This is important legislation. I was pleased to introduce the Senate companion bill which the senior Senator from Idaho joined with me in sponsoring. The legislation is urgently needed because the principal reason for the backlog of cases in the Indian Claims Commission is the fact that many Indian litigants lack the funds to prepare their cases for trial. Chief Commissioner Arthur V. Watkins, our former colleague from Utah, has been doing a fine job of trying to expedite the cases. But it has not been an easy task, and the problem of payment of expert witnesses has been a stumbling block.

The new law creates a revolving fund from which loans can be made to Indian tribes to enable them to hire expert witnesses. This should go a long way toward relieving the heavy docket of the Indian Claims Commission.

I ask unanimous consent that an editorial on this subject published in yesterday's Washington Post be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my

remarks.

There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

INDIAN CLAIMS RELIEF

Congress has passed an act that should substantially relieve the bind in which many Indian tribes have found themselves in pressing their claims against the Government. Back in 1946, the Indian Claims Commission was created to hear the Indian cases-mostly claims for compensation arising from the taking of tribal lands. In many instances, however, the tribes have had no funds to prepare their cases. So the work of settling them has dragged, and no end of the task is in sight.

The problem was further complicated by the Commission's concern over the payment of many expert witnesses for the Indians on a contingent-fee basis. This meant that some advisers and expert witnesses would not be paid unless the Indians won their case. In such instances the Commission had to weigh the testimony in the light of the financial interest of the witness in the outcome.

The Indian Claims Commission laid its problem before Congress and asked for the creation of a revolving fund from which the Secretary of the Interior could make loans to the tribes for the hiring of expert researchers and witnesses. Congress has now wisely responded by authorizing an appropriation of $900,000 for this purpose. The loans will be recoverable out of any judgment that the tribes may obtain from their claims. If no judgment is obtained, the Secretary of the Interior may declare the loan unpayable. The act also forbids the Secretary in the future to approve any contract for the pay

ment of witness fees in such cases on a contingent basis.

Both the Commission and Congress are to be commended for taking a practical and reasonable way out of what had seemed to be a troublesome impasse.

GOVERNMENT AND SCIENCE Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, Dr. Paul M. Gross, chairman of the board of directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, recently appeared before the Subcommittee on Science, Research, ard Development of

In his statement, Dr. Gross made a plea for greater geographic distribution of research funds "for the purpose of building up a broader base of high quality institutions scattered throughout the land."

Dr. Gross' plea is of particular significance to the Senate because it bears directly on one of the issues which was involved in our consideration of the water resources research bill, S. 2, which the Senate has passed. It is now pending before the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee.

The argument has been made that it is a mistake to divide Federal water research assistance funds among 50 States; that they should be concentrated on a relatively few "centers of excellence." Refuting that argument, I have contended that the land-grant colleges and universities in the 50 States have demonstrated their ability to administer research programs through their unrivaled work in the agricultural field; second, that the varying nature of water problems makes a center in each State desirable; third, that the widespread need for advice and assistance on the part of in

dividuals, industries, communities, and governments in the water management field supports the argument for State water research centers; and, finally, that there is need to build up more centers of competence in the water research field both to do our growing load of research work and to train specialists in water problems.

Dr. Gross' well-reasoned statement on relationships between government and science merits the attention of every Member who has any concern with the matter, apart from the particular aspect I am discussing. Consequently, I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of these remarks.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from New Mexico? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

(See exhibit 1.)

Mr. ANDERSON. With special reference to the water resources research bill, I should like to call attention to three extracts extracts from his presentation. Dr. Gross stated to the House subcommittee:

I suggest that we have reached a stage where we can do some longer range planning, and that it would now be appropriate to allot some funds specifically for research support with selection to be made strictly on grounds of quality, as has been the policy of the agencies in the past, and to allot some funds specifically for the purpose of building up a broader base of high quality institutions scattered throughout the land.

Dr. Gross continued:

I propose, therefore, that the Government's total objective in supporting science would be better served if immediate re

Dr. Gross also said:

It will be necessary frankly to recognize the desirability of placing a larger amount of the total budget into universities that have the potential of reaching top rank, but that have not yet done so, for it is in our long-run interest to have top quality universities and research laboratories widely placed throughout the country.

