155 



long as it is done. But in the fierce battle for facility funds, 

 the state universities are clearly in the lead. The vast majority 

 of facility projects funded over the last seven years have been on 

 university campuses. 



The important question raised by Ruttan has not been answered; 

 we have not determined the appropriate funding mix for state and 

 federal facilities. Universities are getting an increasingly 

 larger share of the pie, but not because there has been a proactive 

 decision to fund state university projects in preference to federal 

 laboratories based on merit. Instead, the state universities have 

 been more effective in their lobbying efforts for appropriations. 



Policy makers may opt to continue the current trend. If so, 

 they need to understand that a dramatic shift in research from 

 federal to state laboratories will necessarily occur, leaving the 

 viability of the long-standing federal system in question. 



They may also wish to examine more closely how the decisions 

 to fund state universities are made. During your March hearing, 

 Dr. James Savage showed that from Fiscal Years 1980 to 1992, 

 approximately $2.5 billion was earmarked for research-related 

 academic facilities at some 234 universities and colleges. Forty- 

 eight percent of all earmarked dollars were appropriated in Fiscal 

 Years 1991 and 1992. Nearly a third of all earmarked dollars went 

 to five states, while half of the dollars went to ten states. 



Specific to agricultural research, Don Hadwiger showed that 

 between 1958 and 1977, close to 50 percent of new research 

 facilities were placed in districts of Members sitting on the House 

 and Senate Appropriation Subcommittees. He exclaimed, "The demand 

 for state laboratories has obliged the federal ARS to operate a 

 ^traveling circus, ' operating new locations in current Senate 

 constituencies, while closing some in states whose senators are no 

 longer members of the Subcommittee." 



11 



