67 



2. 



or a quarter of all earmarks, have their origins in agriculture 

 appropriations. Here again, the trend is one of sustained growth, 

 as shown in Table 2 (page 9). In FY 1990 and FY 1991, the level of 

 earmarking appeared to plateau at about $100 million, and then 

 jumped by 34 percent to $146 million in FY 1992. Let me note that 

 these figures for agricultural earmarks, particularly for the early 

 years of this study, are conservative. Earmarks are often 

 difficult to identify, and I estimate that the total figure to be 

 $10 million to $25 million higher, and thus range in the area of 

 $650 million. 



There are several negative consequences of earmarking agricultural 

 research. One consequence is the harm it does to the legitimacy of 

 academic agricultural research in general. Two presidents, Mr. 

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

 earmarks as examples of waste and pork barrel politics, 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 effectiveness 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 Subcoraiaittae 

 should be aware that there are universities that would never 



