4 EDUCATION AND KNOWLEDGE 5 NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL 6.8 4.9 1.9 DEVELOPMENT 10 LABOR AND MANPOWER 1 GENERAL GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONAL FIELDS (ORDER OF DESCENDING 69 OUTLAYS FIGURE IV RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN RED AND CUTLAYS: LOW CORRELATION BUT MOVING CLOSER R&D AS % OF 1961 1969 Dr. HARRIS. In figure I, which is also attached at the back of your document, I would like to show the 13 functional fields that we identified. These are national security, welfare, health, and so on. In this figure we show the percent of the total Federal Budget allocated to these 13 functional fields in fiscal year 1969. National security amounts to about 45 percent and is first in priority. Welfare is second, with 20 percent of the total outlays allocated to it. Health is third, with 7 percent of the total outlays allocated to it. Commerce, transportation, and communication are 4.7 percent. Education and knowledge, are 3.3 percent. Agriculture is 3.2. And the other fields all fall at 3 percent or less: International relations, labor and manpower, veterans, space, housing and community development, natural resources and environmental and general government. I think it is important to recognize space as only 2.3 percent of the total Federal budget in 1969. Space is defined as the space mission per se, without the NASA program areas of aircraft technology or space sciences. Mr. MOSHER. Mr. Chairman, can I interrupt just a second? Mr. MOSHER. When you are talking about Federal budget, are you talking about the budget as proposed by the President or funding as finally appropriated by the Congress? Dr. HARRIS. As proposed by the President. Mr. DADDARIO. Yes. While you have been interrupted. Dr. HARRIS. Yes, sir. Mr. DADDARIO. How does the interest on the national debt fit into this? Mr. LEDERMAN. In our particular study, we excluded the interest on the national debt as having no function in itself, but a method of financing other functions. Mr. DADDARIO. So we would have to take the overall budget, and deduct from it. Dr. HARRIS. That is correct, and then that is the allocation. Dr. HARRIS. Right. Mr. DADDARIO. One other point. Is that the only deduction we would have to consider? Have you left anything else out? Mr. MOSHER. What budget are you using; the old budget? Mr. MOSHER. The new budget. Do you leave out the trust funds then, like the social security trust fund? Dr. HARRIS. They are in the budget. Mr. DADDARIO. The interest on the debt would be the only Mr. LEDERMAN. The interest on the debt and some relatively minor intragovernmental payments that are not specified in the budget as to functional field. Mr. DADDARIO. Well, Dr. Harris, I would appreciate it if you would take a look at it just so we might know what the other items were and then we would be in pretty good shape to use these procedures. Dr. HARRIS. Fine. We can amplify our statements and be explicit on that point. Mr. DADDARIO. Fine. That can be done for the record, just to serve that particular purpose. (In response to the preceding questions, the following information is presented :) The estimated FY 1969 total outlay figure shown in the FY 1969 Budget was $186.1 billion. Modifications made to this figure for purposes of our study were: (a) interest on the National Debt ($14.4 billion) was subtracted as having no function in itself, but being a method of financing other functions; (b) special allowances of $2.0 billion were subtracted. There were requested to cover pay increases and contingencies and are not distributed by function in the Budget; (c) undistributed adjustments of $5.0 billion were subtracted. These are intragovernmental payments undistributed by function, and include the Government contribution for employee retirement, and interest received by trust funds. The resulting figure which was distributable by function was $174.8 billion. Dr. HARRIS. Figure No. II, which is also shown on the back of your report, talks about the total Federal R. & D. budget. And now with the same 13 functional fields, it identifies the percentage of the total R. & D. budget for fiscal year 1969 that is allocated to each of these functional fields. National security, again, emerges as the leader, with 53.1 percent of the total budget allocated to it. Space is second, 23.4. Health, third, 7.3. Education and knowledge, 6.8. Natural resources and environmental, 4.9. All the other fields fall in the category of 2 percent or less, of the Federal R. & D. budget allocated to these functional areas. Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. Harris, do you separate from national security R. & D. its educational activities so that they reflect themselves as would the space activities within the education and knowledge, or have you not done that? Mr. LEDERMAN. We have not. That is included under national security, primarily because the goal statements both from the President and from the Department of Defense specified that they are predominantly for the purpose of their contribution to national security. They may also serve other very useful purposes. Mr. DADDARIO. Well, Project Themis, then, would be within the 53.1? Dr. HARRIS. That is correct. Mr. DADDARIO. We would have to reflect our own thinking into the education and knowledge activities. Dr. HARRIS. Yes; looking in figure III at the changing pattern from 1961 to 1969 of the total R. & D. conduct by functional field for all of those agencies that had more than 2 percent of the Federal R. & D. budget in 1969, you can see that in 1961 the percentage of the Federal R. & D. budget allocated to national security was considerably higher that it is today. There is a near mirror image of its trend when compared with the allocations of space R. & D. The space program was a very modest part of the total Federal R. & D. budget in 1961, rising to a substantial level in 1966, and decreasing since then. The national security R. & D. budget line shows a decrease from 1961 to 1966 and an increase during the latter years. Mr. MOSHER. Doctor, are you suggesting there is some direct relationship or is that just a coincidence? |