Dr. SEABORG. Yes; I have those figures. And actually, they are accurately represented on table IV on page 22 of your committee print.

The AEC has a budget for the support of research in fiscal year 1969 of $420 million, of which $324 million is for the support of basic research, and $96 million for the support of applied research, and then about a billion dollars for the support of development. But that gets into, you know, our nuclear weapons and reactor development and things of that sort.

But in answer to your question, about $420 million for research divided $324 million for basic research and $96 million for applied research.

Mr. BROWN. Do you have any idea of what would happen in the event that there was a drastic change in the nuclear weapons field? For example, if we reached an agreement to cease the production of nuclear weapons with the Russians, do you have any idea of how that would affect the budget on the research items?

Dr. SEABORG. That wouldn't affect the $420 million very much. That would affect the $1 billion development.

Mr. BROWN. But what kind of a management problem would that give you within the agency?

I presume that the operations are in some degree, at least related. In the same laboratories, for example, that there is a certain amount of basic research going on, and

Dr. SEABORG. Yes. The nuclear weapons work is at our Los Alamos Laboratory, N. Mex., and Livermore Laboratory in California. But both of these laboratories have a substantial amount of civilian research, basic research going on, in such areas as the Plowshare program, the peaceful use of nuclear explosives, and the controlled thermonuclear research, getting back to this 500 Pacific Oceans equivalent of high grade fuel, and biology and medicine, and at Los Alamos now, intermediate energy physics with a meson facility, and so forth.

Mr. BROWN. But wouldn't you face a management problem with regard to those two laboratories, whether to close down the laboratories because a substantial segment of their work had been taken away, weapons production, let's say, or to increase the budget for the nonweapons related research, the peaceful or civilian applications in order to continue to carry the staff and the overhead that you have at these laboratories?

Dr. SEABORG. The impact of such a happy situation would be more on our contractor-operated industrial capability for the production of the weapons. And that is in other plants.

Of course, there would be some effect on the laboratories dependent upon what kind of an agreement we went into.

I would say for a number of years almost any agreement that you could contemplate probably would include research on future possibilities as a safeguard. It would be difficult for me to conceive of any agreement that didn't include that, at least for a number of years. Also, the weapons laboratories and in some ways that word "weapons" isn't any longer an accurate description of their function, because they are doing so many other things are becoming increasingly involved with surrounding universities. And this is particularly true of Los Alamos, which is developing a relationship with many of the universities in the Mountain States area, and also to some extent,

with Livermore, which has a relationship with the Davis campus of the University of California in their applied engineering program which is really unique in a number of its aspects in this country.

Mr. BROWN. Well, the thing that I am trying to get is whether or not an important mission of these laboratories might not be adversely affected as a result of a decision made in another area, and is there a mechanism or a process through which we could make sure this important mission was not overlooked in the total spectrum of scientific effort that is taking place as a result of what you might say almost an unrelated decision to cut out weapons production. Do you feel that there is such a mechanism that these functions would be protected under this kind of a circumstance?

Dr. SEABORG. Well, it would now, of course, be under the mechanism of the budgeting process through the executive branch and Bureau of the Budget, and so forth, and the subsequent congressional approval which would be based on initial recommendation by the Atomic Energy Commission.

Mr. BROWN. Well, let me explore another aspect of this. This is just for the purpose of determining really what the mechanisms are.

You listed three very significant types of research which I would consider basic research, going on in the AEC; for example, the nuclear fusion business, which produced this 500 Pacific Oceans full of oil and work on these heavier chemical elements which you call the islands of stability.

Dr. SEABORG. Yes.

Mr. BROWN. And the nature of the forces dominating the laws of matter, which I presume are the subnuclear forces?

Dr. SEABORG. That is right, the high-energy physics program has that objective.

