75 



UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA 



CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901 

 TELEPHONE 804-92'lS192 



WooDROw Wilson Department 

 OF Government and Foreign Affairs Writers Direct Line 



232 Cabell Hall 



April 19, 1993 



Mr. Hike Westendorf 

 Committee on Agriculture 

 Subcommittee on Department Operations 



and Nutrition 

 1301 Longworth House Office Bldg. 

 Washington, D.C. 20515 



Dear Mike: 



Here are my responses to the Subcommittee's written questions: 



1. Certainly not all special grants are bad, please describe for 

 the subcommittee what the benefits of special grants? 



Unfortunately, I do not agree with the premise of this question. 

 Whether certain special project grants produce adequate or even 

 good research is not the point. Taken in their entirety, without 

 proper merit review and evaluation, these grants very likely will 

 produce less effective research than competitive grsmts. Moreover, 

 because of the Appropriations Subcommittee's 602b a].location 

 restrictions, every dollar spent on special grants reduces funding 

 for competitive grants and other agriculture programs. As far as 

 the claim goes that some projects are so special or of such 

 timeliness that they merit earmarking, I reply that both 

 authorizations and appropriations committees may make programmatic 

 changes through the regular legislative process. At that point, 

 researchers and universities may submit proposals to the Department . 

 of Agriculture for funding. If they are good enough, these 

 proposals will be funded. As for timeliness, I do not believe that 

 there has been a single special project grant that was a life-and- 

 death matter, that did not deserve proper merit review and tax- 

 payer accountability. Finally, although I applaud the efforts of 

 the authorizations committees to control the earmarking of the 

 appropriations committee, I do not regard earmarking by the 

 authorizations committee to be somehow superior. Two wrongs do not 

 make a right. 



2. As you mention in your testimony, some institutions abstain 

 from NIH or NSF earmarks yet willingly lobby for agricultural 

 earmarks. Why do you think there is this different interpretation 

 about what constitutes an earmark? 



Agricultural earmarking was common practice a number of years 

 before the Association of American Universities objected to the 



