43 



funding level for the national research initiative. It also rec- 

 ommended that the facilities program would grow in subsequent 

 years with the growth of the NRI at a level equal to 20 percent of 

 the NRI's funding level. 



We were very pleased that the Office of Management and Budget 

 made a commitment to the out-years for both the NRI and the pro- 

 posed facility program. The proposals to this program would be 

 subjected to a rigorous merit evaluation. And Dr. Carlson described 

 the criteria that would be used for those, so I will not repeat them. 

 This project would be carried out under your authorization of the 

 Research FaciUty Act of 1963, 



The goals of this program would be to promote modernization of 

 research and training facilities at eligible institutions. It would en- 

 sure that facilities constructed in part with Federal funds met na- 

 tional priority needs in food and agricultural sciences. It would pro- 

 vide a source of funding for universities so that there would not be 

 so much pressure placed on Congress for earmarked funds. And it 

 would provide Congress with an altemative to meet the growing re- 

 quests for facilities funding. They would not have to say no to a 

 constituent, they would tell them about the competitive program. 



As Dr. Magrath pointed out, the National Association of State 

 Universities and Land-Grant Colleges fully endorsed this proposed 

 competitive facilities program. In part, the program was based on 

 a position paper developed in 1990 by NASULGC. But most impor- 

 tant — I must point out it really helped in our discussions with 

 0MB — the executive committee of NASULGC — and it was later 

 adopted by NASULGC's senate — stated that if a competitive facih- 

 ties program were funded, the member universities would go the 

 competitive route rather than putting pressure on Congress for ear- 

 marked funds. 



It is appreciated that Congress does play a key role in setting 

 priorities. The administration proposes and Congress disposes. It is 

 also true that many of the facilities that are constructed are needed 

 to serve State and national needs. A number of the facilities pro- 

 grams include areas of biotechnology. However, in the era of scarce 

 resources, it is essential that the highest priorities are met and the 

 current system of earmarking research facilities does not achieve 

 that goal. 



I have included in my testimony two tables which look at the 

 amount of funding in the programmatic areas of the national re- 

 search initiative. Then I have taken the current facilities program 

 and categorized them into the programmatic areas of the national 

 research initiative. You can see that there is a disjuncture. For ex- 

 ample, in 1991, 19 percent of the NRI's funds went to natural re- 

 sources and the environment and 4 percent of the funding went to 

 facilities, which would support thds research. In 1992, the match is 

 a little better, but I must say that it is completely fortuitous be- 

 cause there is no planning which would link the NRI to the build- 

 ings which are earmarked in Congress. 



Another serious disjuncture shown in table 2 — if you look at the 

 top 10 States receiving NRI funds in 1991 and 1992 and then the 

 top 10 States receiving funds for buildings and facilities in the pro- 

 gram underway, only 4 States which were in the top 10 for com- 

 petitive grants were also in the top 10 for buildings and facilities 



