U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RESEARCH
AND EHENSION PRIORITIES
>v
Y 4. AG 8/1:103-7
U.S. Departnent of Agriculture Rese...
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPAKTMENT OPERATIONS
AND NUTRITION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
MARCH 25, 1993
Serial No. 103-7
1^ ■
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
68-792 WASHINGTON : 1993
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-041165-3
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RESEARCH
AND EHENSION PRIORITIES
Y 4. AG 8/1:103-7
U.S. DepartneRt of Agriculture Rese...
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS
AND NUTRITION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
MARCH 25, 1993
Serial No. 103-7
I
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
68-792 WASHINGTON : 1993
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents. Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-041165-3
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
E (KIKA) DE
GEORGE E. BROWN, Jr., California,
Vice Chairman
CHARLIE ROSE, North Carolina
GLENN ENGLISH, Oklahoma
DAN GLICKMAN, Kansas
CHARLES W. STENHOLM. Texas
HAROLD L. VOLKMER, Missoviri
TIMOTHY J. PENNY, Minnesota
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
BILL SARPALIUS, Texas
JILL L. LONG, Indiana
GARY A. CONDIT, CaUfomia
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, Cahfomia
EVA M. CLAYTON, North Carolina
DAVID MINGE, Minnesota
EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama
JAY INSLEE, Washington
THOMAS J. BARLOW III, Kentudgr
EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
CYNTHL^. A. McKINNEY. Georgia
SCOTTY BAESLER, Kentucky
KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
PAT WILLIAMS, Montana
BLANCHE M. LAMBERT, Arkansas
LA GARZA, Texas, Chairman
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas,
Ranking Minority Member
BILL EMERSON, Missouri
STEVE GUNDERSON, Wisconsin
TOM LEWIS, Florida
ROBERT F. (BOB) SMITH, Oregon
LARRY COMBEST, Texas
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
BILL BARRETT, Nebraska
JIM NUSSLE, Iowa
JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio
THOMAS W. EWING, Illinois
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
JAY DICKEY, Arkansas
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
Professional Staff
DiANNE Powell, Staff Director
Vernie Hubert, Chief Counsel and Legislative Director
Gary R. Mitchell, Minority Staff Director
James A. Davis, Press Secretary
SUBCOMMTITEE ON DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS AND NUTRITION
CHARLES W.
GEORGE E. BROWN, Jr., California,
Vice Chairman
BILL SARPALIUS, Texas
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
JAY INSLEE, Washington
GLENN ENGLISH, Oklahoma
DAN GLICKMAN, Kansas
CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
HAROLD L. VOLKMER, Missouri
EVA M. CLAYTON, North Carolina
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
CHARLIE ROSE, North Carolina
BLANCHE M. LAMBERT, Arkansas
STENHOLM, Texas, Chairman
ROBERT F. (BOB) SMITH, Oregon
BILL EMERSON, Missouri
STEVE GUNDERSON, Wisconsin
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
BILL BARRETT, Nebraska
THOMAS W. EWING, Illinois
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
(ID
CONTENTS
Page
Allard, Hon. Wayne, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado,
opening statement 17
Dooley, Hon. Calvin M., a Representative in Congress from the State of
California, prepared statement 9
Kingston, Hon. Jack, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia,
prepared statement 12
Smith, Hon. Robert F. (Bob), a Representative in Congress from the State
of Oregon, prepared statement 11
Stenholm, Hon. Charles W., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Texas, opening statement 1
Witnesses
Carpenter, Zerle L., associate deputy chancellor for agriculture and director,
Texas Agricultural Cooperative Extension Service, Texas A&M University,
and chairman, Extension Committee on Oreanization and Policy, National
Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges 43
Prepared statement 134
Response to written questions 141
Fischer, James R., director, agricultural experiment station, Clemson Univer-
sity, and chairman, Experiment Station Committee on Organization and
Policy, National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Col-
leges 46
Prepared statement 148
Response to written questions 162
Foil, R. Rodney, vice president, agriculture, forestry, and veterinary medicine,
Mississippi State University, and chairman, council of administrative heads
of agriculture. National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant
Colleges 54
Prepared statement 197
Response to written questions 201
Guernsey, Robert, past cnairman, Council for Agricultural Research, Exten-
sion, and Teaching 51
Prepared statement 190
Response to written questions 193
Kloek, James A., chairman, National Agricultural Research and Extension
Users Advisory Board 20
Prepared statement 79
Response to written questions ^ 95
Mortensen. James H., associate dean, resident education, Penn State Univer-
sity, and chairman, academic programs section, board on agriculture, Na-
tional Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges 50
Prepared statement 182
Response to written questions 187
Offiitt, Susan E., executive director. Board on Agriculture, National Research
Council, National Academy of Sciences 23
Prepared statement 97
Response to written questions 102
Savage, James D., associate chair and assistant professor, department of
government and foreign affairs, University of Virginia 17
Prepared statement 66
Response to written questions 75
(III)
IV
Page
Topel, David G., dean, college of agriculture, Iowa State University, and
chairman, board on agriculture, National Association of State Universities
and Land-Grant Colleges 41
Prepared statement 120
Response to written questions 124
Submitted Material
American Veterinary Medical Association and the Association of American
Veterinary Medical Colleges, statement 204
Escher, Monika C, chair, international committee on organization and policy,
board on agriculture. National Association of State Universities and Land-
Grant Colleges, statement 207
Magrath, C. Peter, president. National Association of State Universities £md
Land-Grant Colleges, statement 210
Stowe, Barbara S., dean, college of human ecology, Kansas State University,
and assistant director, agricultural experiment station, Kansas State Uni-
versity, statement 215
Vaughan, J.T., dean, veterinary medicine. Auburn University, and chair,
board of veterinary medicine. National Association of State Universities
and Land-Grant Colleges, statement 219
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
RESEARCH AND EXTENSION PRIORITIES
THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 1993
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Department
Operations and Nutrition,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in room
1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Charles W. Stenholm
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Dooley, English, Volkmer, Holden,
Lambert, Smith, Gunderson, Allard, Barrett, Ewing, and Kingston.
Staff present: Glenda L. Temple, clerk; Stan Ray, Joe Dugan,
Merv Yetley, and Pete Thomson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES W. STENHOLM, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Stenholm. This public hearing of the Department Oper-
ations and Nutrition Subcommittee will now come to order.
Today we start a series of hearings looking at our Nation's agri-
cultural research capacity. We are truly at a critical point in our
Nation's history. Americans have increased concerns about food
safety, the environment, and the economy. They are concerned
about our production agricultural practices. Today's production sys-
tem has served Americans well, but the priorities that were driving
the system in the past are not necessarily the primary issues con-
fronting producers £ind consumers today.
On the one hand, we still believe — and I certainly still believe —
that we possess in America an agricultural system which is un-
matched anywhere in the world. Our food supply continues to be
the most wholesome, the most abundant, the safest, and the least
expensive in the world. I am continually amazed at the resilience,
the ingenuity, the initiative, and the ability to adapt that our farm-
ers have. Commodity prices, though, continue to fall, production
costs continue to rise, and yet the American farmer perseveres.
This benefits all, as our food supply remains the least expensive in
the world.
Yet, on the other hand, we are challenged. We're facing a con-
suming public which has grown both complacent and overreactive
to the greatest food-producing system the world has ever known.
The environment, water quality, the use of chemical fertilizers, pes-
ticides in the food supply, microbial contamination of meat, and
biotechnology are all examples of issues where many consumers are
(1)
not just suspicious, but often in outright opposition to what produc-
tion agriculture practices. It is interesting that while consumers
claim to like farmers, they do not like what farmers do.
Compounding these is the rural development crisis brought on by
much of the farm debt crunch of the past two decades. How do we
develop agriculture that is not just sustainable and environ-
mentally benign, but also profitable? Any discussion about setting
research priorities at USDA must include the influence of our Fed-
eral budget deficit. Over the last 10 years, no Government Depart-
ment, no function of our budget has taken more hits than agri-
culture. We have been asked year after year to bear more than our
share of budgetary cuts. The President's budget reduction plan this
year was no different and provides for some specific cuts in the re-
search agencies at USDA.
In an era of declining budgets due to the deficit, we're going to
have to do better research with less money by doing it more effi-
ciently. This is going to force us to set better agricultural research
priorities. How do we get there fi-om here? How do we set research
priorities for U.S. agriculture today? How do we include the con-
cerns of both producers and consumers to forge an agenda for the
21st century? The role of technology transfer through extension
and teaching is also essential. How do we maintain linkages be-
tween research and education programs when USDA's constituency
has grown to include so many diverse groups other than production
agriculture?
Those of us on the Department Operations and Nutrition Sub-
committee are excited. Not only do we have jurisdiction for food
safety, pesticides, and nutrition, but we oversee USDA research
priorities as well. We plan to hold hearings assessing the needs of
agriculture today and then, through research oversight, seek an-
swers for the questions raised earlier.
Included in the hearing record today will be a number of dia-
grams describing the changes in funding which have occurred since
1985 at the Cooperative States Research Service. The Cooperative
States Research Service is the agency at USDA which provides
funding for our State and university land-grant colleges and the
1890 colleges and universities. Since 1985, formula funding has de-
creased from about 65 percent of the CSRS budget to about 45 per-
cent for fiscal year 1993. Formula funds are those dollars which go
to land-grant colleges, 1890 colleges, forestry schools, and veteri-
nary medical schools. They are determined by formulas based on
rural population and utilization and Eire matched with State dol-
lars.
Although actual formula dollars have increased slightly during
this time, inflation-adjusted real dollars have decreased. Many in-
dividuals believe that this decrease has put pressure on univer-
sities, making it difficult to maintain their base level of programs.
As the level of formula funding has declined, spending for both spe-
cial research and facilities grants and competitive grants has in-
creased. Spending for specif research and facilities grants has in-
creased fi*om about 10 percent of the CSRS budget in 1985 to near-
ly 30 percent today. Competitive grants have increased fi*om 22
percent to 27 percent of the CSRS budget during this time. The
charts will be in the record after my statement.
In the research hearings we hold, we will attempt to determine
the proper means of funding at universities. That is, what is the
proper combination of formula funding, competitive grants, and
special grants to meet the needs? We will also seek to determine
what percentage of research budgets should be basic, applied, and
mission-linked, and what are the most proactive roles for extension
and teaching education programs. Most importantly, we will deter-
mine both how priorities are set and what they are. With the budg-
etary constraints we are now facing, it is essential to refocus our
priorities. To maintain the status quo will result in a further ero-
sion of what we are already doing as fewer dollars continue to be
spread throughout the system.
We must begin including not just Congress in the process, but,
first and foremost, producers and consumers. Since they are the
ones the system was built to serve, they should provide major im-
pact about future direction.
Two words will guide us as we move forward: Relevance and ac-
coiintability. Is the research relevant to consumer and environ-
mental concerns? Is it relevant to helping farmers and ranchers
maintain not only sustainability, but also profitability? Or is it only
relevant to maintenance of the status quo? And accountability. Are
we accountable with our resources? Do we use them in such a way
as to bring a return on our research investment? With your assist-
ance, we are excited about moving forward with confidence.
Thank you.
Before I recognize Mr. Allard, I would like to submit the charts
for the record along with any prepared statements from the
members.
[The charts and prepared statements of Mr. Dooley, Mr. Smith,
and Mr. Kingston follow:]
4
(D
O
2
O
CZ5
P^
C/5
U
^
^
0
^
hH
Q
;^
CO
&0
1 N
c«
fm
Pi
a
1
O
O
O
0\
O
oo
o
o
U
a
a
u
o
03
u
CO
00
'■^ CO
S
S-i
o
t3^
Pi
u
>
u
O
O
u
m
O
CO
ON
On
I
?-l
o
(/)
OS
fi
ON
c«
;n
T-H
o
ON
(/}
On
a>
• rM
-M
• fM
^
O
• ^N
On
o
0\
l!C(
On b3
OO <^
OS <D
u
u
OO
>
1>
Q.
O
O
o
00
I
o
'o
Q
t4-l
o
CO
•T-4
"^S
ON
ON
OS
0\
O
On
On
ON
C30
ON
OO
OO
On
OO
ON
OO
ON
IT)
OO
ON
o
O
O
o
OO
u
CO
o
u
M
u
2
1)
>
u
o,
o
o
y
CO
U
o
o
r-~
(Z)
oo
j=
On
^
^
u
u
Oi
OO
CO
u
On
s
W
U
>
ta
«o
o
OO
On
o
o
' — 1
O
CO
00
8
o
Opening Statement o£ the Honorable Cal Dooley
Subcommittee on Department Operations and Nutrition
March 25, 1993
Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to thank
you for holding this important hearing to review the research
agenda of the Department of Agriculture.
The Department of Agriculture's research activities have
played a large role in the advancement of American agriculture
over the past century, making our industry the most efficient in
the world. However, it is clear that in order for the United
States to compete in the global economy in the 21st century, we
need to increase research into emerging technologies and create
an agriculture industry for the future.
I think that this plan for the future needs to include a
number of parts. First, we need to develop alternative methods
for controlling the pests and diseases that attack our crops. As
a farmer myself, I am aware of the increasingly difficult
environmental standards that farmers are asked to maintain, the
cost of fighting disease and pests on crops, and the need for
viable alternatives to combatting these problems. I believe that
USDA can play a vital role in concert with major universities,
including the University of California, in developing these
alternatives .
Second, we need to develop alternative uses for agricultural
I
10
products. I believe that the development of non-food uses of
agricultural products is vital to sustaining a profitable and
growing agricultural industry. The 1990 farm bill authorized the
Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization Center
(ARRC) to bring together the USDA and private companies to
develop exciting new uses for agricultural products . The Center
is currently reviewing the first set of proposals to be funded
under the program and there are some very interesting and viable
projects under consideration. I believe that the research arm
of the USDA could be very helpful in the development of these new
products.
Finally, I believe that the biotechnology industry needs to
be an important part of the our plan for the future. The
biotechnology industry will become an important part of
agriculture starting this year with the introduction of Calgene's
"flavr savr" tomato. I think that biotechnology can be the tool
that farmers will turn to in the future to address a multitude of
problems facing agriculture production. I hope that the USDA
becomes a partner in this effort. I believe that the Western
Biotechnology Consortium is an important way for the federal
government to be a partner in the development of this exciting
new technology.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you in the
coming months to focus the research agenda of the USDA in these
important areas. Thank you.
11
STATEMENT OF
ROBERT F. SMITH
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS AMD NDTRITION
MARCH 25, 1993
Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing today.
As you know, I have be a strong and vocal spokesman for production
agriculture. It has always been my view that the role of this Committee, and
that of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, should be the assist, promote and,
when necessary, defend the farmers and ranchers of this nation.
The federal spending conunltment for agriculture research has remained
relatively flat for some time. Its about $1.3 billion today, adjusted for
Inflation, Its about the same as we were spending twenty years ago.
And, given the current budgetary climate, this Is not likely to change
In the near future. As federal resources for agrlcultxire continue to
contract, we must reexamine our priorities to ensure we are focusing on the
needs of production agriculture.
The Clinton Administration's proposals will doubtless lead to Increased
costs for farmers. One analysis I have Indicates the Clinton plan will cost a
typical wheat ranch In Oregon an additional about $12,000 In new fees, taxes
and program benefits. If production agrlculttire Is to remain competitive on
the world market, research will have to help provide the tools.
Tightening budgets also Increase the urgency of ensuring that each
dollar spent on research, regardless of Its source, contributes to the overall
effort. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Is tinlquely placed In the
agriculture research commxinlty to coordinate research In order to prevent
waste and duplication. It may make sense to strengthen this role.
And finally, we must take on the responsibility of watching other
research, both In the private sector and In other departments, which have
implications for agriculture. This returns to my original assertion about the
Importance of being the advocate of production agriculture.
The Department of Health and H\iman Services, the Environmental
Protection Agency, the National Resources Defense Council and other
organizations simply don't care If their research, no matter how faulty,
adversely Impacts agriculture. The Alar debacle Is a perfect example. NRDC's
amateurish study cost the apple Industry $100 million that year.
Mr. Chairman, these are the thoughts I will have In mind as we receive
testimony from today's witnesses.
12
Statement By
Honorable Jack Kingston
U. S. Representative
Georgia 1st District
Subcommittee on Department Operations & Nutrition
House Committee on Agriculture
Thursday, March 25, 1993
Honorable Charles Stenholm, Chairman
Mr. Chairman:
Thank you for affording us an opportunity to discuss
the vital topic of agricultural research, and the role of the
Federal government in attempting to keep America in the
forefront of new agricultural technology and productivity.
Agricultural research in the past has led to our
nation's stature as the leading food and fiber producer in
the entire world. Agricultural research has allowed a
diminishing number of U. S. producers to feed and clothe
a rapidly growing world population, while also providing
13
Jack Kingston
March 25, 1993
an abundant, reliable, inexpensive supply of highly
nutritious food and superior quality fibre for their own
countrymen.
I would point out my concerns -- which I know many
of my Colleagues on the committee share -- that we
probably have not provided sufficient funding over the
past 15 years or so necessary to ensure continued
American dominance in the field of agricultural research,
research application, and technological advancement. We
must concentrate our resources in the future and do a
better job of allocating funding if we are to retain our
leadership and enjoy the economic benefits of better, more
productive, more varied agricultural production.
Mr. Chairman, I don't want to get us too far off track
during this session, but I would be terribly negligent if I
didn't express one other area of prime concern for me ~
and hopefully for a vast majority of our fellow committee
2
14
Jack Kingston
March 25, 1993
Members. I am astounded by the immediate and
devastating impacts which the recently debated 1994
Budget Resolution will have on farmers, ranchers,
agribusinesses, and the economic and social future of
America's rural towns and communities. It does not do
much good to increase the funding levels and the
effectiveness of agricultural research programs if we are
facing a very real threat that there will soon be no
producers left in business to take advantage of new
research and new technological advances.
The day before yesterday, the Food and Agricultural
Policy Research Institute presented testimony before the
Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities which
should make each and every one of us sit up and take
notice before pressing forward with the current Budget
Resolution's "blueprint for agricultural disaster" for U. S.
producers and consumers. If I am reading the FAPRI
initial review of the economic impacts correctly, then the
3
15
Jack Kingston
March 25, 1993
combination of reduced farm program levels, increased
assessments and user fees, the "Btu" energy tax, the inland
waterway tax, and the host of other revenue provisions in
the Resolution will drive substantial numbers of producers
out of business over the next 4 to 5 years.
Of course, when these producers can no longer afford
to stay on the land, an economic "tidal wave" of adverse
impacts begins to roll throughout the entire economy --
wiping out the smaller rural towns and communities first,
but with absolute certainty crashing down on the suburbs
and inner cities of America as well.
This is not a case of a modem-day "Henney-Penney"
running around shouting that the sky is falling! The
adverse impacts and the ultimate disaster which will be
felt throughout our country is very real and very
predictable ... it will happen unless we on this committee
use all of our energy and all of our ingenuity to change
4
16
JackKingston
Marcl£Sj993
the course of fiscal events which the House of
Representatives set in motion last vy^eek during the budget
process.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for patiently allowing me
to address this crucial aspect of the current situation. I
again would simply remind everyone present today that
our very real concerns and our very good intentions about
agricultural research programs and facilities are of little
avail when all the farmers and ranchers are gone from the
land, when we through out short-sightedness have turned
out the lights on Main Street rural America, and when our
consumers are forced to contend with uncertain supplies
of food and fiber from often unreliable foreign sources at
sky-high prices!
-0-
17
Mr. Stenholm. Mr. Allard.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE ALLARD, A REP-
RESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
COLORADO
Mr. Allard. Mr. Chairman, you're to be commended for holding
these hearings to review the Department of Agriculture's research
agenda. While the Agriculture Committee authorizes research
every 5 years in the farm bill, needs, agendas, and priorities often
don't wait xuitil the next farm bill. Indeed, the way events are pro-
gressing in agriculture, they often can't wait even from year to
year.
Be that how it may be, Mr. Chairman, the future of agriculture
depends upon improving new procedures and new techniques on
farms and ranches. Improved research will be critical if we are to
m£ike agriculture profitable. It's my hope this subcommittee and,
eventually, the full committee will examine the best way to ensure
that what resources USDA has available for research are allocated
based upon the merit of the institution appljdng and the need for
the research.
Mr. Chairman, we both sit on the Budget Committee, so I won't
start into my limited resources speech. Suffice it to say, though,
whether we spend $1 or $1 billion, it should be focused on a clearly
definable goal that will help our farmers be more productive, profit-
able, and environmentally responsible.
Finally, I look forward to hearing our witnesses tell us what
their role is in setting research priorities. The part that has been
explained to me is certainly interesting; however, the process does
seem somewhat confiising. So I look forward to hearing what the
witnesses have to say about this process and to hearing any sug-
gestions that they may have for streamlining the procedure.
Mr. Chairman, 111 yield now so we can get on with the hearing
and the testimony. Once again, I appreciate your interest in this
area.
Mr. Stenholm. Mr. Volkmer.
[No response.]
Mr. Stenholm. Well now call our first panel: Dr. Savage, Dr.
Kloek, and Dr. Offutt.
Our first witness will be Dr. James D. Savage, associate chair
and assistant professor, department of government and foreign af-
fairs, University of Virginia.
Welcome, Dr. Savage.
STATEMENT OF JAMES D. SAVAGE, ASSOCIATE CHAIR AND AS-
SISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT AND
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Savage. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, my name is James
D. Savage, and I'm associate chair and assistant professor in the
department of government and foreign affairs at the University of
Virginia. Thank you for inviting me to share with your subcommit-
tee my thoughts on the issue of employing direct appropriations, or
earmarks, for funding university-conducted agricultural research.
In 1992 I served as a consultant for the Congressional Research
Service, for whom I analyzed the trends in earmeirks for univer-
18
sities and colleges during the fiscal years 1980 through 1992. First
let me say that an earmark, by Office of Technology Assessment
definition, refers to "a project, facility, instrument, or other aca-
demic or research-related expense that is directly funded by Con-
gress, which has not been subjected to peer review and will not be
competitively awarded."
Using this definition as a guide, my data indicate that during fis-
cal years 1980 through 1992, approximately $2.5 billion were ear-
marked for some 234 universities and colleges. The trend in ear-
marking during these years clearly is one of rapid growth, as
shown in table 1. In fiscal year 1991, for example, $470 million in
research funds were earmarked, and that amount grew in fiscal
year 1992 to $708 miUion.
Of this total figure of $2.5 billion, approximately $625 million, or
a quarter of all earmarks, have their origins in agricultural appro-
priations. Here again, the trend is one of sustained growth. In fis-
cal years 1990 and 1991, the level of earmarking appeared to pla-
teau at about $100 million, and then jumped by 34 percent to $146
million in fiscal year 1992. Let me note that these figures for agri-
cultural earmarks, particularly for the early years of this study, £U*e
conservative. Earmarks are often difficult to identify, and I esti-
mate the total figure to be $10 million to $25 million higher and,
thus, range at least in the area of $650 million.
There are several negative consequences of earmarking agricul-
tural research. One consequence is the harm it does to the legit-
imacy of academic agricultural research in general. Two Presi-
dents, Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush, singled out university-conducted
agricultural earmarks as examples of waste and pork barrel poli-
tics, and a cause of the Federal deficit, in their State of the Union
addresses. These examples, which are often comically highlighted
by the media, can only cause the public to question the effective-
ness of the Federal Government's research efforts in this field, and
to increase their skepticism about Congress and how it operates.
Earmarking's negative influence on the legitimacy and status of
agricultural research also extends to the universities that conduct
this research. Every member of this committee and subcommittee
should be aware that there are universities that would never con-
sider attempting to earmark the National Institutes of Health or
the National Science Foundation, but who willingly hire lobbyists
and seek agricultural earmarks.
In 1989, 1 produced a list of academic earmarks that included ag-
ricultural projects. The president of the Association of American
Universities criticized the list by saying that agricultural research
had a distinctive "culture," where the standards of NIH and NSF
do not apply. Thus, one ivy league university, noted for its decision
to refuse a $5 million earmark for a supercomputer, which was
funded in the defense bill, accepts and has increased its efforts to
secure agricultural earmarks.
Only recently the issue of whether agricultural projects should be
counted as earmarks has been raised within AAU. Chancellor Joe
Wyatt of Vanderbilt University, for example, has asked his fellow
AAU presidents, "Is AAU's stated position in opposition to ear-
marks undercut by tolerance for agricultural earmarks?" In addi-
tion, former AAU president Robert Rosenzweig has acknowledged
19
that AAU may have been mistaken in limiting its condemnation of
direct appropriations in the agricultural appropriations bill.
Unfortunately, this tolerance for agricultural earmarks that
Chancellor Wyatt addressed continues to be the dominant opinion
within the university research community. I believe this view of ag-
ricultural research within academia, where pork barrel is the ac-
cepted name of the game, helps to reduce agricultural research in
general to second-class status within the academy.
Moreover, the academes green light for earmarking the agricul-
tural appropriations bill has resulted in universities and colleges
seeking projects there that have little to do with agricultural re-
search. These projects include technology centers, trade centers,
and biology centers. When academic institutions fail to obtain ear-
marks in those Appropriations Subcommittees where academic ear-
marks are generally shunned, such as in the House Labor-HHS-
Education Appropriations Subcommittee, they turn to other sub-
committees to fund their projects. The effect of this, of course, is
to reduce the funds available under the Appropriations Subcommit-
tee allocation for true agricultural research.
The subcommittee should also be aware that some universities
attempt to avoid the charge that they are earmarking by sub-
contracting their project in a manner that involves a modified form
of peer review. This practice is not uncommon in the special
projects awards funded from the agricultural appropriations bill.
For example, a university will obtain an earmark and, acting as
the principal investigator, share the award with several other uni-
versities organized as a consortium. This is the case with the mos-
quito research funded through special projects.
In another example, the Midwest plant biotechnology consortium
consists of an estimated 18 universities. The consortium establishes
a peer review panel, which sometimes consists of faculty only from
those particular universities, to allocate the funds within the
group. Thus, although the initial project was earmarked, the sub-
contracting faculty and institutions claim that their project under-
went peer review, but peer review comprised of peer review panels
they themselves estabhshed.
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 expan-
sion of competitive USD A research programs, but has often con-
fi*onted hostility fi-om the agricultural Appropriations Subcommit-
tees. Proposals for expanding competitive research programs, for
example, were met with counterproposgds to restrict indirect cost
rates for competitive grants. In the face of this resistance, univer-
sities and colleges continue to adapt to the resource allocation sys-
tem Congress has allowed to develop.
There are other, more familiar negative consequences to ear-
marking. The most obvious is that without peer review or merit re-
view, there's Uttle or no systematic evaluation and accountabiUty
for determining whether these earmarked projects represent the
best research for the dollar. After talking with appropriations sub-
committee staff, it is my understanding that the USDA has rarely,
if ever, evaluated an earmarked project and found it to be wanting.
20
It is not clear to me if this is the situation because the USDA
is reluctant to offend a Member of Congress who sponsored the
project and the university that conducted the research, or if all of
these projects in fact produce acceptable research. Even 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 fiinded
through a competitive merit review system than through earmark-
ing.
In any case, if $650 million or more have been allocated through
earmarking for agricultural research, what have these projects pro-
duced 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 am de-
lighted that Chairman George Brown, in the Science and Tech-
nology Committee, has made such requests of a number of aca-
demic institutions.
Earmarking also greatly diffuses the Federal Government's abil-
ity to set priorities and address national problems. Often enough,
these earmarked projects reflect the particular interests of univer-
sity researchers who work through their institutions and the appro-
priations committees to secure ftinds for their specialized research
concerns. How these interests fit into a broad strategy for improv-
ing agriculture, for example, is not always apparent. Meanwhile,
those USDA competitive grants programs, which are more likely to
reflect the general policy goals approved through the normal legis-
lative process, must compete with these earmarked projects for
scarce dollars within the allocation for the agricultural appropria-
tions bill.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, the practice of earmarking academi-
cally conducted agricultural research is increasing. Given the obvi-
ous incentives, universities and colleges will continue to seek ear-
marked funds and do so in a more sophisticated manner. These
funds, however, lack the accountability, emphasis on merit, and
reference to meeting national priorities that are more tjrpical of
peer-reviewed research.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Savage appears at the conclusion
of the hearing.]
Mr. Stenholm. Thank you.
Next we'll hear from Dr. James Kloek.
STATEMENT OF JAMES A. KLOEK, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL AG-
RICULTURAL RESEARCH AND EXTENSION USERS ADVISORY
BOARD
Mr. Kloek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the invita-
tion to appear this morning.
I'm pleased to represent the National Agricultural Research and
Extension Users Advisory Board, or the UAB. The UAB was estab-
lished by Congress in 1977. We are private citizens serving as vol-
unteers to provide user feedback to the USDA and the Congress
about science and education programs. We're your customer advi-
21
sory board. We're here to tell you what works and what doesn't,
from a customer point of view.
I've submitted my full testimony in writing this morning for the
record, and what I'm going to do now is give you a brief summary
of that testimony.
Mr. Stenholm. Without objection, your prepared statement will
appesir in the record.
Mr. Kloek. I'm here today to talk about facilities allocation and
upkeep — specifically, how do we reform the system of federally
funded agricultural research facilities in order to meet scientific
priorities, close outdated and rundown facilities, and establish an
effective planning process for future needs? In brief, the UAB be-
lieves that to accomplish these objectives, we must develop an over-
all cohesive national strategy for agricultural research and a re-
view mechanism to determine the extent our existing and proposed
facilities will meet that strategy's long-range goals and objectives.
Now, why have we concluded that? The existing system of facili-
ties is, in many cases, outdated, understsiffed, and in disrepair.
Many facilities remain in operation despite evidence that they
could be closed or consoKdated. I'd like to highlight some specific
facility problems which the UAB has identified.
First, many of these faciUties are in need of maintenance. In
1990 the Agricultural Research Service, or the ARS, made an esti-
mate of what it would take to bring all of their facilities into a good
state of repair and to take some of the older ones and get them into
condition to meet modem health and safety codes. They concluded
that for every dollar they were currently spending on research,
they would have to spend an additional 76 cents to maintain their
facilities. That's a staggering figure.
