this section, the following coordinate
19
and technology can make to national goals and objectives.
19 procedures are of paramount importance:
20
(6) Granting the need for # variety of approaches
20
(1) Federal procurement policy should encourage
21
within and among Federal, State, local, and nongov-
21
the use of science and technology to foster frugal use
22
ernmental activities in science and technology, it is
22
of materials, energy, and appropriated funds; to assure
23
essential that means be proportioned to ends in the
23
quality environment; and to enhance product perform-
24
conduct of science and technology programs supported
24
ance.
25
or conducted by the Federal Government. Such pro-
J. 59-097-0-2
10
11
1
(2) Explicit criteria, including cost-effectiveness
1
objective Federal patent policies should be developed,
2
principles where feasible practicable, should be developed
2
based on uniform principles, which have as their ob-
3
to identify the kinds of science applied research and tech-
3
jective the creation of incentives for technological innova-
4
nology programs that are appropriate for Federal fund-
4
tion and the application of procedures to assure the full
5
ing support and to determine the extent of such support.
5
use of beneficial technology to serve the public.
6
Particular attention should be given to scientific and
6
(5) Antitrust regulation to compel competitive eco-
7
technological problems and opportunities offering promise
7
nomic pluralism should not arbitrarily preclude coopera-
8
of social advantage that are SO long range, geographically
8
tion among competing firms in industrial research and
9
widespread, or economically diffused that the Federal
9
development beneficial to an entire industry and to the
10
Government constitutes the last resort appropriate source
10
public.
11
for undertaking their support. However, such projects
11
(6) Closer relationships should be encouraged
12
should conform with established criteria.
12
among practitioners of different scientific and techno-
13
(3) Federal promotion of science and technology
13
logical disciplines, including the physical, social, and bio-
14
should maximize emphasize quality of research, recognize
14
medical fields.
15
the singular importance of stability of in scientific and
15
(7) Federal departments, agencies, and instrumen-
16
technological institutions, and, for urgent tasks, must seek
16
talities should assure efficient management of laboratory
17
to assure timeliness of results. With particular reference
17
facilities and equipment in their custody, including acqui-
18
to Federal support for basic research, funds should be
18
sition of effective equipment, disposal of inferior and
19
allocated to encourage education in needed disciplines,
19
obsolete properties, and cross-servicing to maximize the
20
to provide a base of scientific knowledge from which
20
productivity of costly hardware. Disposal policies should
21
future essential technological development can be
21
include attention to possibilities for further productive
22
launched, and to add to the cultural heritage of the
22
use.
23
Nation.
23
(8) The full use of the contributions of science and
24
(4) A uniform patent policy should be promul-
24
technology to support State and local government goals
25
gated for all Federal agencies, having as its primary
25
should be encouraged.
12
13
1
(9) Formal recognition should be accorded those
1 with the advice and consent of the Senate, and who shall be
2
persons whose scientific and technological achievements
2 compensated at the rate provided for level II of the Execu-
3
have contributed significantly to the national welfare.
3
tive Schedule in section 5313 of title 5, United States Code.
4
(10) The Federal Government should support ap-
4 The President may, at his discretion, also appoint not more
5
plied scientific research in proportion to the probability
5 than four Assistant Directors, Directors by and with the
6
of its usefulness, insofar as this probability can be deter-
6 advice and consent of the Senate, who shall be compensated
7
mined; but while maximizing the beneficial consequences
7 at the a rate not to exceed that provided for level III of the
8
of technology, the Government should act to minimize
8 Executive Schedule in section 5314 of such title. Assistant
9
foreseeable injurious consequences.
9 Directors shall perform such functions as the Director may
10
(11) Federal departments, agencies, and instru-
10 from time to time prescribe.
11
mentalities should establish procedures to insure among
11
FUNCTIONS
12
them the systematic interchange of scientific data and
12
SEC. 204. (a) The Director shall be the President's
13
technological findings developed under their programs.
13 chief policy adviser and assistant with respect to scientific
14
TITLE II-OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND
14 and technological matters.