EXHIBIT 1

GOVERNMENT AND SCIENCE (Statement of Dr. Paul M. Gross, chairman of the board of directors, American Association for the Advancement of Science, before the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Development of the House of Representatives Committee on Science and Astronautics, October 22, 1963)

Mr. DADDARIO and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to meet with you today to discuss some of the persistent problems involved in the relations between Government and science. Earlier witnesses in these hearings, and other witnesses in legislative and appropriation hear

ings over the past years, have discussed a number of specific problems, such as budgetary levels; the problems and results of research in the medical sciences, in space, and in other areas; or the proper allowance for indirect expenses. Instead of following their

lead, I wish today to discuss a few more gen

eral issues, for it seems to me that this subcommittee has a special opportunity to consider the underlying and more fundamental issues involved in the relations between Government and science.

When you invited the American Association for the Advancement of Science to take part in these hearings, you asked us to consider two questions: first, what are some of the most important or difficult problems involved in the relations between Government and

science; and, second, how might the Association be of help in enabling the Congress to deal more effectively with issues in which science and Government interact. In taking up the first of these two questions, I should like to try to get behind the specifics of particular fields of research and particular aspects of their administrative management to consider some of the basic, persistent problems of Government-science relationships. Because these problems are fundamental and persistent, they deserve the thoughtful consideration of the subcommittee, of the Congress, and of the scientific community.

RELATIONS BETWEEN GOVERNMENT OBJECTIVES IN APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR RESEARCH, AND UNIVERSITY OR COLLEGE OBJECTIVES IN USING THOSE FUNDS

I start with the premise that the present character and size of Federal research and development expenditures owe their initiation in large measure to ideas and concepts originating in the scientific community. The basic research supported by NIH, NSF, and other agencies is almost wholly determined by the scientists themselves, who decide what seems worth working on. The applied research and developmental programs of DOD, AEC, NASA, NIH, and other agencies have become possible as a result of work which, in the main, was initiated by scientists. As some of that work developed, it became clear that it could and should be exploited to serve military, industrial, health, and prestige goals of the Nation.

In appropriating funds for research and

provement of science education were to be some grants for research and for the immade either on a formula basis or by selection of especially promising institutions with the intent to develop first-class institutions

jectives in mind, as have the executive agencies in submitting their research and development budgets. In submitting proposals for work that is to be funded from these appropriations, scientists and engineers on the

staffs of university, industrial, and other research laboratories also have certain objectives in mind for the work that they wish to carry out.

In the long run and in general, there is agreement between the objectives of the Government and the objectives of scientists and engineers. But the match is not always a perfect one, and the amount of agreement between the suppliers and the users of research and development funds may be greater in the long run than in the short run, and greater for some kinds of research activities than for others.

Both scientists and Government officials understand, however, that there is a strong interdependence between the Government, which depends upon industrial and educational research laboratories to conduct research, and those laboratories, which depend upon the Government for a large fraction of the necessary financial support.

Because of this interdependence, there is need for mutual understanding and sometimes need for compromise and adjustment of differences and objectives. There is also need for the kind of analysis of basic problems that this subcommittee is undertaking.

I believe that some of the specific problems could be clarified if we think of the whole area in terms of four parts:

1. First, applied research. I place this first because much the largest fraction of the total Research and Development budget is spent for the development, the testing, and the associated applied research involved in perfecting or bringing into use new equipment, new methods, and new products. A great deal of money is required to develop a new weapon system, but the objective can be foreseen with reasonable clarity, and it is thus reasonably easy to make some of the necessary decisions. Nevertheless, it is rare that such a system can be perfected without finding gaps in our fundamental scientific knowledge.

As an example, let me consider in general terms the development of a weapon system. It began to appear feasible to develop an effective antimissile when three essential components became available: radar, adequate to track a missile, very fast computers that could quickly plot the required interception course for an antimissile, and a small nuclear warhead. These were the principal necessary components, but as work on an antimissile progressed, it soon became apparent that there were large gaps in knowledge and that substantial additions to basic knowledge were necessary.

In my experience, this same kind of situation arises frequently in industry. A new development is delayed by the necessity for further research. Industry frequently solves such problems by a cut-and-try process involving the use of a large number of scientists. With a more adequate store of basic knowledge available, the objective could frequently be more quickly attained and with a more economical and efficient use of available scientific manpower.

2. The second category is basic research. In the abstract, people would agree that the purpose of supporting basic research is to strengthen the Nation's scientific competence, to gain a better understanding of the processes of nature, and to acquire new knowledge, some of which will prove to be of practical usefulness. It is in this area that the scientist finds it most difficult to explain to Congress, to the general public, and sometimes even to scientists in other fields of research, just what he is doing and why he thinks it worthwhile. It is in this area also that journalists and others find it easiest to poke fun at the whole enterprise by selecting a title which they probably do not understand and which may appear trivial or even ludicrous out of the context of technical language of the the particular field concerned.

3. The third category is science education at the advanced level. This is closely allied to research, for it consists largely of a kind of research apprenticeship and is supported primarily by graduate fellowships and by research assistantships.

4. Finally, we have to deal with science education at the primary and secondary levels. At these levels, and even to a substantial degree at the collegiate level, science education, although not completely divorced from participation in research, is of course not so intimately connected with it as is science education at the advanced, graduate, and professional levels. Consequently the methods of improving science education at these two levels differs somewhat, and so do the appropriate methods of support.

A major reason for differentiating between research training at the advanced level and science education at earlier levels is the fact

that the problems of segregation, religious versus secular control, and the fear of Federal Government control which cannot be avoided at the levels of general education are comparatively irrelevant in considerations of support for research and research training at the advanced level.

Some of the executive agencies-the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration are examples are involved in all or several of these four kinds of activities. Because of the way in which responsibilities are assigned to committees of the Congress, several of the committees have responsibility over all or several of these four areas. I would not suggest that the four be separated by agencies-with some agencies responsible, for example, only for applied research and development and forbidden to interest themselves in basic research or science education-nor is it realistic to suggest that congressional committees have their responsibilities similarly differentiated. I would suggest, however, that in the formation of policies, and at some stages in the consideration of appropriations, we can think more clearly about government-science relations if we think separately about these four areas. If we do that, we will have clearer opportunities for reaching decisions both concerning policy and concerning operational management.

Let me suggest several advantages of such a separation. First, we could establish more firmly our policies concerning support for fundamental

research. In the current budget for research and development of approximately $15 billion, 10 percent or less is devoted to basic research. A wealth of experience tells us that when money gets tight, it is this area that is most likely to suffer, for as I pointed out earlier, it is less easy to agree upon what is most worth doing. It is harder to explain why a particular study is meritorious and it is easier for an antagonistic critic to make fun of a particular investigation, the nature and purposes of which neither he nor his hearers understand, than

it is to poke fun at research specifically pointed toward the achievement of a desirable military, medical, or industrial goal. Consequently, when money gets tight, it is the basic research category that is most likely

to suffer.

If we differentiated more clearly between basic research, on the one hand, and applied research, development, and testing, on the other, it would, I think, be easier to agree upon the appropriate level of support that the Nation can afford. We are now spending a billion and a half dollars or less a year on basic research. I would contend that the Nation is getting its money's worth for this amount, for this is the money that we spend to renew and extend our fundamental stock of scientific knowledge.

The issue is not whether x dollars is too little or too much for science, but whether the Nation's investment in research is pro

ducing results that are desirable for the American people. For our investment in basic research we have built a reputation as a great scientific leader among nationswitness the number of Nobel Prizes that have been awarded to Americans. We have made of the United States the mecca for scientists throughout the world. We have learned much about the nature and history of the universe and our planet, about the mechanisms of cellular growth and reproduction. And basic research has been leading with increasing rapidity to applied research that has been of widespread benefit to the American people. A few examples may be quickly cited.

1. Great advances in the health of the American people have coincided with the expansion of Federal investment in medical research and public health measures.

2. The Nation's military might is a direct outgrowth of the scientific community's responsiveness to the needs of national security.

3. Civil aviation's high degree of safety stems from research that is fundamental to traffic control and navigation devices.

4. The productivity of the Nation's farms is directly related to seed and fertilizer developments that originated in the laboratory.

Finally, let me cite a single concrete example as evidence of the value of basic research. This is in part from fundamental research in radiation biology, a field with which I have some acquaintance because of my association with the Oak Ridge Institute of Nuclear Studies.

First let me give the title of an early paper published in the Journal of Economic Entomology in 1951. This was "Experiments with screw-worm flies sterilized by X-rays." If one did not live in Florida or Texas and knew nothing about screw-worm flies, this might at first glance indeed seem a subject of doubtful merit on which to spend Federal research funds. A deeper look, however, would reveal the following:

(a) Fatal wounds in cattle in Florida and Texas caused by maggots from eggs of the screw-worm fly caused losses estimated by cattlemen to aggregate at least $100 million a year.

(b) Basic research on the ecology of this insect, its flight, mating, feeding, and other habits has led to a method for eliminating its occurrence, at least in Florida.

(c) Stated simply, this consists of breeding large numbers of the fly and sterilizing the males. These, after wholesale release, mate with naturally occurring females, but only sterile eggs result.