Second, buildings are scientifically staffed at less than full capac-
ity. ARS has about 1,500 square feet of facihty space for every em-
ployee they have. Now, you've got to be a Httle careful with that
statistic, because that includes greenhouses and auditoriums and
things that are pretty consumptive of space, but even given that,
there's really very little doubt that many of these facilities are
luiderstaffed with scientists.
The support-staff-to-scientist ratio is too high in many of these
facilities. It takes a certain number of support staff to operate a
building regardless of how many scientists are in it, and so because
of this iinderpopulation of scientists in these facilities, that often-
times will drive the support-staff-to-scientist ratio well above the
commonly accepted 2:1 ratio that people feel would be appropriate.
Many of these facilities are remote from scientific centers. In
order to effectively carry out research, scientists need to interact
with each other, and a lot of these facilities are too small to sup-
port a critical mass of scientists, and the5r're too far away from
other centers to allow effective collaboration.
There's no national agricultural science facility plan, and so what
we tend to see is a rush to hot issues. If, in a given year, bio-
technology is a hot issue, then what you see is a whole rash of fa-
cilities plans to do biotechnology, and this oftentimes will ignore
very present needs in other, less-glitzy disciplines.
Finally, the system of allocation is pohticized. The majority of the
buildings that get built with Federal funds actually go to the State
22
universities and are then turned over to the universities. As Dr.
Savage has indicated, universities are now hiring high-priced lob-
bying firms to win congressional appropriations. So the pressure
for earmarking for facilities is coming not only from Congress, but
from the universities as well.
In the absence of a strategic national facilities plan, there really
is very little reason to resist this trend to earmarking. It's the only
game in town.
Now, in addition to these specific problems, there's a more gen-
eral systematic problem: Cash invested in a facility is not available
to invest in a research or teaching program. So every time we make
a decision to make a capital investment in bricks and mortar, we're
making a tradeoff between doing that and an operational invest-
ment in research and teaching. Additionally, once this capital in-
vestment is made, you then need an operating budget to operate
this new facility. It's got to be maintained, it's got to be heated,
you've got to put people in it. And in a time when USDA operating
funds are not increasing and, in fact, may well be decreasing, those
new operating funds for these facilities have to come fi*om some-
where, and where they're coming from is programs.
This erosion of base and competitive programs that is going on
is a very serious problem and one that the UAB has commented
on several times in the past few years. We see no mechanism in
place to allow these tradeoff choices to be made on the basis of any
strategic plan or policy.
So what are we recommending? We're recommending two things:
First, that a national strategic plan for science and education be
prepared. This would lay out what the high priority goals of the
science and education system are and how facilities closings, main-
tenance, and construction will support those goals. What we need,
we think, is what we call in industry a participation strategy. We
need to take a look at ever5^hing the USDA is doing. It's the
board's opinion that the USDA is trying to do too many things.
They simply don't have the resources to adequately support all the
things they're trying to do. Priority-setting decisions must be based
on those critical things that absolutely must be done, and then
fund those programs to full capacity to ensure that we succeed at
them. We then need to look at the programs that are at the bottom
of that priority list and cut them completely.
With that plan in hand, we are then reiterating our call for a na-
tional external peer review panel. This panel would serve the Sec-
retary of Agriculture and the Congress and provide evaluations of
current and proposed facilities and how well they would fit with
the strategic plan. Its members would be appointed by the Sec-
retary of Agriculture, with recommendations fi"om the chairmen
and ranking members of the Senate and House Agriculture Com-
mittees, the National Academy of Sciences, and other user, aca-
demic, and agriculture industry organizations. It would be com-
posed of individuals fi*om both the public and private sector with
expertise in science, engineering, management, research and devel-
opment, and technology transfer.
Details of this panel and the procedures and processes it would
use are in my written testimony. The end result would be an inde-
pendent review process which evaluated how well proposed invest-
23
merits in new or existing facilities fit the goals and programs in the
strategic plan.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, the UAB believes that our whole
present agricultural research facility system needs an overhaul and
that the time to do that is now. It is the UAB's opinion that the
Congress should delay any authorization or appropriations of funds
for additional facihties until we have in place a strategic national
plan and mechanisms, such as the national external peer review
panel we have proposed, to evaluate all current and proposed facili-
ties.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning, and I'd be
happy to answer any questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ifloek appears at the conclusion
of the hearing.]
Mr. Stenholm. Thank you, Dr. Kloek.
Next, Dr. Ofiutt.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN E. OFFUTT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
BOARD ON AGRICULTURE, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL,
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
Ms. Offutt. Good morning. Thank you very much for inviting
me, the executive director of the Board on Agriculture, part of the
National Research Council, to be with you this morning. The board
and, indeed, the National Research Council are vitally interested in
the future of agricultural science and agricultural research and
what it does to support the prosperity of this Nation's agriculture
and the quality of its environment, as well as the health of its peo-
ple.
In that respect, I'd like to just touch briefly on two areas which
are of particular concern to the board and to the National Research
Council, which I think are relevant to the issues you're discussing
here this morning. In the first instance, I'll talk a little bit about
the competitive grants program supported by the board, which has
grown into the National Research Initiative, and, in the second, a
study the board proposes to undertake which concerns the conduct
of teaching, research, and extension in the land-grant colleges of
agriculture.
To begin, the National Research Initiative, which is the competi-
tive grants program for peer-reviewed research at the Department
of Agriculture, largely grew out of a proposal by the Board on Agri-
culture in 1989 that sought a significant expansion in the amount
of funding provided to agricultural research through peer-reviewed
grants. Over most of the history of the system, since the late
1800's, research has been supported by formula grants. Competi-
tive grants had not been used in agricultural research to the extent
that they had been used in other areas of science.
The board recommended that there should be six areas of en-
deavor that relate to national priorities in agricultural science and
research, and they are quite familiar to this committee, which in-
cluded the authorization for this program in the 1990 farm bill. Ul-
timately, the board, and the farm bill, asked that the program be
funded at $500 million annually, and we are hopeful that someday
we will reach that goal. But what's important this morning is the
24
rationale for a competitive research grants program and how that
supports the attainment of national priorities.
Specifically, the board has argued that the full implementation
of this research grant program would ensure the continued benefits
of a high return to investment in agricultural research. It would
also encourage the participation of the entire science community in
agricultural work. At the same time, it provides flexibility in re-
sponse to utilizing new scientific discoveries and dealing with new
problems. Finally, it allows agricultural science to make contribu-
tions to other fields of endeavor. This happens fi-equently, and we
want to encourage that kind of cross-fertilization whenever we can.
The board was also quite specific about the way in which the
grants program should be run and the mechanisms by which the
research should be carried out. It identified four kinds of grants
which were important to working across fields in science as well as
within them. It sought — and these have subsequently been imple-
mented in the Department's program — grants that would be given
to individual principal investigators, which is the traditional way
of awarding competitive research money, but also — and this recog-
nizes the nature of agricultural problems — that multidisciplinary
teams ought to be awarded funding, and that there should be mul-
tidisciplinary teams that address not just basic research, but mis-
sion-oriented research, which is one of the important aspects of ag-
ricultural research which can often distinguish it from other fields
of science, at least in the Federal arena. Finally, it recognized that
the importance of the science infi-astructure, if you will, meant that
there would be cases in which we'd want to make strengthening
grants to individual institutions or scientists in recognition of the
need to increase their contribution to the national effort.
Now, the board is quite pleased that in spite of the difficulty of
finding Federal funds these days that the funding for the research
initiative is now at $97.5 million. But we recognize that it's not
where we would like it to be, since that's some distance from $500
million. While we don't want to be strictly bean counters about it,
we think that it represents a significant opportunity cost for the
Nation if we can't make the fiill investment in this program. We
are hopeful, however, that with the fiscal year 1994 budget, in
which agricultural research is recognized as an investment in
America's future, such a view of it will prevail. Then, we can look
forward to a higher level of funding and more benefits from this
program.
I want to add that the Board on Agriculture doesn't believe that
competitive grants should be the exclusive mechanism by which ag-
ricultural research is funded. It believes that expanding this pro-
gram restores or introduces balance into the portfolio of funding
mechanisms that we currently use at the Federal level. But, it rec-
ognizes that in many cases formula funding will be the appropriate
way to address long-term site-specific problems in agriculture, and
that on occasion special grants would be required to address, for
example, specific Federal needs. There were special grants made
over the past several years to fund work in UVB radiation, which
was important to supporting the Federal science effort in under-
standing global change.
25
So the board believes that there's a balance required among com-
petitively reviewed grants, formula funds, and, where appropriate,
individual special grants. The question of balance, of course, is the
most difficult one to resolve, but we're pleased to be here anyway
this morning to help you in making that determination.
If I could speak for a moment about a project that the board
hopes to begin soon, it concerns the future of the land-grant col-
leges of agriculture. Clearly, the competitive grants program is im-
portant, but if the board were only to worry about that, it would
be as if you built your house with the best quality nails you could
find and then didn't worry about the rest of the materials. So the
environment in which research is imdertaken, the resources avail-
able for research, teaching, and extension, which together charac-
terize the tripartite mission of the land-grant system, is also impor-
tant to the board.
I think there's a consensus in the land-grant community that it's
at a crossroads, that there are many difficult questions to be an-
swered, and that it's appropriate that the board, which has a long
history of trying to work with the community in furthering national
goals, come on the stage now to conduct a study of the future of
the land-grant system. The primary goal of the study is not to re-
duce the system to individual components or to be critical, except
in a very positive way, and that is to ensure the continued success
of the system in supporting this Nation's agriculture.
The study is conceived to have objectives which address the de-
scription of the system to gain an understanding of how we service
agriculture and consumers today. The study will analyze the col-
leges' role in providing instruction, performing research, and trans-
ferring technology. Ultimately, the expert study panel that we ap-
point will sjmthesize these findings in a way that permits colleges
to improve or adopt new methods of organization that really re-
spond to the situation today of constrained resources. We're taUdng
about the question, for example, of how colleges organize their re-
sources to get the job done, to achieve the mission of the land
grants and maintain agricultural productivity, with attention and
equal emphasis on quality natural resources and issues in
consumer food safety and quality.
In undertaking this study, though, the board recognizes that
none of the outcomes or findings of the study can be imposed by
Federal fiat. We have a decentralized system whose strength is in
the States. But there is an aspect in which there's a Federal inter-
est. The national perspective that the board has will, one, promote
technology transfer among colleges which are struggling to
reconfigure their institutions to meet the challenges of today. The
study will also have implications for the Federal-State partnership
which has existed since the late 1800's, including the conduct of the
formula grants, special grants, and probably also a revisit of the
role of competitive grants.
We are hopeful that we will start the study this summer. I think
it's worth pointing out that the National Research Council has com-
mitted more than $750,000 of its own fimds, of which there are
very few, to study this problem. I think it's probably a first in the
history of the National Academy of Sciences to commit such a large
26
amount of its own resources to agricultural science, but it under-
scores the importance to this Nation's prosperity.
We have worked closely with the Department of Agriculture to
have them be a partner. We have a commitment for some support
from the Department. It's a bit of a disappointment, because we
will necessarily reduce the scope of the study, which is unfortunate,
given the enthusiasm we have found in the system for it. But, like
everybody else, the National Research Council does the best with
what it has, and we are hopeful that in the near future, in the com-
ing years, we will be able to report to you on the findings of that
study.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Offutt appears at the conclusion
of the hearing.]
Mr. Stenholm. We thank each of you.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I apologize for being late, but I've read each of your statements.
Thank you very much for being here this morning.
Dr. Kloek, I was interested in particular in your thoughts about
reviewing the many contracts, the many research programs that
seem to have been proliferated around Government in the past
years without much organization. The Alar issue always comes to
mind as the great debacle. I wanted to ask you specifically if you
had thought about, in your program for a review panel, including
other agencies of Government research which impact agriculture
and, in addition, whether you would have thought about including
private research in an amalgamation of review.
Mr. Kloek. Yes, the board has discussed that. I'm not quite sure
how it would work with a review of both public and private re-
search. Certainly, the board has had a lot of discussions about
other agencies, and the Environmental Protection Agency is one
that comes up a lot since it does have an impact on American agri-
culture.
When the UAB developed its proposal for a national and com-
prehensive strategic plan, we knew many agencies in the Depart-
ment had strategic plans. The ARS has a very good one, for exam-
ple. But we're looking for something at a higher level. I think this
national strategic plan should be set by the Department of Agri-
culture, with input fi"om Congress, but it would certainly be our
hope that the plan would set a national priority so that other agen-
cies, like the Environmental Protection Agency, could use it as a
litmus test for their programs.
Mr. Smith. Well, let me take an example of the worst thing I can
think of, the Alar issue. In a hypothetical of what you have in
mind, let's assume that your national board was created and this
question on Alar came up. Would it be your thought that you would
look at the specifics of the research done on Alar and either rec-
ommend that it be reviewed or that it be endorsed or that it be
supported or that it be denied?
Mr. Kloek. I want to keep a couple of things straight here. The
board we're proposing is limited to a review and evaluation of fa-
cilities. The strategic plan, however, would certainly be something
that could influence what you're talking about. As an example, in
27
its 1989 report, which was written about the time of the Alar scare,
the UAB pointed out that while trace amounts of pesticides and
toxic chemicals in food may be of concern, the more traditional
kinds of food safety issues — pathogens and microbial toxins — re-
mained very important issues. Of course, events just recently with
the E. coli episode in the Pacific Northwest bore that out.
I would think that the strategy would be to set a kind of balance
so when you're looking at food safety there would be a balance be-
tween what we're looking at in terms of trace levels of pesticides
in food and, in an acute sense, anyway, more important things of
microbial contamination. So when research funds came to be allo-
cated, that balance would be reflected from the strategic plan.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Mr. Stenholm. Mr. Dooley.
Mr. Dooley. Mr. Chairman, I'd ask unanimous consent — I have
a statement that I'd like to have entered into the record.
Mr. Stenholm. Without objection, your prepared statement will
appear in the record at the beginning of the hearing.
Mr. Dooley. I guess a lot of us are concerned, and I know the
chairman has talked about it at times, too, when we're in this era
of declining budgets, and certainly agriculture is going to be facing
more challenges than most any other Department, it really is a
challenge to the sector and certainly our researchers to develop the
tools to allow us to maintain our competitiveness, and certainly the
only way we're going to maintain that is by being on the leading
edge of technology.
We've got to continue along the path of increased investment in
some of the biotech and the biogenetics, which are going to allow
us to be that low-cost competitor, but also there's, I think, an in-
creased frustration with farmers out there that we're not giving
enough attention to the application of some of the basic research
and the research that's done at some of our many fine institutions.
I guess in that area is where I hope that we'll see increased focus
given to some of the practical applications and applied research
and even working with some of the programs that were a part of
the 1990 farm bill — the AARC program, the alternative agricul-
tural research and commercialization — trying to find different uses
for a lot of our basic commodities that can expand the market op-
portunities for many of our producers out there.
My question is, in the different capacities that some of you serve
in, how are these decisions made given that you have limited re-
sources? How do you decide the mix between what you're providing
for basic research versus some of the applied? Maybe it's not an ap-
propriate question.
Mr. Savage. I think within the university community, the em-
phasis is on basic research. There is a desire, or at least lip service,
to encourage or think well of applied research, but the incentive
structure in academia is basic research.
Mr. Dooley. But even from a university perspective, do you see
a deficiency in the transmitting of that basic research into actual
benefits to the ag sector? I mean, that's what I'm concerned about.
We see a lot of great things that come out of our universities, but
they don't necessarily ever materialize and manifest themselves in
real benefits.
28
Mr. Savage. Universities really aren't structured or, like I say,
the incentive system — and this applies not just to agriculture, but
in other areas, too, there's been a great deal of concern about talk-
ing university research and having it transmitted through tech-
nology transfer in other areas, and it's not something that the uni-
versity thinks about. I'm using this as sort of a reified concept, but
the incentive structure really is for the basic research with the as-
sumption that, through the diffusion of knowledge, the private sec-
tor will take these issues up and develop them. There's a real prob-
lem, and this is not only in agriculture, but it's in other areas as
well.
Mr. DOOLEY. Yes. I guess the comment that the university
doesn't really think about that, I know that was probably an over-
statement, but I guess that's where the real concern is. Maybe we
have to give more attention to the universities also as part of their
charge to be responsible for finding ways to build public-private
partnerships to get the research out to the industry, whether it be
ag or whatever else, so it can be applied.
Mr. Savage. I think there are efforts to set up new organiza-
tional structures that would try to bring this about.
Mr. DoOLEY. This is a little more specific. When we have an in-
stance such as what is going to be the elimination of methyl bro-
mide, which is a real important product that's used in agriculture,
and there really at this time isn't an alternative, how do we ensure
that some of our Federal dollars are being utilized in a manner to
help the private sector as well as the public sector develop an alter-
native or encourage research in that area? How does that happen,
or is it happening?
Ms. Offutt. Right now I'm aware of the fact that the Depart-
ment of Agriculture is trying to structure a research plan to find
alternatives for methyl bromide. It will be a few years before it's
taken off the market, and so that's one step. The board is working
with the global change program in ARS to make sure that we get
science together to support that effort. In the case of methyl bro-
mide, you had a legislative imperative coming out of the Clean Air
Act, so you could organize around that principle.
I would also, if I could, mention in regard to your earlier ques-
tion about this translation of basic to applied research, that the
next panel actually consists of people who make those operational
decisions every day. It's also fair to say that the strength of the ag-
ricultural research system has been its ability to translate basic to
applied, and the concerns that the board has when it proposes com-
petitive research grants is how to take a new science, molecular ge-
netics, and continue in that tradition.
We hope that by establishing these multidisciplinary research
teams, for example, that you get a better feel for the applied prob-
lem that a farmer will face in the field, that a molecular geneticist
by himself or herself can't imagine what kinds of conditions will be
encountered out in the field. You need plant breeders, you need
people who understand soil science, and so on and so forth.
We're all struggling with how to make sure that the system is
going to be effective in the future.
Mr. Kloek. The comment I'd make on technology transfer is
that's an area where we've seen the Agricultural Research Service
29
change and improve a lot over the last few years. The ARS has be-
come much more conscious about their need to cash some of this
technology out there in the public sector. They are saying, "we've
made this public investment in it, and now to really cash it, we've
got to get it out there and get people using it." I think they've es-
tablished more CRADA's than any other Federal agency and are
working through a lot of different ways to transfer the technology
to the private sector.
So if universities or other people are looking for a model to do
that, I think they should go talk to ARS. They're doing a pretty
good job of that.
Mr. DOOLEY. Thank you.
Mr. Stenholm. Mr. Allard.
Mr. Allard. Dr. Savage, you had a lot to say about earmarking
in your testimony. Do you think it would be appropriate to have
a peer review before we go through the appropriations process
where earmarking occurs?
Mr. Savage. If you're going to have earmarking, there needs to
be some sort of evaluation of it before and after, and that's one of
the big problems. I've seen this work, I've participated in it, and
what happens is that some researcher has an idea, gets the univer-
sity to sponsor it, and the university administration is often sort
of passive in this process because they don't know the science in-
volved in it, but they go ahead because they want to satisfy the re-
searcher, and they bring it to a member who wants to help out the
university. There's a proposal usually attached to this, but there's
no up-front evaluation of how good this is. There's little or no seri-
ous evaluation after the project has occurred.
If you're going to have earmarking, then certainly some sort of
process to determine whether or not this is good science is appro-
priate, but it also has to be a serious review, because, quite frank-
ly, the evaluations that have occurred are very lukewarm because
the agencies are afraid of antagonizing Members of Congress.
Mr. Allard. Do you have any thoughts about whether formula
funding or just strictly competitive bidding for research is the best
way to go, or do we need a combination?
Mr. Savage. I think the combination has worked reasonably
well. The issue is, again, whether it's a formula or not or whatever
the process is, there has to be some sort of serious process that
evaluates whether or not the taxpayer's dollar has been used well
and what is the outcome. If an institution or researchers have not
been putting those dollars to work in a proper fashion that's useful,
then there should be some mechanism of cutting that off.
Mr. Allard. I guess with formula funding, we're making an as-
sumption that if you're in an area that has more agriculture in it,
there would be more agricultural need for research. That's sort of
the basic underlying assumption, I would assume. It doesn't nec-
essarily reflect the quality or the ability of those researchers to do
that research, and I wish you'd address that a little bit.
Mr. Savage. What you've got basically is an entitlement, and
you're saying, "You should get this because of past practices or per-
haps because you have so many people in the agricultural area in
your State" or something. It's an entitlement that doesn't provide
for serious merit review, and you could do that for any area. Sup-
68-792 - 93 - 2
30
pose the National Science Foundation's funds were distributed on
a formula basis. The problem is you just don't have the determina-
tion of whether or not this is good science in a rigorous process.
Mr. Allard. Dr. Offutt, you talked a little bit about this area on
formula funding and competitive research. What is your thinking?
Should we go strictly competitive based on the ability to do re-
search and do away with formula and earmarking, or is it appro-
priate to have a mix?
Ms. Offutt. Well, the board believes it's appropriate to have a
mix, which is the answer which is most difficult to implement, un-
fortunately.
Mr. Allard. Yes.
Ms. Offutt. But one of the things that the board wants to con-
sider is what the role of formula funding should be. It exists be-
cause there are geographical site-specific problems in agriculture
that still, even though we know a lot more about basic science than
we used to, need to be addressed in situ. There are mechanisms for
quality control. I think we can talk about whether or not the/re
adequate. But the premise is that agriculture is not like other en-
deavors, like ball bearing manufacturing, because you've got to do
what the longitude and latitude allow you.
The appropriate mix is a more difficult question. The introduc-
tion of the competitive grants program and the impetus for increas-
ing that was the board's feeling that that was an area that didn't
get enough emphasis. Really the proof is in the pudding. We need
to have very good systems of evaluation to see that a mix is provid-
ing what we need. It's not inconceivable that as science changed,
you might want to change the mix. It's also not inconceivable that
the formulas that we use to grant funding, which are now 130
years old, might not need to be reconsidered. I think it's safe to ask
the question.
Mr. Allard. So the basic premise on the formula funding is that
we have different geographic areas that have different needs as far
as agriculture, and we don't want one geographic or one area of ag-
riculture neglected because of perhaps some geographic and cli-
matic conditions and whatnot.
Ms. Offutt. Yes, it's the site specificity, but it's also the recogni-
tion that a lot of agricultural research has to be carried on over a
long period of time. I was on the faculty at the University of Illinois
where the Morrow plots have been continuously studied, the com
and soybean plots, for over 100 years. You get a lot of information
if you have the security of that long-term funding.
Mr. Allard. My time is beginning to run out. I'd like to have
each of you at the table submit in writing to this subcommittee
some specific recommendations on what we can be doing in the
1995 farm bill to rectify some of the problems that you've talked
about here today, if you would, please.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stenholm. Ms. Lambert.
Ms. Lambert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
witnesses for their testimony today.
Coming fi-om a State where we have one of the earlier land-grant
colleges, the University of Arkansas, and some tremendous studies
going on as far as our workings in the new rice germ plasma center
31
and the fish experiment station, all of which come under the head-
ing of many different departments and the influence of those dif-
ferent departments, and they do fit within the categories of what
we are most prevalent with in the delta — rice and fish farming —
it's interesting, and I'd like to ask Dr. Offutt, we talk about the
input or the exchange between public and private and the need to
get the knowledge out to the farmers, to the private people, and as
we talk about a lot recently streamlining, reorganization, and some
of the other areas where we want to make the services of USDA
and other agencies more farmer-firiendly and user-friendly, is there
room perhaps for a closer marriage between the different public en-
tities, whether it be the land-grant colleges and the universities as
well as the different departments that are involved in the research
centers that we have, to be able to collaborate and work more close-
ly together, again, hopefully being more cost-effective and working
a little bit closer as far as the different agencies are concerned?
Has that been addressed?
Ms. Offutt. Well, clearly, the feeling that those kinds of gains
in efficiency would be possible by reorganizing how agencies and
institutions relate to each other was really behind what the board
wanted to consider in a study of the land-grant colleges. Many of
these colleges work, as you know, with funding from EPA, from
DOE, from NSF, from NIH. So really they're not as parochial as
the titles might sound at all, and there is much anecdotal evidence
for successful collaborations set up along nontraditional lines, ei-
ther between States, for example, or between colleges and other
parts of a university. We are hopeful that by taking the national
perspective, we'll be able to identify those kinds of collaborations
that might work in a number of settings.
So I think the potential is there, and I would encourage you to
ask the next panel this question as well, because the/re the ones
who have many centers and universities to work with. They would
have a good perspective.
Ms. Lambert. Thank you.
I jdeld back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stenholm. Mr. Gunderson.
Mr. Gunderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all. I might be asking some very broad questions here,
but I would like to get your comments on them. I'm hesitant to do
this, because whenever you bring up some of these buzz words, you
have an avalanche of reactions. I've experienced that in my years
on dealing with ag research.
But I wonder if there isn't a real disconnect in ag research in
this coxintry right now. As I was listening to you all and reading
your testimonies, it seems to me that there is a real disconnect be-
tween those who are doing the basic research and those who are
really on the cutting edge of new technology in agricultural
sciences. Probably I'm wrong, but if perception is reality, and I
think it is, I have to tell you that perception's out there. I think
there is a disconnect as well between what the publics do in basic
research and what the privates are doing.
I think, third, there's a disconnect between academic research
initiatives and, frankly, what the public wants, and I just get the
feeling that the frustration each of you has echoed in a different
32
way in your report is because we've got a real schism developing
in our country between the traditions of ag research which we have
had, God knows, since land-grant colleges stsirted and what is hap-
pening out there in the day-to-day realities of agribusiness and
that whole area.
I look at yoiir statements, and I can't disagree with you that we
ought to have a national facilities plan, but I've got to tell you, if
a national faciUties plan means we're going to spend money just on
land-grant colleges and giving them new, fancy institutions and
we're not going to let anybody else iuto this ag research area, I
think I'm opposed to that.
I understand your concern about competitive grants, but part of
the reason, obviously, the Congress has gone to competitive grants
is because we're increasingly uncomfortable with the results we're
getting from formula grants.
I certainly agree, Dr. Savage, with your statement on earmark-
ing, and yet, while earmarking might be half political, I've got to
tell you I think the other half is congressional ftnstration that we
don't have any results for all the money we spent.
So there seems to be, I think, a disconnect at least between you
in the profession and some of us on this panel. I know there's a
bigger disconnect, frankly, between you and academic research and
those in agriculture in this country.
I've raised a lot of questions, and, frankly, I hope some of them
were at least challenging, if not disturbing, but I'm not sure where
all this leads us. Do you have any advice for us?
Ms. Offutt. As I said, the Board on Agriculture has been par-
ticularly concerned with this competitive grants area, which has
turned out, if you look at the ag research budget, to be the most
dynamic aspect in terms of a few gains in funding levels at the
margin. What that modest success has apparently engendered is a
focus of this controversy about what basic science is supposed to do
and what farmers or groups of farmers might want on the question
of how you allocate research doUars.
The board has discussed the idea of perhaps trying to get this
dialog out in the open so we can try and understand the kinds of
issues that you've raised. It's not obvious to everyone, and there's
no reason it should be, how molecular genetics is going to help
water quality, but the linkage is there in that program.
The board has spent some time talking to the chief scientists at
the competitive grants program and also to the people who have
been here to the Hill about how we might try and better define
what concerns are and how the mechanisms really address them.
Mr. GUNDERSON. Any comments from the other two?
Mr. Kloek. I guess I'd make a comment on a small part of that
in terms of your disconnect. You commented on the perception of
a disconnect between the applied research and the basic research.
Close to half of the people who serve on the board are actively en-
gaged in farming, either as their sole source of support or a signifi-
cant part of it. In talking to those UAB members, I would conclude
they don't see that disconnect. For example, we have a dairy farm-
er and he understands what the bST issues are, what it is and
where it comes from. Other UAB farmers understand transgenic
33
plants, why this research is important and ultimately may have an
impact on their profitability.
So it's been my experience that, if you go talk to the farmers and
ranchers on our board, they don't see that disconnect.
Mr. Savage. I guess my response would be that there has to be
a serious xinderstanding of what institutions are capable of, and
one of the concerns that Members of Congress have about academia
in general in a lot of areas is, how does it take basic research and
transfer it? What is its responsibility? Some expectations may be
out of line or are going to be unfulfilled because of what institu-
tions are about, and you have to think in your legislation what
other kinds of institutional processes might be available, what kind
of intermediary associations. It might be between institutions that
stress and reward basic research as opposed to the needs of the pri-
vate sector.
I want to go back to the comment about the formula funding, and
I think that basically what you're ending up with is a nondirected
entitlement program. If you have particular problems, then you
need to target them in your legislation.
If I could just say one thing about earmarking, it is a symptom
of frustration, but you have to recognize what it does to create
harm in its outcome and the fact that very few institutions partici-
pate in this process and that there's no determination of how these
funds are used. What is the response to the taxpayer?
Mr. GUNDERSON. Just 30 seconds, because my time is up. I have
to tell you that I desperately wish you and everybody who's testify-
ing today would have come in here with a 21st century research
plan. I've skimmed over your testimony and that to follow. It's pret-
ty much protecting business as usual, and I think that's disappoint-
ing, and I think that's probably part of the disconnect.
I mean, whether we like it or not, whether it be in education, ag-
riculture, the military, or health care, we've got to break the mold.
I mean, business as usual doesn't cut it. It doesn't cut it with con-
gressional appropriations, it doesn't cut it with public confidence,
and I don't think it cuts it in terms of outcomes. In 1993 we ought
to be doing something much more bolder than your testimonies ad-
vise. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stenholm. We've got another one of those important votes
that is going to take us away from here in just a moment. Talk
about disconnects around here. We've got them. But, anyway, let
me ask a couple of questions before we have to go vote.
Dr. Kloek, you mentioned in your statement that you had written
Senator Byrd on behalf of the UAB in 1991, expressing your dis-
appointment that the Agricultural Research Facilities Planning
and Closure Study Commission, which was patterned after the
base-closing study that has been relatively successful in helping us
deal with a very difficult situation in the military had not been
funded. What was the answer you got?