15
TECHNOLOGY POLICY
15
(b) In addition to such other functions and activities as
16
SHORT TITLE
16 the President may assign, the Director shall-
17
SEC. 201. This title may be cited as the "Presidential
17
(1) advise the President of scientific and technologi-
18
Science and Technology Advisory Organization Act of
18
cal considerations involved in areas of national concern
19
1975".
19
including, but not limited to, the economy, national secu-
20
ESTABLISHMENT
20
rity, health, foreign relations, the environment, and the
21
SEC. 202. There is hereby established in the Executive
21
technological recovery and use of resources;
22
Office of the President the Office of Science and Technology
22
(2) evaluate the scale, quality, and effectiveness of
23 Policy, hereinafter referred to in this title as the "Office".
23
the Federal effort in science and technology and advise
24
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR; ASSISTANT DIRECTORS
24
on appropriate actions;
25
SEC. 203. There shall be at the head of the Office a
25
(3) advise the President on scientific and techno-
26 Director who shall be appointed by the President, by and
14
15
1
logical considerations with regard to Federal budgets,
1
capability at all levels of government, academia, and
2
provide assist the Office of Management and Budget with
2
industry, and for the application of such capabilities to
3
an annual review and analysis of the funding proposed
3
national needs;
4
for research and development in budgets of all Federal
4
(7) in accordance with Presidential directives, fa-
5
agencies, and participate aid the Office of Management
5
cilitate assess and advise on policies for international
6
and Budget and the agencies throughout the budget de-
6
cooperation in science and technology which will advance
7
velopment process;
7
the national and international objectives of the United
8
(4) assist the President in providing general leader-
8
States;
9
ship and coordination of the research and development
9
(8) identify and assess emerging and future areas
10
programs of the Federal Government;
10
where science and technology can be used effectively in
11
(5) provide the President and the Congress with
11
addressing national and international problems;
12
annual periodic reviews of Federal statutes and admin-
12
(9) submit to the President and the Congress timely
13
istrative regulations governing the research and develop-
13
public reports on developments, trends, and problems in
14
ment activities of the various departments and agencies,
14
science and technology deserving of national attention;
15
including those affecting government-industry activities,
15
(10) periodically review the nature and needs of
16
together with any recommendations for their elimination,
16
national science policy and make recommendations to
17
reform, or updating as appropriate;
17
the President and to the Congress for its timely and
18
(6) develop, review, and revise criteria for deter-
18
appropriate revision, in accordance with section 102 (a)
19
mining optimum Federal support for science and tech-
19
(6) of title I of this Act; and
20
nology, and recommended policies, programs, and plans
20
(11) maintain liaison with the Federal Council for
21
for develop, review, revise, and recommend criteria for
21
Science and Technology, the National Science Board,
22
determining the type of scientific and technological activ-
22
and with all councils and offices of the Executive Office
23
ities warranting Federal support, and recommend Fed-
23
of the President, and develop appropriate working rela-
24
eral policies directed toward the development and mainte-
24
tionships with the National Security Council and the
25
nance of a broadly based scientific and technological
25
Domestic Council.
16
17
1
PERSONNEL
1 Federal agencies with or without reimbursement, and may
2
SEC. 205. The Director is authorized, without regard
2 transfer funds made available pursuant to this Act to other
3 to the provisions of title 5 of the United States Code govern-
3 Federal agencies as reimbursement for the utilization of such
4 ing appointments in the competitive service and chapter 51
4 services, personnel, equipment, and facilities.
5 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of said title, to appoint and
5
REORGANIZATIONS
6 fix the compensation, but not in excess of the rate prescribed
6
SEC. 208. (a) The President shall from time to time
7 for grade GS-18 of the General Schedule in section 5332 of
7 examine the organization of the Office and shall deter-
8 said title, for such officers and employees as he may deem
8 mine what changes, if any, are necessary to reduce expendi-
9 necessary to perform the functions now or hereafter vested
9 tures and promote economy and efficiency, and to increase
10 in him, and to prescribe their duties.
