53 



tional research initiative, and those grants are awarded on a merit 

 basis, 



Mr. Smith. Ms. Merrigan. 



Ms. Merrigan. Thank you, sir. 



I am going to respectfully disagree. I think that in the 1990 farm 

 bill this committee, as well as Members on the Senate side, en- 

 gaged in a very fierce debate over the setting of research priorities 

 and put a lot of different components in the farm bill to ensure that 

 a broader group of participants would be involved in setting those 

 priorities. The competitively awarded grants have been shown to 

 benefit certain groups as opposed to other groups. How do we ex- 

 pand the decisionmadcing process so that people are involved? 



In terms of priority setting, the Users Advisory Board is a very 

 dedicated, hard-working, and thoughtful organization that has 

 made recommendations on facilities and facilities closings for over 

 a decade now, not all of which have been implemented by the De- 

 partment of Agriculture. They are just recommendations and most 

 fall upon deaf ears. 



Mr. Smith. Ms. Merrigan, I know your background in the Senate 

 Agriculture Committee. Were those political decisions by the Sen- 

 ate Agriculture Committee, or were they based upon merit of re- 

 search? 



Ms. Merrigan. Sir, one of the things that we did in the 1990 

 farm bill, as you will recall, is in the national research initiative — 

 that a lot of people have discussed here today in terms of competi- 

 tive grants, merit, merit review — was to establish a program simi- 

 lar to the NSF EPSCOR program to put aside a certain amount of 

 money for schools that have not been winners in the competitive 

 grants program so that money would be disbursed to a wider vari- 

 ety of schools, including the historically black land-grant colleges 

 that had been raised earlier by one of the members. 



How do we get other schools benefiting in this system that has 

 been there for a long time? 



Mr. Smith. I am trying to get at the question: Can we or can we 

 not rely on the USDA, then we have to rely on someone else, so 

 where do we go? If we can rely upon them, we ought to start there, 

 I would assume. We all recognize the pork barrel atmosphere in 

 which we are living with respect to research. I think we all agree 

 that we ought to move away fi-om that — establishing a commission 

 or whatever — rather than accusing one another or defending one 

 another. 



In my limited time, tell me what you recommend that this sub- 

 committee recommend to move us into a more improved research 

 program in this country that is not tainted by political intrusion. 



Mr. Magrath. I agree with CharHe Hess. I beHeve the NRI sys- 

 tem has worked reasonably well. I am sure it is not perfect. I be- 

 lieve that if we can establish a consensus that with regard to facili- 

 ties, as well as the NRI issue, that we want to use limited, scarce 

 resources on a competitive, merit, peer-reviewed basis. If we can 

 get that consensus with our Nation's universities. Congress, its key 

 players, and USDA, I think it can be done. If the political will is 

 there on all sides then I think USDA will be able to play that game 

 effectively in the best sense. 



