137 



4 



In part, the increase in the earmarked funds was due to increased pressures on the part of 



universities to find a source of funding to construct new facilities or to renovate existing ones. 

 If some federal funds were available, then a stronger case could be made on the state level to 

 justify an appropriation. Although it is appreciated that earmarking funds for a member's 

 district or state is part of the political infrastructure, the demand was getting so great that even 

 some members of appropriations committees and their staffs were looking for alternative ways 

 to deal with the onslaught of proposals.' 



It was in this environment, in consultation with 0MB, a Competitive Research Facilities 

 Initiative was launched in the FY 1992 Budget proposal. The initial proposal was for a $25 

 million appropriation which was equivalent to 20% of the funding level proposed for the 

 National Research Initiative. It was also recommended that the facilities program would grow 

 in subsequent years with the growth of the NRI at a level equal to 20 percent of the NRI's 

 funding level. 



Proposals would be subjected to rigorous merit evaluation based upon reviews by USDA 

 Competitive Grants Office staff and external peer panels. The following criteria would be used: 



• Degree to which the program(s) to be housed in the facility address high priority 



needs in the food and agricultural sciences, as articulated in the NRI. 



• Expected contribution of the facility toward meeting national, regional, and 



institutional research and education needs in the food and agricultural sciences. 



