844 
simply because there isn’t enough money at this time. I think Congress 
might well find that money. 
I turn it back to you, Mr. Chairman. 
Dr. Wrenx. If I may comment, Mr. Mosher. Perhaps “absolutely” 
is too strong a word. May I speak to two points: first, the point of 
the written statement was to note that some of the goals portrayed by 
the Commission can be realized only if there is more gas in the tank 
regardless of reorganization. 
The second point is one in which there may be different ways to 
interpret the Commission report or to proceed with their implementa- 
tion. They foresaw a doubling over a period of 10 years, which is not 
a very fast rate. But they recommended a far sharper increase at the 
beginning of the decade rather than later on. It is on this point that 
I feel that we should be realistic and state that these very large in- 
creases—and they are fairly substantial—that they propose in their 
report for the early years—may have to be deferred. 
Mr. Mosuer. I recognize the constraints and their validity. But, 
nevertheless, the national budget is a tremendous budget and I think 
there are opportunities for us to decide that there is some place we can 
cut and other places where we can increase, where the national need 
is real, and I think the national need here is real. 
Dr. Wenx. I would like to reassure you, Mr. Mosher and the sub- 
committee, that the executive branch shares your view that the dis- 
tribution of funds—let’s just say within the research and development 
budget—deserves review and sharp evaluation, even without mcreases 
in that total; that total is somewhere close to $17 billion a year, and it 
has been about that level for several years. 
The current pattern of funding grew on the basis of random prior- 
ities that were set one at a time over the past 10 years. There is no 
reason to believe that they would still fall in that same pattern. It is 
my belief that the President and the Bureau of the Budget and the 
President’s science adviser feel quite strongly the present distribution 
of funds deserve evaluation and are taking positive steps to look at 
this total. 
Mr. Mosner. I wish we in Congress had a more effective way to 
assess the various priorities. Even without an effective way, I think we 
have got to do something. 
Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to monopolize. 
Mr. Lennon. Thank you and Mr. Rogers? 
FUNDING AS INDICATOR OF PRIORITIES 
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is always good to see 
vou, Dr. Wenk, and we appreciate your testimony. I share my col- 
league’s feeling that it is disappointing that it is not a more affirma- 
tive picture although I realize the restraints that you have stated. 
What. are the national priorities? Can you give us a list of national 
priorities? 
Dr. Wenx. That is a very difficult question, Mr. Rogers. 
Mr. Rocrrs. Well, can you submit it for the record? I realize you 
may not have it here. If you get it for us, this might be helpful to 
make it a part of the record. 
Dr. Wenk. I believe the budget is a reflection of our priorities. As 
