Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

mean extensive use of that authority. In some respects, weather modification represented applied research, but almost all commentators have indicated that this type of program appeared inconsistent with XSF's usual activities.

H. Ř. 13696 has many informational and reporting aspects: appraise the impact of research upon industrial development and upon the general welfare; evaluate the status and needs of the various sciences as evidenced by programs, projects, etc.; provide a central clearinghouse; record the amount of money received by institutions and contractors; and assess national scientific resources, progress, etc. Reports are mentioned in three places. I would recommend that these various items be grouped and correlated under one section that clearly spells out all of the details. Again referring to my committee's experience with NSF on the subject of weather modification, requesting special reports and information gathering activities is not always effective.

Section 3(b) makes specific mention of manpower. You might well consider the inclusion of some of the other scientific resources.

I agree with your efforts to strengthen both the Board and the Director. The broad authority of the Board to delegate its authority to the Director in section 4(b), however, may be somewhat inconsistent with this goal. A special staff for the Board is a necessary addition if the Board is to have the ability to effectively establish policy. Section 5(d), however, does not appear to further these goals. The inclusion of a monetary limit does not bear any necessary correlation to whether policy is being established, and that appears to be the basic issue. Euhancing the position of the Director is laudable, and I support this as well as the provision for assistant directors. These increases in prestige and manpower are necessary.

Section 8 would eliminate statutory divisions within the Foundation and let the Director establish appropriate divisions. The existing law does allow the Board to set up divisions. Section 8 will allow administrative flexibility, but establishing some statutory divisions would more clearly emphasize Congressional concern. Legislating certain divisions would clearly indicate areas of congressional concern and you may wish to give this further consideration.

The Foundation has been the subject of considerable attention during its lifetime. A frequent, regular review of its activities would seem to be desirable. I would seriously recommend that thought be given to the addition to this bill of a provision for annual authorization.

Finally, there are many other areas of concern that have been raised in your investigation, but which are not covered in the bill. Some of these matters relate to general questions of education, information, policy planning, etc. It might be helpful to include a provision in the bill requesting the Foundation to begin studying some of these other matters which must be decided in the future.

In conclusion, I wish to echo your own thoughts, "Lest these words * * * be considered unduly harsh, I must add that there have been good reasons why NSF has developed as it has * * *." I intend these comments to be taken in the serious vein that you suggest: constructive criticism to improve upon an already impressive performance. I wish also to thank you for the opportunity to express these thoughts. Sincerely yours,

WARREN G. MAGNUSON,

Chairman.

NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS,

Washington, D.C., May 2, 1966.
Hon. Emilio Q. DADDARIO,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development, Committee on

Science and Astronautics, House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The National Society of Professional Engineers wishes to record its support for H.R. 13696, the bill now pending before the subcommittee to amend the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 to make changes and improvements in the organization and operation of the Foundation. We respectfully recommend that the bill be approved by the subcommittee, and offer one suggested amendment for your consideration.

As a national organization composed of more than 64,000 members, all of whom are qualified under applicable State engineering registration laws, we particularly wish to endorse the provisions of H.R. 13696 which authorize and direct the Foundation to initiate and support applied research. We believe expanded Foundation support for engineering and technology will be in the national interest, and will bring new impetus to the application of science resources to solving national problems.

In view of the increased importance which engineering and technology may be expected to play in the expanded activities of the Foundation under the bill, we do respectfully offer for the consideration of the subcommittee the recommendation that the National Academy of Engineering be included among the organizations designated in section 4(c) as potential sources of recommendations for nominations for appointments to the National Science Board. While the National Academy of Engineering undoubtedly falls within the general language of section 4(c), we believe including it among the organizations specifically designated would appropriately reflect the increased emphasis placed by the bill on applied research.

We would appreciate the inclusion of this statement in the record of the hearings on this legislation. Very truly yours,

DONALD E. MARLOWE, P.E., Chairman, Legislative and Government Affairs Committee.

[ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Astronautics

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS

GEORGE P. MILLER, California, Chairman OLIN E. TEAGUE, Texas

JOSEPH W. MARTIN, JR., Massachusetts JOSEPH E. KARTH, Minnesota

JAMES G. FULTON, Pennsylvania KEN HECHLER, West Virginia

CHARLES A. MOSHER, Ohio EMILIO Q. DADDARIO, Connecticut RICHARD L. ROUDEBUSH, Indiana J. EDWARD ROUSH, Indiana

ALPHONZO BELL, California JOHN W. DAVIS, Georgia

THOMAS M. PELLY, Washington WILLIAM F. RYAN, New York

DONALD RUMSFELD, Illinois THOMAS N. DOWNING, Virginia

EDWARD J. GURNEY, Florida JOE D. WAGGONNER, JR., Louisiana JOHN W. WYDLER, New York DON FUQUA, Florida

BARBER B. CONABLE, JR., New York
CARL ALBERT, Oklahoma
ROY A. TAYLOR, North Carolina
GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., California
WALTER H. MOELLER, Ohio
WILLIAM R. ANDERSON, Tennessee
LESTER L. WOLFF, New York
WESTON E. VIVIAN, Michigan
GALE SCHISLER, Illinois
WILLIAM J. GREEN, Pennsylvania
EARLE CABELL, Texas

CHARLES F. DUCANDER, Erecutive Director and Chief Counsel
JOHN A. CARSTARPHEN, Chief Clerk and Counsel

PHILIP B. YEAGER, Counsel
FRANK R. HAMMILL, Jr., Counsel
W. H. BOONE, Chief Technical Consultant

RICHARD P. HINES, Staff Consultant
PETER A. GERARDI, Technical Consultant
JAMES E. WILSON, Technical Consultant

HAROLD A. GOULD, Technical Consultant
PHILIP P. DICKINSON, Technical Consultant

JOSEPH M. FELTON, Counsel
ELIZABETH S. KERNAN, Scientific Research Assistant

FRANK J. GIROUX, Clerk
DENIS C. QUIGLEY, Publications Clerk

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT

EMILIO Q. DADDARIO, Connecticut, Chairman J. EDWARD ROUSH, Indiana

CHARLES A. MOSHER, Ohio JOHN W. DAVIS, Georgia

ALPHONZO BELL, California
JOE D. WAGGONNER, JR., Louisiana BARBER B. CONABLE, JR., New York
GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., California
WESTON E. VIVIAN, Michigan

PHILIP B. YEAGER, Counsel
PHILIP P. DICK ON, Technical Consultant

JOSEPH M. FELTON, Counsel
ELIZABETH S. KERNAN, Scientific Research Assistant

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »