512 HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 



research in order to fuel another dramatic jump in energy research 

 through the RANN program. In the subcommittee markup, Mosher 

 put it this way: 



Back in 1970, science education was 36 percent of the NSF budget. And in the 

 current proposal, it is only 10 percent. There has been a steady reduction in emphasis 

 on science education. * * * RANN has precipitously increased. And by some coinci- 

 dence RANN has increased ]ust about exactly the same amount, percentagewise as 

 science education has decreased. * * * These arc trends which I consider to be mistaken. 



Mosher, Davis, and others reiterated that they supported RANN, 

 and that to transfer some of its whopping increase to science education 

 support might actually help both programs. Bell strongly and vocifer- 

 ously opposed any tampering with the RANN budget, despite the 

 fact that NSF had asked OMB for only $82 million, and it was OMB's 

 action which had hiked the level for RANN to $149 million. Mosher 

 proposed less than that for RANN, but preserving a 90-percent 

 increase over the prior year. Bell argued within the subcommittee, the 

 full committee, and on the floor to support NSF's energy research to 

 the full extent of the budget; the argument boiled down to $149 million 

 versus $139 million. Bell stated: 



Energy is what we are talking about. That is what we have been talking about 

 for the last year. * * * I think that is the one thing in this Nation that people recognize 

 today that you can sell, the effort toward making ourselves self-sufficient and supply- 

 ing ourselves through research in such things as solar energy. 



Davis, Mosher, Fuqua, and Esch teamed up to defeat the Bell amend- 

 ment on the floor, largely on the basis of Mosher's argument that 

 energy research would need the trained manpower which increased 

 emphasis on science education would produce. The heated argument 

 proved rather academic, however, as the conference committee restored 

 the entire budgeted amount for RANN — $149 million. 



GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF NSF FUNDF 



During the 1974 debate, Flowers renewed an argument he had 

 frequently made both in committee and on the floor: 



Certain institutions in certain states continue to receive the lion's share of the 

 National Science Foundation's grants. It seems to me that NSF has a definite obliga- 

 tion to see that these awards are distributed more equitably across our Nation. I am 

 not persuaded that quality research people and institutions deserving of grants and 

 contracts are located only in those few areas now receiving special attention. 



The efforts which Flowers made, as with prior efforts directed 

 at wider geographic distribution of NASA expenditures, furnished the 

 subject of much serious debate and conferences within NSF. Aside 

 from some token exceptions, however, the net results continued to 



