applied research, and of course this is a potentially far-reaching departure from past history. We think it needs to be thought through very carefully. It is a close question.

Applied research is already widely supported by Federal agencies for mission-related reasons, whereas the Foundation has a wellunderstood mandate for the support of general-purpose basic research. Rightly or wrongly, basic research still suffers when the chips are down and a choice must be made as between supporting long-term and often costly basic research compared with shorter run utilitarian applied research.

What we have been reasonably certain of, up to now, was that through the Foundation we could maintain a workable balance as between both of these, and what concerns us in the context of the present bill is that we would end up with more, rather than less, ambiguity as to the Foundation's mission. We suspect that applied research, over time, could operate to drive out basic research or draw resources away from it.

We find it hard to brush away these apprehensions, but we recognize that research does not lend itself to clean classifications as to what is "basic" and what is "applied." We take some reassurance from the fact that the bill "directs" the Foundation to support basic research while it "authorizes" it to support applied research.

It may be a lawyer's fine point, but it is there nevertheless. We also have to agree that there is something unreal about carrying basic research up to the point where support must be summarily suspended because the research has entered a zone of uncertainty where nobody has the responsibility for going on, and we have come to think that the principle of "hot pursuit" has validity here in the sense that the Foundation should not be barred from taking basic research a reasonable step further, at least through supporting work at the transition stages in academic and similar institutions.

On balance, though not without reservations, the Bureau of the Budget feels that the weight of the argument runs in favor of allowing the Foundation to support applied research in academic institutions. We think there are four kinds of situations that this authority might reach.

First, there are the borderline situations such as engineering and the social sciences-where it is difficult to label the research either basic or applied, and where the intent of the investigator may be the controlling element.

Second, there are the "hot pursuit" situations where applied research is an immediate and logical extension of basic research being performed and where rigid rules would otherwise result in the untimely termination of the work.

Third, in some disciplines again, engineering and the social sciences occur to us-it may be that some applied research may be the most effective way to train graduate students.

Fourth, circumstances may arise as was the case for a time in weather modification-where the Federal Government may wish to move ahead with applied research at a time when our fundamental knowledge in the field is too limited to warrant a large-scale effort by a mission-oriented agency, and here it would seem appropriate for the Foundation, if so directed, to get started in the public interest a program involving both basic and applied research until sufficient

progress is made to justify assigning responsibility for a major applied research effort to another agency.

In summary, then, we offer no objection to adding this authority to the present statute as a means of clarifying an admittedly ambiguous and restrictive situation. At the same time, we would expect the Foundation to construe and administer this added authority in a selective way and not at the expense of its primary function of supporting basic research.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Carey, the committee appreciates your concern in this regard and yet the phraseology seems to indicate that we have not as a committee properly explained the work that we have done in this regard. It seems to me that the record is quite explicit. We see this as a step which should proceed with extreme care. Dr. Hornig, in supporting this authority does say, for example:

Some problems of great public significance require a combination of basic and applied research, not appropriately conducted by other agencies and the Foundation should, provided by the bill, be able to support and initiate such research.

We have had a great deal of testimony on this and we have been extremely careful about it; I think that the record is quite explicit and that you seem to be ringing an alarm which might indicate that we have not covered this possibly in our report.

Mr. CAREY. Well, I have read the report and I also read your article in Science, and I think the intent is very clear there. I have dwelt on this, Mr. Chairman, in order to add emphasis so far as the history of this legislation is concerned.

We come out to the same answer and I think for the same reasons and while the points that I have made perhaps appear to overdo it, we do not make them with any sense that the thinking of the subcommittee and the Bureau of the Budget is really different. So, I hope you will simply take this not as argumentation or criticism of the subcommittee, but rather to nail it down from the standpoint of what it is we are concurring in and why.

Mr. DADDARIO. Well, we appreciate the fact that this is made for the record, I bring up the committee's position only because it is not mentioned in your remarks and so that it might be clear that we have been equally concerned about this and in my opinion have taken the necessary steps to document this concern.