10 the Office's and the Director's capacity to render their
11
CONSULTANT AND OTHER SERVICES
11 analyses, examinations, advice, and counsel, by reduction or
12
SEC. 206. The Director may (1) obtain services as
12 increase in the number of members of such Office or by
13 authorized by section 3109 of title 5 of the United States
13 reduction, expansion, or alteration of the duties and functions
14 Code, at rates not to exceed the rate prescribed for grade
14 of the Office or of its Director. When the President, after
15 GS-18 of the General Schedule by section 5332 of title 5 of
15 investigation, finds that any of such changes would promote
16 the United States Code, and (2) enter into contracts and
16 the policies and purposes of this Act, he may prepare a
17 other arrangements for studies, analyses, and other services
17 reorganization plan for effecting the change or changes in-
18 with public agencies and with private persons, organizations,
18 volved, and submit such plan to the Congress, together with
19 or institutions, and make such payments as he deems neces-
19 his findings and a statement of reasons for the proposed
20 sary to carry out the provisions of this Act without legal
20 change or changes, and shall have any such reorganization
21 consideration, without performance bonds, and without regard
21 plan delivered to both Houses on the same day and to each
22 to section 3709 of the Revised Statutes (41 U.S.C. 5)
22 House while it is in session.
23
OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES
23
(b) A provision contained in a reorganization plan shall
24
SEC. 207. The Director may utilize with their consent
24 take effect at the end of the first period of sixty calendar days
25 the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of other
25 of continuous session of Congress after such plan is trans-
18
19
1 mitted to it (such days of continuous session to be computed
1 members appointed by the President not more than 90 days
2 in accordance with section 906 (b) of title 5, United States
2 after the confirmation (as provided in section 203 of this
3 Code) unless, between the date of transmittal and the end
3 Act) of the Director of the Office of Science and Technology
4 of the sixty-day period, each House has passed a resolution
4 Policy. The President shall designate one of such members
5 stating in substance that that House does not favor the
5 to The Director of such Office shall serve as Chairman.
6 reorganization plan. However, no such plan shall take effect
6
(2) Each of the members Members of the Committee
7 unless it is submitted to Congress before January 3, 1980.
7 appointed by the President pursuant to paragraph (1) shall
8
(c) The provisions of sections 908 through 913 of title
8 (A) be exceptionally qualified and distinguished in science,
9 5, United States Code, shall apply with respect to any
9 engineering, or closely related fields, or in public administra-
10 reorganization plan transmitted to the Congress pursuant to
10 tion or affairs, and shall be capable of rendering accurate and
11 subsection (a) of this section.
11 comprehensive analysis and critical examination of the pro-
12
(d) A reorganization plan which is effective shall be
12 grams and activities of the Government in the light of the
13 printed (1) in the Statutes at Large in the same volume as
13 findings and policies set forth in title I of this Act, and (B)
14 the public laws, and (2) in the Federal Register.
14 include representatives of the public, of the industrial sector,
15 TITLE III-THE FEDERAL SCIENCE AND TECH-
15 and of the academic community.
16
NOLOGY SURVEY COMMITTEE
16
(3) Members of the Committee who are not officers of
17
ORGANIZATION
17 the Federal Government shall, while attending meetings
18
SEC. 301. (a) (1) There is hereby established within
18 of the Committee or while engaged in duties related to such
19 the Executive Office of the President, and in association with
19 meetings or in other activities of the Committee pursuant
20 as part of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, or
20 to this Act, be entitled to receive the daily equivalent of the
21 in such other manner as the President may direct, a Federal
21 annual rate of basic pay in effect for GS-18 of the General
22 Science and Technology Survey Committee (hereinafter in
22 Schedule for each day, including traveltime, during which
23 this title referred to as the "Committee"). The Committee
23 they are SO attending or engaged, and shall, while away
24 shall consist of not less than five nor more than twelve
24 from their homes or regular places of business, be allowed
21
20
1 travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence,
1 Air Force) is authorized (1) to furnish to the Committee
2 equal to that authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5703) for per-
2 such information as may be necessary for carrying out its
3 sons in the Government service employed intermittently.
