33 



plants, why this research is important and ultimately may have an 

 impact on their profitability. 



So it's been my experience that, if you go talk to the farmers and 

 ranchers on our board, they don't see that disconnect. 



Mr. Savage. I guess my response would be that there has to be 

 a serious xinderstanding of what institutions are capable of, and 

 one of the concerns that Members of Congress have about academia 

 in general in a lot of areas is, how does it take basic research and 

 transfer it? What is its responsibility? Some expectations may be 

 out of line or are going to be unfulfilled because of what institu- 

 tions are about, and you have to think in your legislation what 

 other kinds of institutional processes might be available, what kind 

 of intermediary associations. It might be between institutions that 

 stress and reward basic research as opposed to the needs of the pri- 

 vate sector. 



I want to go back to the comment about the formula funding, and 

 I think that basically what you're ending up with is a nondirected 

 entitlement program. If you have particular problems, then you 

 need to target them in your legislation. 



If I could just say one thing about earmarking, it is a symptom 

 of frustration, but you have to recognize what it does to create 

 harm in its outcome and the fact that very few institutions partici- 

 pate in this process and that there's no determination of how these 

 funds are used. What is the response to the taxpayer? 



Mr. GUNDERSON. Just 30 seconds, because my time is up. I have 

 to tell you that I desperately wish you and everybody who's testify- 

 ing today would have come in here with a 21st century research 

 plan. I've skimmed over your testimony and that to follow. It's pret- 

 ty much protecting business as usual, and I think that's disappoint- 

 ing, and I think that's probably part of the disconnect. 



I mean, whether we like it or not, whether it be in education, ag- 

 riculture, the military, or health care, we've got to break the mold. 

 I mean, business as usual doesn't cut it. It doesn't cut it with con- 

 gressional appropriations, it doesn't cut it with public confidence, 

 and I don't think it cuts it in terms of outcomes. In 1993 we ought 

 to be doing something much more bolder than your testimonies ad- 

 vise. Thank you. 



Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Stenholm. We've got another one of those important votes 

 that is going to take us away from here in just a moment. Talk 

 about disconnects around here. We've got them. But, anyway, let 

 me ask a couple of questions before we have to go vote. 



Dr. Kloek, you mentioned in your statement that you had written 

 Senator Byrd on behalf of the UAB in 1991, expressing your dis- 

 appointment that the Agricultural Research Facilities Planning 

 and Closure Study Commission, which was patterned after the 

 base-closing study that has been relatively successful in helping us 

 deal with a very difficult situation in the military had not been 

 funded. What was the answer you got? 



Mr. Kloek. None, I'm told. We did not get a response to that let- 

 ter. 



Mr, Stenholm. So the Appropriations Committee chose to basi- 

 cally ignore your recommendation to fund what has been author- 



