42 



have to handle and harvest the foods in a way that nutrition is 

 maintained or enhanced and is safe for the consumer. 



New products have to be developed for agricultural commodities 

 to add value to our bountiful harvests of grain and fiber. Invest- 

 ments in research and education can play a key role in addressing 

 these many challenges. Both traditional research approaches, along 

 with the new tools of biotechnology, can speed the development of 

 new varieties and breeds with genetic resistance to pests. Product 

 quality and nutritional value can be enhanced as well as the devel- 

 opment of new value-added products. In addition to the process of 

 discovery and technology transfer, new jobs and new businesses 

 can be created. 



It was in this spirit that the administration and the Congress 

 launched the national research initiative in agriculture in 1990. We 

 also appreciated the fact that as funding for that program in- 

 creased to the $500 million level authorized in the 1990 farm bill, 

 we also had to develop the question of buildings and facilities. 



In addition to the needs of the national research initiative, there 

 was another issue we were trying to address, and that is the 

 growth of funds for earmarked facilities. In fact, the issue was re- 

 lated to the NRI because as the amount of money earmarked for 

 facilities grows, the amoiuit of funds available for the NRI de- 

 creases. That is a question that members of this subcommittee 

 have raised in earlier testimony. 



As has also been pointed out by a number of the witnesses, the 

 commitment to the outyears for these facilities is very large. As has 

 been noted in the record, the current program underway — in order 

 to complete those facilities already started — would require some 

 $471 million, based on CSRS figures. If the university figures were 

 used, it would be about $597 million. So we do in fact have a facili- 

 ties program. 



This challenge is not unique to the Department of Agriculture. 

 Other Departments, such as Energy and Defense, often find unex- 

 pected appropriations in their budgets. The Office of Management 

 and Budget and the Office of Science and Technology Policy have 

 been concerned with the growing amount of funds that are ear- 

 marked. And a recent issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education 

 pointed out that in fiscal year 1993, earmarked funds reached $763 

 million for research projects, which was up 12 percent from fiscal 

 year 1992. 



In part, the increased earmarked funds was due to increased 

 pressures on the part of universities to find the source of fimding 

 to construct new facilities or to renovate existing ones. If some Fed- 

 eral funds are available, a stronger case could be made at the State 

 level to obtain State funding. 



And though it is appreciated that the earmarking of funds fi-om 

 a Member's district or State is part of the political infi-astructure, 

 the matter is getting so great that even some members of the Ap- 

 propriations Committee and their staffs are looking for other ways 

 of dealing with this onslaught of proposals. 



It was in this environment and in consultation with 0MB that 

 a competitive research facilities initiative was launched in the fis- 

 cal year 1992 budget proposal. The initial proposal was for a $25 

 million appropriation, which was equivalent to 20 percent of the 