(d) After systematic application of this quite new and novel technique of insect control in Florida for about 2 years, the insect was practically eradicated and its serious menace to the Florida livestock industry eliminated.

(e) From my general knowledge of research costs, I believe that the cost for the basic research involved did not exceed $1 milstock industry of Florida alone would pay lion in all. The annual savings to the livemany times over not only for this but for

much other basic research.

arately the costs of basic research and the One of the advantages of treating sepmuch greater costs of development is that for. For $1.5 billion a year we get our whole it becomes easier to see what we are paying basic research program, including many examples such as the one I have cited on the mating habits of the screw-worm fly. The more frequently cited figure of $15 billion a year includes the developmental costs of military, atomic energy, space, and other large programs. agencies, and Congress can defend a billion Scientists, the executive and a half dollars a year for basic research, and can point to such examples as one kind of justification. It is not so easy to justify such work or the level of expenditure if the budget is thought of as $15 billion a year,

a budget that includes a great deal of work that the country has decided is necessary but that does not belong in the basic research category.

The second advantage of a clearer separation of basic research from applied research, development, and testing would be in the clarification of our worries about duplication. Congress has very rightly been worried about the duplication of effort in the research and development sphere. Scientists equally correctly deny that there is any intentional duplication in basic research. Congress wishes to save money, and can very properly raise questions about duplication of developmental efforts in the programs of agencies that have overlapping responsibilities. duplication of effort in basic research is a quite different matter. The scientist's own motivation, his reputation for originality, and the elaborate procedures that have been established for exchanging information about the research that is being undertaken in different laboratories, should constitute much better guarantees against unnecessary duplication than could be provided by any set of governmental regulations or congressional hearings.

But

Third, questions of overhead, of the kinds of reporting required, of the relative merits of grants versus contracts, and other problems of management would, I believe, be easier to agree upon if we took them up separately for basic research and for applied research and development than they have been when these have all been lumped together into an undifferentiated category.

Fourth, the Government supports science education in a variety of ways in order to have a continuing supply of people qualified in pure science and its applied fields, but there is a considerable amount of confusion in the process. For example, much of the money that is allotted for research purposes is, in fact, used for the advanced training of graduate students. I said earlier that education at this level consists largely of a research apprenticeship. A great number of the grants for basic research and many of those for applied research that are carried out in university laboratories include funds for graduate assistants. The money is usefully spent, and the training received by graduate students contributes to our future supply of scientists and engineers. But some of the issues are clouded, because money that appears in the budget for one purpose is expended for a related but nevertheless different purpose.

There are some major differences between the proper methods of support for science education at the graduate level and for science education for younger students. The budgets upon which Congress has to act include funds for both of these levels. But at no point in their consideration is there a clean separation between the two, and consequently there is never an opportunity for a clear decision as to how much money can appropriately go to each and the differences in arrangements that will most effectively foster each set of objectives.

Fifth, a clearer separation of the four areas of support that I have been discussing would make it easier to define the kinds of responsibility that can most appropriately be carried out by Congress, by the executive agencies, and by the scientists who are ultimately responsible for the research and educational activities that are being supported. The lines are not completely sharp, but I would suggest that Congress and the Office of the President have primary responsibility for deciding what the total budget shall be and how it should be divided among these four broad areas. Within the area of development, testing, and associated applied research, Congress and the Office of the President also have primary responsibility for subdividing funds, for here are involved specific national goals for defense, for public

health, for our activities in space, for industry, agriculture, and for national prestige. On the other hand, the cognizant agencies, such as the National Science Foundation or the National Institutes of Health, and their grantees have a better basis for deciding how money for basic research should be spent and how money for the advanced and graduate education of prospective scientists should be spent. Confusion, mistrust, and a considerable amount of wasted effort result when either group tries to make decisions that might better be made by the other. In his testimony a few days ago, Dr. Wiesner spoke of the great speed with which a new finding in science may alter a variety of research activities. When this happens, a great deal of time can be wasted by going through a lot of bureaucratic redtape to secure permission to alter the direction of a study or to secure a piece of equipment the need for which was not forseen when the proposal was originally submitted. Congress and the Office of the President have great and overriding responsibilities for the health of the Nation's research and development effort. They need not and should not dilute that responsibility by attempting to exercise a kind of control in one area that is only appropriate in some other area, or by attempting to make detailed research decisions which they are not truly qualified to make. Who is responsible for what would be easier to decide if we were thinking separately about these four parts of the total research and development effort than if we try to establish rules and procedures for all of our research and development activities.

