40 



very exorbitant? What area was that? Wasn't that NSF, Stanford, 

 places like that? A large amount of fiinds, peer review went for 

 buildings, went for equipment, all kinds of stuff, high utihty bills, 

 everything else. We in the Congress had to finally act on it. That 

 was all peer reviewed. What* s your answer? 



Mr. Savage. It's part of Congress' responsibiUty to oversee these 

 kinds of activities. Part of the reason Stanford had problems was 

 because the way Federal research money is administered is that 

 imiversities are divided up among cognizant agencies, and Depart- 

 ment of Defense was well-known amongst the university commu- 

 nity for being very lax in its oversight, so Stanford got away with 

 a lot of things that some of the other institutions 



Mr. VOLKMER. Not just Stanford, though, either. 



Mr. Savage. No, it wasn't. But oversight is part of the ongoing 

 responsibility. 



Mr. VOLKMER. One last question, Mr. Chairman, if I may. 



Let's again look at both competitive grants in agriculture and 

 look at NSF. I guess we could even look at NTH, but NSF espe- 

 cially. Where do most of the moneys go? Are these pretty well 

 spread out among all of the universities like in competitive grants 

 in agriculture? Do they go to all of the agricultural universities 

 pretty well evened out, spread out, or do tibey go to certain ones 

 out here? 



Mr. Savage. There's obviously a hierarchy where some institu- 

 tions get more of the funds than others. 



Mr. VOLKMER. And isn't it true in NSF? 



Mr. Savage. It's true with all. 



Mr. VoLKMER. I mean, we don't get many NSF fiinds out in the 

 Midwest in comparison to the east and west coasts. 



Mr. Savage. Well, there are also more universities and also more 

 scientists per capita on the east and west coasts. 



Mr. VoLKMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Stenholm. Thank you. 



We thank the panel very much for their testimony today. As all 

 of us have stated, this is an idea whose time has come. This is a 

 subject whose time has come. There are going to obviously be 

 changes, we hope, for the better. Thaf s what you want, too. That's 

 what you've testified. Thafs what you work toward on a daily 

 basis. We hope and expect that you will be a constructive part of 

 this subcommittee's oversight respK)nsibiUties as well as our at- 

 tempts to, as you said. Dr. Offutt, take the best system in the 

 world and make it better, and that's the challenge we have. 



We thank you for being here, and we look forward to working 

 with you in the future. Thank you very much. 



Ms. Offutt. Thank you. 



Mr. Stenholm. Well call our second panel: Doctors Carpenter 

 and Fischer, Mr. Guernsey, Dr. Mortensen, Dr. Topel, and Dr. Foil 



Our first witness will be Dr. David Topel, dean, college of agri- 

 culture, Iowa State University. 



Dr. Topel. 



