56 



is a constraint setting the boundary for which facihties need to be 

 closed. 



The problem with this bigger decision is that you get mired down 

 and nothing happens. That is the reality of thmgs. I think that if 

 you take on closings first, the States and interest groups will see 

 only losses. If you view it as a bigger package, loolang at location 

 of renovated and new facilities most States can see some prospec- 

 tive gains. Then it seems to me that you can socially have a better 

 pay-off and have some greater reality of getting it carried out. 



Ms. Merrigan. I would like to just quickly point out that the fa- 

 cilities legislation that was passed by this committee asked the 

 commission to do both, to review existing facilities for closure con- 

 solidation and reinvestment as well as to recommend a process for 

 future facility construction. 



Mr. Magrath. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to prolong this need- 

 lessly. I agree with what Dr. Hess said. I think one can look at a 

 facilities closings. I don't really think that is probably the critical 

 issue. I think the critical issue is: Can we invest some scarce re- 

 sources on a competitive basis to meet the critical national needs? 



I agree with the comment I heard Mr. Smith say earlier today 

 that not all of the projects that have been funded, even though they 

 are the product of a messy process — they are not all bad. There are 

 some good things being done. I think you do have to take account 

 of geographical distribution as well as other considerations, but 

 given the current climate — and I don't know about the blame game 

 business. I think it is very complicated to start getting into that. 



I think the issue is that we don't have a lot of resources and we 

 have a lot of needs. The reason a lot of university presidents push 

 for facilities — not just because they like to invite Members of Con- 

 gress to come to the building dedication — it is because there are 

 some real needs out there to be met and we have a facilities prob- 

 lem, but we don't have a lot of bucks. 



Anj^hing, Mr. Chairman, you and your colleagues can do to move 

 us in the direction of real competition and setting priorities I think 

 would be welcomed, I suspect, by just about everybody. 



Mr. Stenholm. I have been cautioned in a very positive way to 

 make certain that what we do at the Federal level does not have 

 an adverse impact upon State and local contributions to the proc- 

 ess. I am very cognizant of that fact since we tend to be able to 

 achieve national media notoriety from time to time in regard to 

 many of these projects, et cetera, and some of it can have a very 

 negative effect on the end result that we all see. 



Therefore, the absolute importance of cooperation between local. 

 State, and Federal entities in all of these is critical. That is one of 

 the areas that I certainly am very cognizant of the need, and hope- 

 fully of not making any mistakes in that area. That is one area 

 that I think each of you have testified to in different ways today, 

 but it is something that we are very aware of. 



The problem is that we have x amount of resources and we have 

 X times 10 amoimt of need. I would love to see this subcommittee — 

 and we may do this — to take a look. We get all these lists of 

 projects, proposals, and everything, but never in one context. If we 

 can pull together all of the projects and then have this subcommit- 

 tee take a stab at prioritization, it wouldn't be a bad exercise. That 



