71 



'^ 6. 



if all these projects did produce "acceptable" research, however, 

 this does not mean that the best research was funded to meet 

 specific policy driven needs. I suggest that the best research is 

 more likely funded through a competitive merit review system than 

 through earmarking. 



In any case, if $650 million have been allocated through earmarking 

 for agricultural research, what have these projects produced for 

 the taxpayer? Those universities that have received the bulk of 

 these earmarked dollars should be called upon to report on just how 

 many patents, new discoveries, and improvements in American 

 agriculture have resulted from these funds. I eim delighted that 

 Chairman George Brown, in the Science and Technology Committee, has 

 made such requests of a number of academic institutions. 



Earmarking also greatly diffuses the Federal government's ability 

 to set priorities and address national problems. Often enough, 

 these earmarked projects reflect the particular interests of 

 university researchers who work through their institutions and the 

 appropriations committees to secure fund for their specialized 

 research concerns. How these interests fit into a broad strategy 

 for improving agriculture is not always apparent. Meanwhile, those 

 USAD competitive grants programs, which are more likely to reflect 

 the general policy goals approved through the normal legislative 

 process, must compete with these earmarked projects for scarce 

 dollars within the allocation for the agriculture appropriations 



