When I see that some of our students are looking towards Europe in condensed matter physics for healthy careers, that the United States is no longer the first choice of foreign graduate students who come and train here, that is when I get concerned.

So time and time again I think it is the individual, the young person who will think. And if there is not enough money for the big projects, other ways of doing it cheaper will be found in time. And if the only way we can do it with the largest amount, I would like to quote what Professor Anderson said at these hearings last year, this same hearing, if that is the only way we can go forward, are we certain that that branch of science has not reached its natural conclusion for the time being?

Senator DOMENICI. Well-yes?

Dr. SESSLER. I think, Senator, you raise a very important and interesting question about prioritization, and prioritization within science.

And I think it is fair to say, it is certainly my opinion, that this country, science in this country has suffered during this present Administration for the last eight years or so from lack of an adequate scientific advisory apparatus in the Federal Government, particularly for the President. And I would hope to see that changed in the future.

Senator DOMENICI. I would not disagree with you at all. In spite of increased funding, when you add defense to the other research, we have been on the upswing, yet we are suffering from lack of direction, it seems to me, and certainly the universities have a legitimate complaint with reference to resources.

My last observation to you all is that one thing that I think we ought to do is to find a better way to permit the three basic sources of science in this country, private sector, universities, and institutions that the Federal Government owns, I think we have to have a better way to synergize them.

I think we have compartmentalized them too much, and we are somewhat covetous of keeping them separate. And consistent with being principally an educational institution, I see no reason why universities cannot be more involved with the private sector, and why the national laboratories cannot be used more by private sector and universities in some way that captures more of their assets rather than leaves them sort of languishing within their assigned domain.

And I believe that is a rich area of potential increased activity that I hope one of these days we are going to work on.

Having said that, the SSC to me is typically an American approach. If we do not do it, it will be one of the few times when we have been presented with a project of this scope and have not done it.

I myself have always supported it. But to tell you the truth, I am profoundly confused at this point in terms of where I would set my priorities. And I am not so sure at this point that I would set that much there.

If I knew how much the foreign countries and the others would pay, I might be more disposed to move in that direction. And I may indeed, I might support it with $100 million instead of $300 million.

But frankly, I see some very big holes out there in science activity, and I am not sure this one is going to plug the hole or a series of holes that I see with as much urgency as some others.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all of you. Senator FORD. Thank you, Senator Domenici. You go over and work on the budget and get it increased 25 percent, and we will see if we cannot hold it.

Senator DOMENICI. We will.

Senator FORD. Two or three questions and I will not keep you all very long.

Dr. Lederman, you were kind of the only one that was in step when your partners were watching you march there a while ago, but yet you were out of step with the other five somewhat.

Would you expand on your position as it related to whether we are still number one, and you began to say the slippery slope was not particularly—

Dr. LEDERMAN. Thank you, I would be glad to. I think the thing I put more emphasis on, and it came up from time to time, is the perception of the scientist to be, the new principal and young investigator, the kids.

What is their perception of science? And that is why I put a greater emphasis, not on the absolute value, but on the slope, or as we say the derivative. Where are we going to be five years from now?

And that is where I think these young people have an enormous perceptive notion of where we are going, what is the dynamism of our science. And they can sense this long before us older people can sense this.

And therefore I put a much greater weight on their sense of where we are going. What are the budget fundings? And if a condensed matter young person looks at the field and says, shall I go into this, and look at these terrible budget cuts for my university, and I chance my mind, I predict then that that slope will be a depressing thing in all fields of science, as you have heard.

So, fundamentally, I put a bigger waiting factor than my colleagues do on a period of five years rather than on 1988.

Senator FORD. Let us take that a step further then, Dr. Brinkman. You made a survey which you alluded to, and it covered the average age of those in the field of education. Is that the way I understood your survey?

Dr. BRINKMAN. The average age of physics department.

Senator FORD. OK, physics department. That it was growing.

Did you check on the percentage of how many of those from other countries might be employed now in physics departments as it related to those from this country?

Dr. BRINKMAN. We did not check that. Of course, we looked into the question of how many graduate students were from foreign countries.

That, of course, has gotten very large. It is in the 40 some percent now. That has not dropped off at all. That is true across most of the fields of physical sciences and engineering today.

So the number of people who are being trained who are foreign students today is much, much larger in this country than it has ever been before. And at least my experience going around the

country is that the faculties of many universities are being filled with people from various foreign countries. And I think that is a good thing.

We are bringing bright people into the country, and we are making use of them. That is OK. So, but I do not have the number for what fraction that is.

Senator FORD. Let us look at Dr. Lederman's concern. I think the answer is that we are still number one, but how long will it last? We are talking about, as it relates to uranium enrichment, a new process. We are five years ahead, you know, and somebody said, now maybe we are only two years ahead.

And we may be less than that, and some other country is going to come with that process and have it worked out before we do. Yes, Dr. Brinkman.

Dr. BRINKMAN. I was just going to make a comment on this, being ahead.

You know, one of the most interesting cases I see is a very explicit one, and that is in a thing called nuclear reactors for what is called neutron scattering for physics research.

And the Europeans have built a very large facility at Grenoble that is extremely well funded. And in fact very much better funded than ours, and our equipment is to a large extent out of date.

It is very interesting, however, that so far we have been very lucky. Because we in fact in many ways do just as well as they do in that kind of research, and it is because of the fact that they have of this ILL is funded by all the European countries, and they have to go through a program proposal sequence and things like that, and have a hard time getting sufficient time to do good research.

