157 



Rep. Daddario never testified explicitly on the pros and cons of 

 passage of the Harris bill. On August 2, 1966, after the first set of 

 Harris hearings had begun, Rep. Daddario inserted into the Con- 

 gressional Record a statement and editorial of Dael Wolfie, of the 

 American Association for the Advancement of Science. He said he 

 was "* * * pleased to note that Dr. Wolfie agrees with the recom- 

 mendations made by the Science and Astronautics Committee * * * 

 that improved support for the social sciences can be accomplished to 

 a considerable extent by the existing National Science Foundation. 

 The creation of a new agency for this function, he believes, is not 

 warranted." ^'^ And on November 16, 1967, while testifying before 

 the Kennedy subcommittee. Rep. Daddario, in comment on the pro- 

 visions of the Harris bill that the proposed NFSS conduct its own 

 research, suggested as an alternative that mission-oriented agencies 

 should "* * * do a great deal of * * * [social science] research in order 

 to maintain their own capability to perform their mission objectives 



* * :H 55 113 



The proposal to create a National Foundation for the Social Sciences 

 still has not been reported out of the subcommittee. Apart from a pos- 

 sible division on the proposal within the social science disciplines them- 

 selves, several factors might explain why the bill has not moved. The 

 NSF proposal was never debated as an alternative to the NFSS bill, 

 but may have been regarded as such. If so, then passage of the NSF 

 amendments and the agency's subsequent creation of a panel to review 

 Federal support and utilization of social science research may have 

 diminished the urgency of passage of the NFSS bill. In addition, 

 Members of Congress may have considered some of the criticisms made 

 of the NFSS proposal. For instance, Congressman Daddario suggested 

 that a NFSS that sponsored policy research would encounter opposi- 

 tion from mission-oriented agencies already supporting relevant 

 research programs. 



A companion bill for a NFSS was introduced in the House on Jidy 1, 

 1968, by Representative Donald Fraser."'^ This bill incorporates 

 several changes which Representative Fraser evidently felt were needed 

 to resolve problems cited in the Senate hearings, such as — 



(1) Inclusion of provision for the Foundation to support social 

 science education and training (sec. 6(1)); 



(2) Inclusion of pro\dsions gi^ong the Foundation authority to 

 conduct surveys of the state of the social sciences (sec. 6(5)); 

 and 



(3) Elimination of the origmal section 7, which would have 

 allowed NFSS to undertake research for administrative agencies 

 on a reimbursable basis. 



These changes appear to bring the objectives and structure of the 

 proposed foundation for the social sciences closer to the revised NSF 

 authority and raise the question as to the contribution of further 

 legislation. 



1^ Dael Wolfle. Government Support for Social Science. Science. (July 29, 1966). In 

 Extension of Remarks of the Honorable Emilio Q. Daddario. Government Support for 

 Social Sciences. Congressional Record, Appendix {Aug. 2, 1966), p. A4064. 



^^ Senate. National Science Foundation Act amendments. Hearings, Nov. 16, 1967, op. 

 cit., p. 120. 



""H.R. 19242. 



