culture if we could reduce this growth in earmarking and use these 

 funds for peer-reviewed research grants, which I tlunk would give 

 us a wider range of research performers to choose from and hope- 

 fully a better quality of research in the process. 



I look forward to working with this subcommittee on this project, 

 and I know that it will be a long haul before we succeed. 



Thank you. 



[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown appears at the conclusion 

 of the hearing.] 



Mr. Stenholm. Themk you very much, Mr. Brown. 



Mr. Smith. 



Mr. Smith. I want to thank you for a very decisive statement. 



I am interested in your suggestion — and I think we likely can all 

 agree that some sort of merit or peer review or need ought to be 

 the basis by which we direct research grants. Getting there is obvi- 

 ously the difficulty. We are not going to change the political sys- 

 tem. That is to say, we are not going to change the pohtical influ- 

 ence that some people have over the direction of these funds. 



Is there any thought in your mind other than changing the sys- 

 tem — ^which I think we agree is not going to happen — that we could 

 use as an outside peer review merit system that doesn't have the 

 cloud of political influence other than the commission that was rec- 

 ommended but never funded? 



Mr. Brown. I don't want to change the pohtical system. I just 

 want to make it work better. 



Mr. Smith. I do, but I can't. 



Mr. Brown. Let me say that I haven't given up on having the 

 system work in the way it was intended to. The House rules pro- 

 hibit legislation on an appropriations bill— the sort of thing that is 

 generally reflected in earmarks. The rules aren't used very well. 

 We are trying to make the rules work better, for example, to have 

 the Appropriations Committee not make specific legislative author- 

 izations, and that includes earmarks on an appropriations bill. I 

 think we are getting much more support for doing that in the 

 House Appropriations Committee. 



Also, I do not hold up as an ultimate goal an absolute peer-re- 

 viewed process in every situation. I think we need to consider the 

 needs to strengthen regionsd capability, for example, which may re- 

 quire some system for distributing research on a somewhat dif- 

 rerent than absolute peer-reviewed process. We have the mecha- 

 nism to do this. It is our job to make sure that the system produces 

 equity for all the people of this country. 



So I am not trjring to be a purist here. I am just trying to point 

 out that we are out of balance at the present time, that we have 

 edlowed too much of our research resources — ^particularly facilities 

 resources — to be placed, located, or funded in ways that benefit 

 very few Members of Congress instead of going through a process 

 in which we can all share. It is in that fashion of achieving more 

 balanced workings of the system that I think we can lead to some 

 improvement here. 



It will not be perfect, but I don't think we can ever expect to 

 have a perfect system. 



Mr. Smith. I am trying to support your statement. Don't think 

 that my question was an attack. It was not at all. I am trying to 



