stitutes of Health, received a 5.7 percent increase in fiscal year 

 1996. 



Also, the basic research programs at the Department of Energy 

 received an increase. And, according to the Congressional Research 

 Service, the total R&D increased 1.5 percent over fiscal year 1995. 



I realize that certain programs were not increased, but overall 

 during this time of fiscal responsibility I believe the science com- 

 munity has done well. 



As both the Administration and the Congress work toward our 

 mutually agreed upon goal of a balanced budget, we must remem- 

 ber that basic science is a long-term investment. 



In particular, we must make sure that the budgets from fiscal 

 year 1997 through the Year 2002 when the budget must be bal- 

 anced under Congress's and the Administration's agreement, in the 

 end provide basic science programs with stability and responsible 

 funding profiles. 



The Republican Budget Resolution adopted last year commits us 

 to increasing NSF's research account by 3 percent each year. 



In my letter of invitation to Dr. Lane for this hearing, I re- 

 quested that NSF provide the Subcommittee with a detailed esti- 

 mate of NSF's projected spending for the fiscal years 1998 through 

 2002. 



I look forward to discussing these figures with NSF today. 



As we all know, science is included in the discretionary spending 

 portion of the federal budget, and in both Republican and Demo- 

 cratic plans. Increasing pressure is being placed on discretionary 

 spending to balance the budget. 



The science community is going to have to make its voice heard 

 if it expects to be treated fairly. I commend Dr. Lane for his recent 

 speeches urging his scientific colleagues to recognize their civic re- 

 sponsibility and engage in educational discussions with our citizens 

 and their elected representatives. 



Certainly other communities are doing so with respect to the im- 

 portance of their discretionary programs. 



But as our Full Committee Chairman, Mr. Walker, likes to point 

 out, when Congress asks for priorities from the science community, 

 the answer that comes back is often "all the programs are good and 

 should receive funding." 



As Dr. Frank Press reported to the Science Committee last 

 month, the science community needs to make the hard choices and 

 recommendations for the future. 



Let me cite one recent positive example. This past Tuesday this 

 subcommittee received testimony from Dr. Ed Hayes on the tough 

 decisions his task force recommended for the Supercomputer Cen- 

 ters Program within NSF. 



I commend Dr. Hayes and Dr. Lane for looking at the budget re- 

 alities and at the research opportunities, and coming forward with 

 a proposed reconstructed program to meet those two conditions. 



Add to the fact that both the current facilities operators and the 

 users community endorsed the proposal and you have a truly 

 unique proposal, the type Congress appreciates receiving. 



This is exactly the type of science policy advice that Congress 

 needs. 