For example, we made reference to the work being done in weather modification and suggested that this program had reached such a level of feasibility that its operational programs ought not to become the responsibility of the Foundation because it would detract funds from the basic area.

We are pleased as a committee that, since this report has been made, steps are being taken by the Executive to implement this suggestion. This committee, recognizing the excessive costs of such applied programs, is concerned that it might detract from the basic and unique responsibilities of the Foundation. We recognize as testimony comes before us that there is basic research that might fall between the cracks because it could not be done in any other agencies and that in the best interest of the country something must be done about this. I stress this point because I know the academic community has been concerned about it, but I feel that their concern comes because they have not gone back to the point where we have documented our reasons for making this recommendation.

We do believe that this has been one point at least about which we have been extremely careful.

Mr. CAREY. I see no difference in the position of the committee in the history it has made, and our position. I think as I say, we are only adding emphasis to this history from the Executive Branch side, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DADDARIO. Fine, Mr. Carey.

Mr. CAREY. Shall I go on, sir?

Mr. DADDARIO. Yes, please.

Mr. CAREY. The second major question dealt with in the bill concerns the relationship between the National Science Board and its Director. Looking back over 15 years, it seems clear that the Board and the Directors have worked together very well and that the activities of the Foundation have not been impaired by these organizational arrangements. Nevertheless, if the act is to be reopened at this time there is much to be said for clarifying and strengthening the responsibilities of the Board and the Director.

And, if I may interpolate, we would try to do this while bearing in mind that the original law after all did create a complex structure and the more we try to spell it out, the more complicated we are probably going to make it, Mr. Chairman.

But, it seems to us that the role of the Board should be to provide a broad framework of policies within which the Foundation is to carry out-through its Director the duties placed upon it by the Congress and the President. Policies need to be flexible and adapted to changing needs and priorities. The Foundation exists in a complex setting where its affairs are touched and influenced by many forces, including the legislative process, the Presidency, the interaction which goes on all the time with the executive departments and agencies, and inputs from the scientific community. Policy formulation is a process in which the Director must take part and obviously does take part. Attempts to draw too fine lines as to where policymaking starts and ends are likely to be unproductive. It should be made clear, however, that executive responsibilities belong with the Director and not in a part-time policy board. I do not think there is any issue here, but the point ought to be made.

In our view, the National Science Board ought to concern itself with forming the broad policies of the Foundation, evaluating the timeliness and current relevance of existing policies, and reviewing the programs which are being carried on to give effect to these policies. This is an area where it is extremely helpful to have the perspective and criticism and fresh ideas of a high-level body, and incidentally we note with much interest the subcommittee's expectation that the Board will share its perspectives and value-judgments with the President and the Congress through an annual report.

To strengthen and clarify this concept of the functions of the Board, the Bureau recommends as OST has done, that the second sentence of section 4(a) be changed to read, "the Board shall be the policymaking body of the Foundation and shall review its programs."

At the same time, we believe that the executive responsibility of the Director should not be restricted by requiring him to obtain the prior approval of the Board for grants or contracts in excess of stated money levels or where the arrangement involves a new program. We see no reason for these restraints on the chief executive officer of the

62-309-66-5

Foundation. Where new programs are involved, his consultation with the Board should-and in our judgment would-occur long before the stage of making a grant or contract. The dollar maximums now contained in the bill have the effect of continuing to limit the responsibilities of the Director without conveying any offsetting gains to good management, and we believe they should be deleted and the Director made fully responsible for the executive business of the Foundation. To accomplish this, the Bureau of the Budget recommends that the proposed section 5(d) be deleted from the bill and a new section substituted to read, "The formulation of programs by the Director shall be in conformance with the policies of the Foundation and shall be done in consultation with the Board."