3 functions and as may be available to or procurable by such
4
(b) The Committee shall, with the approval of the
4 department, agency, or instrumentality, and (2) to detail
5 President, appoint an Executive Director who shall serve as
5 to temporary duty with the Committee on a reimburs-
6 chief executive officer, and who shall be paid at the rate
6 able basis such personnel within his administrative juris-
7 provided for level IV of the Executive Schedule in section
7 diction as it may need or believe to be useful for carrying
8 5315 of title 5, United States Code.
8 out its functions. Each such detail shall be without loss of
9
(c) (b) In the performance of its duties and functions
9 seniority, pay, or other employee status, to civilian em-
10 under section 302, the Committee is authorized, through
10 ployees SO detailed, and without loss of status, rank, office,
11 the Executive Director or otherwise- authorized-
11 or grade, or of any emolument, perquisite, right, privilege,
12
(1) to select, appoint, employ, and fix the com-
12 or benefit incident thereto, to military personnel SO de-
13
pensation of such specialists and other experts as may be
13 tailed. Each such detail shall be pursuant to a cooperative
14
necessary for the carrying out of its duties and functions,
14 agreement of the Chairman with the head of the relevant
15
and to select, appoint, and employ, subject to the civil
15 department, agency, or instrumentality, and shall be in ac-
16
service laws, such other officers and employees as may
16 cordance with the provisions of subchapter III of chapter 33,
17
be necessary for carrying out its duties and functions;
17 title 5, United States Code.
18
and
18
DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS
19
(2) to provide for participation of such civilian and
19
SEC. 302. (a) The Committee shall survey, examine,
20
military personnel as may be detailed to the Committee
20 and analyze the total overall context of the Federal science
21
pursuant to subsection (d) (c) of this section for carry-
21 and technology effort including missions, goals, personnel,
22
ing out the functions of the Committee.
22 funding, organization, facilities, and activities in general. In
23
(d) (c) Upon request of the Committee, the head of
23 pursuit of this duty the Committee shall give particular at
24 any Federal department, agency, or instrumentality (includ-
24 tention to, , among other things, consider needs for-
25 ing the head of the Department of the Army, Navy, or
25
(1) organizational reform;
22
23
1
(2) improvements in existing systems for handling
1
such supporting data and material as may be necessary, to
2
scientific and technological information on a government-
2
the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
3
wide basis;
President.
3
4
(3) technology assessment in the executive branch;
4
(2) The Director of such Office shall review the report
5
(4) improved methods for effecting technology
5
of the Committee and, within sixty days of receipt thereof,
6
innovation, transfer, and use;
6
transmit such report to the President and The President,
7
(5) stimulating more effective Federal-State and
7
within sixty days of receipt thereof, shall transmit such report
8
Federal-industry liaison and cooperation in science and
8
to each House of Congress together with such comments,
9
technology;
9
observations, and recommendations thereon as he deems
10
(6) reduction and simplification of Federal regu-
10
appropriate.
11
lations and administrative practices and procedures
11
TERMINATION; FINAL REPORT
12
which may have the effect of retarding technological
12
SEC. 303. The life of the Committee shall be fifteen 24
13
innovation or opportunities for its utilization;
13
months from the date of its first organizational meeting. The
14
(7) a broader base for support of basic research;
14 Committee's final report setting forth its findings and recom-
15
(8) ways and means of effectively integrating
15
mendations shall be issued within this period.
16
scientific and technological factors into our national and
16
TITLE IV-MISCELLANEOUS
17
international policies;
17
AUTHORIZATION
18
(9) maintenance of adequate scientific and techno-
18
SEC. 401. There are authorized to be appropriated such
19
logical manpower with regard to both quality and quan-
19 sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this
20
tity; and
20
Act.
21
(10) improved systems for planning and analysis
21
REPORT
22
of the overall Federal science and technology budget.
