75 



We intend to do it. 



So you have in front of you a chart, not withstanding the non- 

 partisanship, which explains the difference. I am going to ask for 

 your cooperation here. 



In the first line, the top line, is what I would politely call an elec- 

 tion year blip. You mentioned that you are going to have more 

 money to spend next year, and increasingly less in future years. 



This, shall I say, election year blip line — and I will not mention 

 whose budget it is, but it does happen to come from the Adminis- 

 tration — you go along high, and then start dropping. Then after 

 four years, magically you really go into the toilette. 



The second line is a more level line. It says, yes, we realize our 

 commitment to live within our means and we will slowly work with 

 all of the agencies to try and get there. 



In the two outyears, we are better off. So what the top line says 

 is. Well, we hope these people go away and we hope we can go back 

 to deficit financing. The bottom line says. We know that the whole 

 world forces us to live within our means, and we are going to have 

 to get there in a patient, slow way. But in the end we will be a 

 lot better off. 



I am asking you if you will cooperate with the Committee to take 

 that blip out and begin the tough job this year so that in five years 

 we are going to be better off from then on. Because, just like Sheri 

 said, there are those of us who believe in Supercomputing. We be- 

 lieve in the fact that we want to have education in the schools by 

 scientists. 



In my area, the Livermore Lab spends a lot of their time, person- 

 nel time, out in the schools and it is very, very helpful. So none 

 of us wants to cut these budgets. But the numbers we get from the 

 Appropriations Committee are inflexible. 



We are not. Despite Sheri's willingness to vote for more spend- 

 ing, the rest of the House is not going to let us do it. So we have 

 to get there in a patient way, and we will end up better off if we 

 take a slow, patient way to do it. 



Are you willing to work with this Committee and help us achieve 

 this end? 



Dr. Lane. Well, Mr. Baker, there is no question that I am willing 

 to work with this Committee. 



I cannot comment on all the competing priorities — it would not 

 be appropriate for me to do so — of all the things that appear under 

 the nondefense discretionary spending profile. 



It would, however — and I understand that as we balance the 

 budget we will have to find the money some place. However, I real- 

 ly do not think it is self-serving if I say that it would be irrespon- 

 sible for me to say that this nation should, in fact, cut its invest- 

 ment in the future of its children and its grandchildren. 



That future is in science. 



That future is in technology. 



That future is in education. 



NSF is an agency that integrates those things and that holds to 

 the very high standards all the decisions we make by using expert 

 opinion to make those decisions. 



I just feel that it would be irresponsible on my part to say that 

 that is the place we should go to find the money. 



