506 HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 



to strengthen scientific research potential and science education pro- 

 grams at all levels." 



COUNTERATTACK AGAINST IMPOUNDMENT 



In the early 1970's, the committee became progressively disturbed 

 with the hardening administration approach toward impounding 

 funds. In the 1972 floor debate, Symington warned: 



I am breaching no confidence in pointing out that the committee seriously con- 

 sidered this year three separate methods for requiring the equal percentage obligation 

 of funds in all line-item categories. We decided to hold up on any such procedure until 

 we see how this year's funds are handled. Next year could be another story. 



The committee was frustrated by the doubletalk received from the other 

 end of Pennsylvania Avenue whenever the issue arose on how best to 

 maintain NSF's traditional role in support of science education. The 

 administration argued that the employment market did not justify the 

 previous levels of support for science education, and that scarce funds 

 should be funneled toward project research. In vain, the committee 

 underscored its faith in enriching the wellsprings of future scientific 

 strength through education and basic research. 



After the 1972 Presidential election, more ominous signs appeared 

 to shake up the advocates of science. NSF Director Stever, in addition 

 to his other duties, was named the President's Science Adviser. Nobody 

 viewed this as a promotion for Dr. Stever, or an upgrading of either 

 NSF or science in general; it was correctly interpreted as a direct slap 

 in the face for science. As described in chapter XIII, the White House 

 move triggered a three-year committee fight to restore the science 

 machinery which had been established at the highest level by President 

 Eisenhower. It also sparked renewed committee activity aimed directly 

 at the impoundment of NSF funds. 



Early in 1973, Chairman Davis began laying the groundwork for 

 action. He pointed out to the subcommittee that over 50 percent of 

 the money for institutional support, graduate student and science 

 education improvement was still impounded. As the committee pre- 

 pared to go into its 1973 budget hearings, Davis labeled this action 

 as "unwarranted," and vowed to draft "stringent legislation" to 

 combat it. He also warned Dr. Stever in a January 26, 1973, letter: 



The upcoming authorization hearings are going to be difficult and confrontations 

 between Congress and the Foundation may be inevitable this year. 



When the administration came up to Capitol Hill with an NSF bill 

 which asked for $70 million less than in 1972, Davis retaliated with 

 a bill of his own which maintained the funding level and also attacked 

 the impoundment issue. Davis explained his approach: 



This is done by requiring that the percentage of funds actually obligated tor any 

 budget category must not differ by more than live percentage points from the percent- 