Mr. Kloek. None, I'm told. We did not get a response to that let-
ter.
Mr, Stenholm. So the Appropriations Committee chose to basi-
cally ignore your recommendation to fund what has been author-
34
ized, an in-depth study looking into this particular question, as far
as you know?
Mr. Kloek. Well, what I know is that they didn't respond to our
letter. I don't know if they ignored it or not.
Mr. Stenholm. How about Dr. Savage, Dr. Offutt? What's your
opinion of the Agricultural Research Facilities Pleinning and Clo-
sure Study Commission that was recommended in 1990? Is that a
good idea, or should we go back to the drawing board and make
another recommendation?
Ms. Offutt. Well, whatever mechanism you use, it's certainly
appropriate to ask whether the physical infrastructure fits the na-
ture of the work you need to do. We know from earlier studies by
the National Science Foundation that agricultural research facili-
ties are very old and that this can create a problem in doing cer-
tain kinds of new science. So any kind of a systematic evaluation
of what you've got sitting on the ground compared to what you
have to do is useful. The question of how you got that done would
have as much to do with the nature of the agreements that have
to be made up here as anything.
Mr. Stenholm. No, I imderstand that. I understand the politics
of it. What I'm getting at is my colleague from Wisconsin's question
and chastising somewhat you and everyone else that comes before
our committee, as I understood what he was saying. What I'm ask-
ing for is. Dr. Kloek obviously recommends that it was a good idea.
Do you agree with something along that line?
Ms. Offutt. Yes.
Mr. Stenholm. And my question was, if not that, what?
Dr. Savage.
Mr. Savage. I don't have a particular opinion on the issue. I
don't have an opinion on that matter.
Mr. Stenholm. In the interest of time, I've got several other
questions that I'm going to submit to you in writing.
Dr. Savage, why do you feel personally that there has been an
increase in esirmarks over the last 12 years? What has caused this?
Mr. Savage. I think that there's a breakdown in agreement
among academic institutions that this in fact is a wrong practice,
and that one institution sees another institution doing it and they
go after it. There's a breakdown within the community. There's also
a general sense that facilities are deteriorating and that something
needs to be done. I'm not sure this is always well-expressed in
terms of why the Federal Government should do this and what the
Federsil Government's responsibility should be, but there is that
sense that the Federal Government does have this relationship and
that there should be some sort of funding. And there's just a very
strong needs-based concern here where other sources of funding —
private. State — are drying up. State budgets are having very dif-
ficult times, and people look to the Federal Government for these
kinds of solutions. So there are a number of reasons.
Mr. Stenholm. Can each of you stay for a few more minutes?
Will your schedules permit you to? If you have a problem, I'll ex-
cuse you, but if not, I'd like to ask you — we'll go vote and be back
in about 5 or 10 minutes.
Mr. Kloek. Mr. Chairman, I have a plane to catch.
35
Mr. Stenholm. Then you will be excused. Well submit questions
to you in writing, Dr. Kloek.
Mr. Kloek. Thank you.
Mr. Stenholm. Thank you for being here, and we will be con-
tacting you further. Thank you.
We'll stand in recess for about 10 minutes.
[Recess taken.]
Mr. Stenholm. The subcommittee will come to order.
Dr. Offutt, some individuals advocate a more regional approach
to the distribution of formula funding. Are the present efforts made
on these lines adequate, or could they be increased?
Ms. Offutt. The board believes that there is probably the poten-
tial to increase the use of regional funding for agriculture. Right
now, as you know, the formula research funds have a mechanism
for funding regional research specifically, and one of the things
we'd like to do in the study is look at the base of agriculture re-
gionally and see how you might expand the use of regional mecha-
nisms.
I was in Madison, Monday and Tuesday, and before that I had
been down in Illinois, and one of the questions that came up, for
example, is who should do dairy science work in the Upper Mid-
west. That's the kind of thing that you'd like to address. You'd like
to know how many dairy cows there are and where they are and
how that fits with the research structure.
So, yes, we think that there are probably great opportunities for
that kind of collaboration.
Mr. Stenholm. Dr. Savage, did you have a comment on that?
Mr. Savage. No, sir.
Mr. Stenholm. I want to take another run at the whole question
of competitive grants. Should all grants be competitive and peer re-
viewed, or are there unique and special circumstances that would
justify a grant from the U.S. Government to an entity without peer
review and without benefit of competition?
Dr. Offutt.
Ms. Offutt. Yes, I think there are. The example I gave of the
work on UVB radiation was a case in which the Federal Govern-
ment has a policy or an interest in global change research and
needed a specific kind of information to support our treaty commit-
ments, and it's essentially a contract. It's like procurement for the
Government, and that's a case in which implicitly, I suppose, you
can say that peer review is performed when you let the contract.
You look for the people to do the work, but it's not peer reviewed
in the traditional sense.
So, yes, I think that's clearly a place, when there's a national pri-
ority or a need that needs to be filled very specifically, that you
would not use peer review.
Mr. Stenholm. Can you think of an example in agriculture?
Now, that's one in which clearly the national interest is under re-
view. Can you think of an example in agricultural-related activities
in which a grant should be made without benefit of peer review or
without benefit of competition?
Ms. Offutt. Well, again, the formula fiinds are not peer re-
viewed the way the competitive grants are, but there's review with-
36
in a station, for example, of how to allocate dollars. So there's some
kind of quality control there.
Again, we can argue about how good the quahty control is, but
I thmk the basic premise of the formula funding, that there's a site
specificity and a long-term element to ag research that distin-
guishes it irom other endeavors, says that you might not want to
have the same kind of peer review that you do with the competitive
grants program.
Mr. Stenholm. Dr. Savage.
Mr. Savage. I think it's important to remember what competitive
peer review and merit review mean. The term "merit review" was
used instead of "peer review" after a while for political reasons, but
the idea behind it was that there are any number of possible con-
siderations, whether they be regional concerns, helping out particu-
lar regions, whether it be helping out, say, minority and female re-
searchers, any sort of particular concerns in addition to, say, pure
scientific merit, that could be identified. The point, though, of merit
research broadly based is the idea that there is a review of all
these different criteria that could be used to determine whether or
not a particular entity should receive Federal funding.
So given that notion of merit review where there are any number
of considerations that can be employed, as long as the^re up-front
evaluated, that would certainly clearly be my preference.
I thinJk that earmarking in general reflects, on one hand, a very
legitimate and constitutional right of the Congress, the legislative
branch, to review the activities of the executive branch. The execu-
tive branch doesn't always use peer review, doesn't always use
merit review. So sometimes things are included in the Federal
budget proposal that in fact are the equivalent of executive ear-
marks, and sometimes maybe you need congressional earmarks to
counter that practice. Just because it's in the President's proposal
doesn't mean it's been merit reviewed. So I think as a legitimate
counter, that's one consideration.
Mr. Stenholm. If we were going to have a more accoimtable peer
review for Congress in competitive grants, should we not apply the
same criteria, the same accountability to anything that USDA
might do?
Mr. Savage. I would agree.
Mr. Stenholm. My final question to both of you. Based on your
intimate knowledge of the subject that we're talking about, my
question is on accountability. On a scale of 1 to 10 on agricultural
research, on accountabiUty, if you were seated where the five of us
are seated, having voted taxpayer funds for the research, on a scale
of 1 to 10, how would you rate the accountabihty, the process
whereby the fluids that are expended are accoimted back to the
Congress?
Mr. Savage. Which funds in particular?
Mr. Stenholm. Any funding that is available. If you want to
make a differentiation, do so. But I'm talking in general, all dollars
expended for agricultural research purposes.
Mr. Savage. I'd probably give it about a three, four maybe.
Mr. Stenholm. Dr. Offiitt.
Ms. Offutt. I think it deflnitely gets a higher mark than that.
It's probably somewhere on toward five or six, I think, the question
37
of accountability. We have a lot of reporting in this system, and I
know you probably have seen a lot of those documents. So if you
measured accountability in terms of paper received
Mr. Stenholm. I hope we don't do that.
Ms. Offutt. I think it would be good to change the definition,
because you might get a different score.
Mr. Stenholm. Thank you.
Do any other members have questions? Mr. Kingston. Mr. Volk-
mer.
Mr. Kingston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to kind of ask that question again, maybe modifying
it slightly. Are we getting our money's worth? If you were the one
writing the check, would you continue writing it at current levels?
What is your assessment of that? I mean, is it all spent very, very
well, or half of it is and some of it isn't?
Ms. Offutt. In general, the returns to what is about $1.5 billion
of Federal money in ag research, the calculation of the returns to
that research are in excess of 20, 30 percent, some as high as 175
percent. The point is that as public investments go, agricultural re-
search is a very good deal. That's not to say that there aren't dol-
lars that we could reallocate that would even increase that invest-
ment, which is what we really ought to do. It's not sufficient to say
it's very high. If we could increase it, we should.
So, yes, it's a good investment now, and I think the question is,
how much better could we make it? But most of the empirical work
that tries to measure this — admittedly, it's difficult — shows very
high rates of return to public investment in agricultural research.
Mr. Kingston. Let me ask before Dr. Savage answers, if he
wants to, do you have specific recommendations on those areas that
we could get a higher yield, higher return on? And I apologize, you
may have already spent an hour talking about those. Do we have
something in the record that would be along those lines?
Ms. Offutt. I can provide the board's recommendations about
how to allocate money across these six categories of national prior-
ities, yes. We can provide that.
Mr. Kingston. Thank you.
Mr. Savage. One of the reasons I gave a lower mark is because
what you do have — agriculture is really unique amongst Federal
research programs. One can make the claim, and researchers do,
that they need long-term stability in their funding for biomedical
research, for engineering research, for social science research, that
we need to have data bases over a long period of time, and that,
therefore, they should have formula-based funds for those. But ag-
riculture is relatively unique, and it means that if you don't have
competitive-based funding, then your ability to determine quality
and evaluate it on a regular and fair basis is lessened.
So when you have a particular aspect of Federal programs,
meaning agriculture, where so much of it is earmarked, so much
of it is formula-driven, you're just not going to get the same nec-
essary evaluation as other areas of federally funded research. So
that's why I would give agriculture somewhat of a lower mark in
perhaps some other areas. But simply because you put money in,
you don't necessarily get an output. For example, one of the highest
federally funded programs is the Cancer Institute, but there are a
38
lot of people who would say, "Well, we haven't cured cancer, have
we? Wnhiat are the processes?" I've heard Chairman Natcher go on
about this, too.
So there's a difference between — ^you're always going to have an
outcome, but at least you should have an evaluation process that
says, **^Aniat we do do is the very best we can do, given human limi-
tations."
Mr. Kingston. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stenholm. Mr. Volkmer.
Mr. Volkmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to start off
with, in agricultural research, where are most of the funds? In
other words, we have ARS, we have formula grants, we have com-
petitive grants, and we have earmarked funds. Who gets most of
the money?
Ms. Offutt. You mean in terms of the agencies to which it is
appropriated?
Mr. Volkmer. No. I'm talking between Agricultural Research
Service, formula grants, competitive grants, and earmarked funds.
If I put those all in a pot, who has the highest percentage of it?
Ms. Offutt. I'm not current on the budget numbers. My recollec-
tion would be that the Agricultural Research Service would be ap-
propriated at least one-half of those funds.
Mr. Volkmer. That's right. ARS gets most of the funding.
Ms. Offutt. Yes.
Mr. Volkmer. And who does a peer review on ARS?
Ms. Offutt. I am not in a position to answer about the ARS pro-
cedures on peer review. I don't have direct knowledge of that.
Mr. Volkmer. I don't think there is any.
Mr. Savage. Let me answer your question
Mr. Volkmer. I mean, it's the people in-house that make the de-
termination as to what research
Ms. Offutt. There are reviews of ARS projects.
Mr. Volkmer. Pardon?
Ms. Offutt. There are reviews of ARS projects, certainly, based
on the merits of the project and how it relates to national goals.
Mr. Volkmer. By whom?
Ms. Offutt. Again, my understanding is that it would be by the
Agricultural Research Service scientists. The extent of outside par-
ticipation, I can't speak to. Perhaps our next panel could, but I
don't have direct knowledge that's useful about this.
Mr. Volkmer. Well, you see, we get criticized for what the Con-
gress does on earmarked funds because basically there's no peer re-
view, and even on some, like one that I'm familiar with, they have
in-house peer review to determine what projects they will fund
among the 18 or so xiniversities out in Arkansas and stuff and set
up out through the Midwest, and that's still criticized because
that's in-house peer review, but yet the largest funds that go out
in Agricultural Research Service, ARS does not have, as far as I
know, outside peer review to determine whether or not those
projects are worthwhile, that's what we need for the future in agri-
cultiu-e, and that they are actually accomplishing what they pro-
pose to do in the rese£u*ch. It's all done in-house.
39
Now, that hasn't necessarily worked bad. I'm not necessarily
criticizing it, but I want you to think about it when you criticize
other things just because they don't have peer review.
Mr. Savage. If I can address your question, sir, first of all, in
terms of who gets what, in terms of earmarked fiinds, for fiscal
year 1992 there are about $146 million. Ten schools received one-
half of those funds.
In terms of whether ARS peer reviews, as I indicated to the
chairman, there are many executive programs. Just because it's in
the Federal budget proposal by the President does not mean it's
been peer reviewed. I think that the question of competitiveness
and merit review should be extended to all Federal programs. That
would be my position. So if you're critical of ARS because they're
not merit reviewed, then I think your criticism
Mr. VOLKMER. I'm not critical. I'm just raising a point. I don't
think that you can say that ARS hasn't done good agricultural re-
search in the years that they have. I think they have. I'm just try-
ing to point out that just because you have peer review doesn't
mean, in my opinion, that you have good research, and just because
you don't have peer review doesn't mean you don't have good re-
search. That's what I'm trying to point out to you.
I'll go one step further. As I've toured my district over the many
years, and I've been in the Congress 16 years, you know the only
complaints that I've had are about research? You know where it
came fi^om? You know who funded it? NSF. Some of their grants
about flies and about pigeons and things like that that get written
up in Reader's Digest and places, but I get criticized for. I've yet
to hear a criticism for an agricultural reseau-ch project.
NSF's peer reviewed. Correct?
Mr. Savage. Golden Fleece Award.
Mr. VOLKMER. All right. Now, what do we do about projects that
some of us here in the Congress think are very worthwhile that are
not eligible for competitive grants or formula grants and ARS
doesn't do them? What do we do?
Mr. Savage. I think that what you do is you work with the insti-
tution or the researcher and that you encourage the program itself
to recognize those kinds of projects. The project might not get fund-
ed in the immediate year, but over time, if the program is broad-
ened to encompass that kind of research, it eventually will be fund-
ed.
Mr. VOLKMER. I have to persuade the bureaucracy to enlarge
competitive grants to include it and let them compete on an area
in which the people in the bureaucracy don't think is appropriate,
and I do.
Mr. Savage. You can do that legislatively, yes.
Mr. VOLKMER. Pardon?
Mr. Savage. You can do that legislatively, yes.
Mr. VoLKMER. Yes. So then instead of earmarking the funds, I
earmark what the/re going to do with the money.
Mr. Savage. But you do that already through authorizations.
Mr. Volkmer. Yes. In a broad outline, that's correct. Well, maybe
I can get on my soap box just a little bit more. If you know, where
did we have the problems in use of funds for facilities rather than
research and for operational costs that some of us thought were
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.
41
STATEMENT OF DAVID G. TOPEL, DEAN, COLLEGE OF AGRI-
CULTURE, IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY, AND CHAIRMAN,
BOARD ON AGRICULTURE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
STATE UNIVERSITIES AND LAND-GRANT COLLEGES
Mr. ToPEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's indeed an honor to be
with you this morning. My name is Dave Topel, and I'm pleased
to provide testimony on behalf of the National Association of State
Universities and Land-Grant Colleges Board on Agriculture. The
board is composed of representatives from agricultural experiment
stations, cooperative extension, agricultural international pro-
grams, academic programs, the Council of Administrative Heads of
Agriculture, 1890 universities, research and extension, forestry,
home economics, and veterinary boards from the Commission on
Food, Environment, and Renewable Resources.
Some of the colleagues on our board could not be with us today,
and I'd like to present you with written testimony from Peter
Magrath, Monika Escher, Barbara Stowe, and Tom Vaughan.
Monika represents the international programs; Barbara, home eco-
nomics; and Tom Vaiighan, veterinary medicine. Dr. Magrath is
president of NASULGC, and due to schedule conflicts, he could not
be with us. He's sorry that he could not participate today, but he
has prepared a written statement that we d like to submit in testi-
mony.
Mr. Stenholm. Without objection, their prepared statements will
appear in the record.
Mr. ToPEL. Thank you.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Magrath, Ms. Escher, Ms.
Stowe, and Mr. Vaughan appear at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. ToPEL. The NASULGC Board on Agriculture is pleased to
participate in the hearings on USDA priorities for research and
education and offers its full cooperation and expertise to the proc-
ess. The board views the testimony process as an opportunity to
strengthen and improve the Federal Government-university model
of interaction and collaboration which has proven so successful over
the past 130 yesirs. It is a unique model and is envied worldwide,
but it can and should be modernized to meet changing world condi-
tions. The Secretar/s call for a science-based USDA emphasizes
again the contributions of the Federal-imiversity partnership in
science and education, which has promoted competitiveness, en-
hanced rural development, and improved safety and wholesome-
ness of the U.S. food supply.
The unique Federal-State partnership was bonded together by
sharing financial responsibilities by formula funding. The success
of the land-grant university system in the 21st century will depend
on the success of that financial bonding between Federal £uid State
sources. Base funding for future programs in land-grant univer-
sities is essential. A balance, of course, between base funding, for-
mula funding, special grants, and competitive grants is important
as a new foundation is established for the land-grant university
systems in research and education.
The basic science and education functions of the USDA— -re-
search, extension, and education — merit close attention, and prior-
ities for each division should be coordinated by one agency for im-
proved efficiency and a more effective dehvery system. In the new
42
world economy, competitive advantages for the United States will
depend on maintenance and enhancement of our ability to generate
and use science, technology, and education. Because of the long his-
tory of USDA in these areas, future priorities should build on these
advantages.
I'd like to share witih you a few examples. American agriculture
must continue to lead the world in adoption of science and tech-
nology in order for the American public to enjoy continued benefits,
and the American economy to prosper. You cannot have a strong
Nation without a stable food supply. You understand that as mem-
bers of this conmiittee, but nuUions of Americans take this for
granted.
A better trained and educated workforce must occupy a high pri-
ority in rebuilding rural America. We must introduce improved
methods for rapid technology transfer to rural America, methods
such as improved fiber optics networks and improved satellite net-
works where we can transfer technology fi-om the universities and
technology centers to the homes of farmers, to the offices of agri-
businesses aroiuid the country and, for that matter, around the
world.
There must be an increased role of the USDA in undergraduate,
graduate, nonformal, and extension education to address the spe-
ciaUzed needs of agriculture, natural resources, and family and
consumer affairs. We need improved distance learning programs for
agriculture, programs that wiU allow farmers and other agri-
business leaders to take courses for credit so they can work on ad-
vanced degrees while continuing their full-time employment.
We need increased interaction and collaboration between science
and education communities and USDA agencies, such as Human
Nutrition Information Service, Soil Conservation Service, Farmers
Home Administration, Forest Service, National Ag Library, Food
Safety and Inspection Serv7.ce. Linkages between these units and
the land-grant university system is essential. The National Ag Li-
brary could take on this project and connect these units more effec-
tively through computer networks and related areas.
Continued and enhanced collaboration with other Federal agen-
cies and Departments outside of USDA, such as EPA, Energy, Inte-
rior, HHS, Commerce, Labor, NIH, and NSF, is essential, and we
need to capitalize on these cooperative ventures between scientific
communities.
In Ught of the above, and with particular attention to the oppor-
tunities and mandates emerging throughout Government, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, as it relates to the science and edu-
cation agencies and the land-grant university system, should take
note of the following principles when establishing new priorities.
Now more than ever, there is a need to retain flexibility for
change and focus on enhancing the ability of the Department to an-
ticipate and respond to critical issues in a timely manner. In order
to anticipate critical issues in a timely manner, it is important to
have input fi-om grassroots organizations, such as the Council for
Agriculture Research, Extension, and Teaching. Bob Guernsey is
past chair of this council and will report his thoughts to you during
his testimony.
43
Extension, research, £ind education efforts of the USDA should
emphasize rural development and revitalization as well as an envi-
ronmentally sound and internationally competitive production agri-
culture. The USDA-land-grant university partnership must now re-
spond to the greater and more complex issues of agriculture, envi-
ronment, and social/economic rural infrastructure. We should ex-
pand our traditional resource base and work directly with profes-
sional organizations and individuals with experience on environ-
mental and social issues as programs are established for rural de-
velopment or policies are established on environmental topics.
The NASULGC Board on Agriculture's statement provides gen-
eral and overall concepts for consideration. Representatives of the
NASULGC board who will follow this testimony will provide more
specific recommendations for research, extension, instruction, and
international programs.
Thank you for the opportunity to present a statement on behalf
of the NASULGC Board on Agriculture on the priorities for re-
search and education for the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Topel appears at the conclusion
of the hearing.]
Mr. Stenholm. Thank you.
Next well hear from Dr. Zerle Carpenter, director of Agricultural
Extension Service, Texas A&M University.
STATEMENT OF ZERLE L. CARPENTER, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY
CHANCELLOR FOR AGRICULTURE AND DIRECTOR, TEXAS
AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE, TEXAS A&M UNIVER-
SITY, AND CHAIRMAN, EXTENSION COMMITTEE ON ORGANI-
ZATION AND POLICY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE
UNIVERSITIES AND LAND-GRANT COLLEGES
Mr. Carpenter. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I
am Zerle Carpenter, and I'm director of the Cooperative Extension
System in the State of Texas. I also have the privilege of serving
as the current chairman of the Extension Committee on Organiza-
tion and Policy, commonly referred to as ECOP, with the National
Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. On be-
half of ECOP, it's my great pleasure to take part in this hearing
to discuss the role and functions of the Cooperative Extension
System.
Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I will only emphasize
some of the highlights of my prepared text and, with your permis-
sion, would like to submit a more detailed statement for the record.
Mr. Stenholm. Without objection, your prepared statement will
appear in the record.
Mr. Carpenter. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommit-
tee, as you know, the Cooperative Extension System, or CES, links
USDA to the people and communities in almost every county of the
United States. They link these through the land-grant universities
in the 50 States, six Territories, and the District of Columbia. Its
mission is to help people improve their lives through a dynamic,
multifaceted educational program that focuses scientific knowledge
on contemporary problems, issues, and needs facing people, busi-
nesses, and those communities.
44
Mr. Chairman, the Cooperative Extension System differs from a
Une agency. Rather, it's a three-way partnership between the Fed-
eral Extension Service at USDA and State and local units of gov-
ernment through tiie land-grant universities in each State. This
partnership results in three-way leveraging of the Federal invest-
ment through State and local fonding for research, extension, and
education. In fact, currently, it's my imderstanding in the current
budgets there's about $400 miUion through the Federal Govern-
ment and about $1 biUion through the locad and State government.
In fact, the headquarters unit of ES-USDA, that coordinating unit
for the National Cooperative Extension System, consumes less
than 4 percent of the funding of the Federal appropriations, the re-
mainder going for this leveraging through the State and the local
community.
The Extension System's program priorities are identified with
and for local people. T^ey provide about 70 percent of the pro-
gram's funding through these State and coimty levels of govern-
ment, and it is the people's link with the total resources of the uni-
versity and with Federal research. At the same time, the Federal
component, ES-USDA, of this cooperative structure provides a co-
ordinated approach to meet these national priorities.
Strategic planning is an ongoing activity in the Cooperative Ex-
tension System. National leadership for strategic planning in the
system is provided by the Strategic Planning Coimcil. This council
is a key group in S5mthesizing information about the future, the so-
cietal environment, and the capacities of the system. It identifies
and assesses issues consistent with Extension's mission. It solicits
and synthesizes information from futuring panels, external scan-
ning processes, and national advisory councils. At the State and
county levels, similar structures and processes are in use to involve
citizens, staflF, and relevant collaborators in strategic planning.
Mr. Chairman, the results of these are included in a futuring re-
port over the last several years, "Patterns of Change: Strategic Di-
rections for the Cooperative Extension System," and then at the
State and local level, "The Strategic Planning Process." I'd submit
to you that these aren't just more stacks of paper, but they are in
fact in process, guiding the total Cooperative Extension System.
To remain relevant and to meet constantly changing needs of the
people, we must continue to work cooperatively with numerous
other agencies and groups who are also now networked techno-
logically so as to draw better on the appropriate research, dis-
ciplines, and data bases.
Over the past several years, the sjrstem has undergone a great
deal of transition. "Change" has been the operative word through-
out the Cooperative Extension System. The focus of this change has
been made to move toward issue-based programming. As a result
of this change, some critical issues face the system. Among those
issues are some of the following that you would recognize.
With increased intensity of the strategic planning process to
identify the most sensitive and critical issues, we've refocused some
resources on issues affecting agriculture, children, famihes, envi-
ronment, and consumers. The most highly visible current programs
focus on societal issues that relate to agriculture and consumers.
45
such as food safety, water quality, waste management, sustain-
ability, and global marketing.
As this transition has occurred, there's some lack of public un-
derstanding of the new agenda focusing on critical issues. This lack
of understanding leads some members of the media, national orga-
nizations, public ofiicials, and, yes, some of our own employees to
make statements that reflect the CES of the past instead of the
current program focus. We understand that transition results in
some miscommunications. The Coraerative Extension System,
though, has had a long tradition of effectively educating many seg-
ments of society in programs that relate to agriculture, families,
youth, and communities, and it has an extensive infrastructure
which can and should be used by other segments of government.
For the future, the Cooperative Extension System continues to
mature as a sound, proactive, nonformal educational system dedi-
cated to the improvement of the hves of people by addressing criti-
cal issues and needs, and it continues to look to the future in hopes
of continuing to be recognized as a positive force for change in the
United States.
Mr. Chairman, Extension's interest in the potential restructuring
of USDA is based upon the need to effectively fulfill the edu-
cational mission of a broad-based program driven by people's needs.
State structures deUvering cooperative Extension programs vary
widely, and, thus, any structure at the Federal level should focus
on the agency's ability to maintain effective Unkages to the State
programs. Moreover, we believe that there are a number of prin-
ciples to consider in any structural reorganization. Mission and
fimction should be the primary criterion for any reorganization.
Mr. Chairman, the Cooperative Extension System has examined
some of the various possibilities for restructuring, and in my formal
statement I have included some of the comments, both positive and
some of the concerns, associated with each of these. The research,
extension, and education functions have many commonalities, both
in constituencies and in functional relationships. Therefore, the
structural relationship should support this collaboration and co-
operation among all relevant units both within and outside the
Department.
We have submitted testimony that relates to possibilities for re-
structuring in which Extension Service-USDA would be a
subcabinet unit with regulatory and service agencies. We under-
stand that we are located in those communities, but would be very
concerned about the potential to restrict the programs to agri-
culture and reduce current collaboration with other Federal imits.
There woiild be a strong potential for reduced State and local gov-
ernment and clientele support if they perceive that their broader
expectations beyond farm programs will not be met.
Another model would be placement similar to that in which it's
currently placed with science and education. There is an impor-
tance of science-based and user-driven research, extension, and
education programs. We believe that this enhances the transfer
and appUcation of relevant technology from the several research
imits within the USDA.
If, in fact, finally, as ECOP has suggested, the Department is to
be restructured based upon function, then there is a possibility of
46
that function of education, information, and outreach unit of the
USDA in which it might be possible to place the Extension System
in that category. There would be, then, a consistency of a reorga-
nization based upon function.
Mr. Chairman, it's important that the placement of the Exten-
sion Service-USDA, its relatively small headquarters unit located
within the Department, in any Federal structure, that this be de-
signed to recognize the Federal, State, and local partnership and
the best interests of the people in every State, and in your districts,
who support the broad-based program of extension. Regardless of
the structure that evolves, the Cooperative Extension System will
support the decisions of Congress, We'll cooperate in every way pos-
sible to enhance the Department. After all, we are commissioned
to serve the people.
On behalf of ECOP and the Cooperative Extension System, I
thank you and the members of the subcommittee for allowing me
to testify today. We'll look forward to working with you and your
staff on what we consider to be one of the most important issues
this subcommittee will address in the 103d Congress.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carpenter appears at the conclu-
sion of the hearing.]
Mr. DoOLEY [assuming chair]. Thank you. Dr. Carpenter, for
your thorough comments, and we'll have some questions at the con-
clusion of the rest of the speakers.
At this time, I'd like to call on Dr. Fischer.
STATEMENT OF JAMES R. FISCHER, DIRECTOR, AGRICUL-
TURAL EXPERIMENT STATION, CLEMSON UNIVERSITY, AND
CHAIRMAN, EXPERIMENT STATION COMMITTEE ON ORGANI-
ZATION AND POLICY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE
UNIVERSITIES AND LAND-GRANT COLLEGES
Mr. Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is James
Fischer, and I am dean and director of the South Carolina Agricul-
tural Experiment Station, located at Clemson University. This year
I have the privilege to serve as chairman of the experiment station
committee on organization and policy of the National Association of
State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges.
My written testimony discusses research priorities in the context
of improving the functional relationships of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture and the State agricultural experiment stations. In this
respect, the analysis considers four key issues: First, to understand
the goals of improving the efficiency and the effectiveness of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture; second, to define the present State
agricultural experiment station for meeting these goals; third, to
identify those fimctional areas where change will improve perform-
ance of the State agricultural experiment station and USDA part-
nership; and, finally, evaluating for redirecting to improve the func-
tional relationships.
In the oral hearing, I wish to emphasize the key issues that you
delineated in your letter of invitation for this testimony. Under
that, the first issue we considered was the optimum means of fund-
ing. The point that I wish to emphasize, given the earlier discus-
sion, is that funding of agricultural research requires a balance in
47
its funding. There is funding that we must be involved in in the
basic discovery of some knowledge to the transfer and getting that
knowledge applied in the linkage through the Cooperative Exten-
sion System. This balance is criticed for us to maintain.
