58 



TESTIMONY OF 

 CONGRESSMAN GEORGE E. BROWN, JR 



Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, it is a pleasure 

 to be here today to comment on the practice of earmarking funds 

 for academic and research facilities in agriculture. At the 

 outset let me say that the Subcommittee's work in this area is 

 very important and timely. We are engaged in a similar effort in 

 the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee and welcome 

 the company. 



Academic earmarks in Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

 funding have been a problem for a number of years. For example, 

 the Special Research Grants program at USDA has been used to fund 

 a number of narrowly focused research programs, many of which are 

 location- specif ic earmarks. Similar earmarking for research and 

 academic facilities has occurred in funding for the Cooperative 

 State Research Service (CSRS) and the Agricultural Research 

 Service (ARS) . Historically, however, these earmarks were more 

 of a nuisance than a major threat to the integrity of the 

 agriculture research system. 



However, this situation changed in the mid- 1980' s, as a 

 result of a number of shifts in agriculture research funding. 

 First, budget pressures began to limit the funding for research 

 and extension, at both the federal and state level, and land- 

 grant institutions were hit especially hard. This meant that 

 earmarks, an excuscible political "cost of doing business" in 

 times of good funding, began to eat into the base funding for 

 agriculture research and extension programs. 



Second, as a result of the funding squeeze, research 

 institutions began to use earmarking as a way of dealing with 

 limited federal and state funding. You can easily map the 

 increase in academic earmarks from the mid 1980' s and, if you 

 cross reference this with the registration of lobbyists 

 representing academic institutions, you will see a positive 

 correlation. In short, as some institutions were successful in 

 playing the earmark game, others followed suit. From FY' 88 to 

 FY' 92, academic earmarks at the federal level increased from 

 about $200 million to $700 million. 



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

 facilities became obsolete or in need or repair and as modern 

 research equipment needed special facilities. Without adequate 

 funding for facilities, the backlog began to grow. Research 

 institutions began to feel the pinch and were driven even more 

 into the earmark game. 



As these changes affected the academic institutions in the 

 states, the same pressures began to work upon the federal 

 research facilities run by the ARS. With budget constraints and 

 personnel ceilings, it became difficult to adequately staff and 

 equip all of the facilities being earmarked, and there was under- 

 utilization of some ARS facilities. Consolidation of facilities. 



