70 



5. 

 review, but peer review comprised of peer review panels they 

 themselves established. 



I raise these points because I believe the Subcommittee should be 

 aware of how universities and colleges are adapting to what is the 

 willingness of the Congress to earmark academic research. To its 

 credit, the academic community in general has sought an expansion 

 of competitive USDA research programs, but has often confronted 

 hostility from the agriculture appropriations subcommittees. 

 Proposals for expanding competitive research programs, for example, 

 were met with counter proposals to restrict indirect costs rates 

 for competitive grants. In the face of this resistance, 

 universities and colleges continue to adapt to the resource 

 allocation system Congress has allowed to develop. 



There are other, more familiar, negative consequences to 

 earmarking. The most obvious is that without peer or merit review, 

 there is little or no systematic evaluation and accountability for 

 determining whether these earmarked projects represent the best 

 research for the dollar. After talking with appropriations 

 subcommittee staff, it is my understanding that the USDA has 

 rarely, if ever, evaluated an earmarked project and found it to be 

 wanting. It is not clear to me if this is the situation because 

 the USDA is reluctant to offend a Member of Congress vrho sponsored 

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

 all of these projects, in fact, produce acceptable research. Even 



