language that you recommend here might very well suit that require

ment.

The fact that you have a recommendation here on reviewing programs, makes me wonder if we aren't getting back to the point where your words "shall review the programs," could put the Board into an operating role that may be interpreted now as being a weakened position.

I wonder if we are not causing more trouble here than less by trying to be more specific to clarify the position?

Dr. HAWORTH. I would say that of all the clauses and phrases in these two recommendations, I hold the least brief for the one that says, "and shall review its programs." I think that is the least important part of the two suggestions. The statement that the Board shall be the policymaking body of the Foundation I think is meant to be very clear. It is meant to say frankly that clearly the policies of the Foundation have to be within the policies of the Government. I believe my formulation makes it clearer that the reference is to policy insofar as the Foundation can make policies.

That was the reason I reversed that particular language.

Mr. BROWN. Doctor, there is a fundamental problem that arises with every board that presumably has policymaking function, but every board has a different concept of what a policy is. There's no definition that I know of in the dictionary or anywhere else that says what policy is.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Davis?

Mr. DAVIS. I am reminded of a statement that I read recently which says a camel is a horse put together by a committee. We could come up with a camel here. Isn't this possibly what the draftsman of this phrase has in mind: The Board shall be the policymaking body of the Foundation and as such shall exercise the function of reviewing its program.

Dr. HAWORTH. That's the intent, and incidentally, I'm the phrase

maker.

Mr. DAVIS. Maybe if it were reworded in that language, it would go a long way to meet Mr. Brown's objections.

Dr. HAWORTH. This was the intent.

Mr. DADDARIO. Well, we can come to no quick decision, but I wonder if it just elaborates the situation and does not overcome the questions raised. The Board as a policymaker could in fact establish this as a requirement without it being in the language, which is Mr. Brown's point.

Mr. DAVIS. I agree that's true, too. I think either way would meet the objection.

Mr. DADDARIO. Well, I think we have touched on this enough. Dr. HAWORTH. The thing I am strongest for is the change in 5(d). Incidentally, we tend at least I tended at first and I think most people tend to overlook the new program part of the present language. It doesn't merely set a limitation on grants above a certain size but it also requires approval of the first grant in a new program. To me that implies that that would be the only control the Board would have over the establishment of new programs. I believe it should have more control than that, and so have tried to get that idea into my substitute for 5(d). I think as a matter of fact that

participation in the formulation of the programs in the broad senseand I'm now not talking about the little details such as I mentioned an example of a while ago-is the most important thing that the Board can do. It is the place where it can contribute the most. The programs are the means of trying to reach the objectives that were intended by the Congress in setting up the National Science Foundation in the first place.

I am speaking now of the Foundation's own activities, rather than the broad advisory and recommendatory functions, and so forth. In terms of internal activities the programs are of the essence. The needs and so forth of the scientific community, and particularly the academic scientific community, constitute the area in which the Board has the most intimate knowledge and understanding and hence in which its potency is the greatest. I believe this should be explicitly recognized and hence tried to call specific attention to it in section 5(d). I believe it should be involved in the sense, of the formulation of the programs, and not in what specific grant is given or not given within a program.

Mr. DADDARIO. Fine. Let's proceed, Dr. Haworth.

Dr. HAWORTH. Seventh, the provisions of the new section 4(b) authorizing the Board to delegate to its Executive Committee or the Director any of its powers and functions under the act would, in my opinion, add flexibility to the distribution of responsibilities I have discussed with respect to sections 4(a) and 5(d) and would strengthen the ability of the Foundation to operate effectively.

An appropriate delegation of authority to the Executive Committee would help promote fast action when necessary since, because of its limited membership, it can be assembled on much shorter notice. than can be the entire Board. Moreover, under this section, the Board would be able to delegate to the Director authority for making those policy determinations which it might deem necessary to put him in a position to handle the daily affairs of the Foundation. This would be particularly useful in that operating decisions are often touched with policy implications which the Director might feel unable to decide without having appropriate authority.

