148 



I just want to start by apologizing for being late. I was in a veter- 

 ans' committee hearing and I missed the testimony. But I did want 

 to follow up on a question that Mr. Olver was asking. 



Since this report is recommending that this budget, the Federal 

 Science and Technology budget, be sufficient to allow us to achieve 

 pre-eminence, I want to make take a different tac. 



Can this goal, do you think that this goal can be achieved under 

 the scenario of a one-third decrease in civilian R«&D by the year 

 2002, which is the cut that the Americ£in Association for the Ad- 

 vancement of Sciences has projected will occur under the current 

 balanced budget scenario we're operating under? 



Dr. Press. No. The answer is no. Couldn't possibly. It would be 

 very destructive to have that kind of a cut. 



But I think the AAAS may be backing off that projection of a 30- 

 percent reduction in the light of recent events. 



Mr. Doyle. What percent — how much of a cut in this program 

 do you think we can absorb and still achieve pre-eminence in these 

 fields? 



Dr. Press. That's a difficult question to answer without doing a 

 lot of work and analysis of the Mnd that we point out in the report. 



In fact, that's the whole purpose of our report. If cuts have to be 

 made, and we hope they don't, then if you make them in the way 

 that we recommend, you can still maintain a leadership role for 

 this country. Not a 30-percent cut by any means, but somewhat 

 smaller. 



As I said before, our recommendations will hold if budgets go up 

 or stay constant or if there are some reductions, because our rec- 

 ommendations are trying to optimize the allocation process so that 

 the best projects and people and the best-performing agencies and 

 laboratories, those are the ones that get supported. 



Under those circumstances, I think the country will fare well 

 under any scenario of future budgets. 



Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much. That's all I have, Mr. Chair- 

 man. 



Chairman Walker. Thank you, Mr. Doyle. 



Mr. McHale? 



Mr. McHale. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too missed your smil- 

 ing face. That's the obligatory statement that I guess has to pre- 

 cede any questioning. 



Chairman WALKER. It's only come from my Pennsylvania col- 

 league. 



[Laughter.] 



Mr. McHale. We weren't going to point that out, Mr. Chairman. 



[Laughter.] 



Mr. Chairman, I too apologize. I was at several other commit- 

 ments during the principal testimony of our witnesses. So if this 

 question has been previously answered, please don't feel out of an 

 obligation of courtesy to go into it again. 



I've reviewed your statement very quickly, very briefly, and I did 

 not note that you placed your testimony in an international con- 

 text. 



Would you address the issue of international competition and de- 

 scribe generally for us how the United States compares to our prin- 

 cipal international economic competitors in terms of what we do to 