22
SEC. 402. Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Reorganization
23
(b) (1) Upon completion of its assignment, the Com-
23
Plan Numbered 2 of 1962 (76 Stat. 1253) and section 2 of
24
mittee shall submit a report of its activities, findings, and
24 Reorganization Plan Numbered 1 of 1973 (87 Stat. 1089)
25
conclusions, and recommendations, together with including
25 are repealed.
[COMMITTEE PRINT]
H.R. 9058 with suggested revisions
September 16, 1975
94TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 9058
24
AMENDMENT
SEC. 403. Section 4 of the National Science Foundation
Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1863) is amended by striking out
subsection (g) and by redesignating subsections (h), (i),
5 and (j) as subsections (g), (h), and (i), respectively.
A BILL
To establish a science and technology policy for
the United States, to provide for scientific
and technological advice and assistance to
the President, to provide a comprehensive
survey of ways and means for improving the
Federal effort in scientific research and in-
formation handling, and in the use thereof,
to amend the National Science Foundation
Act of 1950, and for other purposes.
By Mr. TEAGUE and Mr. MOSHER
JULY 30, 1975
Referred to the Committee on Science and Technology
1
2
3
4
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Oct. 2, 1975
JMC:
Dick Allison thought you
might want to read this before
your meeting with Teague &
Mosher tomorrow.
p
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20550
October 2, 1975
Honorable James A. Cannon
Assistant to the President
for Domestic Affairs
The White House Office
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear Mr. Cannon:
I am today dispatching the enclosed letters regarding
the National Science Board's comments on H.R. 9058 to
Mr. Teague and Mr. Mosher. We would be pleased if you
could bring to the attention of both the President and
the Vice President these comments of the Board.
With best regards,
Sincerely yours,
Norman Hackerman
Chairman
Enclosures (2)
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20550
October 2, 1975
Honorable Olin E. Teague
Chairman, Committee on Science
and Technology
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Mr. Teague:
The National Science Board has followed with considerable interest
the development of H.R. 9058 which would establish a science and
technology policy for the United States, provide for scientific
and technological advice and assistance to the President, and
provide for a comprehensive survey of the organization of science
and technology in the Executive Branch. The Board has asked that
I convey its views to you in the hope that they will be helpful
to you and the Committee on Science and Technology as you consider
H.R. 9058 in the weeks ahead.
The National Science Board finds H.R. 9058 with suggested
revisions of September 16, 1975, to be a valuable contribution
to the advance of science and technology.
The statement of the need and desirability for utilizing science
and technology to achieve national objectives in Title I is, in
the Board's opinion, an excellent one. We have one suggestion
to make, however; that is, to state explicitly the fact that
basic research underlies all advances in science and technology.
Title II establishing the Office of Science and Technology Policy
provides for a flexible yet effective method of establishing an
advisory mechanism on science and technology in the Executive
Office of the President.
With respect to Title III, the present organization of many
Federal institutions supporting science and technology in the
United States stems largely from national policy decisions made
in the late 1940's. While there has been an effective and
productive relationship of Federal sponsorship of science and
technology during nearly three decades, and while certain
elements of the organization have been studied, it is
appropriate to consider whether this same organization is
indeed suitable for the future. A study, such as the one
proposed in Title III and conducted as one of the responsibilities
of the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy,
should be a useful and timely initiative.
Honorable Olin E. Teague
October 2, 1975
The Board notes that Title IV would abolish the requirement in
the National Science Foundation Act that the Board "
render
an annual report to the President, for submission
to the
Congress, on the status and health of science and its various
disciplines. We feel that the statutory report requirement
has been useful in providing a medium for formal communication
on scientific progress and problems to the President, the
Congress, and the public. However, we would not interpret
the repeal of this requirement to preclude our submission of
reports from time to time to the President and the Congress
on important scientific matters.
Thus, the National Science Board endorses H.R. 9058 and hopes
that the Committee will seek its early passage.
In conclusion, let me express on behalf of the Board our
continued admiration for your personal leadership in the
development of this proposed legislation.