The effect of these several changes would be to clarify and reemphasize the function of the National Science Board in the area of policy, and to clearly focus executive functions in the Director, who would formulate specific programs to carry out the Foundation's policies and be clearly responsible for their effective and efficient execution. While the formulation of programs involves functions of policy, and therefore should be done in consultation with the Board, we believe that this is the correct role for the Director who is a fulltime officer in close contact with the Congress and the executive agencies with whose programs those of the Foundation must be coordinated. Finally, by removing the dollar limitations on the day-today actions of the Director, we would recognize that the size of a particular grant or contract does not provide a good index of the policy significance of the grant, and that the Director should be depended upon to exercise good judgment in bringing to the Board's attention those policy issues which may arise out of a particular award, regardless of the dollar amounts involved.

Mr. DADDARIO. Mr. Carey, you were in the room when we were discussing this point with Dr. Hornig. I wonder whether or not in view of the discussion which took place there and the questions asked of Dr. Hornig, there may be some changes in your suggestions.

Mr. CAREY. Mr. Chairman, I have heard that discussion and it is indeed a murky field to get into. It strikes me, sir, that it would be very difficult in legislation to be so specific about the interaction of the Board with the Director and it would probably not be productive. I think that the most we can do, sir, is to speak of spheres of responsibility and do it with a reasonable amount of specificity which I feel would be accomplished by the wording that OST and we have suggested, so it is understood to reasonable people. The Board has its hands full if it deals properly with the very difficult questions of science policy and future goals. This is an area, in my view at least, where we have been very weak. We have had great strength, I think, in administration, in program operations throughout the Government. But the rationalizing of it all, the attempt to shape a framework in connection with which we do all of this research and development and technology-there I think, and I think you think, too little has been accomplished, and if the Board is indeed to be enhanced as you intend, the more we can push it in the direction of this sphere of policymaking while the executive business of the Foundation is strongly focused in the Director, I think that the more we will gain out of this very constructive examination by this subcommittee. If nothing else came out of it, I think it would be very worthwhile and I

think that your various changes here including the idea of a report from the Board does give a color, a strong color to this generic distinction between policymaking and execution which is very helpful. Whereas I find it very unsatisfactory, myself, Mr. Chairman, to try to draw too fine a line with words and punctuation that would nail down where the Board leaves off and the Director starts.

I think that there has to be an interaction among reasonable men in the setting of the Foundation. I think that if the choices of the National Science Board members are well made, and if the choice of a Director is well made, then even though they may not agree on everything, even though it may not be the lowest common denominator kind of policymaking which I think none of us would want and none of us would respect, this is really going to be the ultimate answer as to how this Foundation works. It runs to the people. It also runs, I think, to their understanding of these respective spheres in general terms, not necessarily in lawyer's terms. I'm afraid all this may not be very helpful.

Mr. DADDARIO. I think it is helpful. We are all trying to accomplish the same end and are here for the purpose of determining if there is any imprecise definition in the language, which can be eliminated. Also, we want our intentions understood for the record. I wonder if the language that you propose does not move us further away from that end.

Mr. CAREY. That's entirely possible, Mr. Chairman, but that's not our intention.

Mr. DADDARIO. I understand that, and do think that the matter of reviewing programs might add to the problem rather than detract from it. I would like you to consider one other point as you go further into this. At the moment, the Board does have authority which it has chosen in a permissive way to grant to the Director. Things are working out nicely in that direction. And yet, the Board does have the authority to withdraw this authority. The language that is recommended by you appears to move the Board further away from being a participating group. I recognize that we do want to strengthen the Director. At the same time, we want to be sure that this relationship continues but we must take into consideration that the Board does have certain authorities with which we must deal with

care.

Mr. CAREY. It is hard to make an argument against that, Mr. Chairman. I think if I were to try to restate the way we look at this, we would think that the wording that we have suggested here, the substitute wording, would put the Director in the position of taking policy from the Board, however it might be expressed by the Board, and translating it into programs which would be visible, which would have eventual outputs that would reflect the intent of the Foundation.

The translation of a policy into programs might not be instantaneous. It might not be a 1-year process. It might not be entirely in the first budget after the Board has expressed its policy. It might in effect be evolutionary and take 3 to 5 years to really move on a policy of the Board.

Now, in this stage of shaping programs which would be responsive to the policies of the Board, I find it inconceivable that in real life the Director would not be in communication and consultation and dialog