136 



basis rather than rational, such as whom to marry, perhaps even 

 what t3rpe of car to buy, et cetera. 



So they should not denigrate the political process, as they often 

 do. 



That's a forerunner to sa3dng that I think the report is very care- 

 fully structured. The recommendations are very logical and ration- 

 al. 



But I have to, wearing my hat here as a congressman, worry 

 about the political ramifications. 



As an example, we had a proposal this year for a Department of 

 Science, and I thought there was a lot in favor of that proposal. It 

 would tidy up the field of science. It would centralize decision-mak- 

 ing authority on a lot of these issues. And that was basically a good 

 idea. 



The one thing that concerned me was that this would separate 

 out, provide a separate budget for science and make it a very 

 tempting target for criticism, perhaps for raiding. 



It seems to me what we have in the first four proposals here is 

 all the bad parts of the Department of Science and none of the good 

 parts, and that concerns me. And it's not my concern alone. This 

 past Monday, I spoke at a science s3nnposium at the University of 

 Michigan, at Ann Arbor. At the meeting, also, we had several pre- 

 vious science advisers. Unfortunately, you were not able to attend. 

 But we had Don Hornig, Guy Stever, Allan Bromley. 



And when David Auston made a presentation on your report, he 

 was attacked by most of them and by other political persons in the 

 audience there, but particularly Allan Bromley registered great 

 concern about creation of an FS&T budget for precisely the reasons 

 I've outlined. 



Guy Stever offered a feeble defense of that aspect of the report. 

 David Auston offered a very vigorous defense. But Don Hornig and 

 Allan Bromley were adamantly against this idea. 



I had some serious reservations and so did a number of other 

 people there. 



This leads me to the question. Did you all look at that aspect of 

 the recommendations? You obviously have some political experi- 

 ence. Dr. Press. 



What is your perception of this, sorting out the FS&T aspect of 

 the whole budget and putting it up there as a very tempting target 

 for others to look at and say, well, we have to change this, we have 

 to change that? 



And I would remind you, we're not that far away from the Prox- 

 mire Golden Fleece awards. And this would certainly aid and abet 

 that process, I believe. 



A more substantial argument in terms of not doing that is that 

 there is a lot of expertise on the various committees of the Con- 

 gress dealing with specific areas of the budget. They developed that 

 expertise and this, in a sense, would pre-empt some of them from 

 exercising their role. 



So I'd appreciate any comments any of the panelists would care 

 to offer on that aspect of it. 



Dr. Press. Mr. Ehlers, I'm sorry that I couldn't attend that meet- 

 ing. I had a conflict. I had to be at the University of Washington, 

 a long arrangement there. But I did hear about it. And that's why 