I believe, therefore, that section 4 (b) constitutes a wise delegation of new authority to the Board.

Eighth, I should like to discuss proposed section 4(g) which would require the National Science Board to render an annual report on the status and health of science and its various disciplines. As mentioned in the commentary, the Board in submitting the proposed language appears, perhaps, to require a report that is most comprehensive. Alternative language is supported in the commentary but I would point out that the explanation of the section as contained in an article by you, Mr. Chairman, in the journal Science of April 1 of this year appears to cover the situation. I should like to quote the following excerpt from the article.

We

there is no intent here to pin a time-consuming, repetitive task on either the Board or the Foundation staff. We would not expect a complete evaluation and report each year on every science discipline or every phase of technology. would expect the Board to be selective, to report on areas and developments which appear to it most significant, most timely, where achievement has occurred, or where the greatest gaps and needs exist.

I am sure that with such an understanding the Board would have the freedom of selection necessary to make this annual report in an effective and meaningful manner.

Ninth, proposed new section 6 provides for the appointment of a Deputy Director and four Assistant Directors by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. I welcome so much of this provision as applies to the Deputy Director. In addition to his normal broad responsibilities, he must be ready to act as Director. Therefore, I believe that it is appropriate and desirable that he be an officer chosen by the President and approved by the Congress through Senate confirmation.

On the contrary, I feel that the Assistant Directors should not be so appointed. While individuals may be recruited directly from the outside for these offices on occasion, these positions should be looked upon by the professional staff as legitimate career aspirations. Moreover, the number of officers required at the level just below the Deputy Director is already in excess of four and will undoubtedly grow as the Foundation's responsibilities increase. Therefore, the setting of any specific number of Assistant Directors is bound in time to lead to a situation where there are "first-class" Assistant Directors appointed by the President and "second-class" Assistant Directors appointed by the Director.

Finally, if these positions are intended as an organizational addition, it is my view that this would constitute undesirable layering which would tend to divorce the professional staff from management. I do, therefore, urge the committee to remove from the bill this provision for the appointment of Assistant Directors by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. Haworth, how does your organization now deal with other agencies?

We have compiled a list of some 59 statutory positions where there is appointment by the President and confirmation by the Senate in comparable type positions. Now, your people deal with these men who really do have a different status from time to time. How does that work now? What inhibitions result because of this discrepancy and manner of appointment?

Dr. HAWORTH. Well, so far as I am aware, Mr. Chairman, this has had no, at least no appreciable, effect of any sort. The reasoning here, and perhaps I may be misinterpreting, but the reasoning is that the people that serve as Associate Directors of the Foundation are people in line positions. There's an Associate Director for Research, Dr. Robertson. There is an Associate Director for Education, Dr. Riecken, and so forth. And they are in charge of groups of divisions. The Foundation has many more divisions now than it originally did. It has nine to be exact, and the Associate Directors are professional people who have served for long periods on the Foundation staff. I don't mean that in every instance this would be the case, but they are intimately tied to the activities of these divisions that report to them. More intimately perhaps than to the Director. That is, they are not part of the Director's office so to speak, in contrast to a big agency such as State or Defense or others of that sort where there are, of course, many Assistant Secretaries who are part of the immediate family of the Secretary.

Now, certainly these Associate Directors report to me. I see them at least every day or so. But, their home is where their working people are, and not in my office. Now I interpreted your intent in terms of your original report, in which you provided for four Assistant Directors, and for four divisions of the Foundation and furthermore said that these four Assistant Directors should be the heads of these four divisions. So, I interpreted that your intent here was for them to play the role that what we now call Associate Directors now play, rather than to be a special staff, so to speak, for the Director. And, that's as I believe it should be.

Mr. DADDARIO. Well, we have discussed that particular point and come to the conclusion that we had built in a certain amount of rigidity which was not necessary or helpful, that we should not impose upon any director labels and, therefore, have withdrawn that proposal. Yet, it does not follow that by limiting to four those having a title of associate or assistant director, however it might be, whatever the situation called for, that you would not be able to provide within the organization under another label, people who could be given additional titles.

