predominantly minority, and whether the investigator has had program. or Recognizing that no State need remain a nonparticipant a marginal participant in scientific research, the Foundation continues to support the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research. This program focuses on strengthening the research base in eligible States that wish to increase the ability of scientists in these States to compete more successfully for Federal research funds. The program is being conducted in two phases. In FY 1979, seven Phase A Planning Awards of up to $125,000 were made to ad hoc committees in Arkansas, Maine, Montana, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota and West Virginia. The ad hoc committees are composed of academic scientists and industrial leaders within each State. Upon receiving the planning grant, each State committee assessed its current research activities, identified resources and options for improvement, and created a five-year plan to improve the quantity and competitiveness of research within each State. The initial seven plans that resulted from Phase A Awards will compete for Phase B Implementation Awards which will be made late in FY 1980. In FY 1981, the Foundation plans to fund the second year of the Phase B Implementation Awards. The average annual rate per award in FY 1981 is estimated to be $700,000. No State will be allowed to participate in Phase B for more than five years. The Foundation also plans to initiate Phase A planning activities in three additional States during FY 1980, with Phase A Awards to be made from FY 1981 funds. The three additional States are expected to be Vermont, Idaho, and Mississippi. The Foundation is requesting a funding level for this program of $2.7 million in FY 1981. As a result of supporting the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, basic science has been given increased visibility within each State and enthusiasm among science faculty is high, detailed objective descriptions of science resources have been completed in each participating State, and there have been improved interactions among academic institutions, State Government, and industry, leading to an increase in cooperative activities. Other programs address such issues as improving the management of complex, economic, social, and technical organizations, recognizing outstanding young scientists in the forefront of science, and funding studies related to NSF's long-range planning and program evaluation efforts. In summary, Mr. Chairman, the Cross-Directorate program activity provides the Foundation with an effective budget design for pulling together many programs whose support funds are not related to any single field of science but to several fields generally supported by the Foundation. They are among the most interesting and innovative efforts of the I shall be glad to respond to your questions. Foundation. 10 Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much, Dr. Pimentel. Let me note for my colleagues that it was our intention for these hearings to devote the first half to the witnesses that we have before us at the table. We have two other sets of witnesses which we need to cover. So, I'm not trying to be arbitrary, but I want to proceed as expeditiously as possible to these other witnesses. With that in mind, do you have any questions, Mr. Watkins? Mr. WATKINS. I just wondered, Mr. Chairman, on this one, about the 12 areas in your testimony, I didn't notice anything on innovation or applied research. I wondered if that was 1 of the 12 directives. Dr. PIMENTEL. Mr. Watkins, the hearings tomorrow will cover NSF's engineering and applied science directorate; specific programs in innovation and applied science will be discussed. Mr. WATKINS. That answers my question. Thank you very much. Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Watkins. Dr. Pimentel, you have focused on the decision and management sciences item of $1 million. Yet, I notice that at the same time, there is a reduction in NSF planning and evaluation from $1.18 to $0.75 million which seems to me to be a key function of the same general type as we are talking about, and one which might assist in helping the NSF to focus its resources more effectively in making the decision as to which areas of need are the most important. In other words, NSF planning and evaluation is going to call upon a lot of decision and management sciences. Are you just shifting funds from one area to another here without any basic increase in the overall program? Dr. PIMENTEL. No, sir. I see these as different types of activities. The NSF planning and evaluation program element includes studies which are explicitly connected with evaluation of NSF activities and funding. That element is being held constant in dollar amount relative to the fiscal year 1980 amount; it is connected specifically with planning and policy studies of issues that we consider to be important. These studies are different from the proposed new program of more fundamental research which will address in a more open ended way the questions that the scientists who operate in this area find to be important. The budget for planning and policy studies in fiscal year 1981 is connected with our anticipation of the proposals before us. Let me mention two or three of the proposals connected with the fiscal year 1980 budget to indicate the nature of the activities. We have, for example, a report on trends of organization of academic research-the role of organized research universities and full-time researchers. That report addresses, of course, one of the issues discussed this morning. We also have in the fiscal year 1980 budget the addition of status reviews; of course, we will do those again in fiscal year 1981. And we have a report on interdisciplinary research needs and opportunities. The $400,000 proposed for this element represents our estimate of the studies that we see before us for the immediate year. Mr. BROWN. Dr. Pimentel, would you see if you can provide a little bit more detail on that $3.2 million in the U.S.-U.S.S.R. category? I'm sure there are going to be additional questions on that. There |