20 



It is not clear to me if this is the situation because the USDA 

 is reluctant to offend a Member of Congress who sponsored the 

 project and the university that conducted the research, or if all of 

 these projects in fact produce acceptable research. Even if all these 

 projects did produce "acceptable" research, however, this does not 

 mean that the best research was funded to meet specific policy- 

 driven needs. I suggest that the best research is more likely fiinded 

 through a competitive merit review system than through earmark- 

 ing. 



In any case, if $650 million or more have been allocated through 

 earmarking for agricultural research, what have these projects pro- 

 duced for the taxpayer? Those universities that have received the 

 bulk of these earmarked dollars should be called upon to report on 

 just how many patents, new discoveries, and improvements in 

 American agriculture have resulted from these funds. I am de- 

 lighted that Chairman George Brown, in the Science and Tech- 

 nology Committee, has made such requests of a number of aca- 

 demic institutions. 



Earmarking also greatly diffuses the Federal Government's abil- 

 ity to set priorities and address national problems. Often enough, 

 these earmarked projects reflect the particular interests of univer- 

 sity researchers who work through their institutions and the appro- 

 priations committees to secure ftinds for their specialized research 

 concerns. How these interests fit into a broad strategy for improv- 

 ing agriculture, for example, is not always apparent. Meanwhile, 

 those USDA competitive grants programs, which are more likely to 

 reflect the general policy goals approved through the normal legis- 

 lative process, must compete with these earmarked projects for 

 scarce dollars within the allocation for the agricultural appropria- 

 tions bill. 



In summary, Mr. Chairman, the practice of earmarking academi- 

 cally conducted agricultural research is increasing. Given the obvi- 

 ous incentives, universities and colleges will continue to seek ear- 

 marked funds and do so in a more sophisticated manner. These 

 funds, however, lack the accountability, emphasis on merit, and 

 reference to meeting national priorities that are more tjrpical of 

 peer-reviewed research. 



Thank you. 



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

 of the hearing.] 



Mr. Stenholm. Thank you. 



Next we'll hear from Dr. James Kloek. 



STATEMENT OF JAMES A. KLOEK, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL AG- 

 RICULTURAL RESEARCH AND EXTENSION USERS ADVISORY 

 BOARD 



Mr. Kloek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the invita- 

 tion to appear this morning. 



I'm pleased to represent the National Agricultural Research and 

 Extension Users Advisory Board, or the UAB. The UAB was estab- 

 lished by Congress in 1977. We are private citizens serving as vol- 

 unteers to provide user feedback to the USDA and the Congress 

 about science and education programs. We're your customer advi- 



