152 



1993, that average number jumped to 47 per year. For Fiscal Year 

 1993, Congress appropriated funds for 74 separate new facilities. 



New facilities are too big. The current formula for 

 constructing new facilities is to provide 1,000 square feet per 

 scientist at a cost of $200 to $300 per square foot. This space 

 allotment does not include greenhouses, fields, or other non- 

 laboratory space that is part of every research station. 



The rationale for such generous space allotment? It is better 

 to build a facility once and make sure that all the space that will 

 ever be needed is secured from the start. This sentiment is 

 especially strong because since there is no planning process for 

 facility construction, and administrators are unable to predict 

 when funding might come their way a second time.. But the result is 

 the existence of almost empty new structures that we cannot afford 

 to staff, equip, or maintain adequately. 



Federal obligations will soon be impossible to fulfill. The 

 emphasis on new facilities while existing ones languish is even 

 more egregious when one considers the limited growth in funding for 

 actual research over the past three decades. (Graph 1, page 9). 

 What growth has occurred is dwarfed by the increases provided to 

 other science and education agencies of the federal government. 

 Simply put, competition for money is getting tougher among 

 agencies. What agricultural research does not need is increased 

 competition within the Science and Education Administration of USDA 

 itself. 



For several years, agricultural researchers and their 

 supporters argued that it would make all the difference in the 

 world if $500 million new dollars were invested in agricultural 

 research. Congress responded with a $500 million pledge and is 

 slowly increasing funds to meet that goal, viewing the "National 

 Initiative" as a critical investment for the future. 



8 



