139 



6 



* Provide a source of funding to universities so that they would not pressure Congress 



for earmarked funds. 



* Provide Congress with an alternative to meet the growing requests for facilities 



funding. 



The National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC) fully 

 endorsed the proposed competitive research facilities initiative and the proposal was based in part 

 on a position paper prepared in 1990 by NASULGC entitled Agricultural Research Facilities: 

 A Proposed Plan for Needed Investments. Most important, however, was a resolution by the 

 Executive Committee of the NASULGC, adopted by NASULGC's senate, that if the competitive 

 facilities program was funded, the member universities would enter the competition for facilities 

 instead of attempting to obtain Congressionally earmarked funds. 



It is appreciated that Congress plays a key role in setting priorities. As Allan Bromley, the 

 former Science Advisor would say, "the Administration proposes and Congress disposes." It 

 is also true that many of the facilities which are constructed are needed and serve state and 

 national needs. However, in an era of scarce resources, it is essential that the highest priorities 

 be met. The current system of earmarking research facility funds does not achieve that goal. 

 As shown in Tables I and II there is a disjuncture in the funding appropriated for the NRI and 

 for buildings and facilities. For example in 1991, 19 percent of the NRI funds went to Natural 

 Resources and the Environment; four percent of the building and facilities funding went into this 

 category. In 1992 the match is fortuitously improved, although funding for facilities for Animal 