Mr. BROWN. How do you make the determination as to the relative level of effort going into these three vitally important areas, and what is the effect on them of, let us say, an overall budgetary decision to set a ceiling on Federal expenditures? How are these programs affected? Dr. SEABORG. Well, this is largely a management decision within our agency. And as the budget is cut back or a ceiling set, it has been a matter of decreasing the effort in these fields. Or in the case of the controlled thermonuclear research, holding it at a level rather than enabling it to have what we would call at this time a needed expansion.

In the case of the controlled thermonuclear reactions, there have been recent results in our laboratories, and perhaps even more especially in Soviet laboratories that have given rise to a good deal of optimism as to the future potential of obtaining this unlimited source of energy.

But we haven't been able to exploit these possibilities to the extent that we would like to due to budget limitations.

Mr. BROWN. Do you feel that the budget determinations in this case have fully recognized the tremendous potential significance of a breakthrough in this particular area?

Dr. SEABORG. Probably not.

Mr. BROWN. Would you consider this to be in any way a defect of the organization of scientific decisionmaking in the Federal Government, or is there some other reason why it probably has not received the budgetary attention it should?

Dr. SEABORG. Well, it has been a part of the picture, of the general cutback in funds. If a new organization of Federal science would lead to greater overall funds, then that would be a solution. But the provision of the funds under the present arrangement would solve it just as well.

I don't really know where within our program, for example, we have anything of lower priority. What we have done is within our program, readjusted the priorities to the present level of operation, and it would be difficult for me to make a judgment with respect to priorities in other programs.

It would be solved by more money.

Mr. BROWN. Well, that is a good point, whether it would be solved by more money or not.

I remember 3 or 4 years ago I raised the question in some correspondence with the agency about the need for more money for this program, and I was told that the present level of funding was adequate because there wasn't enough skilled manpower.

Dr. SEABORG. Oh, I am not sure how that arose-I know that is not true now. And I am trying to recall what the situation was 3 or 4 years ago. But at the present time, there is enough skilled manpower. In fact, quite the opposite: if the budget stays at the present level, we will have to let some people go.

Mr. BROWN. Well, I am trying to look at this from the standpoint of the mechanism by which decisions are made, more than the validity of a particular decision.

Dr. SEABORG. Yes.

Mr. BROWN. I am just wondering if this isn't an indication of a situation in which a matter which I think and I believe you feel could be of the very highest priority in our national priorities may not be receiving adequate funding because of the fact that the process, the machinery doesn't bring this to the top of the budgetary process in the proper fashion.

For example, how do you within the agency allocate funds as between these three types of programs that you have mentioned here: The nuclear fission, the heavy chemical elements, and the high-energy physics.

Dr. SEABORG. Yes.

Mr. BROWN. Do you have some sort of a coordinating mechanism in which exponents of the programs in each of these areas fight for a limited supply of funds?

Dr. SEABORG. Yes. The Director of our Division of Research makes recommendations which come to Dr. English, our Assistant General Manager for Research and Development. The heavy element program involves another division, the Division of Production, because some of that work, as I indicated in my testimony, is done down at the Savannah River plutonium production plant.

And these recommendations come up through the relevant assistant general manager to the general manager, who makes recommendations, and then the Commission sits for literally hours on end and tries to make the final decision on the distribution of funds in the form of the total that we request from the Bureau of the Budget.

Then the Bureau of the Budget usually brings it back with some cuts, and at that time-that is, this has been the situation in the last 2

or 3 years at that stage, it is pretty much at the Commission level from then on to readjust the cuts to fit the target figure.

Mr. BROWN. Well, we could explore the way in which this mechanism works for a large number of programs and evaluate it in terms of our own ideas or priorities. But I don't think we have the time, Mr. Chairman, to do that this morning. I will forego any further questions. Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. Seaborg, I would like to ask just one question following's Mr. Brown's. Would it be helpful from a management point of view for your laboratory directors to have the authority to spend any way they would like, taking into consideration the talents which exist in their laboratories, a certain percentage of their budget each year, without going through that process that you were talking about? Everything else would go through that process but they could have, let's say, 10 percent of their moneys to spend as they would like? Dr. SEABORG. It might be. It is an internal management matter, of

course.