Presently, at the Federal level, there are three mechanisms of
funding: First, the National Research Initiative, which was dis-
cussed earlier, and this initiative was recently created and author-
ized by Congress in the 1990 farm bill. It recognized the need for
infusion of research focused mainly at the discovery level.
Second is the base program or the formula funding. These funds
are vital for our State-Federal partnership and allow for the State-
level implementation of national strategies. I wish to point out that
in association with these base fiinds or formula funds, these are
peer reviewed and are evaluated into their various appropriate al-
locations at the individual State levels.
The third source of funds that is coming presently from the Fed-
eral system is the special grants. Special grants are an underused
opportunity, in our estimation, for the Federal system to focus on
some short-term emergency issues that require a focused research
effort. We would like to propose a new type of special grant for con-
tract research, and if it is your pleasure, Mr. Chairman, I would
like to introduce into the record as an attachment to my prepared
statement a copy of a concept for special grants contract research.
Mr. DOOLEY. Well welcome that.
Mr. Fischer. As you pointed out earlier, Mr. Chairman, the Agri-
cultural Research System has been successful, and we are very ex-
cited to work with you and your committee in looking at how we
can improve it and how we can make it better. The question comes,
then, what combination of these funding mechanisms that I point-
ed out are the optimum?
First, I would hke to point out that in science and education, we
are very pleased that it has been identified as one of the growth
areas in the Clinton administration. We are obviously pleased at
the proposed growth in the National Research Initiative that is not
at the expense of any of our other programs that are presently un-
derway, and, in addition, the reasonable growth in our formula
funding that maintains the State-Federal partnership.
There is an opportiinity for us to look at some of the noncompeti-
tive special grants or the funding that are addressing some of these
national issues and how perhaps we can improve some of their ef-
fectiveness and efficiency. In many of the States, I wish to share
with you, Mr. Chairman, we are restructuring and downsizing our
systems because of the severity of the State budgets. We are some-
what in the same net-s\mis game that you are here at the national
level, and we are sensitive to that and desire to work with you to
work through how we can make this system more effective.
Concerning priority setting, there is nothing that we can think
of on the research side that is more important both at the State
and at the national level. The written testimony provides details on
the priority setting, but I wish to, if I may, add to the written testi-
mony additional issues relevant to the priority setting of the State
agricultural experiment station entitled "Strategic Planning, Prior-
ity Setting, and Response to Changing Times."
48
This priority setting, this strategic planning that we are very
much involved in at the State and the national level involves many
stakeholders, both from the consumers of our end research product,
or, if you will, the consumers of the food products which our re-
search produces, to the producers and the farmers who are involved
in enabling us to be one of the most effective agricultural produc-
tion systems in the country. We seek consensus in a network of the
State agencies and the Federal agencies.
All of this comes together, including the ARS, or the Agricultural
Research Service, component and other science and education agen-
cies, under the auspices of the National Research Council of the
Joint Council. This priority setting drives our budget recommenda-
tions from NASULGC to the USDA. The product of this planning
is the highly selected initiatives in research with rank order prior-
ity. In addition, we have identified those research objectives de-
scribing how to meet these goals, and, finally, we identified the re-
sources required.
The next question that is presented to us is the percentage of
fundamental, applied, and mission-linked research. I would start
by sajdng that the Federal system has had a unique opportunity
of leveraging over $2 billion in agricultural research activity for an
investment of approximately some $430 million from CSRS. This is
the unique opportunity — 32 percent investment by the Federal sys-
tem in this State-national-tJSDA Ag Research System. Of the in-
vestment from the CSRS of over $400 million, approximately 50
percent of that is formula funding, and a little over 20 percent is
from the National Research Initiative. If your committee desires
additional information on that, we would be pleased to present it
to you.
From my personal opinion, having worked at four different land-
grant universities in this Nation, I would give you a personal per-
spective on what I would estimate the breakdown of how the fimds
in the State agricultural experiment station system are spent on
breakthrough research, applications research, and that which sits
in between, and, again, in this continuum of a perspective from
when we start generating the knowledge to when we've got it in
the field, if you will.
Basically, in my experience, I would say that about 25 percent
of our funds are spent in developing this breakthrough tecluiology,
and about 25 percent is spent maMng sure it gets applied in the
field, and this is in close linkage with the Cooperative Extension
System. The in-between now is about 50 percent of our funds are
spent in between the breakthrough and the application. Keep in
mind that in a lot of instances, this might be the same scientist
that's working in the fundamental and working in the applied in
a team effort with a lot of other discipline scientists.
I would underscore for you, sir, that all of the research that is
done in the State agricultural experiment station system is tar-
geted, is mission-oriented, is looked at solving some problem or en-
hancing some characteristic in the agricultural arena.
Well, then, how should this distribution differ, if it should? Keep
in mind that in the response to this, there would be quite a vari-
able if were to ask each of the Directors of the State agricultural
experiment station system because of some of the issues discussed
49
earlier relevant to the needs in each individual State and the re-
sources available and the competitiveness of those various States.
Apphed research on the application end, as you could imagine,
tends to be more specific. It makes this more targeted funding
State funding, and the majority of the present investment tends to
be by the States in the apphed arena. The National Academy of
Sciences' National Research Council study and subsequent inter-
pretations suggest that an underinvestment at the discovery or
breakthrough level is in existence in this Nation, and perhaps this
is a role for the Federal Government.
But keep in mind in hght of the earlier discussions that we do
not want to sell short the formula funding, because these funds are
the \inique feature that maintains the glue of the State-Federal
partnership, and they must be maintained and with inflationsiry
offsets.
Special grants, if not confused with the pork barrel funding, offer
a mechanism to focus the highly specific, short-term research on
national priorities.
Relevant to the question of the linkage with proactive roles for
extension and teaching, we have discussed this earlier, and it will
be discussed fiirther, and I would like to add that the research pro-
grams integrated with maintaining and enhancing the academic
programs, creating the next generation of agricultural scientists
and the extension programs and getting the technology out has to
be linked together if our system is going to continue to have the
success it has had.
Mr. Chairman, one of our challenges at the State universities is
not different than what you're facing at the national level: How do
we adapt to our changing needs of society? We have been working
on this in the experiment station system since 1984 and have each
4 years come out with a rese£U*ch agenda strategic plan at the na-
tional level that sets out our priorities. In addition to those at the
national level, the four regional associations of State agricultural
experiment stations publish their strategic plan and how they take
these national issues and bring them to a regional level of what's
critical at the regional level.
We need perhaps to better address some of the expanding expec-
tations that are put on us at the State agricultural experiment sta-
tions, and we are trjdng to do so, and with this committee's assist-
ance in looking at how there are better ways to do so, we would
like to be very much a participant in that.
I would share with you that trjring to change at this time, when
we've had a 20 percent reduction in science power at the State
level, is putting a challenge upon our system also in the budget sit-
uation we face. We need to do some better planning perhaps with
our budgetary linkages and how the Federal agencies that are in-
volved in conducting research for agriculture that are beyond agri-
culture in the traditional agriculture department, how we can link
better with the EPA, with the DOE. We are making strides, we are
moving in that direction, and the assistance and ideas of this com-
mittee would be very much appreciated.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to re-
spond to these issues and will be happy to respond to £m.y questions
later.
50
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fischer appears at the conclusion
of the hearing,]
Mr. DOOLEY. Thank you, Dr. Fischer.
At this time, we'll call on Dr. Mortensen.
STATEMENT OF JAMES H. MORTENSEN, ASSOCIATE DEAN,
RESroENT EDUCATION, PENN STATE UNIVERSITY, AND
CHAIRMAN, ACADEMIC PROGRAMS SECTION, BOARD ON AG-
RICULTURE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE UNIVER-
SITIES AND LAND-GRANT COLLEGES
Mr. Mortensen. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommit-
tee, I'm Jim Mortensen, chairman of the academic programs section
of the board on agriculture, National Association of State Univer-
sities and Land-Grant Colleges. I'm very pleased to have this op-
portunity to participate in these hearings regarding priorities for
the USDA of the future.
Recently, the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engi-
neering, and Technology, FCCSET, and the President's Council of
Advisors in Science and Technology, PCAST, issued their reports
dealing with the relationship of the Federal Government to re-
search-intensive universities. Two recommendations from the re-
ports demand your attention.
First, from the PCAST report, "The Federal agencies should en-
sure that their programs encourage universities to reemphasize
education rather than discourage them," and from the FCCSET re-
port, "Federal agencies should examine the impact of Federal re-
search support on university undergraduate and graduate edu-
cation and identify strategies to ensure against unintentional deg-
radation of the educational mission and excellence of the research-
intensive universities." With these recommendations we strongly
agree.
The Federal agency link with higher education is especially criti-
cal to American agriculture. The American food and agricultural
system is the world's largest commercial industry, with assets ex-
ceeding $1 trillion. This great size and the system's very favorable
competitive position in the world economy is due in large measure
to our ability to substitute scientific knowledge for natural re-
sources and labor.
Thus, a strong case can be made for the fact that the most criti-
cal challenge to the food, agricultural, and natural resource system
in the 1990's will be attracting and educating the requisite human
resources. Not enough talented college graduates in the food and
agricultural sciences are being produced to fill highly important
roles in business, science, and environmental management. Of
course, the contribution of State funds for the education of under-
graduates in the food and agricultural sciences is enormous. Yet
critical catalytic Federal funding is necessary to encourage innova-
tive cooperative programs at our colleges and universities.
The office of higher education programs of the cooperative State
research service is key to the continued improvement of the quality
of higher education in our Nation's colleges of agriculture, and this
continued improvement in the academic programs is a national
need of great importance if the USDA is to continue to address the
needs of an environmentally soimd, economically significant Amer-
51
ican agriculture in order to ensure our continued supply of high
quality, safe, affordable food for the American consumer.
The office of higher education programs administers competitive
grant programs such as institutional challenge grants, institutional
capacity-building grants for 1890 land-grant institutions, and na-
tional needs graduate fellowships grants. In addition, we are col-
laborating with this office to develop a minority scholars program
to help attract quahfied minority scholars to agriculture and the
agricultural sciences.
Secretary Espy has called for a new USDA which is science-
based and user-friendly, a Department that utilizes the newest and
best science and technology to solve human problems. We concur.
Therefore, our recommendation regarding the priorities of the new
and visionary USDA is a call for ascendence of higher education in
the form of increased support for its office of higher education pro-
grams. Inherent in this suggestion is the expectation that the As-
sistant Secretary for Science and Education will play an increas-
ingly important role in agricultural, environmental, and rural de-
velopment policy.
The Joint Council on Food £ind Agricultural Sciences, imder the
direction of the Assistant Secretary for Science and Education, has
been the interface for policy discussions between the land-grant
community and the USDA science and education Administrators.
The priorities developed each year by this council play a significant
role in directing USDA and land-grant colleges of agricultural ac-
tivities. A continued and expanded role for this congressionally
mandated joint council should be a priority for the USDA of the fu-
ture.
In addition, we recommend that the new USDA make a very spe-
cial effort to forge a closer link between the mutually agreed-upon
priorities of the joint council and subsequent USDA funding.
Finally, we would like to point out that the functions of research
and teaching, whether formal undergraduate education or
nonformal extension education, are complementary activities and
are best organized in conjunction with each other. Thus, any dis-
cussion of priorities should thoughtfully consider the necessary
close working relationship of research and education.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity of participating in these
hearings and pledge to your subcommittee the support and exper-
tise of the academic programs section of the NASULGC Board on
Agriculture.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mortensen appears at the conclu-
sion of the hearing.]
Mr. Stenholm [resuming chair]. Thank you.
Mr. Guernsey.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT GUERNSEY, PAST CHAIRMAN, COUN-
CIL FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, EXTENSION, AND
TEACHING
Mr. Guernsey. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommit-
tee, I am pleased to appear before you today to offer comments on
the science and education priorities of USDA. I am Robert Guern-
sey, a farmer from Indiana. I have a family operation where I
52
produce hogs, beef, com, and soybeans. Today, I come before you
on behalf of the Council for Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Teaching, better known as CAJIET, where I currently serve as the
past chairman.
CARET is a national voluntary citizens organization whose
grassroots membership is comprised of such individuals as agricul-
tural producers, commodity leaders, agribusiness leaders. State and
local officials, homemakers, consumers, and members of agricul-
tural advisory boards. Each State and territory is represented by
at least one delegate. CARET was established in 1982 as a mecha-
nism through which citizen support could be expressed for agricul-
tural research, extension, and teaching programs of the land-grant
university system.
I, like all other CARET members, have greatly benefited from
the unique partnership between USDA and the land-grant univer-
sity system. Without the assistance I have received during my
more than 30 years of farming, I doubt that I would have the kind
of farm operation I have today. Through assistance from Extension
and resources at my land-grant university, I computerized my oper-
ation early on in the 1980's; I have consistently cut down on the
use of insecticides; I am using herbicides in a manner that is sen-
sitive to the environment; I am learning to apply fertilizers in a
more safe and efficient manner. This assistance allows me to con-
tinue to manage my farm business while adjusting my products to
meet the needs of consumers and to comply with farm program reg-
ulations.
Our farm operation consists of my wife and I, our son, and his
family. If I had to rely on professional consultants to assist us in
some of the decisions that we must make on a regular basis, our
costs would escalate. We would not be able to avail ourselves of the
new scientific knowledge and technology in our farming efforts.
As the present debate ensues on how USDA should look, what
its priorities should be, and to what extent its programs should be
funded, we, in CARET, have the following concerns: One, that the
base programs of Hatch, Smith-Lever, and so on be strengthened;
two, that the Extension Service remain one of education and out-
reach; three, that an effective balance be struck between basic, ap-
plied, and mission-linked research; four, that agricultural academic
programs be strengthened within the Department of Agriculture;
and five, that these agricultural research, extension, and teaching
programs be allowed to respond to current, as well as future, con-
cerns of both the producer and consumer, such as food safety,
water quality, genetic-engineered plants, youth at risk, and family
problems, to just name a few.
Now, relating to those five categories, one, the strengthening of
base program funding of Hatch, Smith-Lever, the 1890's, Morrill-
Nelson, and Mclntire-Stennis, is CARET'S No. 1 priority. These
programs provide the infrastructure to the agricultural research
and education programs. Base programs guarantee that there will
in fact be a continuing agricultural research and education effort
at our land-grant universities. Without base funding, without these
base programs. States would not have the necessary flexibility in
responding to ongoing needs or situations of crisis. I might add
that in responding to questions, I would be willing to respond with
53
examples of flexibility. Competitive and special grants, while ex-
tremely important and essential, do not and cannot, by their very
nature, provide the ongoing attention that is necessary. Research,
by its nature, requires a long-term effort that does not produce re-
sults overnight.
Two, CARET believes that Extension must be inextricably linked
to the agricultural science and education efforts of our land-grant
universities. In order to remain competitive, we, the users, depend
heavily on Extension because the transfer of technology takes place
through this mechanism. Without the education and training we
receive from our Extension Service, we could be cut off from ad-
vances being made through the research done on our own or neigh-
boring land-grant campuses. We, in CARET, would be very con-
cerned if Extension were seen as a part of any farm pro-am or
regulatory effort. The whole community — the young, the senior, the
rural, the urban — and local government feed upon the knowledge
and resources flowing from our land-grant institutions.
Three, a strong research effort provides the foundation for any
scientific and technological advances. We, in CARET, would urge a
balance between basic, applied, and mission-linked research so that
the needs of all kinds can be met. Because of the diverse needs of
our society, we would urge that multidisciplinary research efforts
be increased. Knowledge gained from basic research is distributed
quickly and widely, but it is the competitive application of applied
research that gives me the cutting edge in global competition.
Four, well-educated people guarantee the continuation of new
knowledge and progress. It is, therefore, important to CARET that
the higher education programs housed within USDA be strength-
ened. These Federal dollars are multiplied many times by State
and private dollars while securing high-quality talent for the fu-
ture. This partnership of leveraging support allows entry into the
higher education system of the land grants by individuals, regard-
less of economic or social status.
Five, in order for any of these agricultural research and edu-
cation efforts to be effective, they must respond to the needs of the
American people. We need to continually strengthen the partner-
ship between the user and the researcher so that the right ques-
tions are asked and the right problems are worked on for solutions.
Many of us in CARET have served in priority sessions smd on
futuring panels for research, education, and extension. We need to
maintain effective advisory boards, which include the participation
of both the research and education community as well as the pri-
vate citizen from rural and urban areas, with a wide variety of ag-
ricultural groups who are traditional and nontraditional users of
the land grant system.
By takmg a more comprehensive approach to our communities,
we can address many issues and problems that face producers and
consumers. Creating effective dialog between such diversity en-
sures that I, as a producer, will know what the public wants and
how to deUver safe and nutritious products while still being sen-
sitive to the impact on my community and my environment.
I want to express my deep appreciation for this opportunity to
share grassroots thoughts with this committee about what we feel
54
is vital to our complex communities, and I would welcome ques-
tions and comments and respond to questions later in the dialog.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Guernsey appears at the conclu-
sion of the hearing.]
Mr. DOOLEY [assuming chair]. Thank you very much, Mr. Guern-
sey.
Unfortunately, what we're going to have to do now, because we
have another 5-minute vote and then we have two more votes, it's
anticipated that we're going to recess luitil 1 o'clock, at which time
we can reconvene, and we'll finish with Dr. Foil's comments, £ind
then we'll enter into questions. So at this time we're adjourned
until 1 o'clock.
[Recess taken.]
Mr. Stenholm [resuming chair]. I apologize for the disruptions
today. It's one of those days.
We continue with Dr. Foil.
STATEMENT OF R. RODNEY FOIL, VICE PRESIDENT, AGRI-
CULTURE, FORESTRY, AND VETERINARY MEDICINE, MIS-
SISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY, AND CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEADS OF AGRICULTURE, NATIONAL AS-
SOCIATION OF STATE UNIVERSITIES AND LAND-GRANT COL-
LEGES
Mr. Foil. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You don't need to apologize
to us for doing the business of the people. We understand that, and
we're glad to have the opportunity to be with you. Dr. Topel, the
first presenter, did have to leave, but the remainder of the panel
is here, and we look forward to responding to questions.
My role today is to attempt to pull together some of the more
cross-cutting issues that have been covered in the testimony, and
in doing so, I want to focus more on the philosophical and longer
term issues and leave the details to the experts that are rep-
resented here.
As you continue your deliberations on this and related topics, I
certainly hope that you will call on us and allow us the opportiuiity
to work with you for the betterment of American agriculture.
The summary things that I'd like to stress today are limited to
five characteristics of this system that I felt were worthy of includ-
ing in the record. The first is obvious, I think, from the testimony
you've received, and that is that the land-grant system is a very
broad and a very deep system that's characterized by a lot of varia-
bility fi-om State to State. It is a very imique system that has been
one of the strengths of our Nation and one that we're quite proud
of. Our activities range from the most fundamental of sciences to
hands-on assistance to individual people in their lives and their
livelihoods. Our roots and our major emphasis is on agriculture and
family life, but our total coverage of interest covers a broad spec-
trum of the economy and involves linkage with a number of De-
partments within the Federal Government.
Now, this breadth and depth is a strength for the Nation and for
our institutions, but its complexity presents challenges to those of
us who seek to guide and direct those activities and those of you
who seek to provide policy direction. As you continue to explore
55
ways in which we can improve our planning and our priority set-
ting, as well as the implementation of our programs, I hope youll
continue to look broadly upon our capacities and continue to chal-
lenge us to serve through multiple functions across broad areas of
human interest.
The second major point is something that's difficult to totally
comprehend until you work in it, but the variable nature of this
system brings us a strength through interdependence. That is one
of the joys of the system. The broad range of subject matter, com-
petency, and functional activities that we have, ranging from fun-
damental and applied research through extension education and, of
course, focusing on our fundamental task of educating profes-
sionals, creates a complex web of very interdependent relation-
ships, and in most instances this interdependency brings to us a
strength and a variety that has stood this Nation well. It has pro-
vided serendipity and the opportunity for rediuidancy without loss
of efficiency, we feel.
To draw on this strength requires an understanding of the ways
in which all these parts interact, and the changing world in which
we work is sometimes putting stress on the way in which these
parts of the system interact. We're glad that you're looking holis-
tically across all of these functions and all of these activities so
that we can continue to build on this strength.
Another strength that we've heard stressed in virtually all parts
of the testimony is that the partnership nature of the land-grant
system is, again, an idea that has allowed the development of
strong priorities and strong systems. It's a long-time partnership
three ways with State, Federal, and local government, and increas-
ing attention from the private sector. It has been very effective in
the agricultural and family life arena, and it's being applied across
a much broader range of subject matters as our capacities and as
the problems that we address change.
Now, the strength coming with a number of areas of support is
balanced somewhat by the need to harmonize the priority process,
and we've been able to leverage the Federal money 3 to 1 with
State and other money because the priorities have matched. We
bring those together and try to seek a way in which we meet both
short- and long-term needs and both local and national priorities.
We think that we have done a good job with that, but we look for-
ward to working with the committee on improving this synergistic
relationship. As we see a broader array of educational institutions
involved in these acti\dties and as we see a broader range of ele-
ments within our institutions participating, the need to redefine
the partnership becomes imperative, and it's one that we know you
recognize, and we commend you for that.
My fourth point deals with the element of change in higher edu-
cation. Those of us who work in the higher education community
are very well aware that there has begun a transformation in the
manner in which the American public perceives the higher edu-
cation enterprise and the manner in which the higher education
enterprise perceives and conducts its mission. As a very visible and
client-oriented segment of higher education, the land-grant agricul-
tural units have been involved in this change perhaps more deeply
than some other units of higher education, and we are convinced
56
that this change is merely the beginning and that this will con-
tinue at a more rapid pace in the future.
During this redefinition of goals and expectations for higher edu-
cation, particularly in the phase that we seem to be entering, the
land-grant agricultural components are having to work very dili-
gently with the governance factors within higher education to con-
tinue to focus our effort in the direction of client satisfaction and
to defend the place that we have earned in the disciplinary array
that is viewed to be the purview of higher education. The actions
that the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Federal Govern-
ment take with regard to the manner in which they relate to the
land-grant university has a very real impact on the manner in
which we relate to the fiill educational component of our institu-
tions, and we appreciate you keeping that in mind.
The last point that I'll stress, and this has already been talked
about in several other testimonies, is the grassroots nature of our
planning processes and the manner in which we bring together the
opinions, thoughts, and creativity of our cUents from the county
level through the region within our State, the State level, and to
the national level to identify both long-range and short-range op-
portunities. We feel that our priority setting process is one that has
received a great deal of attention. We know that which it's capable
of doing, but we also know that it can and will be improved as we
devote our attention to it.
We believe strongly that the system that has been created
through your investment and others is strong enough and flexible
enough to meet the challenges that have been identified here
today. We particularly support the stated goals of the chairman in
JDeginning these hearings; of focusing on relevance and accoimtabil-
ity, because we feel quite strongly that those are two components
of our system that really differentiate us from many of the other
elements within academia, and we're proud of what we've done. We
feel that there are opportunities always for improvement, and we
pledge to this committee and this Congress our commitment to that
improvement.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Foil appears at the conclusion of
the hearing.]
Mr. Stenholm. Thank you. Dr. Foil.
Would any of you care to comment on the question that was
raised earlier concerning the current balance and what might be a
proper balance between the formula funding, competitive grants,
and special grants? Do any of you have any comments? You were
all there and listened to some of the previous questions and an-
swers.
Dr. Fischer,
Mr. Fischer. If I may, Mr. Chairman, in the testimony that I
presented, I talked about the nature of funding of agricultural re-
search and the three components being the National Research Ini-
tiative, the base programs, or, if you will, the formula funds, and
I brought out the point that these formula funds do go through a
peer review process, and then the special grants and what they
present. In these three funding mechanisms, it is interesting to say
that the Federal component of the total partnership money with
57
the USDA and the State ag experiment stations is about 32 per-
cent. Of that, about half of it is formula or for the base programs.]
I further delineated that there's an opportunity to evaluate and
to look at perhaps what I would classify as the continuum of re-
search where we start from the breakthrough technology, the origi-
nal idea, to where we get that application in the field, if you will.
If you go on that continuum from breakthrough to application, from
a personal perspective, I would break down that there are about
three categories there — ^the breakthrough, the work that's in be-
tween, and that which is being applied in the field — and if you
would look at our work, my personal opinion is about one-fourth of
it sits in the breakthrough area, about one-fourth in the application
area, and the remainder in the middle.
Mr. Stenholm. Does anyone else have a comment on that?
Mr. Foil. If you will, Mr. Chairman, just one additional thing
that I think bears thought. At the Federal level, obviously, we need
to seek a balance that deals with the national needs and the na-
tional nature of what we do. The balance in any given State will
be quite different. I think in terms of my State of Mississippi, and
our approach is much more applied and adaptive and less fun-
damental. The apphed and adaptive nature of research is, in most
cases, better served through special and formula funds £ind less by
competitive grants, because, by nature, the competitive grants deal
mostly with the fiindamental kinds of science. Another State with
a larger State commitment to doctoral-level training and basic re-
search might have a different mix.
So there would be give-and-take from the system to come up with
a balance that met those needs. I think Dr. Fischer made some
good observations as to the general way in which these should be
divided, but the individual States will be able to respond in dif-
ferent manners based on the nature of their priorities in the sys-
tem.
Mr. Stenholm. How much research is now funded by check-off
dollars or industry dollars?
Mr. Fischer. I can get a specific number for you. My estimate
would be that it's somewhere around less than 10 percent.
Mr. Stenholm. Any comments concerning the perception that in-
dustry-funded research is suspect because the people paying for it
expect certain results?
Mr. Fischer. That's not a new comment to me, Mr. Chairman,
but I believe as we are dealing with agriculture and its changing
dimensions, we will need to, if you will, build linkages with various
and other entities. In my testimony earlier, I indicated it would be
viable to look at other USDA agencies, look at other Departments —
Environmental Protection Agency — and how we can build some
linkages with them. I also believe that it is beneficial for us in the
pubUc sector to build those linkages with the private sector in
order to enhance both our common objectives.
If you will, good science, quality science that goes through the
peer review process for publication will not get through that proc-
ess being biased, but I beUeve it's very powerfiil for us to be looking
at linkages we should be building.
Mr. Stenholm. I personally could not agree more, and one of the
thoughts I want to leave with you and perhaps request a response
58
or two further from you on these linkages, it seems to me that
when we're talking about industry-funded research with the sus-
pect question mark from some entities out there, we do have to
look at linkages. For example, I have offered the thought that in
regard to food safety and environmental issues that the public
health sector needs to be linked with the research community in
some way, some shape or form or fashion.
Are you aware of any efforts along that line in any of your States
or any of your affiliates that you represent here today in which we
might have a success story or two or something that has worked
along those lines, or is this still in its infancy of thoughts all over?
Mr. Fischer. In the public health arena?
Mr. Stenholm. Yes, the linking of the public health sector with
the questions that we're talking about today.
Mr. Foil. Mr. Chairman, I'm aware, and I know Dr. Fischer is,
of the beginnings of a program in agrimedicine in South Carolina,
North Carolina, and recently initiated in Mississippi.
I think it had its start in South Carolina, Jim.
Mr. Fischer. That's correct.
Mr. Foil. That one is a beginning, and I'll ask Dr. Fischer to
mention it.
Another initiative that we're excited about is in the extension
arena in a new initiative funded in a pilot fashion this past yeai
in rural health care, a joint program between community and jun-
ior colleges, the Cooperative Extension Service, the State depart-
ment of health, and the university medical center in our State.
These are ideas whose time, I think, has come.
Jim, you might mention the agrimedicine.
Mr. Fischer. Forgetting your own State is not the appropriate
thing to do when you're here, but in South Carolina several years
ago we looked at the situation of health, and it started out reallj
in the pesticide area and exposure to pesticides by farmers, and we
linked with the medical university in the State of South Carolina
and then, through that linkage, have funded some programs where
we have both a research and an outreach and extension effort to
enhance the knowledge level of physicians on particular health is-
sues that farmers would be exposed to. It has been received very
well to enhance the level of knowledge of these physicians and also
to build the linkage. So they are looking at us in some joint re-
search efforts on trying to evaluate some of the impacts of health
specifically that's amenable to the agricultural profession.
Mr. Stenholm. Dr. Carpenter, how can we maintain the most ef-
ficient linkage between extension and research, along these same
lines?
Mr. Carpenter. Mr. Chairman, I believe that that is principally
done at the local and State level, and I might also cite some exam-
ples for you in which, in working with the meat industry, we deter-
mined through our research program that because of some percep-
tion of a biased nature of those of us in agriculture that we needed
linkage with the medical community, and so we did that — a strong
medical research program in Dallas and also through the Baylor
College of Medicine, looking at dietary fats and animal fats, and
that's been an extremely positive and productive linkage for us.
59
Within extension, coordination and planning with the research
components is done basically every day. We're finding many more
linkages with our own Texas Department of Health, and particu-
larly as that relates to food safety and disease and that type of
thing that occurs in the valley with health-related problems.
Just recently I was in a meeting in which ES-USDA has now
stationed an extension specialist at the Children's Nutrition Re-
search Center in Houston, again, with the idea of being able to
more rapidly transfer that knowledge from the research base out
into the extension education programs. By the way, we will also
have a person stationed there at that unit for that connection to
our State program, since the ARS unit is located in the State.
This collaboration is moving very rapidly with the health profes-
sion industry, and I believe that it's timely and certainly on target
because of the real health care concerns we have. Extension should
be given the charge to work on the prevention side through edu-
cational programs and in that way alleviate some of the real health
care problems we have in this country, and I believe that we're
doing that in a very extensive way in virtually all of the States.
Mr. Stenholm. What's been the reaction of the public health sec-
tor? Are these ideas that have been initiated by them to you or you
to them? How has this contact been made and then effectuated?
