Protection or pork?
T
he halls of Congress have been filled with much rhetoric about balancing the budget. Sometimes the rhetoric even seems to get as deep as the deficit. Entitlernents and pork are two of the main reasons the deficit grows. In recent years, a new hybrid form of pork and entitlements has developed: the environmental research center. Members of Congress send millions of dollars to their home states or districts to fund environmental research centers at their local universities. As a member of the Research Subcommittee of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee, I have heard from a number of academics about how few resources-particularly competitive grants-are allocated to environmental research. Many have said they do not even bother to send research proposals to EPA because the money is just not there. One reason the money is not there is that it is being siphoned off to support various research centers. Between the House and the Senate appropriations bills, more than $130 million was proposed this year to fund research centers. In some cases this money will even be used to construct buildings, not to fund research. We need to fund legitimate environmental research, but in my opinion, earmarking taxpayer money for research centers is not the best way to foster good results. Instead, I believe these centers have done little or nothing to justify receiving this money, yet they feel entitled to it. This year I offered an amendment to stop the funding of any noncompetitively awarded research center beginning in fiscal year 1994.Unfortunately, this provision was dropped in conference with the House. Regardless, I intend to pursue this issue next year. I anticipate that the universities with such centers and their patrons will continue to oppose my efforts to stop this form of pork. Thus far, attempts have been made to justify these centers in the name of environmental research. Who could oppose environmental research? To this, I argue that yes, it is in the national interest to fund environmental research, but more important, it is in the national interest to fund the best environmental research. Research funding should be based on the best idea, not the best connections. Indeed, I consider the opposition from the existing centers to be self-indicting. I believe in funding research centers, provided such centers are competitively awarded. If a member of Congress believes wetland research is important, for example, then that member should believe it is equally 204 Environ. Sci. Technol.. Vol. 27. No. 2. 1993
important to obtain the best research. A requirement that money for research centers be competitively awarded should eliminate the incentive for Congress to fund centers merely as a means to send money home. Science would prevail over pork. The existing centers’ opposition to my efforts is thus a self-indictment because I do not oppose research centers, only earmarked centers. The opposition is, in effect, an acknowledgment by these institutions that they do not believe they could win such a competition. Some of these centers have received federal funding for more than five years. If after five years they have not developed the capability needed to win a competitively awarded center, we must ask, what did such institutions accomplish with taxpayer funds? Clearly, earmarking money for a favorite university does not reap rewards commensurate with the investment. I intend to pursue this issue again next year. Though I may not prevail at that time, it is my hope that the tide will start to shift away from pork and back to protection. The money we are spending on pork is not available to fund either the responses to today’s problems or the research to solve tomorrow’s problems. Ultimately, Congress needs to take a hard look at all aspects of our science policy, not just research centers. If we as legislators are to do an effective job of fostering sound science, we need to hear from the scientists. Though I hear from literally hundreds of people a day, seldom do I hear from scientists. As our world grows more technologically sophisticated, scientists must become more, not less, involved with government. Congress does not always reach rational solutions, but neither does every scientific experiment always yield good results. Yet, scientists keep experimenting. They must also keep trying to affect government and to bring their knowledge into the political process. Otherwise, when we finally address the deficit, pork may be given priority over urotection.
I
Senator James M. Jeffords (R-VTJis a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. He received a B.S.I.A. from Yale University and an U.B. from the Harvard Low School. He was a member of the House of Representatives from 1975 to 1988 before being elected to the Senate in January 1989.
001 3-936w9310927-~4$04.00/0 0 1993 American Chemical Society
