20 



out on a site visit and look at what is proposed and the programs 

 there, and so forth. In other words, the committee will then make 

 a report, including a brief background and history of the institution 

 and the project and how it relates to their needs, how it relates to 

 the national needs. 



Second, they will outline a careful program description showing 

 the detail of the scientific research that is proposed. 



Next we look at the impact of that project on current and future 

 needs in the food, agricultural, and natural resources sciences. This 

 section also addresses whether or not the project lies within the 

 mission of agriculture, which is required of us. 



The facility plan with all the cost is carefully examined. And this 

 includes the priority of the project in the institution's master plan. 

 That is a very important matter because oftentimes these projects 

 really aren't in the institution's high priority master plan. 



Next, we determine the institutional commitment and make sure 

 that there is to be continued support of the programs to be housed 

 in the faciHty. Incidentally, we have right now a possibility of two 

 facilities that have been funded in the past that may not be active 

 anjonore. Those are the problems I think we will be faced with. 



Mr. VOLKMER. Would you also send them to my office? 



Mr. Carlson. I need to investigate them further, but I can cer- 

 tainly follow up. 



Mr. VoLKMER. You could just give us something that says that 

 it is questionable. 



Mr. Carlson. We can do that. 



Next we determine the alternatives considered by the institution 

 arriving at the plan. Then in conclusion it is described as to the 

 quality of the proposed research program, how it relates to the na- 

 tional needs, the adequacy of the professional staff, and whether 

 this is duplication of other facilities elsewhere, and we make a rec- 

 ommendation. 



So those reports are pretty frank. You can determine from that 

 whether or not they really fit, whether there is quality there, 

 whether it is in the needs of agriculture, and in some cases we ac- 

 tually recommend that it not be built. 



Mr. VoLKMER. How many times out of these that have been ear- 

 marked have you, after a ftill review, given a negative report back 

 to the Congress? 



Mr. Carlson. Probably about 10 percent of the time we will give 

 a negative report. There is in addition about 30 percent of the total 

 that have some very questionable parts of the project. Sometimes 

 the facility may not in total be in the mission and so forth. So I 

 would say that about 30 percent of them have some very question- 

 able relationship to the needs, priorities, whether they have enough 

 staff, whether they are headed in the right direction, and so forth. 



Mr. VOLKMER. What happens to those? 



Mr. Carlson. That is entirely up to Congress and the committee 

 as to whether they are funded or not, based on that report. 



Mr. VOLKMER. And if the Congress goes ahead and funds it, then 

 you go ahead and give them the money and they go ahead and 

 build it. 



Mr. Carlson. We have no choice, sir. 



