18 



sities and colleges during the fiscal years 1980 through 1992. First 

 let me say that an earmark, by Office of Technology Assessment 

 definition, refers to "a project, facility, instrument, or other aca- 

 demic or research-related expense that is directly funded by Con- 

 gress, which has not been subjected to peer review and will not be 

 competitively awarded." 



Using this definition as a guide, my data indicate that during fis- 

 cal years 1980 through 1992, approximately $2.5 billion were ear- 

 marked for some 234 universities and colleges. The trend in ear- 

 marking during these years clearly is one of rapid growth, as 

 shown in table 1. In fiscal year 1991, for example, $470 million in 

 research funds were earmarked, and that amount grew in fiscal 

 year 1992 to $708 miUion. 



Of this total figure of $2.5 billion, approximately $625 million, or 

 a quarter of all earmarks, have their origins in agricultural appro- 

 priations. Here again, the trend is one of sustained growth. In fis- 

 cal years 1990 and 1991, the level of earmarking appeared to pla- 

 teau at about $100 million, and then jumped by 34 percent to $146 

 million in fiscal year 1992. Let me note that these figures for agri- 

 cultural earmarks, particularly for the early years of this study, £U*e 

 conservative. Earmarks are often difficult to identify, and I esti- 

 mate the total figure to be $10 million to $25 million higher and, 

 thus, range at least in the area of $650 million. 



There are several negative consequences of earmarking agricul- 

 tural research. One consequence is the harm it does to the legit- 

 imacy of academic agricultural research in general. Two Presi- 

 dents, Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush, singled out university-conducted 

 agricultural earmarks as examples of waste and pork barrel poli- 

 tics, and a cause of the Federal deficit, in their State of the Union 

 addresses. These examples, which are often comically highlighted 

 by the media, can only cause the public to question the effective- 

 ness of the Federal Government's research efforts in this field, and 

 to increase their skepticism about Congress and how it operates. 



Earmarking's negative influence on the legitimacy and status of 

 agricultural research also extends to the universities that conduct 

 this research. Every member of this committee and subcommittee 

 should be aware that there are universities that would never con- 

 sider attempting to earmark the National Institutes of Health or 

 the National Science Foundation, but who willingly hire lobbyists 

 and seek agricultural earmarks. 



In 1989, 1 produced a list of academic earmarks that included ag- 

 ricultural projects. The president of the Association of American 

 Universities criticized the list by saying that agricultural research 

 had a distinctive "culture," where the standards of NIH and NSF 

 do not apply. Thus, one ivy league university, noted for its decision 

 to refuse a $5 million earmark for a supercomputer, which was 

 funded in the defense bill, accepts and has increased its efforts to 

 secure agricultural earmarks. 



Only recently the issue of whether agricultural projects should be 

 counted as earmarks has been raised within AAU. Chancellor Joe 

 Wyatt of Vanderbilt University, for example, has asked his fellow 

 AAU presidents, "Is AAU's stated position in opposition to ear- 

 marks undercut by tolerance for agricultural earmarks?" In addi- 

 tion, former AAU president Robert Rosenzweig has acknowledged 



