170 



Review Commission. As it currently exists in law, the 

 Commission falls under the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

 (FACA) . As you know, the agriculture appropriations bill 

 includes funding for advisory committees that fall under 

 FACA. This FACA account is listed under "Department 

 Administration" in the agriculture appropriation bill. The 

 FACA account lists suggested line item amounts for certain 

 committees. These line items are mer«ly suggestions; the 

 Secretary of Agriculture can reallocate funds within the 

 account as he sees fit. In other words, if the overall 

 appropriation in the account is $1 million, despite 

 suggestions on how that money could be dispensed, the 

 Secretary may shift the funds between committees; in fact, 

 this occurs on a regular basis. 



Since Fiscal Year 1991, the FACA account has had 

 certain restrictions placed on it in response to what the 

 appropriations committees perceived as a proliferation of 

 advisory committees in the 1990 farm bill. As a result, 

 current language in the agriculture appropriations 

 legislation prohibits the Secretary of Agriculture from 

 diverting any funds into the FACA account. This aeans that, 

 if funded, the Facilities Commission faces stiff competition 

 for fund* — there are too many committees competing for too 

 few dollars. Nevertheless, the Facilities Commission is 

 among the most important of these committees and I would 

 hope the SecretarY would see the importance of diverting 

 money to its administration. 



The overall sum necessary to fully fund the Facilities 

 Commission is in the range of $100,000, although this would 

 vary depending upon the availedsility of USDA staff to assist 

 the Commission. The Commission is limited, by law, to 240 

 days. The costs for the Commission would largely be: (1) 

 travel — to view facilities first hand; (2) public hearings 

 — to allow public discussion of pending closures; and (3) 

 publication of the final report. 



What do you think has led to our current facility problems? 



The most essential element — and one which Z discuss 

 in my written testimony at some length — is the lack of 

 consensus on whether it is possible to plan research. This 

 stems from a basic disagreement over the control of research 

 and who should rightfully share in facility decisionmaking. 

 Not only has this disagreement lead to a messy facilities 

 system, it has also resulted in failure to achieve reform. 



Someone, somewhere needs to take the first step and 

 deal with these problems. The Congress wants the Secretary 

 of Agriculture to take the first politically risky step. 

 The Administration wants the Congress to face the political 

 heat and take the first step. Democrats point to 



