39 



ceed the amount of funds provided for facilities from all sources. In 

 1990 to 1991, a total of about $3.6 billion was provided for all facil- 

 ity needs. New construction accounted for most of those funds. This 

 is against a total need of probably over $12 billion. 



The sources for facility funds varies, as you might expect, be- 

 tween public and private institutions and between repair/renova- 

 tion and construction. In general, however, the financing sources 

 breakout as follows: 



About one-third of the funds come from State and local govern- 

 ments. These are total funds for repair and renovation or construc- 

 tion at public and private institutions. About one-fifth comes from 

 the institutional sources — which means tuition and endowment in- 

 come of universities. Just over 10 percent comes fi*om private gifts 

 and donations to vmiversities. About 20 percent comes fi-om tax-ex- 

 empt bonds. And about 14 percent comes from the Federal Govern- 

 ment. That 14 percent consists mainly of targeted congressional ap- 

 propriations. 



Much of the previous discussion indicated that in agriculture 

 there is not a specific facilities grant program, in general, for the 

 extramural research community. That is true, in large part, 

 throughout the Federal Government. There are a few small pro- 

 grams and a few facilities funded through direct grants. But most 

 of that 14 percent Federal share is fi-om targeted congressional ap- 

 propriations. I should also add that the funds that come from non- 

 Federal sources that I have just reviewed, when they are used for 

 Federal purposes on Federal research grants, are reimbursed 

 through the indirect cost mechanism. 



With respect to that 14 percent Federal share, many argue that 

 it should be larger. I think no one argues that the Federal Govern- 

 ment should pay an5^where near the total, however. It is important 

 to remember that in the late 1960's, during the peak of Federal fa- 

 cilities funding, the Federal share was only 30 percent, certainly 

 far greater than the current 14 percent but not anywhere near 100 

 percent. 



One could get into long arguments about the exact meaning of 

 the data. The perspective of the Roundtable was not to do that and 

 to say that there is at least two sufficient bases for addressing sig- 

 nificant attention to facility funding. First, there is documented a 

 backlog of facility needs. I think that backlog indicates a deficiency 

 in the current system. The Federal agencies in some cases blame 

 the universities for not managing their resources well after the 

 buildup of the 1960's. The universities in turn blame the Federal 

 Government for not providing programs to maintain and update fa- 

 cihties built in the 1960's. 



I think both parties are right and they are both responding to 

 current incentives which favor short-term perspectives in funding 

 decisions rather than long-term perspectives. As a result, facilities 

 are low on the priority list following personnel, programs, and 

 equipment. 



Furthermore, our decentralized research enterprise, which cer- 

 tainly has a lot of strengths, makes it difficult to broker the rela- 

 tionships among the multiple-funding sources in deciding who 

 should fund what and how much. 



