Congress in over 40 years to balance the budget by eliminating the 

 size of government and not raising taxes. 



If we don't reach an agreement and if we keep spending at the 

 present rate, the spending on entitlements and interest on the debt 

 will consume all tax revenues in just 17 years. 



Discretionary spending on items such as research will simply be 

 beyond our means at that point. On the bright side, a balanced 

 budget will create 6 million more jobs in ten years and increase 

 per-capita income by 16 percent. 



A federal budget under those circumstances means a continuing 

 opportunity to address critical national needs. 



Federal funding for science has been viewed by the science com- 

 munity and the nation as a crucial function of the government. 

 Therefore, like other constituencies, such as defense, education, 

 farming interests, and social welfare programs, scientists and re- 

 searchers have come to adopt the yes-but approach to deficit reduc- 

 tion. 



That is, yes, I agree that the deficit is too large and spending 

 needs to be cut, but not my program, not my project, and not my 

 grant. 



This is an understandable position. But it's also one that is in- 

 creasingly hard to defend. 



Research still enjoys strong support in the Congress, as it should. 

 And it also enjoys strong support among the public. And for the 

 most part, the public seems to endorse research for its own sake. 



But there will be no more blank checks. Researchers are increas- 

 ingly called upon to justify their work and their results. The com- 

 petition among science fields is increasing. 



Recognizing this, and realizing that every idea can't be funded, 

 my colleagues in the Science Committee and I have long urged the 

 science community to come to us with their priorities. This request 

 has yielded mixed results. Too often, when we ask witnesses about 

 the choices they make, the answer is an eloquent version of — 

 they're all good and they all should be funded. 



But that approach just doesn't help us very much any longer. 



So I would continue to urge the science community to think hard 

 and thoughtfully as we go forward this year with the budget and 

 authorization process. It is time for the science community to pro- 

 vide us with guidance and priorities. 



I was disappointed in all the gloom and doom predicted by some 

 of the science community of what happened in the Republican Con- 

 gress. To all the naysayers, I remind them that under this Con- 

 gress, the National Institutes of Health received a 5.7 percent in- 

 crease, the National Science Foundation received an increase, the 

 basic research programs at the Department of Energy received an 

 increase, and according to the Congressional Research Service, 

 tptal R&D increased 1.5 percent over Fiscal Year 1995. 



I realize that certain programs were cut. But the big picture of 

 things during this time of fiscal responsibility means that the 

 science community did pretty well. 



In the context of this big picture, the Press report is particularly 

 timely. His committee had done an excellent job, succinctly and 

 correctly identifjdng the circumstances in which science policy is 

 made and the questions that the policy-makers face. 



