Support for the National Science Foundation has been bipartisan 

 on this Committee. As we go forward with the budget debates, I be- 

 lieve the Science Committee will continue to have support from 

 both sides of the aisle. 



Before welcoming Dr. Lane and Dr. Petersen to explain the 

 NSF's budget, let me just state that I particularly look forward to 

 hearing about the long-term funding profile of NSF, the decision to 

 terminate the academic research infrastructure program, NSF's 

 safety concerns at Antarctica, and the future of the Antarctica pro- 

 gram, and changes in the Education and Human Resources Direc- 

 torate, and the increase in funding for the LIGO program. 



But before calling upon Dr. Lane and Dr. Petersen, I would like 

 to recognize my Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Congress- 

 man Bud Cramer from Alabama, who is recognized for any opening 

 remarks he would like to make. 



Mr. Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. 



I am pleased to join the Chairman in welcoming Dr. Lane and 

 Dr. Petersen and senior staff this morning to review the NSF budg- 

 et for fiscal year 1997. 



This is going to be a tough year for us again, but an important 

 year for NSF. The Science Committee has a long history, as the 

 Chairman pointed out, of bipartisan support for the Foundation. 



This support arises from a recognition that NSF plays a central 

 role in developing and sustaining the academic research enterprise 

 of the nation. 



The wide-ranging activities NSF supports underpins our techno- 

 logical strength both through the generation of new knowledge and 

 the education of scientists and engineers. 



In particular, NSF's programs support research and science and 

 engineering, the operation of national research facilities in such 

 fields as astronomy and oceanography, the acquisition of scientific 

 instruments, and I hope the modernization of research facilities, 

 which is an issue that I want to bring to your attention today. 



A program that is near and dear to my district is the EPSCOR 

 program. It is a program that is a notable example of just what a 

 state like Alabama can do with the NSF to promote scientific activ- 

 ity. 



In fact, nearly all of NSF's programs affect the future of the na- 

 tion's research capability because they are closely tied to the edu- 

 cation of new generations of scientists and engineers. That is an 

 issue that is near and dear to my heart, how we can project out 

 there. 



Now the NSF budget request for fiscal year 1997 provides real 

 growth approaching 5 percent above the expected appropriations 

 level for the current fiscal year. 



I am pleased that the President's budget does reflect this growth. 

 The budget request, however, does raise a policy issue which has 

 long been of interest to this committee. That is, as I said earlier, 

 the need for refurbishment of academic research facilities. 



So I am going to listen to you today to talk to me about that im- 

 pact and what that means for the future, particularly after the 

 painfully slow progress in establishing and obtaining appropria- 

 tions for the program. 