Mr. Carpenter. I would say that's been both, and also by con-
gressional encouragement; for instance, a new national initiative
that has just been initiated, the plight of young children, and being
able to work through educational programs with them and their
parents. That came from the Chair of your own Ag Committee say-
ing, "What can the extension system do on this because of some of
the disease problems that are also related to learning issues
through time?" That comes from our needs assessment process in
the local communities, through our commissioners courts. They, in
fact, are paying for indigent health care. In fact, they say, "You
folks can be a part of the solution to this problem that's breaking
our counties and the tax issues if you'll focus your educational
problems on some of these."
So I would say, Mr. Chairman, that encouragement is coming
from all sectors, encouraging of linkages, and in the process that
comes both from our department of health, and public health offi-
cials who are recognizing that Extension has the infrastructure and
network of having professional educators in virtually every county
in the country. They need the mechanism whereby they can get
some of that information out to the people on a local basis, because
we have that educational component.
So I would say that also is creating some of the pressures on the
Extension system and some of the concerns about, "Look, you're
going toward social issues." I'd rather call them societal issues that
relate to the economic well-being of the State. Our economy is de-
pendent upon us doing a better job, a more effective job on this.
Mr. Guernsey. Could I follow up on that?
Mr. Stenholm. Certainly, Mr. Guernsey.
Mr. Guernsey. As a user and as a farmer, I'm also a county com-
missioner, which you weren't aware of, and I look at the Extension
addressing a more hoUstic approach to the farm as opposed to just
farm production. Because in my county — I'm a rural county — ^my
60
property tax and my inventory tax undergirds the cost of county
government, and just the issues that we have heard — for instance,
a low birth weight baby in our county — and I've been talking to
other county commissioners to try to get this program off the
ground. Extension already addresses this with training for teenage
pregnancies.
A low birth weight baby will cost on the average — and I've been
using $30,000, and my county hospital tells me I'm too low now.
But it only takes five low birth weight babies to come to normal
birth weight to pay for my total county extension budget. That
coimty extension budget services 1,000 4-H members, about 650 to
700 homemakers, it services all of agriculture, it services commu-
nity development as we utilize our ag agents, it services the horti-
culture needs and their urban cousins, who have lots of needs with
their lawn and gardens. I'm talking about the total budget. Five
low birth weight babies will pay for that, the savings on those
alone.
We're looking at, in my county, the county welfare budget. When
I look back over the last 4 years, it's doubling every 2 years. I was
in the State legislature 3 months ago, and I said, "Folks, it may
double again in 2 years and again in 2 years, but we won't pay the
bill. We have to address why it's rising so fast, and we're not ad-
dressing the education side of it." I asked the welfare director,
"How many families have you moved off of welfare this past year?"
There was none. I said, "With the families that you're working with
and cultivating, how many do you see you're going to take off the
rolls next year?" There was none. So I see the family skills, man-
agement skills, health skills that Extension has to offer covdd effec-
tively play a role in lessening the cost of the tax dollar in my coun-
ty.
What does that have to do with agriculture? Agriculture
undergirds those tax dollars, and that creates a scenario that I'm
less competitive in the world market because my costs are higher.
So I look at Extension addressing a broad sector of my community
and neighborhood on many areas outside of just production agri-
culture itself. We have the skills, we have the people trained, we
have the research done. Pilot projects have been done, but cannot
be addressed on a broad basis because of lack of funding.
I'm excited about possibilities in the future for Extension and our
communities. We are undergirding this rather heavily in our com-
munity. Extension in our county, the county government picks up
70 percent of the total cost. In our State, our counties are picking
up approximately 56 percent of the total cost of extension. What
you're providing here in Washington certainly leverages a healthy
partnership out in my State.
Mr. Stenholm. I want to have one more round, but 111 recognize
Mr. Dooley.
Mr. Dooley. I just have a couple questions. I guess what's driv-
ing a lot of concern is how do we get the greatest return on the
investments we're making, and I guess a lot of that, when we're
leveraging Federal funds by State dollars as well as private dol-
lars— I guess you've identified them as three different types of
funding. Is there a difference between the applicability or the avail-
ability of incorporating or partnering with the private or pubhc sec-
61
tor with the Federal dollars in either of those, or are they relatively
the same?
Mr. Fischer. If I xinderstand your question correctly, Mr. Dooley,
I believe your question is, is there an advantage to partnering with
one versus the other?
Mr. Dooley. Right. Does one lend itself better than another?
Mr. Fischer. Right now in the transition that we are moving in
in ag research, we are building those linkages with all of them, and
I think that is the ultimate strength and it's going to build the syn-
ergism for the research that we need to be about.
Mr. Dooley. If we decided that we were going to back off and
reallocate some of the moneys that are currently being allocated
under the earmarked portion of it into the formula or otherwise,
what would be your expectation in terms of the distribution of the
allocation of those funds? Would it have a significant impact na-
tionwide?
Mr. Fischer. Yes. The system, as was pointed out in the pre-
vious studies, is quite underfunded, and that's one of the reasons
we get the very significant returns on investments that was men-
tioned by Dr. Offutt this morning. I think there are some opportu-
nities for us to work with this committee in looking at some options
for additional investment in this system and how that can be most
effective.
Mr. Dooley. If we had the same amoimt of dollars we presently
have to be allocated to research, I guess my concern would be the
shift fi*om the — let's say we wiped out the earmark grants alto-
gether or the funding. What should we expect from this committee
in terms of its impact fi*om a regional perspective, an institution
perspective, basically on ag research? What would be its impact if
we went to a totally competitive allocation?
Mr. Fischer. That's difficult for me to summarize or to come up
with — it would be 100 percent speculation on my part at this time.
I don't want to give you the impression that some of the work
that's in the earmarks is not good quality research and that it is
needed efforts. In fact, I would venture to say that perhaps part of
the reason they're there is it speaks to the need for the fimds in
ag research. There is the option that we discussed somewhat this
morning about the contract research and how it could impact some
of the pressing needs that are in our system that we cannot antici-
pate when they're coming in fi*ont of us and they cannot go through
a normal budgeting legislative process.
I would be willing to follow up more on this with a little addi-
tional time to give you some more perspective fi*om the background.
Mr. Dooley. Dr. Mortensen, in your testimony, you commented
that we've got to maintain our commitment to one of the missions
of our institutions as far as on the education component. Is there
something about the way that we're allocating our dollars for ag re-
search now that is detracting fi*om the ability to meet the edu-
cational mission of our institutions?
Mr. Mortensen. No, I did not intend to imply that. It's just that
the higher education budget is very modest when you look at the
total USDA budget. For instance, this fiscal year it's less than $20
milhon.
68-792 - 93 - 3
62
Mr. Foil. If I may, Mr. Chairman, there's one way in which the
funding mechanism impacts the educational component, and that
is that the formula funds are perceived in the academic arena as
being funds that can be used for long-term commitments to faculty
salaries, to faculty members, and that directly impacts particularly
graduate education. Competitive grants and special grants are
rightly considered as short-term funds that should not be invested
in a long-term commitment, and as we've seen this shift that was
outlined in the original chart, we have, in a number of our institu-
tions, had difficulty maintaining the balance between the edu-
cational mission and the research mission because of the mecha-
nism of funding that was not as amenable to that balance.
Mr. DOOLEY. Well, then, as my final question, the trends that
were identified on the chart which showed the formula ftmding de-
clining, which obviously, I guess — and I understand the impact
that the decline can have on the education and certainly the nimi-
ber of staff people or educators and professors you can bring on. Is
there a consensus among you that that trend ought to be reversed
and that the formula fimding ought to be increasing and that we
get back more to the allocation that we saw in the 1985 levels?
Mr. Fischer. If I may, the chart that was up earlier was on a
percentage basis, so the actual dollars did not decrease.
Mr. DoOLEY. Right. No, I'm talking about relatively. Have we
gone in the right direction or the wrong direction?
Mr. Fischer. The nature of the formula funds has been that they
have not kept pace with the inflationary efforts. There has to be
the balance that we talked about earlier. We believe that the Na-
tional Research Initiative fi-om a competitive basis is good, it's
solid, has this administration's support where we believe that the
formula funds — as I said in my statement, we should at least main-
tain an inflationary edge on that funding in order to enhance those
types of programs, and we believe that there's a need for special
research grants to address pertinent issues that need to be ad-
dressed that come up, as you know, as I know, suddenly — the com
blight — some of these issues that come popping up at us that we
cannot anticipate and they don't fit in the legislative process.
Mr. Dooley. You folks are on the frontlines here dealing with
these different problems. Are we better off with the allocations as
they are relative in 1993, or would we be better off and getting
more for our investment of research dollars as we saw them in
1985 where we did see a greater relative percentage in the formula
funding versus the earmarked and the competitive, or does it make
any difference whatsoever?
Mr. Fischer. The total funds have gone up. Formula fimds
stayed the same. Total funds have gone up. So comparing now to
then is the challenge we have that in 1985 we had about the same
dollars as in 1992. However, they were not adjusted for inflation
to that in the formula.
Mr. Dooley. So you're basically not prepared to say that we'd be
better off having the same percentage of the total funding for re-
search allocated to the formiila funds as we did in 1985?
Mr. Fischer. What I would say is that the National Academy of
Sciences study and what was in the 1990 farm bill with the Na-
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
64
been facilities built for things that really don't have much relation-
ship to agriculture, if you get right down to it.
Mr. Stenholm. Well, that's what I'm tndng to get at, to get a
generEil consensus on the part of the five of you as to whether that
is a desirable process for us to continue or if that is a process that
perhaps we should take a little in-depth look at and see if it can
be improved.
Mr. Foil. I think you'd find support fi'om the community for an
in-depth look. I beheve in Mr. Guernsey's testimony he referred to
a position of the land-grant association on facihties and the manner
in which they are funded. We feel very strongly that is something
that can be improved and improved significantly.
With regard to the special grants for the conduct of research, I
think Dr. Fischer's proposal to look closely at them and use them
as contracts to accomplish tsirgeted needs, that's the strength of
our system and that's good by most people's standards. You can
argue around that $150 million, but probably $75 miUion of it was
as good a use as you could make of it. Maybe more. Maybe $100
miluon. Some of the others you could argue about compared to
what. So we need to get a good system.
The Congress needs a chance to express their priorities just as
the executive branch has, and in my State we're pretty comfortable
with a lot of those priorities because we're pretty close to the same
people that send you all to come represent them. But there are
some very real needs to look at the mechanisms that make it easier
perhaps to create a State resource with Federal dollars through the
ag appropriations bill. I've got some good examples in my State
that happened that way just because it was a way in which a need
could be addressed that was not available through another branch
of the Government. And the need was real. It's not a question of
the priority of the need. It's just the mechanism.
Mr. Fischer. If I may, Mr. Chairman, just further comment,
judging from our interaction with you, I hope you take a lot of con-
solation in the fact that we're wrestling with some of these same
issues that you are, and we're super appreciative that you're will-
ing to work with us on it, and anything that we can do to facihtate
this, we'd be more than happy. But it's time for us to ask some of
these questions.
Mr. Stenholm. I appreciate that statement.
Any final comments?
Mr. Carpenter. Mr. Chairmsin, the Extension budget was able
to go along for quite a number of years of not having many of the
special earmark projects. There has been some increase in this over
the last 4 or 5 years. However, there are some special project
fundings on national initiatives that, I would submit to you, have
been extremely successful. For instance, the water quality initia-
tive that's a targeted project, educational program, rather than for-
mula. We beheve that has been supported on behalf of the exten-
sion system.
There have been criticisms that the formula funds were com-
pletely flexible. That's not the case. However, some of the targeted
programs, like on water quality, on food safety and quahty, on inte-
grated pest management, are really targeted to national needs, £ind
we fully support those. There are some of those that have been ear-
65
marked that we're not as proud of, but we recognize who does the
appropriations, too.
Mr. Stenholm. I have several additional questions, but I will
submit those to each of you in writing for inclusion into the record.
We again apologize for the disruptions of the hearing today. We
do appreciate each of you being here and particularly the latter
statement that I know you all share, and you look forward to work-
ing with this committee as we do wrestle with some very difficult
questions that perhaps sdl of us would just as soon not have to face
up to. But I think we're probably going to have to, and we certainly
will appreciate your help and support and look forward to working
with you.
Thank you all very much.
If there's nothing further to come before this hearing, we shall
stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:45 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to recon-
vene, subject to the call of the Chair.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
66
STATEMENT OF JAMES D. SAVAGE
TO THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS AND NUTRITION,
MARCH 25, 1993
Mr. Chairman, my name is James D. Savage, and I am Associate Chair
and Assistant Professor in the Department of Government and Foreign
Affairs at the University of Virginia. Thank you for inviting me
to share with your subcommittee my thoughts on the issue of
employing direct appropriations, or earmarks, for funding
university-conducted agricultural research.
In 1992 I served as a consultant for the Congressional Research
Service, for «rhom I analyzed the trends in earmarks for
universities and colleges during the fiscal years 1980 through
1992. First let me say that an earmark, by Office of Technology
Assessment definition, refers to "a project, facility, instrument,
or other academic or research-related expense that is directly
funded by Congress, which has not been subjected to peer review and
will not be competitively awarded." Using this definition as a
guide, my data indicate that during FY 1980-1992, approximately
$2.5 billion were earmarked for some 234 vtniversities and colleges.
The trend in earmarking during these years clearly is one of rapid
gro%rth, as sho%m in the Table 1 (page 8). In FY 1991, for example,
$470 million In research funds were earmarked, and that amount grew
in FY 1992 to $708 million.
Of this total figure of $2.5 billion , approximately $625 million.
67
2.
or a quarter of all earmarks, have their origins in agriculture
appropriations. Here again, the trend is one of sustained growth,
as shown in Table 2 (page 9). In FY 1990 and FY 1991, the level of
earmarking appeared to plateau at about $100 million, and then
jumped by 34 percent to $146 million in FY 1992. Let me note that
these figures for agricultural earmarks, particularly for the early
years of this study, are conservative. Earmarks are often
difficult to identify, and I estimate that the total figure to be
$10 million to $25 million higher, and thus range in the area of
$650 million.
There are several negative consequences of earmarking agricultural
research. One consequence is the harm it does to the legitimacy of
academic agricultural research in general. Two presidents, Mr.
Reagan and Mr. Bush, singled out university-conducted agricultural
earmarks as examples of waste and pork barrel politics, and a cause
of the Federal deficit, in their State of the Union Addresses.
These examples, which are often comically highlighted by the media,
can only cause the public to question the effectiveness of the
Federal government's research efforts in this field, and to
increase their skepticism about Congress and how it operates.
Earmarking 's negative influence on the legitimacy and status of
agricultural research also extends to the universities that conduct
this research. Every member of this Committee and Subcoraiaittae
should be aware that there are universities that would never
68
3.
consider attempting to earmark the National Institutes of Health
(NIH) or the National Science Foundation (NSF) , but who willingly
hire lobbyists and seek agricultural earmarks. In 1989 I produced
a list of academic earmarks that included agricultural projects.
The president of the Association of American Universities (AAU)
criticized the list by saying that agricultural research had a
distinctive "culture," where the standards of NIH and NSF do not
apply. Thus, one Ivy League university, noted for its decision to
refuse a $5 million earmark for a supercomputer, accepts amd has
increased is efforts to secure agricultural earmarks. Only
recently has the issue of whether agriculttire projects should be
counted as earmarks been raised within AAU. Chancellor Joe Wyatt
of Vanderbilt University, for exeunple, has asked his fellow AAU
presidents, "Is AAU's stated position in opposition to earmarks
undercut by toleremce for Agriculture earmarks?" In addition,
former AAU President Robert Rosenzweig has acknowledged that AAU
may have been misteOcen in limiting its condemnation of direct
appropriations in the agricultiire appropriations bill.
Unfortunately, this tolerance for agricultural earmarks that
Chancellor Wyatt addressed continues to be the dominant opinion
within the university research community. I believe this view of
agricultural research within academia, where pork barrel is the
accepted name of the geune, helps to reduce agricultural research in
general to second-class status within the academy.
Moreover, the academy's green light for earmarking the agricultural
69
4.
appropriations bill has resulted in universities and colleges
seeking projects there that have little to do with agricultural
research. These projects include technology centers, trade
centers, and biology centers. When academic institutions fail to
obtain earmarks in those appropriations subcommittees where
academic earmarks are generally shunned, such as in the House
Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee, they turn to the
other subcommittees to fund their projects. The effect of this, of
course, is to reduce the funds available under the appropriations
subcommittee allocation for true agricultural research.
The Subcommittee should also be aware that some universities
attempt to avoid the charge that they are earmarking by
subcontracting their project in a manner that involves a modified
form of peer review. This practice is not uncommon in the Special
Projects awards funded from the agriculture appropriations bill.
For example, one university will obtain an earmark and, acting as
the principal investigator, share the award with several other
universities organized as a consortium. This is the case with the
mosquito research funded through Special Projects; in another
example, the Midwest Plant Biotechnology Consortium consists of an
estimated eighteen universities. The consortium establishes a peer
review panel, which sometimes consists of faculty only from those
particular universities, to allocate the funds within the group.
Thus, although the initial award was earmarked, the subcontracting
faculty and institutions claim that their project underwent peer '
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
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
72
bill,
In summary, Mr. Chairman, the practice of earmarking academically
conducted agricultural research is increasing. Given the obvious
incentives, universities and colleges will continue to seek
earmarked funds, and do so in a more sophisticated manner. These
funds, however, lack the accountability, emphasis on merit, and
reference to meeting national priorities, that are more typical of
peer reviewed research.
73
8
TABLE 1
APPARENT FY 1980-92 ACADEMIC EARMARKS,
BY FISCAL YEAR
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
S Amount
$10,740,000
0
9,370,000
77,400,000
39,320,000
104,085,000
110,885,000
163,305,000
232,392,000
299,026,200
247,976,333
470,279,499
707.989.000
Number
0
9
13
6
39
38
48
72
208
252
279
499
Total
$2,472,769,031
1,470
74
9.
TABLE 2
APPARENT AGRICULTURE ACADEMIC EARMARKS,
BY FISCAL YEAR
Year
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
S Amount
$4,240,000
0
7,318,999
11,550,000
1,000,000
39,015,000
15,516,000
57,205,000
49,302,000
82,589,200
100,028,333
109,328,499
146.368.000
5
0
7
3
1
16
16
27
28
150
182
173
221
Total
$623,461,031
879
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
76
earmarking of the energy appropriations bill in 1983. What got AAU
upset was that energy represented a major funding source for
universities, and, more important, the fear was that earmarking
would spread to NSF and HHS/NIH. The vast majority of federal
funding for research universities comes from NIH and NSF, and
university presidents are very sensitive about the earmarking of
these programs. Agriculture funding, however, represents very
small change for big, elite research universities, and so these
institutions paid little attention to agriculture. Moreover, most
university presidents have little knowledge about agriculture,
particularly in comparison to the regular science, social science,
and humanities curriculum. I have interviewed any number of major
university presidents who draw a blank when it comes to
agriculture. This lack of understanding reflects the second class
status of agriculture within academia. At the same time, those
universities that have benefitted from agriculture earmarking have
been reluctant to rock their own boats. It was easier for these
institutions to criticize the expansion of earmarking to other
federal agencies than it was to take funds from their own
researchers who were receiving earmarked agriculture funds. So, as
in the example of my oral testimony, Cornell refused new earmarks
from defense appropriations, but continued to accept them from
agriculture appropriations. Thus, the relative unimportance of
agriculture funding versus NSF and NIH, the lack of understanding
among university leaders about agriculture, and the defense of
agriculture earmarking by beneficiaries, has resulted in the
argument that agriculture earmarking is somehow unique, and
represents a special "culture" of federal research funding.
3. Why do you feel there has been the increase in earmarks in the
last 12 years?
The increase has taken place for the following reasons: 1)
Universities have learned from each other how to earmark. This
learning process has taken time, but that knowledge is now diffuse.
Moreover, there are almost no penalties within academia for
earmarking, but there often are rewards for university presidents
who bring additional financial resources to their institutions. 2)
Lobbying organizations have been very active in recruiting clients,
and are increasingly successful in their recruitment, as they can
point to successful earmarks as examples of their abilities. 3)
Members of Congress have learned from their colleagues that
academic earmarks are another way of providing constituent
services. 4) The facility needs of universities have become
increasingly acute, and these institutions are looking to any
funding opportunity. The federal government's willingness to
earmark provides an obvious source. 5) Other funding sources have
become more difficult to tap, especially state funding for public
universities.
4. Which states have fared the best at obtaining agriculture
earmarks and how well have they fared? Why?
For FY 1992, the following states can be approximately ranked as
\
77
the top ten recipients of agriculture earmarks; the dollar figures
represent estimated amounts: 1) Michigan, $16,153,600; 2) North
Dakota, $10,082,000; 3) Wisconsin, $8,169,000; 4) Hawaii,
$8,041,000; 5) Arkansas, $8,035,500; 6) California, $7,207,000; 7)
Texas, $7,207,000; 8) Nebraska, $5,351,000; 9) Iowa, $5,108,000;
10) Mississippi; 4,672,000. These states have fared well because
they are strongly represented on agriculture appropriations, and to
a lesser extent, on agriculture authorizations committees.
Attached to this written response is what would constitute Table 3
of my testimony, "Apparent FY 1992 Academic Agricultural Earmarks,
Ranked by Institutions Receiving $1 Million or More.** This table
indicates, among other things, that ten schools received 50 percent
of all the earmarked dollars. Earmarking favors the few, and as a
process it does not produce equal outcomes to counterbalance the
supposed unequal distribution of peer/merit-review.
I would again like to thank Mr. Stenholm and you for the
opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee. If I can be of
further service, please contact me.
Sincerely,
d^
James D. Savage
Associate Chair
Attachment
78
TABLE 3
APPARENT FY 1992 ACADEMIC AGRICULTURAL EARMARKS,
RANKED BY INSTITUTIONS RECEIVING $1 MILLION OR MORE
Earmark Rank
Earmarked Funds
Percent of Funds
f Cumulative 1
1.
Michigan St U $
16,153,600
2.
U Wisconsin
8,169,000
3.
U Hawaii
8,041,000
4.
U Arkansas
8,035,500
5.
Rutgers U
6,304,000
6.
U CA Riverside
5,387,000
7.
U Nebraska
5,351,000
8.
U North Dakota
5,281,000
9.
Iowa St U
5,108,000
10.
Texas A&M
4,999,000
50%
11.
North Dakota St U
4,801,000
12.
Mississippi St U
4,672,000
13.
Purdue U
4,499,000
14.
Washington St U
4,258,700
15.
Oregon St U
3,678,700
16.
Kansas St U
2,746,000
17.
St Joseph's U (PA)
2,710,000
18.
U Illinois
2,309,000
19.
Louisiana St U
2,065,000
20.
Cornell U
1,948,000
73%
21.
U CA Davis
1,820,000
22.
Pennsylvania St U
1,583,000
23.
South Dakota St U
1,515,000
24.
U Georgia
1,501,000
25.
U Maryland
1,437,000
26.
U Missouri
1,430,500
27.
New Mexico St U
1,430,000
28.
U Idaho
1,354,700
29.
U Montana
1,353,700
30.
Virginia Poly St U
1,346,000
83%
31.
Texas Tech U
1,300,000
32.
Oklahoma St U
1,252,000
33.
U Maine
1,098,000
34.
U Tennessee
1,062,000
86%
Other Institutions
20,438,600
100%
Total
$ 146,368,000
79
Testimony before the Subcommittee on Department Operations
and Nutrition of the House Agriculture Committee
Presented by Dr. James A. Kloek, Chairman
National Agricultural Research and Extension Users Advisory Board
March 25, 1993
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee thank you very
much for inviting me to testify regarding the state of our
national agricultural research facilities. I am pleased to be
here today as a representative of the National Agricultural
Research and Extension Users Advisory Board (UAB) and as an
advocate for change in science and education.
The issue of facilities allocation and upkeep is an
extremely important topic in science and education. However, it
is a topic often bypassed because of the uncomfortable questions
it raises. Mr. Chairman, the UAB is here today to say it is time
to face those tough questions. In this time of budget reduction,
we must ask and answer: How do we reform the system of federally-
funded agricultural research facilities in order to:
(1) meet scientific priorities;
(2) close outdated and run-down centers; and
(3) establish an effective planning process for future
needs?
Mr. Chairman, I will give you a thumbnail sketch of the UAB
and its concern with research facilities. The UAB was
established by the Congress in 1977 to provide "user"
recommendations to policymakers regarding agricultural research,
extension, and higher education. UAB members are private
citizens from a variety of walks of life. Our job is to provide
feedback to the USDA and the Congress — to tell them what works
and what doesn't from a customer's point of view. Our
activities include publication of an annual report for the
Congress and the Secretary of Agriculture in which we review the
budget and make recommendations about how best to spend taxpayer
dollars.
The issue of research facilities has concerned the UAB for
more than a decade. UAB members have traveled throughout the
Nation to evaluate science and education programs and, in turn,
have visited many Agricultural Research Service and university
80
agricultural research facilities. Starting in 1981, we have
submitted recommendations in written reports to the Secretary and
the Congress on facilities, including a 1990 position paper on
this issue to the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.'
The UAB believes that to maintain the finest agricultural
research facility program in the world, this Nation must build
accountability into that program. First, the Nation must develop
a cohesive overall strategy for agricultural research. Then we
must determine if existing or proposed agricultural research
facilities can fulfill the strategy's long term goals and
objectives.
Before I go into greater detail, Mr. Chairman, allow me to
cut to our bottom line: It is the UAB's opinion that Congress
should delay any authorization or appropriation of funds for
additional agricultural research facilities until we have in
place:
(1) a strategic national facilities plan; and
(2) mechanisms to evaluate all current and proposed
facilities.
BUDGET REALITIES
The backdrop to our discussion today is the national budget
crisis. We listened very carefully when you spoke before the UAB
last month, Mr. Chairman. We appreciated your candor about the
challenges facing the research and extension system. We want the
Subcommittee to know that the UAB agrees: Control and
accountability in the budget is not only top on the congressional
agenda but top on our agenda as well.
Across government, the research community is being asked to
tighten its belt. Congressman George Brown, Vice Chairman of
this Subcommittee, recently noted in Science that the United
States will spend $12 billion on civilian basic research alone
this fiscal year.^ The message in his article is that the near
future holds little to no growth in research funding.
The science and education agencies of the U. S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) consume approximately $1.6 billion
' Report on National Peer Review of Federal and State
Agricultural Research Facilities, 1989
^ Honorable George E. Brown, Jr., Science, Vol. 258, Oct 9,
1992, Rational Science, Irrational Reality: A Congressional
Perspective on Basic Research and Society.
81
annually. This is a small sum - particularly when it is compared
with the funding of other Federal science agencies, and when we
consider the magnitude of the challenges facing the agricultural
sector. However, the current budget climate makes a budget
increase unlikely. In fact, the agricultural research
establishment now finds itself in the position of defending its
budget and organizational structure from those who advocate
overall reduction and reform of USDA.
The reality is that the agricultural research and extension
community is being asked these days to do more with less.
A clear and troubling trend has emerged over the last
several years: More and more funds are diverted from actual
research projects to facilities maintenance and construction.
Such diversions undermine the ability of scientists to solve
pressing problems such as groundwater protection, crop
protection, and food safety.
Moreover, the scramble for limited dollars has resulted in
an exponential increase in congressional earmarking of research
funds. The UAB believes that earmarking money for facilities has
accelerated the overall diversion of Federal funds. We have
articulated this position in several reports including our most
recent appraisal of the FY 1993 budget.^ The money spent
building, staffing, and maintaining earmarked facilities has
seriously eroded base program funding, thereby prompting even
more earmarking as the agricultural industry seeks special grants
to offset cuts in basic funding. This cycle guts the integrity
of our science and education programs.
Obviously scientists require modern facilities, and it the
federal government has a responsibility to provide them.
However, the funds now spent on facilities are invested
inefficiently. Many facilities have weak justification for
existence and would not pass the scrutiny of peer review.
I must caution, however, that one popular budget solution
across-the-board spending cuts - will not work here. An across-
the-board cut would have the same effect as a farmer cutting off
the tops of all the plants in a field to rid that field of weeds.
The smart farmer employs a different strategy. He scrutinizes
his field, helps the valuable plants to grow, and removes weeds
at their roots.
Mr. Chairman, we need to adopt the "smart farmer" approach
to facility management. Congress and USDA need to scrutinize the
agricultural science and education system and develop a strategic
^ "Appraisal of the FY 1993 Budget for Food and Agricultural
Sciences, UAB (February, 1992) .
82
national plan. If we have a clear and coordinated roadmap for
this system, not only would we be able to develop a national plan
for the locating research facilities, we will also be able to
identify and close any facility that is off -course.
THE STATE OF OUR FACILITIES
How many facilities are there?
Most of the federally-owned and operated agricultural
research facilities are under the Agricultural Research Service
(ARS) , the in-house research arm of USDA.* There were 139 ARS
research sites in 1981 when the UAB first reported its concern
about the distribution and number of research facilities. Now
there are 126 ARS laboratory sites. Approximately half of the
121 domestic sites are located in the same town or city as a
major agricultural university. Many of the sites consist of
several buildings and trailers, although the sites are referred
to as "one facility."
The vast majority of new facilities built with Federal funds
are actually State university facilities. For example, the
federal government provides money to build a facility at a land
grant university, which is then handed over to the state to
maintain and operate as part of the state's agricultural
experiment station. Since fiscal year 1978 the federal
government has contributed close to $500 million for such
facilities. If the facilities in the "pipeline" are completed,
it is estimated that it will cost the federal government a
minimum of $1 billion.
How old are the facilities?
Many of the ARS facilities were built before or immediately
after World War II. For example, the four major regional
research centers, which are playing an increasingly important
role with renewed emphasis on new uses research, were authorized
in 1938 and constructed soon after. Many of these older
facilities are scheduled for major renovations to meet current
safety and health requirements. Many older facilities are not
suitable to conduct modern biotechnology and other advanced
research.
