55 



That is why we really felt when looking at the 1990 farm bill — 

 you worked with my bosses and I worked with your staff, but we 

 really felt that a commission approach would bring together rep- 

 resentatives from all sides to look at the large body of evidence 

 that has been collected on this issue over the years and come up 

 with a solution that is not only right on the substance, but also 

 right on the politics. You need both components. 



Mr. Stenholm. Is there anyone at the table now that has any 

 reservations or any suggestions of perhaps a keep-your-eyes-open 

 nature regarding a facilities closings commission, the makeup of it, 

 how it should proceed, or any better suggestion for us to consider 

 as a first place to start? 



Mr. Hess. I guess one prerequisite would be that it would have 

 to be set up similar to the military base closings commission on the 

 concept that it is a package and that you either accept it or you 

 turn it down. If you get to a point where you are arguing individual 

 facilities, we will be right back to square one because each facility 

 has a constituency, and then it becomes politically very difficult to 

 achieve a closure. 



But second, I think that although the closings commission would 

 be a good process to evaluate existing facilities and perhaps the 

 commission could also address the question of needs, I do think 

 that given the fact that we do have in existence a large facilities 

 program in the Department of Agriculture that at least part of that 

 program should be placed on a competitive basis in which priorities 

 are based on national needs, the best quality research, and where 

 the research is being done. All of these issues could be taken into 

 account and provide a chance to see if we could have a better 

 match between priorities and funding, and to see if in fact the uni- 

 versities will go the competitive route rather than the earmarking 

 route. 



Also this would help to take some of the pressure off Members 

 to respond to constituents because they would have the option of 

 saying, "Look, there is a competitive program. Go for that before 

 you come to me and expect me to put something into the Appro- 

 priations Bill." 



I think it should be given a try. The National Science Foxindation 

 had a $20 million program a couple of years ago. Our feeling is 

 that if a number of agencies could have such a program — like DOE, 

 NSF, and other agencies — then you would put together a program 

 that would have the size that could address the research university 

 infrastructure problem. 



I think Federal funding, in part, is justified because the research 

 that is done in Texas benefits other States, the spillover effect that 

 was referred to here. So a component of it, on a matching basis, 

 is justified. 



I would urge the committee to urge your colleagues to go ahead — 

 at least on a trial basis — with a competitive facilities program. We 

 have the program already and the money is there. 



Mr. Huffman. As an economist, I have to argue for a closings 

 policy being tied together with an evaluation of where you are 

 going to renovate and locate new facilities. The total amount of re- 

 sources you are willing to put in both renovation and new facilities 