Consequently, it seems to me altogether desirable that the subcommittee take up seriously and in depth the general question of the relationships between government and science. I believe that you can take up these questions most constructively if the four areas that I have discussed are looked at one at a time to see what their problems are and how those problems can best be solved.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF RESEARCH FUNDS

The second general problem that I would like to discuss is closely related to the first. The problem is that of the geographic distribution of Federal research funds.

The facts are perfectly clear and are a matter of record for each agency. A few States get a great deal more money than do all the rest. In general, the States that get the most money for research are such populous States as California, Massachusetts, and New York, but even on a per capita basis the disparities among the States are tremendous. Whether the distribution is what it ought to be has been and and no doubt will continue to be subject to a good deal of argument. A considerable part of the argument has been confused and confusing because we have been trying to use the same money for objectives that in the short run are mutually contradictory. In the abstract, most people would, I believe, agree that it is desirable that research be done on a variety of problems and that the research be of as high quality as we can procure. In the abstract, I believe also that most people would agree that it would be desirable to have a larger number of research and educational institutions of high quality, and that such institutions should be located in various parts of the country instead of being concentrated in a few locations.

In practice, there has been conflict between these two objectives. The need for defense, the fear of possible attack, the desire to ameliorate or even eradicate crippling and disabling diseases, and the desire to achieve other national goals as rapidly as possible have all argued in the direction of placing research grants and contracts with those institutions that are best qualified to conduct the desired research. There are not

many such institutions. Consequently there has been a pile-up of Federal research funds in a relatively small number of our best qualified universities. In order to fulfill their obligations, these universities have recruited competent scientists from other universities and colleges, and so there has been further concentration of research talent in the best institutions. From time to time, this system has been criticized and the claim advanced that research funds should be more broadly allocated among the 50 States. The concentrated distribution has often seemed necessary in the past. The urgency of attaining some of the goals we have had in mind would have made anything like an equal distribution among the 50 States a serious mistake.

But this situation has posed a dilemma for Congress, one that was illustrated-to take a single example-by the hearings of a subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives earlier this year. In reviewing the 1964 budget of the National Science Foundation, officers of the National Science Foundation were criticized several times for what members of the subcommittee considered undue concentration of NSF funds in a few States. The same hearings, however, resulted in striking out of the NSF budget the funds that had been requested for developmental grants that would have enabled NSF to assist a number of universities to attain greater research competence, and thus on merit to secure a larger proportion of funds handled through the regular grant procedures of the National Science Foundation and other agencies.

We cannot let down our guard, but I suggest that we have reached a stage where we can do some longer range planning, and that it would now be appropriate to allot some funds specifically for research support with selection to be made strictly on grounds of quality, as has been the policy of the agencies in the past, and to allot some funds specifically for the purpose of building up a broader base of high-quality institutions scattered throughout the land.

Here clearly is a matter of high policy for the Congress and the President's Office. The change of policy would recognize that there is now an overemphasis on research at the expense of teaching and an overemphasis upon short-time research goals at the expense of a broadened research competence.

When the establishment of the National Science Foundation was first being debated in Congress, consideration was given to the possibility of alloting some portion of its funds-perhaps 25 percent-among the several States on a formula basis and of allotting 75 percent strictly on the basis of merit. This proposal was killed, partly because the pork-barrel label got attached to it, but the objective is still desirable. I propose, therefore, that the Government's total objective in supporting science would be better served if immediate research competence were not the only criterion for the distribution of funds and if some grants for research and for the improvement of science education were to be made either on a formula basis or by selection of especially promising institutions with the intent to develop first-class institutions in parts of the country in which they do not now exist.

To the extent that Federal funds can be used to accomplish this purpose, it will be necessary to use a larger fraction of that money than we have been using in past years in the form of institutional grants rather than individual project grants, and it will be necessary frankly to recognize the desirability of placing a larger amount of the total budget into universities that have the potential of reaching top rank but that have not yet done so, for it is in our longrun interest to have top-quality universities and research laboratories widely placed throughout the country.

All in all, as a long-range problem, I would list the matter of arriving at a better adjustment between the immediate, short-term research goals and the long-term goal of attaining a broadened national educational and research competence as one of the most fundamental and important problems in the area of Government-science relations.

NATURE OF THE AAAS

I shall turn now to the second topic that I was asked to discuss, the nature of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the ways in which it might help the Congress to fulfill its obligation to study and review legislative matters that are influenced by or that have an influence upon science and science education.