Dr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, let me say a few words about this. I think clearly if you ask any of the laboratory directors about this particular proposition, obviously, they would like this. And I think in general it would be a good idea. On the other hand, it should be pointed out that there is flexibility now.

We do have flexibility for reprograming. We are controlled, of course, in how we get our funds, as we justify them in the authorization process. And there are certain limitations with respect to program elements.

On the other hand, within given programs, for example within the program of biology and medicine at one of our laboratories, say Oak Ridge, the director does have a rather high degree of flexibility with respect to changing emphasis during the course of the year.

And he can get this change in emphasis and approval of it from the director of the Division of Biology and Medicine at AEC Headquarters. We have greater problems in, for example, a flexibility between programs; that is, flexibility between, say, biology and medicine and physical research, because our funds are authorized in that fashion.

So that I think, to my mind, at least, in some instances the lack of flexibility has been perhaps overemphasized a little bit. I think it is only fair to say that as time has gone on in the course of the last decade or so, there has been a general tendency in the direction of less flexibility.

I think particularly when funds become short, you see less and less flexibility.

Mr. DADDARIO. Well, as funds have become short you reach the point where you are thinking of letting go some people who I imagine you would like to keep. As you reach the point, Dr. Seaborg, where more and more multidisciplinary capabilities will be built into our national laboratories, isn't this one of the things we should look at from a management and administrative point of view? Obviously these great laboratories which are now under your control are going to change over the course of time.

Dr. SEABORG. Oh, yes.

Mr. DADDARIO. We have got to think about these changes, particularly in keeping with many of the questions Mr. Brown has been asking.

Dr. SEABORG. Yes.

Mr. DADDARIO. And this matter of priorities I would expect in some instances would be determined by the great feeling, desires, and capabilities which exist within some of these laboratories

Dr. SEABORG. Sure.

Mr. DADDARIO. Which today under the present management concepts are not really allowed to come out and flourish.

Dr. SEABORG. That is right. I think more flexibility would be helpful there.

Of course again, much of this ability to come out and flourish is related to the-or lack of ability to do that is related to the present lack of funds.

With respect to greater flexibility in the hands of the laboratory directors, this is to some extent an internal management, AEC management decision.

Take the Oak Ridge National Laboratory that has parts of its budget under the aegis of the Division of Biology and Medicine, part under the Division of Research, part under the Division of Reactor Development, and so forth.

It is pretty difficult for the laboratory director to have the total picture to the extent that he might transfer funds from reactor development to Biology and Medicine, because our reactor development program, for example, is on a national basis, and there is some interrelationship between what is done at one place and another national laboratory.

But subject to constraints of that sort, I would imagine that a little more flexibility in what the laboratory directors might do would be beneficial.

Mr. DADDARIO. These laboratories will change as time goes on. As they do change, the techniques through which they are managed must be taken into consideration.

Dr. SEABORG. Yes, I think so. And I think your implication that they might take on broader responsibilities, I agree with. And the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, for example, today is budgeted to the extent of about 15 percent by other agencies in order to allow their expertise to be available to the solution of the problems of other Government agencies.

Dr. ENGLISH. This, Mr. Chairman, as I am sure you know, is one area in which the laboratories do have a rather high degree of flexibility with respect to proposing work that they have the capability of carrying out in other fields, such as pollution research and so on. And we have actually gone to some pains to encourage them in this endeavor.

Mr. DADDARIO. But there is the inhibiting factor of the sponsoring agency somehow maintaining its sponsorship in a confining way.

Dr. ENGLISH. Well, we hope it isn't any more confining than the confinements that are imposed upon us. Also, we view it as a certain responsibility, really, to assure the health of the laboratory in the sense of not letting things get so far out of balance that should some difficult financial decision be made by someone else not having a sense of responsibility for the laboratory, it could wreak havoc in the laboratory. And I am sure the laboratories are quite aware of this problem and agree with us that it is something that has to be closely watched.