119 



PREPARED STATEMENT OF Don I. Phillips 

 Executive Director, GUIR Roundtable 

 National Academy of Sciences 

 Page 8 



review processes. Nonetheless, there are two ways in which 



earmarking works to the detriment of careful funding decisions: 



the absence of competitive merit review, and the inappropriate 



division of labor among Congress, the executive agencies, and the 



science and engineering community. I will discuss each in turn. 



1. Absence of Competitive Merit Review. The qualities of 



competitive merit review that promote careful allocation of 



funds are the evaluation of proposals against technical 



criteria that contribute to national priorities debated and 



agreed on by Congress, the comparison of proposals to 



determine which best meet those criteria. Because both of 



those qualities technical evaluation and competition 



are absent in the practice of earmarking, there are serious 



concerns about whether we are allocating scarce federal 



resources to meet the most pressing needs and opportunities 



or to serve some secondary objectives or parochial 



interests. With earmarking: 



• The nature and quality of proposed projects are 

 outweighed by the lobbying resources of their 

 proponents and the seniority and committee assignments 

 of members. 



• Actions often are cloaked in secrecy until the eleventh 

 hour. 



