Dr. LANE. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I do not know the answer 

 to that question. 



Mr. Schiff. All right, Dr. Lane, I regard that as an extremely 

 important question. In fact, I think it was nothing less than mis- 

 leading for the Administration to put in a budget spending figures 

 that are not related to the Congressional Budget Office verifica- 

 tions after the President has agreed with the Congress that we 

 would all use Congressional Budget Office figures. 



I think to introduce a separate set of figures for total spending 

 is nothing less than providing a lot of confusion. That is why I 

 would like to be certain which set of figures your testimony applies 

 to. I would be grateful if you would get back to me on that. 



[The following information was received for the record:] 



Scoring of NSF Budget 



The budget proposals presented in the President's budget for NSF were developed 

 using outlay rates that have been agreed upon by NSF, OMB, and CBO. It is our 

 understanding that OMB and CBO do not differ on the scoring issue. Therefore, the 

 outlay proposals displayed for all years are consistent with both OMB and CBO 

 scoring. However, OMB and CBO disagree on certain economic assumptions for Fis- 

 cal Years 2001 and 2002. As a result, the budget presents two sets of tables, one 

 of which displays proposed budget authority and outlays through FY 2002 using the 

 Administration's economic assumptions, and one which displays outlays through FY 

 2002 using only the CBO assumptions. 



Mr. Schiff. I would like to also ask if you have the breakdown 

 within your separate accounts within the NSF as to how the funds 

 in the next six fiscal years will be spent. 



For example, I believe that the Congressional proposal is for a 

 3 percent real growth in the Research and Related Activities Ac- 

 count for each year for the next six fiscal years. 



Can you tell me within the Research and Related Activities Ac- 

 count what the breakdown is in those fiscal years in the figures 

 you have referred to? 



Dr. Lane. Well, Mr. Chairman, one thing I would like to say is 

 I think the Research and Related Account does not correctly project 

 NSF's investment in research. Let me be more specific. 



In the NPR process we identified a different way of describing 

 our activities. I don't mean that we changed the account structure, 

 but we felt it was appropriate to try to look more carefully at the 

 activities that we are funding and identify what all goes into re- 

 search activity and what goes into education. 



So we have broken out and given examples in our 1997 budget 

 of what we spend on so-called "research projects" which I refer to 

 in my testimony — that's grants, and centers, and other such activi- 

 ties — and a "research facilities" line, critically important in sup- 

 porting the research projects, and "education" and "training." 



These do not correspond one-to-one with the accounts. "Research 

 and Related" includes many activities that, quite properly, can be 

 called "education and training," and the EHR account includes 

 some activities that, in fact, are almost entirely research. 



So that is why we have — not to try to obfuscate the situation at 

 all, but to try to clarify how our money really is invested — we have 

 moved to talking also about these key programs. 



Mr. Schiff. Well 