* The 126 ARS laboratory sites include 121 domestic and
five foreign locations. Also, 15 of the 121 domestic sites are
not facilities, but rather consist of ARS scientists stationed at
universities (ARS still contributes to facilities repair,
maintenance, and renovation costs at these university sites) .
83
What do these facilities do?
ARS is the "in-house" agricultural research agency of USDA
(although much of ARS's research is conducted in direct
cooperation with state agricultural experiment stations) . ARS
has 8,300 full-time equivalent staff, of which 506 serve in the
Washington headquarters. The ARS fiscal year 1993 budget totals
$746,262,000 and the agency researches a broad range of topics
critical to the agricultural sector.
PROBLEMS WITH THE CURRENT SYSTEM
The UAB has seen facilities that are outdated, understaffed,
and/or in serious disrepair. Many facilities remain in operation
despite evidence that the they should be closed or consolidated
with other facilities. Moreover, new facilities are being built
with no planning and little regard for national scientific
priorities.
Mr. Chairman, allow me to highlight seven facility problems
identified by the UAB that may raise eyebrows around the
Committee table. But before I do so, I want to stress that these
problems alone may not add up to a mandate for closing a
facility. For example, our premier national laboratory in
Beltsville, Maryland suffers many of the problems I will discuss.
Yet the UAB feels strongly that Beltsville should remain in
operation and additional funds should be designated to improve
this facility. In other words Mr. Chairman, I present these
seven problems as red flags, waved to summon the Committee to
further investigation and to indicate the need for overall
strategic planning.
Problem One; Facilities are in severe disrepair.
In 1990 a USDA panel reported on the physical decay of the
ARS Plum Island Animal Research Center in New York. In
November 1992 the New York Times published a front page
story about this facility entitled "Unit for Animal-Disease
Study Trims Safeguards". It was pointed but in the article
that staff cutbacks made by the private management company
had undermined the traditional safety precautions at the
island and that the center's plant and equipment have
deteriorated to the point that repairs are expected to cost
$60 million.
In fiscal year 1990, USDA estimated the necessary repair,
maintenance, and renovation costs for its domestic ARS
sites. Almost every site — 106 out of 124 — were scheduled
for some work. In total, ARS's 1990 needs for repair
totaled $348,434,000. That amount is staggering compared to
84
ARS's overall 1990 research budget of $456,434,000.
In other words, for every dollar spent on research, ARS will
have to spend an additional 76 cents to repair these
facilities in order to meet health and safety codes. If the
trend continues, we will have little money left for research
after attending to facility needs. Putting this in an
agricultural context, we are eating our seed corn.
Problem Two; Buildings are staffed at less than full
capacity.
While we know some research is being conducted in metal
barns and dilapidated offices, we also know that other ARS
buildings are not being employed at their full capacity.
The agency has 3,000 buildings with approximately 12 million!
square feet of space; and 8,300 full-time-equivalent
employees. This indicates there is close to 1,500 square
feet of facility space per employee. If you only calculate
the 5,250 scientists and technicians and the 5,639,811
square feet for laboratories and offices, there is 1,074
square feet per employee. While some of this space includes
sheds and auditoriums, there is little doubt in our minds
that there should be no need for increased capacity and that
some space is under-occupied.
Problem Three: The support staff-to-scientist ratio is too
high.
In its July 1982 report, the UAB recommended a
reorganization of ARS to reduce excessive layers of
supervision and administration. The generally accepted
ratio of support staff to scientists is 2:1. We believe
that in many cases support staff for ARS scientists exceeds I
this ratio.
The high ratio of support staff per scientist can be caused,
in part, by problem two - buildings not staffed at full I
scientific capacity. For example, each facility must have a
certain number of employees for maintenance, administration,
and clerical work. If the facility is operating below its
full scientific capacity, the result is a high ratio of
staff per scientist. On the other hand, the Plum Island
story illustrates that scaling back support staff is often
the first response to a budget reduction. The result can be
bad management and safety risks. The lesson is you can't
win unless you set priorities.
' Information based on April 14, 1989, data sent to House
and Senate Agriculture Committee leadership by Secretary of
Agriculture, as requested.
85
Problem Four: The facilities are remote from scientific
centers.
In order to effectively carry out research, scientists need
to interact with each other. In its February 1983 report
and again in later reports, the UAB said that scarce program
funds must be judiciously applied to high priority programs
rather than thinly spread among a multitude of projects.
Many ARS facilities are too small to provide a "critical
mass" of scientists, and are located too far away from other
research centers to allow for regular collaboration.
Problem Five; There is no national agricultural science
facility plan.
Because there is no overall priority setting, there is no
national planning for new facilities. If biotechnology is
the "hot" issue in a given year, then all five facilities
built that year are biotech facilities despite pressing
needs in other disciplines. In addition, we are building
new facilities at such an alarming rate that we do not have
sufficient staff to operate many of the labs once they are
built.
Problem Six; The system of allocation is politicized.
The July 1982 report expressed the Board's concern that many
of the ARS facilities were established in an era of Federal
expansion. Moreover, their locations appeared to have been
determined by politics rather than agricultural needs.
The system for allocating research funds for research
facilities has become even more politicized since that
report. The pressure to build new federal research labs and
state facilities comes not only from Members of Congress,
but also from the universities that benefit from having new
labs built on their campuses. Universities are hiring high-
priced lobbyists to win congressional appropriations.
Universities tell their Congressmen that without modern
facilities, they are frozen out of the competition for
research grants.
In absence of a strategic national plan for facilities,
there is little reason to resist earmarking. It is the only
game in town.
Problem Seven; There is no end in sight.
Unfortunately the facility problem is not going away. A
1988 National Science Foundation report found that 38
percent of state agricultural facility space was inadequate.
86
The report also found that 46 percent of State university
agricultural space is in need of repair.* The pressure to
build and renovate facilities is increasing.
PREVIOOS REPORTS /INVESTIGATIONS
Although the UAB first pointed out the facilities problem more
than a decade ago and has produced numerous reports on the topic,
our analysis has been verified by subsequent reviews.
Independent reviews by the Office of Technology Assessment,
the National Academy of Sciences, the National Science
Foundation, the National Association of State Universities and
Land Grant Colleges, and the Senate Agriculture Committee all
report that many of the Nation's research facilities are
underused, run-down, and duplicative of other facilities.
Ten years ago, a General Accounting Office (GAO)
investigation of ARS facilities concluded that many facilities
were underused. Some facilities were staffed at only 17 percent
of capacity because, GAO charged, the system had too many
facilities in light of ARS's declining personnel. GAO
recommended that USDA consolidate research activities at fewer
locations.'
PREVIOOS REFORM EFFORTS LAUNCHED WITH NO SUCCESS
Users Advisory Board Recommendations
As early as 1982, the UAB began calling attention to the
state of disrepair of ARS research facilities. In its February
1985 report the Board pointed out that awarding federal funds for
research facilities, without peer review or adding ongoing
operating funds, competed with funding for programs. The result,
we said, is interference with the setting of long-range
objectives and strategies.
In 1988 the UAB further urged that no new construction be
undertaken on any ARS location until the existing Beltsville
facilities had been returned to first-class status. The next
year the Board recommended that funds needed to repair and update
Beltsville and the four regional laboratories be made available
^ National Science Foundation, NSF-PRA Report 87-3,
Infrastructure, the Capital Requirements for Research, May 1987
^ Government Accounting Office, GAO/RCED/83-20 , Federal
Agricultural Research Facilities Are Underused, Jan. 14, 1983
8
87
from reallocations realized by closing or consolidating obsolete,
unneeded, or inefficient ARS research facilities.
The UAB also recommended that if a university or a state
believes such a facility is vital to agriculture in its area of
the country, ARS should transfer, lease, or loan that facility to
a local research body. In this way, ARS can more properly
concentrate on research activities and initiatives that have
national significance.
We urged in the 1990 February report that repair and
maintenance costs for all facilities be assessed realistically,
and funding levels be adjusted to ensure, at the very least, that
these major facilities do not deteriorate any further. We said
we did not support new facilities unless a comprehensive review
of present facility options shows that a cost-saving
consolidation would result. We also recommended that ARS and
Congress not continue to add new facilities if present facilities
are not fully utilized.
The February 1991 report asked ARS to develop standards of
operation for its facilities, and to close or consolidate those
facilities that fail to meet such standards. These standards
would be spelled out in the ARS 6-year strategic plans, but
preferably with a 10-to 15 year outlook. These plans should also
include the amount of funding necessary to keep facilities of
long-term importance in good repair.
In 1988 the UAB recommended closing 20 Agricultural Research
Service research facilities in FY 1989 and another 20 in FY 1990.
The UAB has argued that consolidation of ARS would generate
millions of dollars in savings which could be reallocated to
upgrade remaining facilities and to invest in base and
competitive funding.
In 1990 the UAB recommended that the system be overhauled
using an External Peer Review Panel which I will describe in
detail momentarily.
In 1992, the UAB once again urged the reform of facilities
and stressed the importance of providing adequate maintenance of
key facilities at the Beltsville, Maryland Agricultural Research
Center, the Plum Island Animal Research Center in New York, and
the National Animal Disease Control Center in Ames, Iowa.
The Administration and Congress have failed to act on any of
the UAB recommendations I have briefly described.
./I
88
The National Association of State Universities and Land Grant
Colleges Recommendation
NASULGC has recommended that Congress fund a $100 million
annual competitive facility grants program. This would be a
coordinated Federal/State effort with an open, competitive
selection process. The program would consist of two principle
components. First, competitive facility grants (consisting of 80
percent of available funds) would be open to all eligible
cooperating institutions. The second component would allocate
competitive grants for smaller or emerging cooperating
institutions. This recommendation was part of a larger
recommendation aimed at halting the earmarking of agricultural
research funding.®
The Agriculture Research Facilities Planning and Closure Study
Commission
In 1990 the Congress passed legislation which established a
commission, modeled after the military base closing commission,
to deal with the problem of agricultural research facilities.
The Commission was created for the purpose of establishing a
coherent, comprehensive policy for America's agricultural
research infrastructure.
The Commission was charged with reviewing all current and
planned agricultural research facilities and recommending whether
such facilities should be closed, realigned, consolidated or
modernized. The Commission was also told to evaluate USDA's
facilities acquisition and modernization system, and recommend
improvements in the system.
The congressional appropriations committees have not funded
the Commission. In 1991, the UAB wrote a letter to Senator
Robert Byrd, Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations,
expressing its disappointment that this Commission had not been
funded and urged his support in FY 1993.
nSDA SWAT Team
Secretary Madigan testified last summer before the U.S.
Senate Agriculture Committee that a report on all facilities
would be presented to the Hill in November 1992 as part of the
USDA SWAT Team efforts to review field locations. So far no
report has been issued. The SWAT Team briefings for
congressional staff and the press have not included reviews of
NASULGC, Agricultural Research Facilities, A Proposed
Plan for Needed Investment, Jan. 1991 and America's Agriculture
in the 21st Century, February 1989.
10
89
the agricultural research facilities, despite the fact that it
was this issue that kicked off the call for infrastructural
reform.
THE UAB PLAN FOR ACTION — EXTERNAL FACILITIES REVIEW PANEL
The UAB recommends the establishment of a National External
Peer Review Panel to ensure accountability in facility planning
and operations. The Panel would be an arm of the USDA and
members would be appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture with
recommendations from the Chairman and Ranking members of the
Senate and House Agriculture Committees, National Academy of
Science and other user, academic, and agri-industry
organizations .
The Panel would be composed of individuals from both the
public and private sector with expertise in science, engineering,
management, research and development, and technology transfer.
Panel members from Federal or University facilities being
considered by the Panel must be excused from that particular
evaluation and merit assessment. Administrative support should
come from research agencies at USDA to carry out the duties of
this Panel.
Purposes of the Panel would be to evaluate the status and
progress of Federal and University agricultural research
facilities for the Congress and the Secretary.
External Peer Review Teams
In addition to the Panel, the UAB recommends establishment
of several External Peer Review Teams. The purpose of these
teams would be to conduct on-site evaluations of existing Federal
and University agricultural research facilities. Expenses for
the Team evaluation would be incurred by the Facility submitting
the proposal or being reviewed. These evaluations would be
submitted to the Panel for the merit assessment being conveyed to
the Secretary and the Congress.
The Teams would include individuals from the public and
private sector in science, engineering, finance, business
management, marketing, and like fields, with expertise in
science/technical merit, management, research facilities, and
technology transfer. Team members of Federal or University
facilities being reviewed by the Team must be excused from that
particular evaluation.
11
90
strategic Planning
A number of actions would be necessary prior to the Team
evaluations and merit assessments of the Panel. They are:
o All facilities or proposals would develop a clear and
concise statement pertaining to their mission.
o All facilities or proposals would develop on an annual
basis, a five-year written plan which describes who the
organization is, where it is going, and how it is going to
get there. This strategic plan would be used for management
purposes and to facilitate evaluation of performance.
o Each facility and proposal would follow a standard
outline in producing its strategic plan which would be
provided by the Panel.
The Strategic Plan would reflect the unique combination of
the Facility's interest and capabilities, and would discuss
features of the Facility in sufficient detail to be evaluated in
accordance with the guidelines and criteria.
The UAB recommends that the National Science Foundation
(NSF) Guidelines for proposed Science and Technology Research
Centers' be utilized in a modified form to address existing and
proposed Federal and University agricultural research facilities.
Each Strategic Plan should contain the following elements
and additional subsections:
Executive Summary. Provide clear descriptions of the
Facility, its intellectual theme, and its distinguishing
features.
Rationale for the Facility. Why is the Facility needed?
What differences will this Facility make within the context
of the total resources and Facilities available in the
United States? What other Federal or University facilities
are conducting similar research? How does this Facility
relate to similar Facilities in the Nation, Region or State?
Description of the Intellectual Focus and Research. A
Facility's intellectual theme should be sufficiently long-
term to justify it. The Facility must have sufficient (focus
to have definable goals. Describe the proposed research
goals and activities in adequate detail to allow assessment
of their scientific merit and the need for use of the
Facility mode of research. In addition, state the
National Science Foundation, NSF-STRC report, 87-75
12
91
anticipated affects that activities carried out at the
Facility will have on agriculture.
Educational Features of the Facility. What is the
Facility's means of attracting high quality scientists or
engineers?
Knowledge Transfer. Outreach, and Participation. The
Facility must have clearly defined plans for involving and
transferring knowledge to the agricultural community.
Management Plan. This must describe the organizational
structure of the Facility, its mechanisms for focusing
activities, selecting and integrating related research
projects, and allocating funds and equipment.
Physical Structure for the Facility. Include a description
of the available space and/or plans for new or renovated
space, major items of equipment, maintenance requirements,
and the estimated costs.
Institutional and Other Sector Support for the Facility.
Provide details of committed and expected support from all
sources.
Budget. A proposed five-year budget for the Facility must
be provided.
Impact of the Facility upon the Nation's Economy. How has
or will the Facility contribute to agriculture's economic
growth?
Biographical Sketches and Individual Support. Provide a
short biographical sketch and a list of the most recent
and/or significant publications and activities of the key
personnel, with a summary of each participant's current and
pending research efforts.
Criteria
Facilities will be evaluated through a multi-tier merit
review process. The first stage of review will be conducted by
the External Peer Review Panel to assess adherence to the
guidelines and preconditions for Federal and University
facilities, including the scientific and economic development
impact of the Facility. This phase of the review process may
involve both ad hoc mail and panel reviews.
The full review process will involve a comprehensive review
by the Teams convened for the sole purpose of evaluating existing
Facilities. During the course of the review process, each
13
92
Facility will receive a site visit review. Site visit reviews
will consider all aspects of the organization, including the
facilities, technical staff, the mechanisms planned for the
management, and ongoing evaluation of the work of the research
Facility.
Facilities will be reviewed by the Teams to determine their
ability to meet goals of Congress and the Secretary of
Agriculture. Emphasis will be placed upon the extent to which
the Facility has enhanced, or will enhance the economic well-
being of U.S. agriculture. The review shall ascertain if the
Facility meets national standards of excellence.
The following analyses of the Facility and submitted
materials will be made during the review process:
Intrinsic merit "of the intellectual focus and research.
What is the scientific merit of the work being conducted?
This criterion is concerned with the Facility's overall
quality of research and the likelihood that the research
will lead to fundamental advances within the field, new
discoveries, and/or technological developments and
commercialization. The presence of unique opportunities for
technical innovation will be explored.
Research performance competence. This criterion relates to
the capability of the investigator (s) and the adequacy of
the resources that are committed to the Facility. An
important issue here is the adequacy of existing or planned
facilities.
Utility or transferability of the research. This criterion
is used to assess the likelihood that the research can
contribute to the achievement of a goal that is extrinsic or
in addition to that of the research field itself and thereby
serve as the basis for new or improved technology, or assist
in the solution of agricultural problems.
Appropriateness of the Research Facility approach. Included
in this criterion are the questions: Is the Facility's
approach and structure essential to or appropriate to the
research activities described? Will a Facility's approach
add significantly to what could be done through other modes
of research support?
Appropriateness of institutional and management plans and
arrangements . This criterion relates to the likely
effectiveness of management and the strength and form of
commitments to the Facility. Important additional issues
include: the reasonableness and appropriateness of the
budget; the mechanisms proposed or in place to enable
evaluation of the Facility's progress; and the nature and
14
93
level of coromitment from other participants and/or sectors.
Effect of the Facility on the infrastructure of agriculture.
This criterion relates to the potential of the Facility and
the research being conducted there to contribute to better
understanding or improvement of the quality, distribution,
or effectiveness of the Nation's (agricultural) scientific
research and educational capabilities. An important issue
here is the way the Facility relates to other institutions
and facilities on similar topical issues in the Nation,
Region, or State.
Appropriateness and strength of linkages and knowledge
transfer efforts to other sectors and groups. This
criterion is used to assess where the Facility involves or
has concrete plans to involve appropriate sectors and groups
in the work of the Facility, and the form and strength of
that involvement. Included here are questions about the
appropriateness, form, and likely success of knowledge or
technology transfer efforts.
Performance against Strategic Plan and goals. This section
will fully evaluate the performance of the Facility in
meeting its goals as set forth in its Strategic Plan.
The proximate, long-term economic development impact of the
Facilitv. Among the criteria to be considered are the
contribution to the body of basic research, development of
new technologies, development of new processes, number of
patents/copyrights issued, composition of industry
clientele, etc.
CONCLUSION
Clearly, our present agricultural research facilities system
needs an overhaul. We need a coordinated, coherent policy to
maintain and promote America's agricultural research
infrastructure. We need to consolidate and close outdated
facilities; reinvest in existing facilities; and institute a
national plan for building new facilities.
I urge the Subcommittee to work with the research and
extension community and come to a consensus on a national,
cohesive strategy for agricultural research. Without such a
plan, it will be difficult to measure the "fit" of any existing
or proposed research facility and determine whether it merits our
limited Federal funding.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I have cited a
decade of UAB recommendations about research facilities and
strategic planning. In fact, in just its third report (October
15
68-792 - 93 - 4
94
1981) , which was written while the Board was still organizing
itself, the UAB identified Planning and Priority Setting as its
second critical issue. That report said, "We seem to have more
needs and more ideas of how to address those needs in
agricultural science than we have public resources to meet them."
The current Board fully agrees with that statement. What
agricultural research needs in an effective national planning and
priority setting process - a process that allocates precious
resources to the most important needs and best ideas, and
refrains from funding those at the bottom of the list.
The UAB remains committed to confronting the facilities
issue. Better planning and management of our agricultural
research facilities is crucial to the success of our science and
education system. We look forward to working with the
Subcommittee as you face the challenge of facility reform.
16
95
ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUBSTIONS SUBMITTED TO DR. JAMES KLOEK, PANELIST
FOR MARCH 25, 1993 HEARING - REPRESENTATIVE STBNHOLM PRESIDING
1. How does the erosion of base progreunnlng at research facilities
Influence "critical mass" to accomplish good scientific results?
That is, if there are too many support staff and not enough
scientists, what will be the result?
Answer ; At one time, a small laboratory operation was capable of
making excellent progress; today, an interdisciplinary group or
"critical mass", often with highly sophisticated euid costly
equipment, is required to solve pressing agriculture problems.
This work is undermined, however, when program funds are siphoned
off to support brick and mortar instead of the scientists and
equipment that are needed. There is also a "Catch 22" effect
because buildings require a certain number of administrative and
maintenance employees which is often offset by a reduction in the
number of scientists.
2. The CSRS has estimated that it will cost $430 M to complete
facilities already in the hopper. I imagine the situation at the
ARS is similar. What would you recommend be done with those
projects?
Answer; According to USDA estimates done in FY 1990, a total of
$348,434,000 was needed for ARS's 1990 repair needs. That is a
staggering amount compared to ARS's overall 1990 research budget of
$456,434,000. In other words, for every dollar spent on research,
ARS would have to spend and additional $.76 on repair. Putting
this is an agricultural context, we are eating our seed corn.
This trend can not continue but obviously we can't just walk away
from all the buildings under construction. As stated in my
testimony, it is the UAB's position that an overall strategic plan
must be developed for agricultural research and that Congress use
this plan to evaluate current <md proposed construction. Those
projects that don't address the objectives in the strategic plan
must be abandoned. There simply isn't enough money to do them all.
3. You mention in your testimony that the ARS system has 1,074
square feet of research space per employee. How does this compare
to what industry has?
Answer; In industry there is about 500 square feet per employee,
which includes scientists and support staff. The typical
industrial lab is 600 square feet with an additional 120 square
feet for office space for 2 to 4 scientists and technicians.
96
4. How much of a priority should be placed upon renovation of
existing facilities as opposed to construction of new?
Answer ; Too many existing and proposed facilities are supported
for their limited geographic locations vs their ability to address
critical issues. Funds for brick and rortar, whether is be new or
renovation, should be evaluated in terms of the contribution the
laboratory will make in advancing the objectives of the overall
strategic plan. This should be the highest priority and the
guiding hand.
5. We appreciate your understanding of the budget realities we are
facing. If we fail to begin prioritizing research and facilities,
how effective do you feel our agriculture research will be in 5 or
10 years.
Answer; The lack of a prioritized list of research goals and
facilities means that U.S. agriculture isn't making the best and
most intelligent use of the technologies that have been developed
over the last ten yeeurs. Our comparative advantage will be
seriously threatened in 5 or 10 years. Here again, Mr. Chairman,
we're eating our seed corn.
97
statement by
Susan E. Offutt
Executive Director
Board on Agriculture, National Research Council
before the
Subcommittee on Department Operations and Nutrition
House Committee on Agriculture
25 March 1993
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to testify during your review of current
agricultural research and education priorities. My remarks
address funding support for agricultural research through
competitive grants, and the new study on the role of the colleges
of agriculture and the land grant university system that is being
undertaken by the Board on Agriculture.
The relation between agriculture and public research
institutions in land grant universities and federal agencies has
been a long and beneficial one. Widely credited as the engine
that has driven the substantial achievements of American farmers,
the nation's agricultural research system has, with growing
frequency, been cited as a model in the design of similar
research and development partnerships for other parts of the
industrial base. However, it diminishes none of the achievements
of the past to suggest that the agricultural, food, and
environmental system should now concentrate on its future.
Funding Agricultural Resaareh
Of concern is the mechanism by which agricultural research
is funded. Sustained over a century by federal formula grants
matched by state contributions, the system has more recently
experimented with competitive grants. In 1989, the Board on
Agriculture of the National Research Council made a proposal to
mobilize the nation's scientific and engineering communities to
advance the quality of agriculture, the food supply, and the
Susan E. Offutt, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Board on
Agriculture, Washington, D.C. The Board on Agriculture is one of
ten major units within the National Research Council. The
Council is the principal operating agency of the National Academy
of Sciences.
98
environment through significant expansion of competitive research
grants. The Board on Agriculture proposal — which became the
National Research Initiative (MRI) — recommended new monies for
agricultural research at the level of $500 million annually,
distributed among six broad program areas: plant systems; animal
systems; nutrition, food quality, and health; natural resources
and the environment; engineering, products, and processes; and
markets, trade, and policy. Authorization for the full $500
million program was included in the 1990 farm bill.
The Board argued that implementation of the NRI would ensure
the continued benefits of high return to investment in
agricultural research, encourage the participation of the entire
science community in agricultural work, provide flexibility and
response to utilize new scientific discoveries and technologies
for agriculture, and advance U.S. agriculture while contributing
advances in relevant scientific fields, such as biomedicine and
ecology. The hope was that, when fully funded, the NRI would
make grants of larger size and duration than under the then
existing competitive grants program within USDA. Specifically,
those grants would be made as four types: (1) to individual
principal investigators, (2) to multidisciplinary teams working
on basic research, (3) to mission-linked multidisciplinary teams,
and (4) to institutions and individuals to strengthen the U.S.
research capacity.
The Board's proposal for enlarging the research commitment
for agriculture through competitive grants was endorsed by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The Bush Administration
subsequently proposed to the Congress that the existing
competitive research grants program be expanded by $50 million
annually. And, the Congress responded with an increase in the
appropriation from about $43 million to $73 million. The next
year, in FY1992, the NRI funding level was set at $97.5 million.
Considered against the backdrop of an increasingly
constrained federal budget allocation for all agricultural
programs, the NRI has enjoyed remarkable success. By FY1993,
however, the strictures of the 1990 budget summit were being
felt; NRI funding stalled at the previous year's level of $97.5
million. Vfhile all six categories received some measure of
funding by FY1992, the NRI is still some way from its overall
goal and from being able to fulfill the Board's hope that
individual grants would average $100,000 per year (compared with
the current average $50,000) and last longer (for three to five
years, compared with the current average one to two years) ; and
that appropriate levels of support would be available for the six
program areas and four types of grants.
As argued by the Board in Investing in Research: A Proposal
to Strengthen the Agricultural. Food, and Environmental System
(National Academy Press, 1989) , the competitive grant is the
99
proven and appropriate mechanism to stimulate new research in
high-priority areas of science and engineering. It is flexible,
reaches a large pool of talented scientists, and provides a
balance to the overall research program, thereby ensuring high-
quality research.
Responsiveness and flexibility in altering the direction of
exploratory research are critical to maintaining scientific
excellence. A competitive grants program capitalizes on the
skills and experiences of leading scientists in recognizing the
need for new directions in science. Because funding commitments
to any one project are for only 3 years to 5 years, this
mechanism is flexible and responsive to rapid advancements in
science, thereby allowing resources to be targeted at the most
promising areas of scientific research in each grant cycle. Open
competition and critical review by scientific peers helps secure
scientific excellence.
Sufficient funding over an adequate period of time is the
best way to attract talented scientists from a variety of
disciplines. The expanded competitive grants program will more
adequately support researchers within the agricultural research
system and will also open the system to scientists from other
disciplines who have not previously participated in the USDA
grants program. These scientists should be, but are not now,
applying their skills to agricultural research.
An expanded competitive grants program will provide the
needed balance among the funding mechanisms that support USDA's
R&D: intramural programs, formula funding, special grants, and
competitive grants. Competitive grants are a significant source
of funding within other federal agencies. At the National
Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation
(NSF) , well in excess of three-fourths of R&D support,
respectively, is distributed through competitive research grants.
USDA should not, however, attempt to mirror NIH and NSF in the
proportion of funds it distributes on a competitive basis. For
example, problems specific to certain crops, technologies, and
regions are often best addressed through formula funds or special
grants. Long-range research, such as the development of improved
plant and animal gemplasms, or tracking of the diets and
nutritional status of a group of children as they grow, for
example, are more effectively supported on a continuing basis
through intramural funding.
Putur* of th« Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture
The Board on Agriculture proposes to undertake a three-part
project, an examination of the land grant colleges of agriculture
— and related units for natural resources, human ecology, and
veterinary medicine — and the ways in which their tripartite
100
mission of teaching, research, and extension can be, and is
being, adapted to a changing clientele, changing social needs,
and an expanding science and technology base. The Board
recognizes that activities in support of that mission take place
outside the colleges of agriculture, for example, when
disciplines in the life sciences are found in a separate
administrative unit. So, although the focus of the study would
be the colleges of agriculture, when it seems appropriate,
resources and institutions outside of the colleges would be
considered in their contribution to the colleges' mission.
The primary goal of the Board's study is to provide the
continued success of the land grant colleges of agriculture in
supporting the nation's wise and sustainable use of its natural
resources in the production and utilization of food and fiber. A
secondary goal is to examine the relevance of the tripartite
mission of the colleges of agriculture as a model for the wider
university, scientific, and public policy communities.
The study's objectives are intended to support its goals
through the emphasis on understanding the challenges and
opportunities faced by colleges of agriculture nationwide. The
committee of experts appointed to pursue the study would make
full use of existing, extensive data bases on the system's stock
of human, physical, and financial resources. The committee will
also interact directly with the system and its clients in
identifying institutional innovations and models of creativity
that might be widely applied. The Board conceives the study as
having three main objectives:
o to describe trends and contemporary patterns of resource
allocation and program effort in the colleges as well as
characteristics of the nation's farm and food system and
its consumers;
o to analyze the colleges' role in providing instruction,
performing research, and transferring new knowledge and
technology according to the priorities it has set for
itself and the expectations of its public;
o to synthesize findings on organization and resource
allocation that define strategies with broad application
through the system.
The Board anticipates the outcome of the study as the
identification of organizational and management strategies that
promote effective use of the colleges' limited resources.
Collaboration, within and between colleges, is expected to be a
key theme that recognizes the value of interdisciplinary work in
problem-solving and the need for pooling resources or delegating
responsibilities across state boundaries. Strategies for
101
altering faculty rewards and incentives or setting priorities to
serve multi-state clientele would be two possible examples.
These strategies would recognize current resource endowments
while anticipating change in the future. The study itself, which
will include regional workshops, can catalyze new associations
and consensus-building within the college and also between the
agricultural and the broader university and research communities.
The Board does recognize that such innovations will not be
imposed by federal fiat; the decentralized nature of the
agricultural research, teaching, and extension system obviously
precludes that. However, the system has a long history of
operating through consensus, and the Board expects to draw on
that tradition in promoting "knowledge transfer." By the same
token, federal support for the nation's system is predicated on
its serving national priorities, and it seems unwise to suppose
that a "laissez-faire" system of priority-setting will always
produce optimum results. So, the Board believes it is likely
that the study's findings will have implications for the conduct
of the federal-state partnership.
