76 



earmarking of the energy appropriations bill in 1983. What got AAU 

 upset was that energy represented a major funding source for 

 universities, and, more important, the fear was that earmarking 

 would spread to NSF and HHS/NIH. The vast majority of federal 

 funding for research universities comes from NIH and NSF, and 

 university presidents are very sensitive about the earmarking of 

 these programs. Agriculture funding, however, represents very 

 small change for big, elite research universities, and so these 

 institutions paid little attention to agriculture. Moreover, most 

 university presidents have little knowledge about agriculture, 

 particularly in comparison to the regular science, social science, 

 and humanities curriculum. I have interviewed any number of major 

 university presidents who draw a blank when it comes to 

 agriculture. This lack of understanding reflects the second class 

 status of agriculture within academia. At the same time, those 

 universities that have benefitted from agriculture earmarking have 

 been reluctant to rock their own boats. It was easier for these 

 institutions to criticize the expansion of earmarking to other 

 federal agencies than it was to take funds from their own 

 researchers who were receiving earmarked agriculture funds. So, as 

 in the example of my oral testimony, Cornell refused new earmarks 

 from defense appropriations, but continued to accept them from 

 agriculture appropriations. Thus, the relative unimportance of 

 agriculture funding versus NSF and NIH, the lack of understanding 

 among university leaders about agriculture, and the defense of 

 agriculture earmarking by beneficiaries, has resulted in the 

 argument that agriculture earmarking is somehow unique, and 

 represents a special "culture" of federal research funding. 



3. Why do you feel there has been the increase in earmarks in the 

 last 12 years? 



The increase has taken place for the following reasons: 1) 

 Universities have learned from each other how to earmark. This 

 learning process has taken time, but that knowledge is now diffuse. 

 Moreover, there are almost no penalties within academia for 

 earmarking, but there often are rewards for university presidents 

 who bring additional financial resources to their institutions. 2) 

 Lobbying organizations have been very active in recruiting clients, 

 and are increasingly successful in their recruitment, as they can 

 point to successful earmarks as examples of their abilities. 3) 

 Members of Congress have learned from their colleagues that 

 academic earmarks are another way of providing constituent 

 services. 4) The facility needs of universities have become 

 increasingly acute, and these institutions are looking to any 

 funding opportunity. The federal government's willingness to 

 earmark provides an obvious source. 5) Other funding sources have 

 become more difficult to tap, especially state funding for public 

 universities. 



4. Which states have fared the best at obtaining agriculture 

 earmarks and how well have they fared? Why? 



For FY 1992, the following states can be approximately ranked as 



\ 