Just as the American Bar Association is the large, national, voluntary society of lawyers in the United States, so the American Association for the Advancement of Science is the

large, national, voluntary society of scientists. The association was established 115 years ago. It now has 90,000 members. It covers all fields of science: astronomy, mathematics, physics and chemistry, the various fields of biology, agriculture, medicine, psychology, and the social sciences. While we have sections in all of these fields, provide for meetings coverings all fields, and publish papers and technical symposia in all, most of our attention is devoted to matters that con

cern science as a whole, that involve several different fields of science, or that deal with questions of science education. In the last 8 or 9 years, we have been devoting a good deal of time and energy to problems of science education.

We hold national and regional meetings each year. Occasionally we are responsible for international scientific congresses. And we have a number of publications dealing with science, science education, and the public understanding of science.

As a matter of general policy, we rarely take formal positions on public issues. This is not because of lack of interest, but rather because we think we can be of greater service by providing an open forum for their analysis and discussion than we could by trying to decide upon the right answer in each case. Once in a while there is an exception. For example, from 1946 to 1950 we tried very hard to persuade the Congress and the country that it would be a good thing to establish the National Science Foundation. But in general we do not try to influence legislation or national policy by taking a position on one side of an issue.

Instead, we provide a forum for debate and discussion. This is done at annual meetings. It is also done, on a continuing basis, through the weekly magazine Science which we publish. Editorials, news, and news analyses concerning pending legislation, programs, and decisions of the executive agencies, and other political, economic, and social actions and forces that have a bearing on science or upon which scientific activities have a bearing are published regularly in Science. These are very widely read in the scientific community and have a fair readership among governmental policymakers. A fast printing schedule enables Science to reach the scientific community very rapidly; the editorial staff finished writing last night or even today the news and comment material that will be printed and mailed tomorrow in this week's issue of Science.

A second way in which we have attempted to serve a useful role is through the publication of analyses of problems that arise in the interaction between science and public affairs. As an example, several years ago there was considerable interest in the possibility of establishing a Cabinet-level Department of Science or Department of Science and Technology. We collected half a dozen knowledgeable people who held differ

ent ideas about this possibility, kept them together for 3 days of intensive discussion, and as a result published in Science an analysis that did not try to give a simple yes or no answer to the question of whether there should be such a department of government, but instead laid out the issues, discussed the pros and cons, and tried to analyze the probable effects of the several proposals that were then current.

As another example, in 1952 we published a book reviewing the status of work in the various fields of science in Soviet Russia. This was before there was any general concern over a race with the Russians, and it has since become much easier to get information about what the Russians have been doing. But at the time, it served as a widely useful source book of information about Russian scientific work. More recently we have done the same thing for Communist China. In 1960 we set a group of American and Chinese-American scholars the task of reviewing all of the Chinese journals and scientific reports that were available in the United States. The amount of material for the decade of the 1950's was extensive, but since then the flow of information from Communist China has been substantially curtailed. We published the result in 1961, and it is still the best available source of information about what the Communist Chinese are doing in geophysics, medicine, and a variety of other fields.

The magazine Science and analyses such as those I have described are primarily intended for scientists. They are read by others, but in the main they reach a scientific audience. I want, therefore, to mention three ways in which we might be of more direct help to the Congress. Whether the suggestions I am going to make would be helpful is something I hope you will discuss. The extent to which we could do these or other things that you might propose is something that I would want to discuss with the association's board of directors, for there are limits on what an organization that has a limited staff and that is primarily supported by the annual dues of its members can promise to do.

Several recent bills have advocated the establishment of a group of scientific staff members or science consultants to work with Congress and its committees. If such a congressional office is established, the staff will certainly not be large enough to handle all questions by itself. Help from outside will be needed, just as you have indicated that the existing committees need help.

One possibility for us would be to serve as a source of information about advisers. It is always difficult and sometimes impossible to get advisers who are well informed about a matter and who are not involved either as recipients of Government grants or as advisers to executive agencies. But we know the scientists of the country, and perhaps as well as anyone else could arrange to get wellqualified advisers on a variety of scientific matters of concern to congressional committees.

