54 



I think it is doable. Whether it will be done, we will all stay 

 tuned. 



Mr. Chubin. I think it can be done as well, but I am not as con- 

 vinced that a clear consensus will emerge. Therefore, there will al- 

 ways be gray areas which will be filled by what can be perceived 

 or alleged to be political influence or political motivations. 



If tlus were clearly or exclusively under the control of the De- 

 partment, then I would be very much more hopeful that a merit- 

 based system could operate, but I don't think that the Department 

 is fully in control of its destiny. Surely, you all understand that. 



I also am having trouble with a distinction that has been made 

 continuously today between merit based on the one hand and po- 

 litically influenced or earmarked decisions and money on the other 

 h£ind. Something can be merit based or competed, but that doesn't 

 necessarily mean that the appropriate set of peers have been se- 

 lected to achieve the objectives of a program. I think that is the 

 kind of fine-tuning that might need to take place even within the 

 NRI. 



Mr. Smith. I understand the problems, but I want the answers. 



What is your answer? 



Mr. Chubin. My answer would be that you could mandate a com- 

 petitively based program for the award of facilities if you believe 

 that facilities are a high enough priority in the portfolio of the De- 

 partment. There are some questions about that which have been 

 expressed today. 



Mr. Smith. Thank you. 



Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Stenholm. I want to submit several additional questions to 

 each of you in writing, but I want to pursue Ms. Merrigan's sugges- 

 tion when you say that if only we would spend half as much time 

 building consensus on the definition of the problem as we do in try- 

 ing to construct the solution. 



First of all, do each of you have any comment on any previous 

 witness that you have sat and listened to today or any questioning 

 by any member of this panel? Was there anything that came across 

 your mind at the time you heard it when you said, "I wish I was 

 at the microphone at that point in time so that I could have had 

 some input into the process?" 



Do any of you have anything you would like to share with the 

 subcommittee along those lines? 



Ms. Merrigan. Mr. Chairman, I will take that opportunity. 



I am a free agent here today. I don't have to put my testimony 

 through any sort of clearance process. I am an unemployed stu- 

 dent, so I can just speak from my heart and say that I have been 

 in meetings over my tenure as a member of the staff of the Senate 

 Agriculture Committee where organizations represented here today 

 who have given testimony have actually been a part of the pork 

 barrel earmarking problem that we're talking about today. 



That is why I am calling for an end to the blame game. It is not 

 Congress' fault. It is not the Administration's fault. It is not the 

 fault of the scientific community. In order to solve the problem, 

 we're all going to have to join hands and jump off that dock into 

 the cold water together. It is a big problem and it is going to re- 

 quire joint action. 