With best regards,
Sincerely yours,
Norman Hackerman
Chairman
-2-
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20550
October 2, 1975
Honorable Charles A. Mosher
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Mr. Mosher:
The National Science Board has followed with considerable interest
the development of H.R. 9058 which would establish a science and
technology policy for the United States, provide for scientific
and technological advice and assistance to the President, and
provide for a comprehensive survey of the organization of science
and technology in the Executive Branch. The Board has asked that
I convey its views to you in the hope that they will be helpful
to you and the Committee on Science and Technology as you consider
H.R. 9058 in the weeks ahead.
The National Science Board finds H.R. 9058 with suggested
revisions of September 16, 1975, to be a valuable contribution
to the advance of science and technology.
The statement of the need and desirability for utilizing science
and technology to achieve national objectives in Title I is, in
the Board's opinion, an excellent one. We have one suggestion
to make, however; that is, to state explicitly the fact that
basic research underlies all advances in science and technology.
Title II establishing the Office of Science and Technology Policy
provides for a flexible yet effective method of establishing an
advisory mechanism on science and technology in the Executive
Office of the President.
With respect to Title III, the present organization of many
Federal institutions supporting science and technology in the
United States stems largely from national policy decisions
made in the late 1940's. While there has been an effective
and productive relationship of Federal sponsorship of science
and technology during nearly three decades, and while certain
elements of the organization have been studied, it is appropriate
to consider whether this same organization is indeed suitable for
the future. A study, such as the one proposed in Title III and
conducted as one of the responsibilities of the Director of the
Office of Science and Technology Policy, should be a useful and
timely initiative.
Honorable Charles A. Mosher
October 2, 1975
The Board notes that Title IV would abolish the requirement in
the National Science Foundation Act that the Board "
render
an annual report to the President, for submission
to
the
Congress, on the status and health of science and its various
disciplines. " We feel that the statutory report requirement
has been useful in providing a medium for formal communication
on scientific progress and problems to the President, the
Congress, and the public. However, we would not interpret
the repeal of this requirement to preclude our submission of
reports from time to time to the President and the Congress
on important scientific matters.
Thus, the National Science Board endorses H.R. 9058 and hopes
that the Committee will seek its early passage.
Let me take this occasion to express to you on behalf of the
Board our gratitude for your continued support of science and
science education in the United States.
With best regards,
Sincerely yours,
Norman Hackerman
Chairman
-2-
[Roll No.: 581]
Eilberg
Lehman
Richmond
REQUEST
Emery
Lent
YEAS-237
Riegle
Esch
Levitas
Rodino
SUBCOMMITTEE
ON
PUBLIC
Abdnor
Grassley
Nowak
Evans, Ind.
Long, Md.
Roe
BUILDINGS GROUNDS OF
Alexander
Guyer
Obey
Fascell
Lujan
Boncalio
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
Anderson, III.
Hagedorn
O'Brien
Fisher
McHugh
Rooney
Andrews, N.C.
Hamilton
Ottinger
Fithian
McKinney
Rose
AND TRANSPORTATION TO MEET
Andrews,
Hammer-
Passman
Flood
Madden
Rosenthal
ANY TIME NEXT WEEK DURING
N. Dak.
schmidt
Patman, Tex.
Florio
Maguire
Rostenkowski
THE 5-MINUTE RULE
Archer
Hansen
Pattison, N.Y.
Ford, Mich
Martin
Roush
Armstrong
Hastings
Pettis
Ford, Tenn.
Mathis
Roybal
Mr. RONCALIO. Mr. Speaker, I ask
Ashley
Hays, Ohio
Pickle
Gaydos
Mezvinsky
Runnels
unanimous consent that the Subcom-
Aspin
Heckler, Mass.
Poage
Glaimo
Mikva
Russo
Bafalis
Henderson
Pressler
Ginn
Miller, Calif.
St Germain
mittee on Public Buildings and Grounds
Baldus
Hicks
Preyer
Green
Miller, Ohio
Santini.
of the Committee on Public Works and
Baucus
Hightower
Price
Gude
Mineta
Sarbanes
Transportation be permitted to meet
Beard, Tenn.
