I want to compliment Dr. Press and his committee for noticing 

 the significant influence the Science Committee's authorization 

 numbers had on the appropriations bills. It was a hard-fought bat- 

 tle, but at the end, we were effective. 



Again, this year, I intend to have this Committee be an influen- 

 tial voice in the process of allocating monies. 



Dr. Press' report calls for ensuring that the science and tech- 

 nology budget of the Federal Government is "sufficient to allow the 

 United States to achieve pre-eminence in a select number of fields 

 and to perform at a world-class level in other major fields." 



We support this goal, and we look to the science community for 

 appropriate direction. 



Another recommendation which I strongly agree with is the call 

 for federal laboratories to focus their work on the missions of their 

 sponsoring agency. 



With federal funding very tight, we can no longer allow federal 

 laboratories to go off in search of their own missions in order to 

 justify their existence. 



The Science Committee has always supported technology transfer 

 from the labs into the private sector, but as a by-product, not as 

 a primary mission. 



Like it or not, the labs were established to support the research 

 needs of the Defense Department or NASA or the Department of 

 Energy, and we must insist that they maintain this mission-sup- 

 port focus. 



While speaking of the labs, I should briefly touch on a related 

 recommendation that is receiving some criticism, that federal re- 

 search funding should generally favor academic institutions. 



The benefits of conducting research at universities are correctly 

 enumerated in the report. However, benefits which accrue to the 

 labs such as multi-disciplinary, faculty-intensive and mission-ori- 

 ented research argue for strong support for them as well. 



I would suggest to both the academic and the laboratory cultures 

 that this report opens the door through which more aggressive 

 communication and research partnerships should be pursued to 

 build on the strengths of each. 



Politically, it serves neither community to criticize the other 

 without acknowledging their own limitations. Together, academia, 

 the laboratories, and industry can restructure our research infra- 

 structure in ways that enhance science and technology as an enter- 

 prise for the nation. 



We are also committed to sustaining the long-established prac- 

 tice of merit review as a method of awarding research funding. 

 Without the rigorous evaluation of technical quality, relevance to 

 mission that can only be provided by the researcher's peers, can 

 the United States hope to maintain its recognized role as a world 

 leader in so many fields. 



In the past ten years or so, we have seen the disturbing practice 

 of academic earmarking emerge in the legislative process, whereby 

 programs are funded not necessarily on their merit, but because 

 their sponsors have been able to use political muscle. 



Happily, I think we've begun to see a reversal of this trend. But 

 the science community should realize that by engaging in these tac- 

 tics, the research enterprise as a whole has suffered. 



