63 



Nonetheless, it is a fact for us, as for the other members, that 

 these are agreements in principle, and the validity of the program 

 is examined every year in the budget and appropriations process. 

 The most significant loss was the one you mentioned, when the 

 Soviet Union was disinvited or simply removed itself from the pro- 

 gram, and we handled that by reprogramming within NSF funds. 



Mr. FuQUA. Did the United States pick up the portion that the 

 Soviets would have had, or was it distributed proportionately? 



Ms. ToYE. No; NSF did, because we are on an advance payment 

 situation with the partners, which is helpful in terms of U.S. cash 

 flow, but it does not lend itself easily to ex post facto adjustments. 



Mr. FuQUA. One of the points that Dr. Weisskopf mentioned 

 about CERN is that they had 2-year plan, and they were already 

 working on the following; each year they were working a 2-year 

 plan. Would that be more helpful in international programs? 



Ms. ToYE. Again, I am not sure. The scientific planning, we are 

 working on about a 5-year time frame. 



Mr. FuQUA. No; I am really talking about more funding. 



Ms. ToYE. We have a 5-year plan. I am just not certain that the 

 U.S. constitutional process allows that. But I think, sir, that in our 

 case, the acknowledgment that we have enjoyed, again both from 

 the Hill and from OSTP and from OMB, that this is significant, 

 has made that a potential problem but not really a very real one 

 for us. 



Mr. FuQUA. Mr. Brown. 



Mr. Brown. I have no questions. 



Mr. FuQUA. Mr. Stallings. 



Mr. Stallings. No questions. 



Mr. FuQUA. Mr. Reid. 



Mr. Reid. No questions. 



Mr. FuQUA. Mr. Lewis. 



Mr. Lewis. No questions, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. FuQUA. Thank you very much, Ms. Toye. We appreciate your 

 sharing your thoughts with us this morning. 



[Answers to questions asked of Ms. Toye follow:] 