Hillis
Pritchard
Haley
Minish
Schroeder
Bell
Hinshaw
Quie
Hall
Mink
Sharp
any time next week, while the House is
Bergland
Holland
Quillen
Hanley
Mitchell, Md.
Smith, Iowa
in session, under the 5-minute rule.
Bevill
Horton
Railsback
Hannaford
Moakley
Spellman
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
Biester
Hubbard
Randall
Harkin
Moffett
Stanton,
Bingham
Hungate
Rangel
Harrington
Mollohan
James V.
the request of the gentleman from
Bowen
Hutchinson
Rees
Harris
Moss
Stark
Wyoming?
Breaux
Hyde
Regula
Harsha
Mottl
Steiger, Ariz.
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, reserving
Breckinridge
Ichord
Rhodes
Hawkins
Murphy, III.
Stokes
Brinkley
Jarman
Rinaldo
Hayes, Ind.
Murphy, N.Y.
Studds
the right to object, perhaps the gentle-
Brooks
Jeffords
Risenhoover
Hechler, W. Va. Natcher
Thompson
man from Wyoming could confine his
Broomfield
Johnson, Colo.
Roberts
Hefner
Neal
Traxler
request to a request for tomorrow, and
Brown, Mich.
Johnson, Pa.
Robinson
Heinz
Nedzi
Tsongas
Broyhill
Jones, Ala.
Rogers
Helstoski
Nix
Vander Veen
then he can make a new one on Monday.
Buchanan
Jones, Okla.
Ryan
Holt
Nolan
Vanik
Mr. RONCALIO. Mr. Speaker, If the
Burgener
Jones, Tenn.
Sarasin
Holtzman
Oberstar
Vigorito
gentleman will yield, I have made the
Burleson, Tem
Jordan
Satterfield
Howard
O'Hara
Waxman
Burlison, Mo.
Karth
Scheuer
Howe
O'Neill
Weaver
request for next week since we have al-
Butler
Kasten
Schneebell
Hughes
Patten, N.J.
Whitehurst
ready canceled two meetings this week.
Carter
Kazen
Schulze
Jacobs
Patterson,
Wolff
We are not scheduled to meet tomorrow.
Casey
Kelly
Sebelius
Jenrette
Calif.
Wydler
Cederberg
Kemp
Seiberling
Johnson, Calif. Pepper
Yates
Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, in the
Chappell
Ketchum
Shipley
Jones, N.C.
Perkins
Yatron
absence of my colleague, the gentleman
Chisholm
Keys
Shriver
Kastenmeier
Peyser
Young, Ga.
from California, I would be constrained
Clancy
Kindness
Shuster
Koch
Pike
Zeferetti
Clausen,
Krueger
Sikes
Krebs
Reuss
to object to granting permission for the
Don H.
LaFalce
Simon
entire week, and I do object.
Cleveland
Lagomarsino
NOT VOTING-20
Skubitz
The SPEAKER. Objection is heard.
Cochran
Landrum
Slack
AuCoin
Hébert
Staggers
Cohen
Latta
Smith, Nebr.
Biaggi
Macdonald
Steed
Collins, Tex.
Leggett
Snyder
Bolling
Metcalfe
Sullivan
Conable -
Litton
Solarz
Brown, Ohio
Rousselot
Treen
PERMISSION FOR COMMITTEE ON
Conte
Lloyd, Calif.
Stanton,
Dingell
Ruppe
Udall
PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPOR-
Coughlin
Lloyd, Tenn.
J. William
Evins, Tenn.
Sisk
Van Deerlin
Crane
Long, La.
Steelman
Fary
Spence
TATION TO MEET TOMORROW
Daniel, Dan
Lott
Steiger, Wis.
DURING THE 5-MINUTE RULE
Daniel, R. W.
McClory
Stephens
The Clerk announced the following
de la Garza
McCloskey
Stratton
pairs:
Mr ANDERSON of California. Mr.
Dent
McOollister
Stuckey
On this vote:
Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
Derwinski
McCormack
Symington
the Committee on Public Works and
Devine
McDade
Symms
Mr. Hébert for, with Mr. AuCoin against.
