137 



I inserted just last night in my testimony that whole discussion of 

 the FS&T budget. And I raised the three objections that Allan 

 Bromley had against them. 



If you recall what they were, that this would — as you mentioned, 

 that this would give Congress a target to shoot at and if they want- 

 ed to cut the budget, here it is, a visible target. A move away from 

 decentralization and pluralism and the fact that $70 billion is a 

 bigger pool of money. We could shift things into science. 



And I address those in my testimony and why I 



Mr. Ehlers. I'm sorry I missed that because I was late. 



Dr. Press. Okay, why I thought that wouldn't work. Rather than 

 go over it, I'll just hand this to you afterwards. 



I think the issues that they raise are easily addressable. 



With respect to a Department of Science, what we're proposing 

 accomplishes one of the main goals of that proposed department. 

 But it accomplishes the whole of the government rather than a few 

 small items in the proposed Department of Science. 



It achieves the kind of coordination and understanding that the 

 Chairman had in mind when he proposed a Department of Science. 

 And it achieves it without setting up a czar, without setting up a 

 whole new entity. It accomplishes it by a degree of coordination in 

 the White House and the Executive Branch as the budget is pre- 

 pared and as it's transferred to Congress. 



So we feel that our proposal has all of the advantages and none 

 of the disadvantages of a centralized Department of Science. 



Chairman Walker. The time of the gentleman has expired. 



Mr. Ehlers. Thank you. 



Chairman WALKER. Mr. Rohrabacher? 



Mr. Rohrabacher. Dr. Press, in your report, you indicate that 

 it will be likely that we may need some sort of base closure type 

 of situation, a Base Closure Commission type to deal with the fed- 

 eral labs. And you also talk about, of course, about some of the 

 major problems we face now. 



First of all, I'd like you to expand a little bit on the concept that 

 we may need a federal commission like a Base Closure Commission 

 for the labs. 



And second, at the Department of Energy, did you find that the 

 decision-making process there in terms of new programs that 

 should be focused on are not focused on by the department, was 

 based on politics or science? 



Dr. Press. We feel that the kinds of goals we have in mind can 

 be accomplished by the process of evaluation, by the process of sup- 

 porting projects and people, and evaluating proposals, rather than 

 going to this extreme situation of base closing. 



I^ may come to that, but I don't think it has to come to that for 

 the reasons that Dr. Fox gave in her testimony. 



And so, if we have to move funds around within agencies and 

 across agencies based upon national needs, based upon the fact 

 that the cold war is over and there are obsolete missions in dif- 

 ferent federal laboratories, I think we can accomplish that without 

 resorting to this extreme situation. 



Mr. Rohrabacher. So the Base Closure Commission type of set- 

 up is the last resort. 



Dr. Press. That's an extreme situation. It's a last resort. 



■?<=,-f.R^ n - Qfi - fi 