The majority of funding to support the study has been
pledged, and the Board hopes to convene its committee during
Summer 1993.
102
Dr. Susan Offutt
1. How do the priority- setting mechanisms for agricultural research need
to change to Include more involvement from producers and consumers?
In its report, Investing in Research (attached), the Board on Agriculture
considered how consumers and producers and others with a stake in the
productivity of the food and agricultural system should be included in
setting the agenda for an expanded competitive grants program. The
role of advisory committees in program planning is addressed at length,
beginning on page 89 of the report.
2. In general, how effective do you feel Congressional involvement has been
in the past? How could this be Improved?
In Investing in Research, the Board emphasized the importance of evaluating
the effects of the competitive grants program. This topic is discussed
on page 92 on the report. The Congressional responsibility for oversight
of executive branch agencies would surely include the consideration of
improved and expanded evaluation of these programs' efficacy.
3. How should priority- setting mechanisms change to ensure the correct balance
of both basic and applied research missions?
The Board considered the relationship between basic and applied science
extensively in its report Investing in Research. Chapter 5, "Program
Areas and Scientific Opportunities," systematically considers, for each
major category of grant activity, what relationships exist between
scientific areas and areas of practical or potential application.
4. Some individuals advocate a more regional approach to the distribution
of formula funding. Are the present efforts made on these lines adequate
or could they be increased?
In its study of the future of the land grant colleges of agriculture, the
Board will explore this question by comparing regional agricultural and
natural resource bases to research capacity in the region's universities.
Opportunities for Improving the performance of teaching, research, and
extension programs based on regional considerations will be explicitly
considered.
5. As budget pressure brought on by the deficit increases, how might we
change our allocation of formula funding, competitive grants, and
special grants to more effectively meet our needs?
The Board proposed a major increase in the size of the USDA competitive
grants program, to $500 million annually, as described in Investing
in Research Chapter 1. While the Board believes a mix of formula,
competitive, and special grants is appropriate, its priority is an
increase in the size of the competitive grants program.
(Attachment follows:)
103
INVESTING
IN RESEARCH
A Proposal
to Strengthen the Agricultural,
Food, and Environmental System
Board on Agriculture
National Research Council
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C. 1989
104
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS • 2101 CONSTITUTION AVENUE, NW • WASHINGTON, DC 20418
NOTICE: The project ih»l i« the lubjccl of ihii repon w»« tpproved by the Governing Board of the Naiioiul Research Council, whose
members are dnwn frtxn the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of
Medicine. The members of the commitlee responsible for the report were chosen for (heir special competences and with regard for appropriate
balance.
This report has been reviewed by a group other than Ihe authors according to procedures approved by a Repon Review Conimiaee
consisting of members of Ihe National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineeiing, and Ihe Institute of Medicine.
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self -perpetuating sodciy of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and
engineering research, dedicated to the furtheraitce of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of
the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1 863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific
and techtucal matters. Dr. Frank Press is president of the Natioiul Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under Ihe charter of Ihe National Academy of Sdences, as a parallel
organization of outstanding engineers. It is ainonomous in its administration and in Ihe selection of its members, sharing with the National
Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors
engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of
engineers. Dr. Robert M. White is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was estaUished in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of emineru members of
appropriate professions in the examination of policy maiten pertaining to the health of the public The Institute acts imdcr the responsibility
given to the National Academy of Sciences by iu congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal govemmetu and, upon its own initiative,
to identify issues of medical care, researdi, and education. Dr. Samuel O. Thier is president of Ihe Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 19 1 6 to associate the broad community of science
and ledinology with ihe Acadony's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government Functioning in accordance with
general policies detetmined by ihe Academy, Ihe Council has become the principal operating agency of both Ihe National Academy of
Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the sdentiflc and engineering
communities. The Council is administeied jointly by boh Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Frank Press and Dr. Robert M. White
are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the Natioiul Research CoundL
Library of Congress Catalog Card Na 89-63090
Inlemational Standard Book Number 0-309-04127-9
Additional copies of this report are available from:
National Academy Press
2101 Consdlution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20418
Copyright e 1989 by the National Academy of Sciences
No part of this book may be tcpraduoed by any mechanical, photographic, or electronic process, or in the form of a phonographic recording,
nor may it be stored in a leuieval system, transmitted, or otherwise copied for public or private use without written permission from the
publisher, except for the purposes of official use by the U.S. government
S036
Printed in the United Suies of America
First Priming. Sq>tonber 1989
Second Printing, October 1989
Third Printing. July 1990
105
Board on Agriculture
THEOIX)RE L. HULLAR, Chairman, University of California, Davis
C. EUGENE ALLEN, University of Minnesota
EDWIN H. CLARK II, Delaware Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Control
R. JAMES COOK, U.S. Department of Agriculture, University of Washington
ELLIS B. COWLING, North Carolina Slate University
JOSEPH P. FONTENOT, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
ROBERT M. GOODMAN, Calgene, Inc.
TIMOTHY M. HAMMONDS, Food Marketing Institute
PAUL W. JOHNSON, Iowa House of RepresentaUves
JOHN W. MELLOR, International Food Policy Research Institute
CHARLES C. MUSCOPLAT, Molecular Genetics, Inc.
KARL H. NORRIS, U.S. Department of Agriculture (retired), Beltsville, Maryland
CHAMP B. TANNER, University of Wisconsin
ROBERT L. THOMPSON, Purdue University
JAN VAN SCHILFGAARDE, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Fort ColUns, Colorado
ANNE M. K. VIDAVER, University of Nebraska
CONRAD J. WEISER, Oregon State University
CHARLES M. BENBROOK, Executive Director
JAMES E. TAVARES, Associate Executive Director
CARLA CARLSON, Director of Communications
GRACE JONES ROB BINS, Editor
III
106
Preface
The United States was once much richer than the
rest of the world and, particularly in agriculture, was
more productive. Once, the United States could manu-
facture products that the rest of the world lacked the
technology to make, and could grow and export farm
products in quantities and with a quality that no other
country could match. U.S. exports did not compete
with products from the rest of the world — rather, the
United States was the locomotive of the world econ-
omy.
Now, however, this nation's economic superiority
can no longer be assured. The United States is only
one of several countries of major industrial and agri-
cultural strength. As the United States' almost effort-
less economic superiority was replaced by equality,
the U.S. share of the world's gross national product
fell from more than 50 percent after World War II to
about 22 percent in the late 1980s. The products that
the rest of the world lacked the technology to make are
now made by many countries in a world of increasing
technological parity. Advances in agricultural pro-
duction in the developed and developing regions have
sharply curtailed foreign markets for U.S. farm prod-
ucts. Instead of being a major exporter of raw mate-
rials, the United States is now a major importer of
some products (Thurow, 1989).
New and complex challenges therefore confront
U.S. agriculture — the challenges of responding to
aggressive competition on a global scale, ensuring
good nutrition and a high-quality food supply for all
our people, safeguarding our natural resources, and
enhancing our environment But at the same time, we
are still leading the world in the biological sciences
central to our agricultural sector. It is therefore en-
couraging to consider the manifold opportunities for
progress. For example, advances in modem genetics
can be applied throughout the agricultural, food, and
environmental system; and new environmental and
engineering methods can help maintain both the quan-
tity and quality of groundwaters and surface waters.
The challenges confronting agriculture must be
addressed in two stages. First, leadership is required
to set and implement new priorities so that the most
critical problems can be solved and opportunities
exploited. Second, the necessary physical and intel-
lectual resources must be allocated.
In this report, the Board on Agriculture of the
National Research Council presents a proposal for a
major new funding initiative designed to meet these
challenges. The report describes a course of action
that will resolve key problems in agriculture, advance
the sciences that undergird the nation's agriculture
and the quality of U.S. natural resources, and enhance
the nation's well-being. The board calls fora substan-
tial increase in federal funding for research and recom-
mends application of these funds through competitive
grants. At the same time, the board recognizes the
nation's need to meet federal deficit reduction goals
and the need to balance alternative priorities.
Agriculture, as the Board on Agriculture defines it.
encompasses the entirety of the system that grows and
processes food and fiber for the nation. It also encom-
passes the related natural resouri::es, public policy
issues, social systems, and physical and biological
environments. TTie term agriculture, food, and the
environment is used to communicate the full meaning
of agriculture in this broad sense.
Self-initiated activity of this kind is unusual for the
Board on Agriculture, which generally provides de-
tailed assessments and analyses of issues only at the
request of a federal agency or the U.S. Congress.
However, the significance of agriculture for the U.S.
economy and the critical role of research in ensuring
agricultural progress impelled the board to prepare
107
VI
PREFACE
this proposal. The board believes that now is the time
to take advantage of recent scientiHc and technologi-
cal advances to solve problems in the areas of com-
petitiveness, the food supply, and natural resources
stewardship. The sectors contributing to the agricul-
tural, food, and environmental research system — the
land-grant universities, other universities, agencies of
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the scientific
societies, and others — are also now making the case
for strengthening U.S. agriculture through science.
Indeed, concurrent with and wholly independent of
the board's initial work, a group of state agricultural
research leaders discussed a need for action similar to
that proposed here.
Investing in Research is the latest in a series of
Board on Agriculture reports that began with the 1972
Report of the Committee on Research Advisory to the
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Subsequent reports
dealt with problems of world food production, genetic
vulnerability, genetic engineering, natural resources,
education in agriculture, control of pesticides in food,
designing foods, and research priorities. Investing in
Research builds upon that foundation.
Chapter 1 , the executive summary, summarizes the
proposal for an expanded competitive grants program
within the U.S. Department of Agriculture and an
infusion of new money into it Chapter 2 presents the
proposal and describes its major parts. Chapter 3
explains the rationale for major points of the proposal.
Chapter 4 gives a review of the major challenges
facing the agricultural, food, and environmental sys-
tem. Chapter S delineates the six program areas
necessary to encompass the needs of the system satis-
factorily. Chapter 6 outlines the institutional and
administrative issues involved in the implementation
of the proposal. The report concludes with a set of
afrpendixes covering funding trends for the agricul-
tural, food, and environmental sector, budget priori-
ties; current program objectives; and other documents
relevant to this report
The board expects — indeed, welcomes and en-
courages— discussion and refinement of this proposal
and then implementation of its recommendations.
This proposal presents an investment opportunity
in the classic sense. The invesunent entails some risk
and will not produce immediate results. Yet, it will
provide the basis for a new competitive position for
agriculture, an improvement in human health and
well-being, and improved stewardship of our natural
resources.
Strengthening, revitaUzing, and energizing U.S.
agriculture will be difFicult but far from impossible.
We have done it before.
Theodore L. Hullar
Chairman
108
Acknowledgments
The Board on Agriculture's proposal to strengthen
the agricultural, food, and environmental research
system is the synthesis of the creative thinking and
ideas of the many individuals and organizations that
share our concerns about quality science and innova-
tion. We thank all those who generously contributed
their thoughts, expertise, time, and encouragement
These individuals include representatives of pro-
fessional societies; leaders of the state agricultural
experiment station system; faculty members and sci-
entists at a number of universities; and senior scienr
lists at the National Institutes of Health, the National
Science Foundation, and the U.S. Department of
Energy. We especially thank administrators and sci-
entists at the U.S. Department of Agriculture not only
for their assistance in data compilation but also for
their insights.
The efforts of countless individuals throughout the
scientific, agricultural, and public policy communi-
ties are far greater than can be represented by the
contents of this book. For all those who arc conun itted
to a strong U.S. agricultural system, we thank you.
The members of the Board on Agriculture also
acknowledge the contributions of the staff in prepar-
ing this proposal. We extend special appreciation to
Mary Lou Sutton, whose diligence carried us through
many drafts in the process of attaining our final report.
Vll
109
Contents
Preface.
Executive Summary 1
Urgency for Change, 1
The Proposal, 3
Rationale for the Proposal, S
Fiscal Realities, 7
Conclusion, 8
The Proposal 10
An Expanded Public Investment, 1 1
Program Areas and ScientiHc Scope, 12
Types of Grants, 13
Attention to Multidisciplinary
Research, 14
Strengthen Institutions and Human
Resources, 14
Size and Duration of Support, IS
Rationale for the Proposal 17
A Federal Initiative, 17
• A $500 Million Increase, 20
Support with New Money, 28
A Central Role for USDA, 32
The Role of Competitive Grants, 34
Attention to Multidisciplinary
Research, 39
Strengthen Institutions and Human
Resources, 41
Challenges Facing the Research System . .
Competitiveness and Economic
Performance, 42
Human Health and Weil-Being, 48
Natural Resources Stewardship, S2
.42
5 Program Areas and Scientinc
Opportunities 57
Program Areas, 57
Plant Systems, 58
Animal Systems, 61
Nutrition, Food Quality, and
Health, 63
Natural Resources and the
Environment, 69
Engineering, Products, and Processes, 76
Markets, Trade, and Policy, 79
Relationship between Program Areas
and Recognized Priorities, 81
Relationships among the Six Major
Program Areas, Scientific Disciplines,
and National Priorities, 81
Science and Technology Budget
Priorities, 84
Conclusion, 86
6 Institutional and Administrative Issues 87
Program's Location in USDA, 87
Program Transitions, 89
Need to Manage for Multidisciplinary
Success, 91
Program Evaluation and
Accountability, 92
APPENDIXES
A Public and Private Sector Programs and
Funding Trends 95
B Private Sector Research Activities and
Prospects
Charles M. Benbrook
128
IX
110
X CONTENTS
C Setting and Acting upon Budget
Priorities 139
D Statements of Program Objectives and
Funding Response 144
REFERENCES 153
Ill
1
Executive Summary
This is the technological age. It is also an age of
opportunity. U.S. agriculture continuously evolves,
but the pace of change is now more dramatic than ever.
In the life sciences, new knowledge and instnimenia-
tion are rapidly expanding the understanding of plants,
animals, and microbes; providing new opportunities
to control disease and pests; and improving the quality
of agricultural and food products. Equally complex
changes are occurring in international trade, where the
new rules of the global mailcetplace are transforming
old patterns of competition.
In the agricultural system, as with other segments
of U.S. industry, the problems of the twenty-first
century intensify more quickly than ever before, and
opportunities mustbe seized immediately . before their
peak ofpotential benefit has passed. The ability of the
United Stales to resolve the spectrum of issues and
related problems in agriculture — nutrition, econom-
ics and international trade, production efficiency,
natural resources conservation, control of pollutants,
and others — depends on depth of knowledge, the
available tools and technologies, and the skill and
insight to apply them.
The United States needs to invest in the future — in
human capital and the scientific knowledge base — to
revitalize and reinvigorate one of its leading indus-
tries, the agricultural, food, and environmental sys-
tem, in its broadest sense. A sound investment strat-
egy for research is fundamental to sustain economic
performance, to respond competitively to the increased
economic strengths and manufacturing capacities of
other nations, and to maintain the U.S. quality of life.
The commitment called for in this proposal should
therefore be part of a national agenda to strengthen the
United States.
URGENCY FOR CHANGE
Major challenges confronting the nation now cen-
ter on the competitiveness of U.S. agricultural prod-
ucts in global trade, the safety and quality of the U.S.
food supply, and the management and sustainability
of the country's natural resources.
Competitiveness
The United States faces new and aggressive com-
petition from abroad. The balance of trade has gone
from positive to negative, making the United States a
debtor nation. The strong role that agricultural exports
played in the U.S. balance of payments has weakened.
U.S . global competitiveness in agricultural commodi-
ties and food products has eroded because of increased
costs of production at home and heightened competi-
tion from foreign producers in the mailcetplace. Given
the high U.S. production capacity, regular surpluses of
major commodities, and the imperative of deficit
reduction, the needs for profitable new uses for agri-
cultural products, more cost-efficient production, and
new markets remain high.
Human Health and Well-Being
Nutritious and high-quality food is available to
U.S. citizens. However, problems are arising that
must be resolved, such as excessive fat in the diet, the
incidence of microbial contamination, and pesticide
residues on food.
U.S. citizens consume too many saturated fats.
Although red meat and dairy products provide 36
112
INVESTING IN RESEARCH
pefx;ent of food energy and 100 percent of certain
nutrients, they also contribute more than half of the
total fat, nearly three- fourths of the sauirated fatty
acids, and all of the dietary cholesterol in the U.S. diet
(National Research Council, 1988a). Agricultural
research is focusing on ways to produce leaner ani-
mals and to process nutritious foods with reduced
levels of saturated fats and cholesterol.
Salmonella species and Campylobacter jejuni from
all sources are each responsible for up to 2,000 cases
of gastroenteric disease per 1 00,000 people per year in
the United States (National Research Council, 1 985a).
Illnesses caused by these microorganisms tend to be
most severe among the very young, the very old, or
patients with immunosuppressive diseases. New re-
search can determine points at which known patho-
gens enter the food supply and can contribute to
improving methods for detection, monitoring, and
control.
Although potential cancer risks from ingesting
pesticides in the diet are small in comparison with the
potential risks from other known causes of cancer, the
pesticide residues on fruits and vegetables are a grow-
ing public concern. Research can provide new in-
sights into levels of dietary risk and can identify new
alternatives that will ensure the producer a high-
quality crop while reducing the need for pesticide
application.
Natural Resources and the Environment
Concern for prudent natural resources stewardship
and a clean and sustainable environment is now focus-
ing on issues such as contamination of surface water
and groundwater by natural and chemical fertilizers,
pesticides, and sediment; the continued abuse of frag-
ile and nutrient-poor soils; and suitable disposal of
municipal, industrial, and agricultural wastes.
Water pollution is probably the most damaging and
widespread environmental effect of agricultural pro-
duction. Various estimates of the potential financial
costs of surf ace water contamination from agricultural
production are in excess of $2 billion per year. Ground-
water is the source of public drinking water for nearly
75 million people. This fact is significant because
accumulating evidence indicates thata growing number
of contaminants from agricultural production are found
in underground water supplies. Although research is
being conducted in these areas, a major increase in
support will be required to adequately investigate and
apply new knowledge and technologies to curtail
surface water and groundwater contamination.
Soil erosion remains a serious environmental prob-
lem in parts of the United States, even after SO years of
state and federal efforts to control it. New data
indicate that the intensive tillage practices associated
with continuous monoculture or short crop rotations
may make soils more susceptible to erosion. New
knowledge will provide improved ways to estimate
erosion, decrease the displacement of soils by wind
and water, and develop federal policies for conserving
fragile lands.
Waste disposal facilities all over the United States
are reaching their capacities to contain and decompose
plant and animal residues , pesticides, food processing
wastes, sewage, and industrial sludges. Research in
the agricultural, food, and environmental sciences can
help minimize the production of waste materials,
develop technologies to increase recycling, and de-
velop improved systems for ecologically safe waste
disposal systems.
New Knowledge
Solving the problems of competitiveness, a high-
quality food supply, and natural resources and the
environment will require much more new knowledge
than was required to solve previous problems. An
example illustrates the point: Genetically engineered
biocontrol agents for pest management are now being
designed on the basis of current knowledge, but it will
likely take a 10-fold increase in understanding of the
biology of such agents and their survival and action in
various ecosystems before such engineered biological
conuol agents can be effectively developed and used.
The knowledge needed must come from a number of
disciplines, such as biochemistry, genetics, physiol-
ogy, plant pathology, entomology, plant biology,
ecosystems analysis, agronomy, and economics,
among others. The specific disciplinary knowledge
must then be integrated into effective production
systems. The knowledge required far transcends that
necessary for the current chemical-based technolo-
gies.
The necessary new knowledge is unlikely to be
acquired and expediently applied without substantial
new funding.
This proposal for investment in research for the
agricultural, food, and environmental system aims to
establish the new knowledge base necessary to ad-
dress the problems.
113
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
THE PROPOSAL
The purpose of this proposal — as well as the chal-
lenge it presents — is to mobilize the nation's scientific
and engineering communities to advance the quality
of agriculture, the food supply, and the environment
This proposal presents a prognun to strengthen the
focus of U.S. science on agriculture. The premise is
that a judicious but substantial increase in research
funding through competitive grants is the best way to
sustain and strengthen the U.S. agricultural, food, and
environmental system.
Implementation of this research proposal will
• C^ture the proven high economic return on
investment in agricultural research.
• Secure for agricultural research a full airay of
talent from the entire U.S. science and technology
research sector.
• Expand knowledge in all the disciplines under-
pinning agriculture while also contributing to ad-
vances in other broad areas such as biomedicine,
ecology, engineering, education, and economics.
This proposal, which is composed of the following
specific elements, should be evaluated as a singular
strategy for action.
An Expanded Public Investment
Research support for agriculture, food,
and the environment should be increased
by $500 million annually. This increase
should support competitive grants ad-
ministered through the US. Department
of Agriculture's Competitive Research
Grants Office.
This competitive grants program should be in-
creased to support the need for research in public and
private universities and colleges; not-for-profit insti-
tutions; the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
(USDA's) Agricultural Research Service, Economic
Research Service, and U.S. Forest Service; and other
research agencies of the state and federal govern-
ments.
Funds should come from new monies, not from the
redirection or reallocation of existing research and
education programs, including formula-funded pro-
grams.
Program Areas and Scientific Scope
The expanded proposed competitive
grants program should encompass all
science and technology relevant to re-
search needs for agriculture, food, and
the environment. To do this, six program
areas should be established: (1) plant
systems; (2) animal systems: (3) nutri-
tion .food quality, and health : (4) natural
resources and the environment: (5) engi-
neering,products, and processes: and (6)
markets, trade, and policy.
Agriculture has vastly overgrown its early bounds
of planting and harvesting crops and nurturing live-
stock as sources of food and fiber. It is a major
influence on and component of industry, world trade,
and global ecology. The six program areas establish
a framework that will accommodate all areas of re-
search relating to agriculture, food, and the environ-
ment Research in the six program areas using all
relevant disciplines of science and technology is es-
sential to solve current and emerging problems.
Examples of some of the major topics within the six
program areas are as follows.
• Plant Systems: plant genome structure and func-
tion; molecular and cellular genetics and plant bio-
technology; plant-pest interactions and biocontrol
systems; crop plant response to environmental stresses;
improved nutrient qualities of plant products; and new
food and industrial uses of plant products.
• Animal Systems: cellular and molecular basis of
animal reproduction, growth, disease, and health;
identification of genes responsible for improved pro-
duction traits and resistance to disease; improved
nutritional performaiKe of animals; and improved
nutrient qualities of animal products.
• Nutrition, Food Quality, and Health: microbial
contaminants and pesticide residues related to human
health; links between diet and health; bioavailability
of nutrients; posiharvest physiology and practices;
and improved processing technologies.
• NaturtU Resources and the Environment: funda-
mental structures and functions of ecosystems; bio-
logical and physical bases of sustainable production
systems; minimizing soil and water losses and sustain-
ing surface water and groundwater quality; global
climatic effects on agriculture; forestry; and biologi-
cal diversity.
114
INVESTING IN RESEARCH
• Engineering, Products, and Processes: new
uses and new products from traditional crops, animals,
by-products, and natural resources; robotics, energy
efliciency, computing, and expert systems; new haz-
ard and risk assessment and mitigation measures; and
water quality and management
• Markets, Trade, and Policy: optimal strategies
for entering and being competitive in overseas mar-
kets; new decision tools for on-farm and in-market
systems; choices and applications of technology; and
new approaches to economic development and viabil-
ity in the rural United States and developing nations.
Grant Types
In each of the six program areas, four
types of competitive grants should be
available: (1) principal investigator
grants. (2) fundamental multidisciplinary
team grants, (3) mission-linked multidis-
ciplinary team grants, and (4) research-
strengthening grants.
Principal investigator grants should support indi-
vidual scientists orcoinvestigators working within the
same, or closely related, disciplines. Principal inves-
tigator grants are the foundation of the highly success-
ful competitive grants programs in the United States,
and they are the major way to attract and retain
talented scientists and their students into areas of
research.
Fundamental multidisciplinary team grants should
support collaborating scientists from two or more
disciplines focusing on basic science or engineering
questions. It is often at the juncture of disciplines that
new discoveries and research strategies are made.
Mission-linked multidisciplinary team grants
should support multidisciplinary research focusing on
more applied problems of national significance and
should be linked to, among others, the Cooperative
Extension Service (CES), the Agricultural Research
Service (ARS), and industry. Funding through this
grant type will facilitate the application of knowledge
and the transfer of technology to the user through joint
research-extension studies.
Research-strengthening grants should competi-
tively support institutions through program grants and
individuals through fellowships to increase the U.S.
research capacity.
Attention to Multidisciplinary Research
The expanded competitive grants program
should give major emphasis to supporting
both fundamental and mission-linked
multidisciplinary research teams. Up to
50 percent of the funding awarded for
USD As competitive grants should sup-
port multidisciplinary research.
The significance of multidisciplinary research to
the success of the competitive grants program cannot
be overemphasized. Many fundamental scientific and
technological questions — and certainly the more ap-
plied problems — are multifaceted. To deal with their
inherent complexity and diversity, it is necessary to
establish multidisciplinary grants and make them a
major feature of the expanded program.
Strengthening Institutions and Human Resources
Research-strengthening grants to institu-
tions and individuals should be a key
component of an expanded competitive
grants program.
Research-strengthening grants are essential for two
reasons. Grants to institutions improve the research
capability at institutions and in departments that aspire
to, but have not attained, nationally recognized re-
search and development (R&D) capabilities. Fellow-
ships increase the training and experiences available to
pre- and postdoctoral fellows in agricultural, food, and
environmental research. Expanding the number of
women, underrepresented minorities, and disabled
individuals in the research system must be integral to
the entire program. The research-strengthening grant
is a major way to provide those oppnrtuniiies. The
grants are not in tended to be used for buildings or major
capital expenditures.
Size and Duration of Support
The size and duration of USD A competi-
tive grant awards should be increased
substantially. The average size of a grant
should be at least $100,000 per year per
principal investigator; the duration of a
grant should be at least 3 and as many as
5 years.
115
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The size and duration of awards reflect the capabil-
ity of a program to attract top-quality scientific and
engineering talent. The USDA Competitive Research
Grants Office should award grants that are adequate to
conduct effective research and that are comparable in
size and duration to those awarded by the National
Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes
of Health (NIH), the two institutions in the United
States with the largest and most successful grants
programs. The proposed changes in size and duration
will attract more top scientists in a variety of disci-
plines and thus increase the capacity to educate their
students — the nation's future scientists.
RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSAL
Key parts to the rationale for the expanded program
include the need for a federal initiative; the need for a
large increase in funding; the justification for new
money, not for the redirection of current funds; the
suitability of USDA as the central agency for the
expanded program; and the ^jproprialeness of com-
petitive grants as the funding mechanism.
A Federal Initiative
A federal initiative for increased research support
is needed because the issues and fundamental research
needs are national in scofte, and the nation as a whole,
not just a state or region, is the beneficiary. In add-
ition, states lack the funding to advance basic science
across the full range of areas requiring immediate
auention. In the private sector, the rate of R&D
growth, which has been strong since the mid-1970s, is
likely to level off in the decade ahead, and it may de-
cline somewhat Moreover, private sector research is
focused on creating opportunities to market products
and services, whereas much of the research most im-
portant to society and the nation is not market-related.
A $500 Million Increase
A $500 million increase in research funding is
justified for at least three major reasons. (1) The
pervasive needs and problems require large amounts
of new knowledge and technology for their resolution,
as discussed earlier. (2) Agricultural research pro-
vides a high return on investment (3) The agricultural
research system, as presently funded, is unable to
provide the necessary financial suppoit for the quality.
amount, and breadth of science and technology neces-
sary to address the problems.
Agricultural research characteristically gives a high
annual return on investment, more than 45 percent
(Fox et al., 1987). The contributions of research
conducted with in thecompetitive grants program will,
in addition, bring advances not only to agriculture,
food, and the environment but also to other scientific
disciplines and other sectors of society. Discoveries
that were made in efforts to resolve agricultural prob-
lems have already led to major advances in biology
and medicine. Findings fiom research with plant
models, for example, will lead to advances in the
understanding of basic genetics and gene expression.
Over time, the research results and their application
will significantly decrease both regulatory and envi-
ronmental costs.
Adequate funding through the six proposed pro-
gram areas must be available to support the best and
brightest researchers currenUy working in agriculture
and to attract top researchers in other disciplines who
have not previously participated in USDA programs.
Current funding cannot do either.
Researchers* proposals for scientific inquiry are
currently funded at levels that are too low to meet the
demands of high-quality science. The average
annual grant size from USDA is $50,000, in contrast
to average annual grant sizes of $7 1 300 from NSF and
$154,900 from NIH. USDA grants average 2 years in
contrast to 3 years or more for NSF and NIH. In
addition to funding grants at a higher level, both NSF
and NIH fund a much larger number of grants. In
fiscal year 1988, USDA awarded approximately $40
million for competitive grants, in contrast to the $265
million awarded by the Directorate of Biological.
Behavioral, and Social Sciences at NSF and the $632
million awarded by the National Institute for General
Medical Sciences (NIGMS), which is only 1 of the 12
institutes of NIH. All ofthe institutes that make up the
NIH together awarded $6.4 billion in competitive
research grants in 1988. Research supported by NIG MS
is broad, covering all areas of fundamental biomedical
science that bridge the responsibilities of all the insti-
tutes within NIH. Research supported by the USDA's
■■ competitive grants program is narrow, covering only
some of the six program areas recommended in this
proposal.
The proposed increase of $500 million would
expand the current competitive grants program level
of $50 million to an annual total of at least $550
116
INVESTING IN RESEARCH
million. The overall $SSO million program should
support the following four types of grants:
1. About 800 principal investigator grants for an
average duration of 3 years. Total annual expenditure:
$250 million.
2. About 180 fundamental multidisciplinary team
grants for an average duration of 4 years. Total annual
expenditure: $150 million.
3. About60mission-linkedmultidiscipUnaryteam
grants for an average duration of 4 years. Total annual
expenditure: $100 million.
4. Research-strengthening grants to institutions for
programs and to individuals for fellowships. Total
annual expenditure: $50 million.
