122 



Chairman Walker. Thank you very much, and thank all three 

 of you for your testimony. 



Having gone through an exercise of attempting to consolidate 

 some science budgets in Congress over the last year, I can under- 

 stand well some of the pressures that you faced in trying to come 

 up with the recommendations that you make, and also in trying to 

 get the community to respond favorably to the recommendations 

 that you make. 



I was struck by Mr. Mahonej^s statement that sometimes some 

 worthwhile projects favored by the chairman got struck. 



What I'm finding is that when that happens in the United States 

 Senate, it means they don't move your bill. It seems as though in 

 the United States Senate, if they look through your bill and they 

 don't find the projects that they had designated for their state 

 within the bill, that tells them that the bill shouldn't move. 



It's a very interesting circumstance and it's very bipartisan in 

 that regard. 



But the recommendation that you make, I think, is a very impor- 

 tant one because it seems to me that it's going to be very difficult 

 to decide priorities in the future unless you are able to look across 

 the board at a lot of these enterprises and figure out just exactly 

 what has to be done and the way in which it has to be done. 



Let me ask you, though, in that regard, the argument is made 

 in your Federal Science and Technology budget that we eliminate 

 from consideration in that budget all funding for defense tech- 

 nology and development, which now compromises about 40 percent 

 of the federal R&D work. 



The argument could be made that defense development work to- 

 talling about $30 billion will continue to affect the rest of the na- 

 tion's R&D system because it uses science and technology infra- 

 structure, talent, facilities and information. 



So the question is how can we justify eliminating a $30 billion 

 figure in defense development work from policy consideration as a 

 part of the federal R&D budget when it uses or affects so much of 

 the nation's science infrastructure and talent? 



Dr. Press. We don't underestimate the value of that part of the 

 $70 billion budget that deals with weapons development. 



Those allocations are judged by entirely different criteria in 

 terms of national security issues, what other countries' aggressive- 

 ness are alike and what weapons they are developing and things 

 of that sort. 



But it's really not R&D by the usual definition of the word. It 

 can use the results of R&D, just as American industry does, as 

 American agriculture does. And we hope that it would. 



But to claim that this country spends $70 billion on R&D is real- 

 ly a false figure. It's about half of that. 



Chairman WALKER. So if I understand, what you're saying is, in 

 this case, you're sorting out mission-oriented research from the 

 pure development of new knowledge. 



Is that 



Dr. Press. It is mission-oriented but it's not research. It's the use 

 of the results of research to develop production lines for new fighter 

 planes, for example, prototyping new weapons. That's the kind of 

 stuff that goes in there. 



