59 



an approach supported within the administration of ARS, to 

 relieve this problem, was effectively blocked for political 

 reasons. So some high-priority ARS needs, such as the germ plasm 

 leib at Ft. Collins or the Beltsville Research Facility, 

 languished while funding went to other., more politically powerful 

 locations. 



At this point it is important to state that not all earmarks 

 and pork barrel programs are bad. Good science can, and 

 undoubtedly has, resulted from these efforts. I am not an 

 adamant opponent of location- specif ic 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. 



Decisions on facilities funding have been made among a 

 select group of legislators, behind closed doors, without benefit 

 of public hearing on merit, need, and relation to research 

 priorities. This process is bad enough in times of plenty, but 

 given the funding restrictions we are under in- federal research 

 and development programs, we cannot allow this process to 

 continue. Rather than relying upon the serendipitous results of 

 earmarking based on political strength, we must develop a system 

 of allocating facilities funding based upon need and merit. 



In the 1985 Farm Bill (P.L. 99-198), the House Agriculture 

 Committee took the first steps toward reforming the facilities 

 funding process. In Section 1431, we require that any ARS 

 facility that involves planning funding in excess of $500,000 and 

 construction funding in excess of $5,000,000 must be authorized 

 in advance. This measure was a first step in opening up the 

 deliberations around ARS facility funding. 



Now I must point out that the only two facilities which have 

 gone through this process are ones for which Mr. Stenholm and I 

 sought funding: the Plant Stress Laboratory at Lubbock, Texas, 

 smd the Salinity Research Laboratory at Riverside, California. 

 In each case, public hearings were held, the opinions of the USDA 

 and the research community were heard, and separate legislation 

 was enacted, based upon its merit. Only after this process was 

 completed was construction funding sought. 



This earlier effort has two major limitations. First, it 

 only deals with ARS facilities and not the CSRS facility 

 earmarks, which now total over $400 million, if all of the 

 current earmarks are funded to completion. Second, many of the 

 facilities earmarks are contained in the report language of 

 appropriations bills, thereby out of reach of points of order 

 against projects for not being authorized under Section 1431. 



In the 1990 Farm Bill (P.L. 101-624) Senator Leahy took the 



2 



