38 



lot of people who would say, "Well, we haven't cured cancer, have 

 we? Wnhiat are the processes?" I've heard Chairman Natcher go on 

 about this, too. 



So there's a difference between — ^you're always going to have an 

 outcome, but at least you should have an evaluation process that 

 says, **^Aniat we do do is the very best we can do, given human limi- 

 tations." 



Mr. Kingston. Thank you. 



Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Stenholm. Mr. Volkmer. 



Mr. Volkmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to start off 

 with, in agricultural research, where are most of the funds? In 

 other words, we have ARS, we have formula grants, we have com- 

 petitive grants, and we have earmarked funds. Who gets most of 

 the money? 



Ms. Offutt. You mean in terms of the agencies to which it is 

 appropriated? 



Mr. Volkmer. No. I'm talking between Agricultural Research 

 Service, formula grants, competitive grants, and earmarked funds. 

 If I put those all in a pot, who has the highest percentage of it? 



Ms. Offutt. I'm not current on the budget numbers. My recollec- 

 tion would be that the Agricultural Research Service would be ap- 

 propriated at least one-half of those funds. 



Mr. Volkmer. That's right. ARS gets most of the funding. 



Ms. Offutt. Yes. 



Mr. Volkmer. And who does a peer review on ARS? 



Ms. Offutt. I am not in a position to answer about the ARS pro- 

 cedures on peer review. I don't have direct knowledge of that. 



Mr. Volkmer. I don't think there is any. 



Mr. Savage. Let me answer your question 



Mr. Volkmer. I mean, it's the people in-house that make the de- 

 termination as to what research 



Ms. Offutt. There are reviews of ARS projects. 



Mr. Volkmer. Pardon? 



Ms. Offutt. There are reviews of ARS projects, certainly, based 

 on the merits of the project and how it relates to national goals. 



Mr. Volkmer. By whom? 



Ms. Offutt. Again, my understanding is that it would be by the 

 Agricultural Research Service scientists. The extent of outside par- 

 ticipation, I can't speak to. Perhaps our next panel could, but I 

 don't have direct knowledge that's useful about this. 



Mr. Volkmer. Well, you see, we get criticized for what the Con- 

 gress does on earmarked funds because basically there's no peer re- 

 view, and even on some, like one that I'm familiar with, they have 

 in-house peer review to determine what projects they will fund 

 among the 18 or so xiniversities out in Arkansas and stuff and set 

 up out through the Midwest, and that's still criticized because 

 that's in-house peer review, but yet the largest funds that go out 

 in Agricultural Research Service, ARS does not have, as far as I 

 know, outside peer review to determine whether or not those 

 projects are worthwhile, that's what we need for the future in agri- 

 cultiu-e, and that they are actually accomplishing what they pro- 

 pose to do in the rese£u*ch. It's all done in-house. 



