In short, as some institutions were successful in playing the ear- 

 mark game, others followed suit. From fiscal year 1988 to 1992 

 academic earmarks at the Federal level increased fi*om about $200 

 million to $700 million and they continue to increase in fiscal year 

 1993. 



Third, there was an increase in the need for facilities as older fa- 

 cilities became obsolete or in need of repair and as modem re- 

 search equipment needed special facilities. Without adequate fund- 

 ing for facilities, the backlog began to grow, research institutions 

 began to feel the pinch and were driven even more into the ear- 

 mark game. 



As these changes affected the academic institutions in the States, 

 the same pressures began to work on the Federal research facilities 

 run by the ARS. With budget constraints and personnel ceilings, it 

 became difficult to adequately staff and equip all the facilities 

 being earmarked and there was underutilization of some ARS fa- 

 cilities. 



Consolidation of facilities, an approach supported within the ad- 

 ministration of ARS, to relieve this problem was effectively blocked 

 for political reasons. So some high-priority ARS needs, such as the 

 germplasm lab at Fort Collins or the Beltsville Research Facility, 

 languished while funding went to other more politically powerful 

 locations. 



I still remember the headlines in the Washington Post over the 

 conditions out at Beltsville a few years ago — I am sure you remem- 

 ber that, Mr. Chairman — in which the investigative reporter found 

 that the state of disrepair in the facilities out there was actually 

 endangering the health as well as the efficiency of the workers. I 

 think that created some attention to the problem, although I am 

 sure that it didn't resolve the matter completely. 



At this point, I think it is important to state that not all ear- 

 marks and pork barrel programs are bad. Good science can and un- 

 doubtedly has resulted from these efforts. I am not an adamant op- 

 ponent of location-specific research funding. But I am an opponent 

 of public funding decisions being made behind closed doors without 

 benefit of merit review. This is largely what has occurred with the 

 earmarks we have seen for academic and research facilities. 



As a politician, I am aware of the fact that when you have a 

 President of one party and an Appropriations Committee composed 

 of the other party there is an effort sometimes to balance the equi- 

 ties. The attitude of an appropriations subcommittee chairman is 

 that the recommendations coming from the administration prob- 

 ably have some small political content when it comes to locating fa- 

 cilities and it ought to be compensated by an opposite point of view 

 from the members of the Appropriations Committee. 



So you will frequently find — and I am sure you have reviewed 

 Appropriations Committee reports on facility funding in agriculture 

 over the years — that they take some of the recommendations from 

 the administration and then they add to them earmarks which do 

 not have the support of the administration. The committee gen- 

 erally feels these have merit and ought to be considered and fund- 

 ed. 



So you have a combination there, and it is unfortunate that in 

 this process there has been a tendency for the results to reflect the 



