63 



tional Research Initiative increased the competitive component, 

 and that's what you're witnessing there. 



Dr. Foil. 



Mr. Foil. I think all this hasn't been really debated. I think 

 you'd find consensus in the community that the current pattern is 

 a better pattern than existed when we were so heavily dependent 

 on formula funds. You could argue a Uttle bit about the relative 

 growth of the targeted funds versus some of the others, but in gen- 

 eral I think you woxild get a consensus that we have a stronger sys- 

 tem by virtue of having the competitive grant option as a measur- 

 able component. 



As we progress from where we are now to where we want to be 

 in the future, I think we need to do some work on that balance. 

 This was a conscious decision to increase the competitive compo- 

 nent, and I personally think it's time to reexamine that balance in 

 light of changes that have taken place in expectations and in the 

 manner in which Federal priorities are addressed, and that's what 

 you all are meeting about. 



Mr. DOOLEY. Thank you. 



Mr. Stenholm. Dr. Fischer, if you need to leave, you may be ex- 

 cused. 



Mr. Fischer. If there's anything quick, I'd be glad to respond to 

 it, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Stenholm. Well, whenever you need to leave — ^you know 

 your schedule — feel free to do so. We're almost down to the short 

 rows now. 



Following up with Mr. Dooley's question, I believe you were 

 speaking to the competitive grants in saying that you believe the 

 system is better off now with having increased the competitive 

 grants perhaps at the cost of the formula funding, if that's what 

 I heard you say. But can you also comment as to the increase in 

 earmark grants? Are you saying that they, too, with the increase 

 in the earmark grants — in your estimation and judgment, we're 

 better off today with the increase in earmark grants than we would 

 be if, say, that line had been on competitive grants going up or on 

 formula? 



Mr. Foil. Since that was my statement, I'll respond, Mr. Chair- 

 man. First, the increase in competitive grants was not directly at 

 the expense of formula unless one assumes that those funds would 

 have gone to the formula had they not gone to competitive, and I'm 

 not sure that that would be a valid assumption. But the targeted 

 funds are such a variable group of projects that it's very difficult 

 for me to generalize about them. If you accept Dr. Savage's $146 

 million figure, which I think is a little high, but if you accepted 

 that, I would personally say that about one-third of that really was 

 put into projects that almost are beyond the purview of this com- 

 mittee or it was a nice place to get something done that needed 

 doing. A lot of the facilities were. 



Mr. Stenholm. By whose judgment? 



Mr. Foil. Well, my judgment was that there was a provision in 

 the Federal appropriations process that allows the Federal Govern- 

 ment to address an issue through the agricultural budget perhaps 

 more easily done than through some other budgets, and there have 



