27 



Mr. Carlson. The administration, as far as I know, 2 years ago 

 proposed funds for a competitive program that were put in the re- 

 quest, but that is the only time it has been in there for a competi- 

 tive faciHties program. 



Mr. GUNDERSON. Thank you. 



Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Stenholm. Mr. Allard. 



Mr. Allard, Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



I would like to apologize to Dr. Carlson for not being here for 

 most of the testimony. I serve on another agricultural subcommit- 

 tee and we are meeting right now on a very contentious issue: 

 Cargo preference. I felt like I had to be there. 



I was interested in any thoughts you may have about the way 

 we appropriate dollars now for agricultural research projects, and 

 what may be done to improve the process. 



Mr. Carlson. I assume that you are referring to facilities? 



Mr. Allard. Yes. 



Mr. Carlson. The proposal that the Department has put forward 

 is that they recommend that the facilities program be a competitive 

 program and that funds be put in there and then the institutions 

 compete for those fimds. I would say that there are a large number 

 of programs that are in the current facilities program that are con- 

 gressionally mandated that could compete very well in that pro- 

 gram if it was competitive. 



Mr. Allard. On the congressional side, that would go under the 

 discretionary spending. Are there projects there that you think 

 don't meet the criteria as far as congressional procedure and as far 

 as procedure within the Department of Agriculture? 



Mr. Carlson. What we see on the projects — and again, I am 

 really speaking from my own personal observation of them — I 

 would feel that there are probably up to 40 percent of the 

 projects — and that is my own opinion — that are not in the highest 

 priority as far as agricultural research and also relate generally to 

 just a local interest. Again, that is just my own opinion. 



I think that a competitive process, of course, would sort that 

 right out. 



Mr. Allard. Yes, where you find the institution that is best 

 qualified to do whatever type of research and what kind of faciUties 

 are necessary for that. 



Mr. Carlson. I would also like to say in my observation of those 

 that are very much in the mission of agriculture and address the 

 highest level of research, many of those are in the smaller institu- 

 tions of this country as well. It is not just the big institutions. 

 There are many of them in small institutions that are superb. 



Mr. Allard. Thank you for your comments. 



Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Stenholm. Dr. Carlson, you mention on the bottom of page 

 1, "ARS has planning and design initiatives underway to construct 

 or modernize a niunber of these faciUties. The fiscal year 1994 

 budget proposes $24.6 million for priority projects at five locations." 



Discuss with us those five locations and what caused those to be 

 priority locations. 



Mr. Carlson. I would like to ask Dr. Finney to respond to that, 

 if I may. 