Dickinson
McDonald
Talcott
Mr. Treen for, with Mr. Biaggi against.
Transportation be permitted to meet to-
Downing, Va
McEwen
Taylor, Mo.
Mr. Sisk for, with Mr. Macdonald of Massa-
morrow for the purpose of conducting
Duncan, Oreg.
McFall
Taylor, N.C.
chusetts against.
business during the-5-minute rule.
Eckhardt
McKay
Teague
Edwards, Ala.
Madigan
Mr. Steed for, with Mr. Metcalfe against.
Thone
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
English
Mahon
Thornton
Mr. Staggers for, with Mr. Fary against.
the request of the gentleman from
Erlenborn
Mann
Uliman
Mr. Evins of Tennessee for, with Mrs. Sul-
California?
Eshleman
Matsunaga
Vander Jagt
livan against.
Evans, Colo.
Mazzoli
Waggonner
Mr., Van Deerlin for, with Mr. Dingell
There was
Fenwick
Meeds
Walsh
against
Findley
Melcher
Wampler
Fish
Meyner
Whalen
Until further notice:
Flowers
Michel
White
Flynt
Whitten
Mr. Udall with Mr. Rousselot.
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM FOR
Milford
Foley
Mills
Wiggins
Mr. Brown of Ohio with Mr. Spence.
TOMORROW
Forsythe
Mitchell, N.Y.
Wilson, Bob
Fountain
Montgomery
Wilson, C. H.
Mrs. SCHROEDER and Messrs. BEN-
(Mr. RHODES asked and was given
Fraser
Moore
Wilson, Tex.
NETT and TRAXLER changed their
permission to address the House for 1
Frenzel
Moorhead,
Winn
vote from "yea" to "nay."
minute and to revise and extend his re-
Frey
Calif
Wirth
Fuqua
Wright
Messrs. TEAGUE and CHARLES
marks.)
Moorhead, Pa:
Gibbons
Morgan
Wylie
WILSON of Texas changed their vote
Mr. RHODES. Speaker, I take
Gilman
Mosher
Young, Alaska
this time to ask the distinguished acting
Goldwater
Murtha
Young, Fis
from "nay" to "yea."
Gonzalez
Myers, Ind.
Young, Ted.
So the Senate bill was passed.
majority leader what the program is for
Goodling
Myers, Pa.
Zablocki
tomorrow, if he has it available.
Gradison
Nichols
The result of the vote was announced
Mr. McFALL. Will the distinguished
as above recorded.
NAYS-176
minority leader yield?
Abzug
A motion to reconsider was laid on
Bonker
Cornell
Mr. RHODES. I am happy to yield to
Adams
Brademas
Cotter
the table.
the gentleman from California.
Addabbo
Brodhead
D'Amours
Ambro
Brown, Calif.
Mr. McFALL. The proposed program
Daniels, N.J.
Anderson,
Burke, Calif.
Danielson
GENERAL LEAVE
for tomorrow is, first, consideration of
Calif.
Burke, Fla.
Davis
H.R. 8070, the HUD appropriations con-
Annunzio
Burke, Mass.
Delaney
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask
ference report.
Ashbrook
Burton, John
Dellums
unanimous consent that all Members may
Badillo
Burton, Phillip
Derrick
Second on the calendar will be H.R.
Barrett
Byron
Diggs
have 5 legislative days in which to re-
8841, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Bauman
Carney
Dodd
vise and extend their remarks on the
Rodenticide Act Amendments, commonly
Beard, R.I.
Carr
Downey, N.Y.
Senate bill just passed.
Bedell
Clawson, Del
known as FIFRA.
Drinan
Bennett
Clay
Duncan, Tenn.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
No. 3 will be S. 584, retirement credit
Blanchard
Collins, III.
du Pont
the request of the gentleman from Penn-
for National Guard technician service.
Blouin
Conlan
Early
Boggs
sylvania?
Conyers
Edgar
No. 4 will be H.R. 7222, Federal em-
Boland
Corman
Edwards, Calif.
There was no objection.
ployees' group life insurance.