136 



3 

 1990. We also j^preciated the fact that as research funding increased to the $500 million level 



authorized in the 1990 Farm Bill, we also had to address the question of buildings and facilities. 



In addition to the needs of the NRI, there was another issue that we were trying to address. 

 That was the growth of the amount of funds earmarked for facilities. In fact, the issue was 

 related to the NRI because as the amount of money earmarked for facilities grew, the amount 

 of funds available for the NRI and other administration priorities decreased. 



The commitment to the out years was impressive because facility proposals are not completely 

 funded in one year. Therefore there are a substantial number of facilities under various stages 

 of study and/or construction. If all the facilities which are currently under way were to be 

 completed, $264,867,000 would be required in addition to the $207,075,000 already 

 appropriated for study or construction. That would mean that the total commitment of the 

 Buildings and Facilities Program currently underway would be $471,942,000 according to 

 Cooperative State Research Service. If the university's statements of funds needed were used, 

 the total federal commitment would be $597,518,000. The challenge is not unique to the 

 Department of Agriculture. The Departments of Defense and Energy, to name two, often found 

 unexpected appropriations in their budgets. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and 

 the Office of Science and Technology Policy both have been concerned about the amount of 

 funds that were being earmarked. 



