77 



the top ten recipients of agriculture earmarks; the dollar figures 

 represent estimated amounts: 1) Michigan, $16,153,600; 2) North 

 Dakota, $10,082,000; 3) Wisconsin, $8,169,000; 4) Hawaii, 

 $8,041,000; 5) Arkansas, $8,035,500; 6) California, $7,207,000; 7) 

 Texas, $7,207,000; 8) Nebraska, $5,351,000; 9) Iowa, $5,108,000; 

 10) Mississippi; 4,672,000. These states have fared well because 

 they are strongly represented on agriculture appropriations, and to 

 a lesser extent, on agriculture authorizations committees. 



Attached to this written response is what would constitute Table 3 

 of my testimony, "Apparent FY 1992 Academic Agricultural Earmarks, 

 Ranked by Institutions Receiving $1 Million or More.** This table 

 indicates, among other things, that ten schools received 50 percent 

 of all the earmarked dollars. Earmarking favors the few, and as a 

 process it does not produce equal outcomes to counterbalance the 

 supposed unequal distribution of peer/merit-review. 



I would again like to thank Mr. Stenholm and you for the 

 opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee. If I can be of 

 further service, please contact me. 



Sincerely, 



d^ 



James D. Savage 

 Associate Chair 



Attachment 