A second possibility is through the seminar mechanism. The Committee on Science and Astronautics has its own panel of advisers that meets periodically. In a quite different fashion, we have held, jointly with the Brookings Institution, several series of seminars for an invited group of Members of the House of Representatives. Mr. DADDARIO and Mr. MOSHER, I am told, have been regular participants in those seminars. Each seminar has dealt with a specific area of research. The purpose in all cases has been educational and deliberately has not dealt with pending legislation. But if a committee wishes, we could arrange for a speaker or a panel of scientists to discuss the scientific background or the probable implica

tions of a problem with which the committee was concerned. The discussions might be held here and constitute part of the record, or they might be held in a more informal atmosphere at our building and be off the record. The British have had considerable success, and also some problems, with a standing committee consisting in part of Members of Parliament and in part of scientists. The Parliamentary and Science Committee meets periodically to discuss matters that are to come before Parliament. I do not think that a standing committee would be the best arrangement here, but perhaps it would be useful to arrange some ad hoc joint meetings that would serve a similar purpose.

As a third possibility, it may at times be possible for us to carry out analyses or studies that would be of use. Problems of air pollution are beginning to become of general concern and have long been of concern to some local areas, notably Los Angeles. The atmosphere is one of our most precious natural resources, and we have been doing a number of things to it that may irrevocably alter its character and its value. For the past 2 years the association has had a group of physicists, chemists, economists, urban planners, and public health specialists, with the help of a small staff, conducting a study of this important problem. We will have the report ready for publication next year.

As another example, last month we published in Spanish and later this fall will publish in English a review of American experience in the handling of arid land problems. We published the Spanish version first because it constituted the U.S. contribution to the Latin American Con

gress on Arid Lands that was held with UNESCO assistance in Argentina last month.

Both these studies of the atmosphere and of arid lands were planned and written not with any particular legislative or congressional problem in mind, but rather as efforts to bring together the available information on an important matter of public concern. I hope that they will be widely useful. They might have been of more direct use to you had we discussed with you your interest in such matters before we started the two studies.

As an example of how such discussions in advance might be useful, I refer again to the problem of geographic distribution of Federal support for scientific research and for science education. These are questions of obvious concern to Congress. They are matters that affect the operating policies of a number of Government agencies. And they are of great importance to the educational institutions of the country.

Obviously the suggestions I have made would by no means wholly solve the problem of giving Congress the competence it seeks in handling scientific and technical problems. But if, after you and the staff have had an opportunity to consider these and other ideas, it appears that the association can be of real assistance, we will be glad to continue the discussion of directions in which we might help.

VIETNAM

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for not to exceed 6 minutes and at the conclusion of my remarks to have printed a statement I made on the Vietnam uprising on November 1.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (See exhibit 1.)

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, the recent events in Vietnam are tragic events. It is tragic that a leader who began by accomplishing so much that

was constructive with so little, that a Government which began with so much promise, in the end crumbled in military coup and violent death, a situation which I deeply and personally regret.

When news of these events first reached this city, it seemed to me that their primary significance to the United States was clear. They were a clarion call for a reassessment of U.S. policies with respect to Vietnam and southeast Asia. For the government which fell, up until a few months ago, had been generally regarded for years, I so felt, as indispensable in the structure of American policy in southeast Asia. We will fail to heed this call only at the risk of great danger to the future of our relations with all of Asia.

We will not serve the interests of the Nation if:

First. We regard the overthrow of the Diem government as a victory or defeat for this country. It is neither. It is more an inexorable development in the tragic postwar history of the Vietnamese people.

Second. If we reassume that the successor military-dominated regime is an automatic guarantee of a permanment improvement in the situation in Vietnam. This successor authority in Vietnam is, at this point, at best a promise of something better. But if the Korean experience is at all relevant, it is apparent that such promises can be undone in short

order.

If these tragic events of the past few days are to have constructive significance for this Nation as well as for the Vietnamese people, we would be well advised to recognize that the effectiveness of our Asian policies cannot be measured by an overthrow of a government, by whether one government is "easier to work with" than another, by whether one government smiles at us and another frowns. In the last analysis, the effectiveness of our policies and their administration with respect to the Vietnamese situation and, indeed, all of southeast Asia can only be weighed in the light of these basic questions:

First. Do these policies make possible a progressive reduction in the expenditures of American lives and aid in Viet

nam?

Second. Do these policies hold a valid promise of encouraging in Vietnam the growth of popularly responsible and responsive government?

Third. Do these policies contribute not only to the development of internal stability in South Vietnam but to the growth of an environment of a decent peace and a popularly based stability throughout Asia-the kind of environment which will permit the replacement of the present heavy dependence upon U.S. arms and resources with an equitable and mutual relationship between the Asian peoples and our own?