In this country we run our reactors less formally, and people when there is a good problem that should be worked on, it is worked on. And so we have managed to stay up, but, you know, if they ever change the rules over there, the things would change very quickly.

So people look at this and there is a very big discrepancy in the way things are being funded in those two places.

Senator FORD. Well, you may think we are better off, but we in Congress have 535 countries to deal with in order to try to work out a decision.

Dr. BRINKMAN. It does not work very well.

Senator FORD. Yes, at times it work very well, and I do not know whether that is luck or what.

Since I have been on this Committee I have had some interest in research and development, and one of the reasons I took this Committee is to see if there could not be something done to improve the direction, because I see us gradually falling behind in every field. We have the attitude that when we invest, if not today, we want to collect tomorrow, and other countries, say it may be five years or 10 years, but they begin their process and they are not looking at that being done tomorrow.

I do not object to investing today and being a millionaire tomorrow attitude. But I do think that we have to understand it is going to take some time.

The accusation is that we have nickeled and dimed a lot of projects to death, and have never funded anything to completion. That if it is going to be a white elephant, hell, let it be a white elephant.

But pursue it, because you are always going to have frustrations because you cannot complete an idea and move on with it. Is there anything to that? Should we go on? Should we, instead of having it so thin that we never complete anything?

Everybody wants small science, they want to start this, that, and the other, and you do not want to hold them back. But is there any reason why we should not look at something, look at the scientific community and they say, this is what we should be doing?

Let us pursue it to completion, according to the trickle down theory, well I heard that a long time ago and I have never been trickled on much. But, is there any basis for using that sort of application? Does anybody want to hit on that a little bit?

Because this is a political problem. I mean, I understand your problem, you are frustrated with us. Senator Domenici and I are frustrated because we cannot do more. And I will get into that prospect in a minute.

Yes, Dr. Fisher?

Dr. FISHER. Well, I regret that what I feel is important is that when something is working well there is a temptation to say, well that could look after itself on, you know, a few percent less, and if you ask someone honestly they will say yes. A few percent less, go downwards.

It is the lack of glamour in supporting the things that are working well. And I would like to pick up the materials research laboratories which have been rather well spread across the country.

They are a form of funding which goes in in quite large blocks, but to a university, with the condition that it is used flexibly there. They have been reviewed, some of them have been closed down. Unfortunately, now they are just being cut back.

I think in honesty also, though, Senator, I must respond that not all branches of science go on fruitful forever. This is very painful for those that have spent their lifetime in it or even a fraction of their lifetime.

There is a question of a sunshine law for different areas of physics, for different areas of chemistry. Some communities manage that better, and when the investments are smaller again it is easier to drift.

So in honesty I think one has to look. But it is extraordinarily frustrating to set up a wonderful laboratory that is working well, and then starve it because it cannot pay its electricity bill. And that is where I think we are penalizing ourselves.

Senator FORD. Let us talk about the guts of what you all have been talking about a little bit today and that is the new students, the new bright ideas.

Let me ask this question to you. Is the SSC likely to increase the number of bright students choosing science and engineering, because of the glamour and high visibility of the project?

Or is the SSC likely to have the opposite effect by draining money from small science where most of the teaching of students is done?

Dr. QUIGG. I would like to respond to that, if I may.
Senator FORD. Dr. Quigg.

Dr. QUIGG. First of all, I would like to point out that when we define small science for the point of view of Mr. Brinkman's survey, many of the groups working in high energy physics in universities are small groups, a professor or two, a couple of post-doctoral fellows, three or four graduate students.

They share the same problems, the same frustrations with their colleagues in other sciences who do not work at central facilities. So when we talk about small sciences or small groups, it is important to understand that we are talking about, in general, all the university groups and not simply those that do not use shared facilities.

With respect to the inspirational value of the SSC, I think it certainly will stimulate young children to think of scientific careers, or at least to think of taking science courses.

I have had occasion in the last year and a half to travel extensively in this country, talking to people about the SSC. One of the great benefits that that has had for me as a personal experience is that, having gotten people's attention with the grandeur of the project and also we have to admit with its price tag, they do want to hear about the exploration, about the science and so on.

And it is quite typical when I give a public lecture in some small town to have 50 or 100 junior high school students show up with mommy and daddy in tow to learn about basic research in general and the SSC in particular.

If we use these large projects as ways to attract people's attention, the space telescope is another one. The space telescope has cost $2 billion, and it is something which is essential. It will expand our reach into the universe by a factor of 1,000.

If we can use these things not to drain away the resources from other things but to give a focus to science so that young children can see things to be excited about, they will then go on and learn about other subjects and take up scientific careers that need not be focused in these particular areas.

Senator FORD. Dr. Sessler?

Dr. SESSLER. Thank you.

Senator FORD. I woke you up a little bit.

Dr. SESSLER. I would say there is no question that the SSC will be intellectually attractive to students, and it will attract students and bring more people into science, and make this country foremost in that field of research. There is no question about that in my mind.

At the very end, though, you said, would this attract students away from other fields, small science? And that really bothers me. Senator FORD. Or the reduction of funding, with funding going there and not

Dr. SESSLER. I have testified that I do not think we should do that. And I say again very strongly that we should fund small science and in addition fund the SSC, and then we will attract new students into science and keep training people in the small science.

Senator FORD. We have done two things here in Congress. One, we have reduced the income to the Federal government. We have