Our objectives provide the flexibility, so that you might have people who could act in your stead, carry out responsibilities when you were not available, appear before the committees of the Congress, act with greater capability because they had been given a higher standing, so that they could deal with their counterparts and other agencies and so that there will be attracted to the National Science Foundation people of the necessary standing since you would have the capability of offering them jobs at these levels.

Dr. HAWORTH. Are you suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that you have in mind that there might be up to four assistant directors who were, in this other sense that I spoke of, members of the director's office in the same sense that the deputy director is and that then there would be other people who would direct the affairs of groups of divisions?

Mr. DADDARIO. Yes; this has been our intention even though we may not have spelled it out, apparently we have not.

Ďr. HAWORTH. I did not so interpret it because, as I said, of the report. Now I recognize that you do not in the legislation propose a rigid organization of divisions, but I assumed that the function of these four assistant directors was qualitatively the same functions that you intended in the report. That is, that although you are not specifying that we should have this division, that division and the other division, that you nevertheless did still intend that these four assistant directors should be the line operating officials of the divisions or groups of divisions.

Mr. DADDARIO. Well, let's talk about it just a bit since there is some confusion about it. You go so far here in approving the idea. of the appointment of a Deputy Director in this manner.

Dr. HAWORTH. Yes.

Mr. DADDARIO. Why do you stop there? Why don't you go further?

Dr. HAWORTH. Well, as I see it, and certainly in terms of the existing organization of the Foundation and as I understood your intent with respect to its organization, the role of the Deputy Director is a quite different kind of role, not simply because of the echelon in

which he is placed, but in the kind of function he performs. In the organization charts I always draw a box and put the Director and the Deputy Director in that same box; I think they are one and the same thing. Somebody has to be in charge, to be ultimately responsible, or as Jim Fisk used to say, to be the man that gets fired if things go wrong. But, except for a couple of cases where for transient reasons, there are offices that report directly to him, the Deputy Director is not a line officer. He is part of the Director. The Director simply has two heads and four arms and so on.

Now, as to the Associate Directors. The Associate Director for Research does not have a broad responsibility across the Foundation, except as every high official of any organization is obviously party to the councils and so forth, but he has responsibility for those divisions that deal with research and in this case also the division that manages the institutional programs. The Associate Director for Education has responsibility for the totality of the education functions of the Foundation. But as I say, just to use geography as a way of putting it, the Associate Directors sit in the part of the building where their people are and not in the part of the building where the Director is.

Now, it would be a quite different thing to say that in addition to the deputy director there might be a couple or so assistant directors who would function at the level of the director's office who are not line officers with respect to these different functions. But, I have not been interpreting your intent in that way.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, could I clarify the level of the existing associate directors?

Doctor, could you tell me what their present level is in terms of salary or in terms of the proposal that is made here for the four assistant directors? Are they at that level now or are they at a lower level?

Dr. HAWORTH. They are at the equivalent of grade 18 which is slightly, but not very far in salary below the

Mr. BROWN. You seem to have a dichotomy between career positions and Presidential appointments too. This is not a rigid dichotomy.

Dr. HAWORTH. No, that was a minor point. Obviously career people are very often appointed to these kinds of positions. But, on the other hand I think of the positions of the associate directors as they now function in the National Science Foundation as one to which people should aspire as career positions. Perhaps that would have been a better way to say it. So long as they function effectively, I think they should stay there.

Now, I'm not dealing with and frankly I haven't given any thought to this other question of whether there might be more people in the director's office at the Presidential appointment level whose functions would be, as I say, within the director's office as assistant directors in the same way as an assistant secretary who does not have a line responsibility but has a functional responsibility rather than an organizational responsibility; perhaps that's what I'm trying to say.

Mr. DADDARIO. Perhaps we can clarify this by posing some questions for the record. As I recall it, Dr. Haworth, when Mr. Keppel was Assistant Secretary of HEW, he was lifted up to that position from the Commissioner of Education, giving him a higher level to