This is, indeed, an appropriate time, Mr. President, for the executive branch to reassess policies for Vietnam and southeast Asia in these terms. It may well be that few changes, if any, are required at this time. But if that is the case-if indeed the problem in Vietnam has been primarily one of an inadequate government-then, Mr. President, we

First. A reduction in the commitment of U.S. forces and aid in Vietnam and southeast Asia;

Second. The emergence in Vietnam of a responsible and responsive civilian government attuned to the needs and reasonable aspirations of its people;

Third. An improvement in the relations of Vietnam with Cambodia and Laos;

Fourth. A growth in mutual commercial, cultural, and other friendly intercourse between the people of this Nation and the various Asian people.

These are basic tests, Mr. President, and it remains to be seen how they shall be met not only in our relations with the successor authority in Saigon but with all the nations of southeast Asia. From the point of view of this Nation, it would appear appropriate to reiterate at this time what the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PELL] and the Senator from Delaware [Mr. BOGGS] will recall that we stated on our return from a visit to Vietnam and southeast Asia less than a year ago:

It must be clear to ourselves as well as

to the Vietnamese where the primary responsibility lies in this situation. It must rest, as it has rested, with the Vietnamese Government and people. What further effort may be needed for the survival of the Republic of Vietnam in present circumis not forthcoming, the United States can tirely but there is no interest of the United States in Vietnam which would justify, in present circumstances, the conversion of the war in that country primarily into an American war, to be fought primarily with American lives. It is the frequent contention of Communist propaganda that such is already

stances must come from that source. If it

reduce its commitment or abandon it en

the case.

It should remain the fact that

the war in Vietnam is not an American war in present circumstances.

That conclusion, Mr. President, in my judgment, would apply to the successor government in Saigon no less than to its predecessor.

EXHIBIT 1

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE MANSFIELD The news of the uprising in Vietnam came as a complete surprise to me, and I am quite certain a surprise to the administration. There have been rumors, of course, for weeks that a coup d'etat was in the making, but there was nothing tangible to reinforce such an assumption up to this time.

This appears to me to be a purely Vietnamese affair which the Vietnamese should settle among themselves. As far as this Government is concerned, it is my opinion that the events of the past several hours call more than ever for a reassessment and reappraisal matter, in all of southeast Asia. of our policy in South Vietnam and, for that

One would hope that the people of South Vietnam will obtain the kind of government, out of these tragic developments, which will be responsive to their needs and responsible to them. It remains to be seen whether

such a government shall emerge, and in any reappraisal of our policies this would be a factor of the utmost importance.

the integrity, the patriotism, and dedication I have always had the highest respect for of President Ngo Dinh Diem and regret deeply and personally, very much that the situation has had to come to such a pass.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I rise to strongly endorse the statement of the

MANSFIELD). There is no Member of this body and few in the United States who know and understand that area and its people as well as he. I had the privilege of being with him on his last trip to Vietnam, and would like to underline his thought that these are days of decision for the people of Vietnam. They can make up their minds to go along the democratic path we have hoped they will follow, or they can follow the paths of other countries in the Far East, of which Korea would be an example. The Vietnamese have seen what happens when a country does not enjoy the regard or respect of her people-the people will eventually toss out the government. On the other hand, if the government enjoys the respect and regard of the people, the people embrace it and it remains in power. We hope this lesson will not be lost on the new Government of Vietnam. We also hope that Government will not lean too heavily on the United States, as our eventual goal remains not only the restoration of Vietnamese freedom from authoritarianism, no matter whether Communist or otherwise, but the reduction of our manpower and financial commitment in South Vietnam.

Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I was in the Chamber when the distinguished majority leader, the Senator from Montana [Mr. MANSFIELD] made what I consider to be a very comprehensive and important statement concerning the situation in Vietnam.

I recognize in the very able majority leader a man of great wisdom and a student of foreign affairs and of the southeast Asia area. I thought his statement was considerate not only of past developments in South Vietnam and the southeast Asia area, but also one looking hopefully toward the future with the best interests of freedom loving people and the people of South Vietnam and the southeast Asia area in mind.

His statement deserves the attention

of all of us, and especially of our executive department, and those concerned with the problems in that part of the world.

I take this opportunity to express my support of the views and thoughts so well presented by the very able and distinguished majority leader.

GEORGE F. KENNAN'S VIEWS ON FOREIGN POLICY

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President some comments were made on the floor of this body relating to an article about Mr. George Kennan. Several articles were written. I ask unanimous consent that at the end of my remarks, an article from Look magazine of November 19, by J. Robert Moskin, be included in the RECORD.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

(See exhibit 1.)

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I do not agree with some of the comments made by Mr. Kennan. I have regarded him, and still do, as one of the outstanding public servants of this country. I think he was, and is, uniquely qualified to comment on various aspects of our