The expansion of USDA's competitive grants pro-
gram by $500 million from its current level of $50
million will enable USDA to significantly support the
innovative science that is poised to proceed — as soon
as funding can be obtained.
Support with New Money
SuppOTt of the competitive grants program with
new money will reverse the consequences of no R&D
growth in agriculture and sustain the state-federal
partnership.
The publicly funded research system has not been
able to investigate many scientific questions compre-
hensively because fiscal constraints have allowed little,
if any, real growth in R&D expenditures. From 1955
through 1988, research funding for USDA remained
virtually stable in constant dollars, corrected for infla-
tion. The purchasing power actually decreased, and
higher costs are associated with the potent but costly
instruments and supplies required by today 's research-
ers. In 1988 USDA's total annual R&D funding was
only 4.6 percent of the total R&D funded by the federal
government, exclusive of the Department of Defense.
Unfortunately, the lack of growth in USDA's support
for R&D from 1955 through 1988 did not allow suffi-
cient advancement in scientific knowledge. The agri-
cultural sector cannot progress under the current level
of funding; it can only fall behind.
The lack of real growth in R&D expenditures dur-
ing the past 30 years has slowed research within U.S.
agriculture and other areas of science. Opportunities
are missed, such as the relatively slow application of
biotechnology to agricultural issues; problems have
increased, such as the need for new uses for commodity
crops and for improved new crops for better nutrient
composition and postharvest quality. At the same
lime, however, science and technology in other coun-
tries are advancing rapidly. Without a new infusion of
funds, there will be insufficient support for the tal-
ented researchers with new ideas that can refuel scien-
tific advancement in U.S. agriculture. Furthermore,
without new funding, prospective students and new
Ph.D. graduates will not be attracted to careers in
agriculture or retained in them.
Most states support research at land-grant univer-
sities and state agricultural experiment stations
(SAESs) far in excess of the matching formula funds
they receive from the federal government A substan-
tial portion of this state support goes to research on
fundamental scientific problems of national impor-
tance. Increased federal supportfor competitive grants
will ease that burden and allow more of the state funds
to be used for problems speci fic to that state or region.
Redirection of funds from intramural or formula-
based programs to competitive grants would be counter-
productive. The delivery system — SAES scientists
and extension specialists and advisers, in combination
with government and the private sector — is already
unduly stressed, and redirection would exacerbate
staffing insufficiencies for ARS, CES, and SAESs.
The Central Role of USDA
USDA is the federal agency responsible for ad-
vancing the agricultural sciences and developing tech-
nology applicable to food, fiber, and forest product
industries. It is the entity best suited to administer the
agricultural, food, and environmental competitive
grants program.
The competitive grants program will warrant status
as an independent office within USDA's Office of
Science and Education, setting its administrator on a
par with the administrators of the Agricultural Re-
search Service, Cooperative State Research Service,
and Extension Service as the managers of USDA's
science, education, and training activities. As the
USDA competitive grants program grows from about
$50 million to $550 million in annual awards, changes
in administrative procedures and institutional rela-
tionships will be essential.
Competitive Grants
The competitive grant is the proven and appropri-
ate mechanism to stimulate new research in high-
priority areas of science and engineering. It is flexible,
reaches a large pool of talented scientists, and pro-
117
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
vides a balance to the overall research program , thereby
ensuring high-quality research.
Responsiveness and flexibility in altering the di-
rection of exploratory research are critical to scientific
excellence. A competitive grants program capitalizes
on the skills and experiences of leading scientists in
recognizing the need for new directions in science.
Because funding commitments to any one project are
for only 3 to 5 years, this mechanism is flexible and
responsive to rapid advancements in science, thereby
allowing resources to be targeted at the most promis-
ing areas of scientific research in each grant cycle.
Sufficient funding over an adequate period of time
is the best way to attract talented scientists from a
variety of disciplines. The expanded competitive
grants program will more adequately support research-
ers within the agricultural research system and will
also open the system to scientists from other disci-
plines who have not previously participated in the
USD A grants program. These scientists should be. but
are not now, applying their skills to agricultural re-
search.
An expanded competitive grants program will
provide the needed balance among the funding mecha-
nisms that support US DA R&D: intramural pro-
grams, formula funding, special grants, and competi-
tive grants. Competitive grants are a significant source
of funding within other federal agencies. At NIH and
NSF, 83 and 90 percent of R&D supixxt, respectively,
is distributed through competitive research grants. At
USDA, however, less than 6 percent of R&D support
is so distributed. USDA should not attempt to mirror
NIH and NSF in the proportion of funds it distributes
on a competitive basis. Problems specific to certain
crops, technologies, and regions are often best ad-
dressed through formula funds or special grants. Long-
range research, such as the development of improved
plant and animal germplasms, or tracking of the diets
and nutritional status of a group of children as they
grow, for example, are more effectively supported on
a continuing basis through intramural funding. With
full funding of this proposal, the annual investment in
R&D by US DA would rise to $ 1 .54 billion from $ 1 .04
billion (Offlce of Management and Budget, 1989),
and the $550 million in competitive grants would then
account for approximately 33 percent of USDA's re-
search expenditures.
nSCAL REALITIES
The recommendation for a major increase in fund-
ing of competitive research grants for agricultural,
food, and environmental research comes at a time of
overall fiscal constraint for the nation. Elected and
public o^icials must reduce the national debt and at
the same time set priorities among competing federal
expenditures to enact programs that maintain the
welfare, infrastructure, security, and continued eco-
nomic growth of the United States. As a part of that
they must also address public concerns for maintain-
ing global competitiveness, the safety and nutritional
quality of the food supply, and environmental re-
sources. The goal of reducing expenditures while
allocating funds for essential programs thus requires
fiscal prudence.
Trade-Offs
Political leaders will need to consider the proposal
for an increased commitment to agricultural, food, and
environmental research against a background of po-
tential trade-offs. What are these trade-offs?
• The additional $500 million could come from
sacrificingotherUSDAresearch programs. Can some
current research programs be discontinued in an effort
to strengthen competitive grants research?
• The necessary funds could be directed to re-
search fhxn other USDA budget categories. Com-
modity price supports, for example, have decreased
from $26 billion to $ 1 1 billion during the past 3 years,
as U.S. agricultural export prices have improved.
Should $500 million of those savings and future
budgetary savings be redirected toward research,
toward reducing the national debt, toward a combina-
tion of the two, or toward progress outside of agricul-
ture?
• The funds could be shifted from other parts of the
federal budget into USDA. E>oes the consistently high
return on the agricultural research investment over-
ride the need for funds in other areas of national
interest?
• The investment in agricultural, food, and envi-
ronmental research can be deferred until deficit reduc-
tion has been achieved. But investing new funds now
can hasten future economic and scientific benefits.
>yhat will be gained — or lost — by postponing the
investment?
Redirection within the USDA Research Budget
For the past 25 years the USD A budget for research
has not increased. Actual monetary increases have
barely kept up with inflation. In 1965 the USDA
118
INVESTING IN KESEAKCH
research budget had the purchasing power of $788
million in 1982 dollars; the 1988 research budget was
valued at $778 million in 1982 dollars. In reality, any
past changes in agricultural research priorities had to
come from the redirection of funds within the research
budget Further redirection by increasing the invest-
ment in competitively awarded grants does not ad-
dress the problem of the continued federal underin-
vestment in research through USDA. It also raises the
real risk of destroying some of the "muscle" of current
high-quality research in intramural and formula-funded
research in attempts to cut out any "fat"
Without some real growth in the USDA research
budget, there can be no realistic opportunity to broaden
the scope of science contributing to agricultural, food,
and environmental research. Many of the new scien-
tific opportunities that require costly supplies and
instrumentation will have to remain unexplored, and
few mullidisciplinary research teams will be able to be
formed to attack the mullifaceted problems of com-
petitiveness, food quality, and natural resources con-
fronting agriculture.
The proposed increase in funding for competitive
research grants is justified. This proposal stands
strongly against reallocation within the USDA re-
search budget for the reasons given above. If no
growth in the USDA research budget is possible, then
decisions to redirect funds are judgments that elected
and other public officials may choose to consider.
Reinvesting Subsidy Savings
As U.S. agriculture gradually returns to a state of
economic health and as commodity prices return to
free-market conditions, the federal budget appropria-
tions currently used for price support programs may be
targeted for budgetary savings. Part of these savings
should be reinvested in research programs to strengthen
the knowledge that supports the nation's food and
fiber industries.
Federal Investment
Investments in agricultural research in the United
States have consistently shown high returns, as noted
previously. Such data demonstrate that an increased
investment in the agricultural, food, and environ-
mental research system will be paid back rapidly in
economic develqjment and other public benefits.
The U.S. gross national product in 1987 was $4.5
trillion (Council of Economic Advisers, 1989). Of
that, the agribusiness complex contributed approxi-
mately 18 percent, or roughly $815 billion (Harring-
ton et al., 1986). The current annual federal invest-
ment in agricultural R&D is about $ 1 .04 billion — less
than 0. 1 3 percent of agriculture's annual contribution
to the gross national product
Investing Now
A major increase in research fiinding of $500
million is needed at this time. The scientific opportu-
nities exist today to use this increased funding wisely.
The needed scientific talent is available now, primar-
ily through the nation's existing scientists in the physi-
cal, biological, engineering, and social sciences, as
well as those in agriculture and related disciplines,
who arc ready to compete for this new funding. In
addition, as noted above, increased funding will also
ensure the flow of young scientists into agriculture-
related research areas.
To achieve the maximum effect, this substantial
increase should be enacted in a single year as a
reflection of the value of the broadened scope of
agricultural, food, and environmental research and the
importance of the sustained advancement of this sys-
tem to the U.S. economy.
Given the overall fiscal problems facing the nation,
the appropriation of the full $500 million increase may
not be possible in a single year. Even so, a commit-
ment of this magnitude is essential. Any stepwise
increase in fiinding should provide the full increase as
soon as possible, preferably within 3 years, and be
balanced to address the needs and opportunities in
agricultiu^, food, and the environment
CONCLUSION
Agriculture is the world's oldest and largest indus-
try, and it has been a highly successful industry in the
United States. The United States is endowed with
perhaps the world's most extensive and abundant
complement of soils, water, and climate favorable for
agricultural production. Still, several other countries
have tremendous natural assets to draw upon in devel-
oping productive agricultural industries. One domi-
nant factor stands out in making possible the remark-
able pace of development of agriculture in this country
in contrast to that in other countries — the early and
very strong support given to agriculture by the U.S.
government Agriculture was the fu^t — and for a long
119
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
time, the major — fedendly supported scientiflc effort
It is significant that early federal support was not
directed primarily toward infrastructure investments
that yielded only quick benefits. Rather, support was
broad, and a large proportion was directed toward
research and education.
The decision to provide federal support for a strong
U.S. agricultural system was made by the Congress
127 years ago through the Morrill Act of 1862. Now
is the time to make a renewed investment in U.S.
agriculture, one that will ensure its worldwide leader-
ship role in the coming decades.
As a leader, the United States calls upon its agricul-
tural and food system to compete in a free-market
world. But U.S. farmers cannot compete with the
price of labor in many countries, where it is far lower
than that in the United States. And, for the same
reason, they cannot compete with the cost of fertile
land in other countries. The single resource that U.S.
farmers can draw upon to capture the leading edge is
science and technology. The U.S. government must
help to provide an environment where U.S. producers
and processors can compete. The most effective way
to ensure a strong U.S. agricultural system is to capi-
talize on science and technology by investing strongly
in agricultural, food, and environmental research.
(The complete report is held in the connnittee files.)
120
NASULGC National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges
TESTIMONY
Before
THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENTAL OPERATIONS AND NUTRITION
of
The House Agriculture Conunittee
on
Current Agricultural Research and Education Priorities
NASULGC Board on Agriculture
Presented by
Dr. David G, Topel ,
Dean, College of Agriculture J
Iowa State University
Chair
NASULGC Board on Agriculture
March 25, 1993
One Dupom Circle, NW Suite 710 • Wasiiington, DC 20036 - 1 191 • (202)778-0818 • Fax (202) 296-6456
I
121
Statement by the NASULGC Boaid on Agricultuie on
Current Agricultural Research and Education Priorities
Mr. Chairman, my name is David G. Topel and I am pleased to provide this testimony
on behalf of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges
(NASULGC) Board on Agriculture. This Board is composed of representatives from
Agricultural Experiment Stations, Cooperative Extension, Agricultural International
Programs, Academic Programs, Council of Administrative Heads of Agriculture, 1890
Universities Research and Extension, Forestry, Home Economics, and Veterinary
Medicine Boards from the Commission on Food, Environment and Renewable
Resources.
The NASULGC Board on Agriculture is pleased to participate in the hearings on USDA
priorities for research and education and offers its full coop>eration and expertise to the
process. The Board views the testimony process as an opportunity to strengthen and
improve the Federal Government/University model of interaction and collaboration
which has proven so successful over the past 130 years. It is a unique model and is
envied worldwide, but it can and should be modernized to meet changing world
conditions. The Secretary's call for a science based USDA empheisizes again the
contributions of the Federal /University partnership in Science and Education which has
promoted competitiveness, enhanced rural development and improved the safety and
wholesomeness of the U.S. food supply. Therefore, the USDA should strengthen
priorities for reseeirch and education.
As the USDA relates to future programs for Science and Education, priorities should be
established to strengthen this unique state/ federal partnership which:
• Links the USDA through 73 land-grant universities (including the 1890s and
Tuskegee) to regionjil and state research bases of the Experiment Station System in
50 U.S. states and 6 territories. This system, which also includes the nation's
forestry schools, colleges of veterinary medicine and home econonucs programs
offers expertise and diversity second to none.
• Links the USDA through the Cooperative Extension System's educational outreach
programs to producers and consumers in over 30(X) counties throughout the U.S.
and its territories. Past accomplishments of cooperative extension in rural
development, human nutrition, and youth at risk make these educational
programs particularly important in efforts to focus the USDA delivery system on
the broad clientele of the Department.
• Connects within USDA and the land-grant universities those agencies of scientific
inquiry and application whose collaborative efforts produce science based
educational programs directed to real world problems.
• Results in the three-fold leveraging of the federal investment through state and
local funding for research, extension and education.
122
The basic Science and Education functions of the USDA - Research, Extension and
Education - merit close attention and priorities for each division should be coordinated
by one agency for in\proved efficiency and a more effective delivery system. Some
examples are listed:
• In the new world economy, competitive advantages for the United States will
depend on maintenance and enhancement of our ability to generate and use
science, technology, and education. Because of the long history of USDA in these
areas, future priorities should build on these advantages;
• American agriculture must continue to lead the world in adoption of science and
technology in order for the American public to enjoy continued benefits, and the
American economy to prosper;
• A better trained and educated work force must occupy a high priority in
rebuilding rural America;
• There must be an increased role for the USDA in undergraduate, graduate, non-
formal and extension education to address the specialized needs of agriculture,
natural resources, and family and consumer affairs;
• Increased interaction and collaboration between the Science and Education
community and relevant USDA agencies such as Human Nutrition Information
Service, Soil Conservation Service, ASCS, Farmers Home Administration, Forest
Service, National Ag Library, Food and Nutrition Service and Food Safety and
Inspection Service is essential for a more functional and effective department;
• Continued and enhanced collaboration with other federal agencies and
departments outside USDA, such as EPA, Energy, Interior, HHS, Commerce,
Labor, NSF and NIH is necessary if American Agriculture is to continue to
capitalize on scientific advances across all areas of science in the interest of the
general public.
In light of the above, and with particular attention to the opportunities and mandates
emerging throughout government, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, as it relates to
the Science and Education agencies and the land-grant university system, should take
note of the following principles when establishing new priorities:
• Now more than ever, there is a need to retain flexibility for change and focus on
enhancing the ability of the department to anticipate and respond to critical issues
in a timely manner.
• Extension, research and education efforts of the USDA should emphasize rural
development and revitalization as well as an environmentally sound and
internationally competitive production agriculture. The USDA /Land-Grant
University partnership must now respond to the greater and more complex issues
of agriculture, environment and soded/economic rural infrastructure.
123
• The research, extension and education areas of Science and Education have many
commonalities, both in constituencies and in functional relationships, and
provision must be made for strengthening the dose working relationships among
these functions, without hampering abilities to function independently when
unique opportunities arise.
• Science and Education agencies should focus most closely on increased efficiency,
while creating structural relationships that support collaborative activity. For
Science and Education to support adequately the broad array of programs inherent
in the U. S. Department of Agriculture, there must be sufficient administrative
focus on the primary functions - research, extension emd education - to allow full
expression of their potential benefits, along with facilitation of work across
organizational boundaries to assure the integration of science and technology into
all departmental programs.
The NASULGC Board on Agriculture statement provides general or overall concepts for
consideration. Representatives of the NASULGC Board will provide more specific
recommendations for research, extension, instruction and international programs.
Thank you for the opportunity to present a statement on behalf of the NASULGC Board
on Agriculture on the priorities for research and education for the U. S. Department of
Agriculture.
124
Iowa State University ';'-'' °' t^^'-
Experiment Station
OF SCI ENCE AN D TECH NOLOG Y
122 Curtiss Hall
Ames, Iowa 50011-1050
515 294-2518
FAX 515 294-9477
April 30, 1993
The Honorable Charles W. Stenholm, Chair
Subcommittee on Department Operations & Nutrition
U. S. House of Representatives
Room 1301, Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Congressman Stenholm:
On behalf of the NASULGC Board on Agriculture, I want to express a special
thanks for the opportunity to testify before your subcommittee on Department
Operations and Nutrition. The Board members obtained information from the
leadership of the Land-Grant University System in developing the testimony. If
you have additional questions or a need for further information, we would be
pleased to cooperate.
Answers to the additional questions you requested are attached. The answers to
the questions reflect my personal opinion based on my position as Dean of
Agriculture at Iowa State University rather than Chair of the Board on
Agriculture for NASULGC. Because NASULGC is a national association and
governed by committees and boards, it is difficult to obtain a consensus when
answering specific questions submitted by your committee. My answers to your
questions are attached.
Members of the NASULGC Board on Agriculture look forward to your report on
priorities and directions for the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Sincerely yours.
David G. Topel
Dean and Director
DGT:ch
Enc.
cc: A^T. Mike Westendorf
125
ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY
CONGRESSMAN STENHOLM FOLLOWING TESTIMONY TO
THE HOUSE AGRICULTURE SUBCOMMITTEE FOR DEPARTMENT
OPERATIONS AND NUTRITION-PRIORITIES FOR USDA RESEARCH,
EXTENSION, AND INSTRUCTION.
David G. Topel, Dean and Director
Iowa State Upiversity
One of the criticisms of both special grants and competitive grants is that a
small number of institutions seem to garner large percentages of the
funding. How do we better ensure that a small number of select states do
not control the majority of the funding?
Approximately 1 /3 of the land-grant universities dominate the dollars
obtained through the USDA Competitive Grants Program. One
alternative which would allow other scientists to obtain funds from the
Competitive Grants Program would be to establish two or three additional
divisions to the USDA Competitive Grants Programs. One division would
include the existing program. Sixty percent of the competitive grant funds
could be administered through the existing program. An additional 25%
could be used for young scientists who have tremendous talent and
ability, but have not had an opportunity to establish a research foundation
where they would be competitive with scientists with established research
programs. Another 15% of the allocation could be used for faculty
members who have never received a grant from the USDA Competitive
Grants Program. These funds would help develop research programs in
universities that are not as competitive with the top 1 /3 land-grant
vmiversities.
Special grants have receive much attention during the last 4-5 years.
Anyone associated with the land-grant university system and the budget
process for the federal government understands the importance of special
grants to strengthen programs at the state level. Special grants have been
used effectively for many years and it doesn't take a rocket scientists to
project that special grants will continue to play a significant role in the
funding process for many years to come. A close review of the utilization
of special grant funds will reflect that the overwhelming majority of the
grants have been used very effectively to build quality programs at the
state level. A high proportion of the special grants result in programs that
impact national and international activities. A large proportion of special
grant requests are initiated by taxpayers at the grassroots level. The
special grants provide an avenue for taxpayers to reflect their priorities
through elected officials. Therefore, special programs can play a
significant role in strengthening research, outreach, and instruction
programs which have significant impacts on technology transfer resulting
in a more competitive position for agricultural products around the world.
68-792 - 93 - 5
126
Because special grants complement other avenues of funding, it would be
helpful to encourage multiple state cooperative programs for special
grants. For example, there is a tremendous need for special grants in each
region of our country. Special grants could be established v^hich v^ould
allovy^ individuals from 3 or 4 states to cooperate on projects supported by
special grants. If facilities were needed to carry out the special grant
activities, individuals from the cooperating states could compete for the
special grant funds based on criteria established for the specific special
grant. This process would allow special grants to be used effectively in
different regions of the United States and would stimulate greater
cooperation between individuals vdthin a region.
2. Do you feel that current formula funding levels are adequate to support
base levels of programming?
The USDA budget support for land-grant universities through the formula
funding process has not kept pace with inflation or state support for land-
grant universities over the last 25 years. It is very evident the federal
government has not kept the same level of support for experiment station
research programs when compared to state funding. There was a time in
the history of the land-grant university system, that the federal and state
governments provided equal funds based on formula funding concepts.
In order to develop quality programs over the years, a high proportion of
the states provided considerable more money than the federal government
provided through the formula system. As a result, it is not uncommon for
state governments to provide 3-5 times more support for agricultural
research than the federal government provides through the formula
funding method. I'm very concerned about the limited funds provided for
agricultural research through the USDA budget process. The funds are so
limited that many states have no reason to consider priorities established
at the federal level for agricultural research. Therefore, the impact on
priorities for research at the state level by USDA is limited when
compared to priorities established 25 or 30 years ago. If this trend
continues, USDA will have no impact on priorities for agricultural
research in this country. The current formula funding method needs to be
reviewed because it does not provide adequate support for base level
funding from the USDA for research at the land-grant universities. The
erosion of support for base funding at the land-grant universities over the
last 25 years heis had a significant negative impact on agriculture research
at a large proportion of the land-grant universities. As a result, many of
our land-grant universities are finding it difficult to compete for quality
scientists and students. As a result, other countries around the world are
developing a much stronger agriculture research base than the United
States. This trend will have a serious and negative impact on producing
quality food for the American consumer in the 21st Century if we do not
correct this negative trend. I'm sure you know from your experience, the
127
most critical and fundamental aspect of a strong country is a stable and
quality food supply. Strong support for base budgets at the land-grant
university system is necessary to maintain a quality and stable food
supply in the United States. It should be a national priority, not just an
individual state priority.
3. Some individuals advocate a more regional approach to the distribution of
formula funding. Are the present efforts made on these Unes adequate or
could they be increased?
I have major concerns about the utilization of funds through the current
regional research programs. I believe we could make more effective use of
regional research funds by eliminating the current administrative
structure and transfer all of the dollars currently associated with regional
research projects into a regional competitive grants program. The regional
competitive grants program should require the cooperation of scientists
from at least 2 or 3 states. The scientists would develop research projects
that are truly regional in nature and address high priority topics for the
region. After working on regional projects as a faculty member and
administrator, I strongly believe that we can obtain stronger research
programs by eliminating the current regional approach to research
through the USDA-CS^ regional structure. It would be very easy to
convert the existing regional research funds to a competitive grants fund.
We would greatly reduce administrative costs and provide more dollars
for research by converting existing regional funds to competitive research
projects for the four regions of the United States.
4. Both the National Academy of Sciences and the Kellogg Foundation are
undertaking studies of the Land-Grant System. What are some changes
you feel should be made to prepare us for the 21st Century?
Outreach
The Land-Grant University System in the United States is the envy of most
countries around the world. The current system has paid big dividends
for dollars invested and has provided for an excellent way of life for the
citizens of our country. It is time, however, to make significant changes in
the land-grant university system in order to meet the needs of the citizens
of our country as we prepare for the 21st Century. Agriculture has a great
opportunity to make significant changes in the technology transfer area.
This includes Extension. We have three distinct groups in agriculture
which must be served through the technology transfer process of the land-
grant university system. One-third of the users of technology developed
at the land-grant university system request rapid transfer of the state of
the art technology directly to their business.. We need a special division of
the land-grant university system to address the rapid transfer of high
technology to aggressive farmers, agribusiness industries and non-
128
agricultural companies which impact agriculture. We must develop
technology transfer centers at each land-grant university which utilizes
fiber-optic networks, computer networks, and satellite systems which will
allow communication between farmers, agribusiness leaders, and
scientists from throughout the world. This network must connect libraries
around the world as an immediate research base for agricultural topics.
The USDA Agricultural Library should be positioned to accept a major
leadership role in the international library network. Faculty members
associated with the technology transfer centers would work as one-on-one
consultants with farmers and other agri-industries in the transfer of
technology. The scientists and staff associated with the technology centers
would be located at the land-grant university and would also have
research or academic instruction responsibilities.
Approximately 2/3 of the farmers in the United States are not in a position
to utilize the high technology methods for production agriculture.
Therefore, these individuals need help on fundamental management
principles, principles on balance sheets, leadership training, and
fundamental short courses on methods to developed profitable systems in
production agriculture. The foundation staff for this program should
include cooperative efforts between the private sector and the public
sector. Formal programs should be established between the private and
public sector for providing technology and improved management
systems to the individuals in production agriculture that are not in the
position to utilize the high technology concepts and principles.
Research
Agriculture research at a large number of the land-grant universities must
establish a much more basic and fundamental foundation as the system
prepares for the 21st Century. One of the major short falls in the
agricultural research program in the United States is the limited number
of dollars available for fundamental research as it applies to production
agriculture. In order to establish a more fundamental research program
for agriculture, the land-grant universities should establish administrative
structures which will stimulate faculty members in chemistry, physics,
mathematics, |X)litical sciences, psychology, sociology, and other non-
traditional agricultural fields to cooperate with faculty in the College of
Agriculture and establish independent projects that have direct impact on
agriculture. This is particularly important in the biological sciences,
chemistry, biochemistry, physics, and math. In addition, large
components of the engineering faculty can make significant contributions
to basic research in agriculture. The USDA should restructure the land-
grant university support system to encourage more fundamental and
basic research for agriculture through interdisciplinary programs within
the university and research centers from industry and the USDA. The best
129
incentive to stimulate interdisciplinary programs is through the budget
process.
Curriculum
The Land-Grant University System and in particular colleges of
agriculture must establish a new curriculum base for undergraduate and
graduate students. An overwhelming number of land-grant universities
still offer a very traditional curriculum for agricultural majors.
Agricultural students should be required to obtain the basic principles of
ethics, critical thinking, communication skills, wn-iting across curriculum,
international exf)eriences including competency in at least one foreign
language, international exchange programs, marketing principles at the
national and international level, internship experiences at the national and
international level, and business principles. These concepts must be
incorporated into a curriculum which still allows for students to choose a
production agriculture degree program. Administrators and faculty at the
land-grant university system should aggressively change the traditional
agricultural curriculum to attract quality students and better prepare the
students for the challenges of the 21st Century.
5. As budget pressure brought on by the deficit increases, how might we
change our allocation of formula funding, competitive grants and special
grants to more effectively meet our needs?
Answers requested in Question 5 were addressed in the answers to the
previous four questions.
6. As Dean and Administrator how do you include "crosscutting" initiatives
in your planning process?
When I accepted the position as Dean of the College of Agriculture and
Director of the Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station
in 1988, the administration, faculty and students in the College of
Agriculture had an opportunity to restructure our programs through a
University Strategic Planning Process. We took this opportunity to
establish a new foundation that utilized "crosscutting" initiatives which
allowed the College of Agriculture and the Iowa Agriculture and Home
Economics Experiment Station administration and faculty to reach out
beyond traditional agriculture and incorporate fundamental programs in
other colleges and departments into programs administered in the College
of Agriculture. The attached administrative chart reflects the
"crosscutting" programs. We established Centers of Excellence which
allowed faculty members from departments within the College of
Agriculture and departments in other colleges at Iowa State University to
work together on topics of common interests. For example, the Utilization
Center for Agricultural Products financially supports projects between
130
faculty members in the College of Agriculture, the College of Business, the
I College of Engineering, the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the
College of Family and Consumer Sciences, and the College of Veterinary
Medicine. We have similar Centers of Excellence in rural health, rural
development, seed technology, international finance, food safety and
sustainable agriculture.
The Centers of Excellence complement the department structure and
allows for excellent "crosscutting" initiatives between faculty members
throughout the University system. In the budget process, priorities are
given to quality projects v^hich include interdisciplinary research. Results
of our "crosscutting" initiatives are described in our last two annual
reports. I'm going to include this information as an example of our
"crosscutting" iiutiatives developed in the College of Agriculture at Iowa
State University.
The new administrative structure for the College of Agriculture also
included joinfly administered deparhnents between two colleges. The
departments of Economics, Biochemistry and Biophysics, Sociology,
Statistics and Zoology-Genetics are jointly administered between the
College of Agriculture and the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. The
department of Food Science and Human Nutrition is jointiy administered
between the College of Agriculture and the College of Family and
Consumer Sciences and the department of Microbiology, Immunology
and Preventive Medicine is jointly administered with the College of
Veterinary Medidne and the Agriculture College
The jointiy administered departments between colleges and Center of
Excellence have worked well at Iowa State University to allow agriculture
to reach beyond its traditional programs to help meet the needs of the
agricultural industry as we prepare for the 21st Centiary. Agricultural
colleges in the USA should reach beyond their traditional programs and
form a new foundation.
Each university and agricultural college will need to develop programs
which best meet their needs as the same plan will not work for all
universities in tiie Land-Grant System. The Kellogg Foundation and the
National Academy of Sciences studies of the Land-Grant System could
help tiie universities with their preparation for the 21st Centiary. It is
important that these two studies are coordinated in close cooperation
with the agricultural and university administration.
I've included very detailed information for Questions 6 because I feel strongly
about "crosscutting" initiatives in establishing new foundations for agricultural
research, insh-uction, and ouh-each programs for agriculture. The new sh-uctiare
for our programs in the College of Agriculture at Iowa State University has
resulted in significant improvements for our funding base. We are on our fourth
131
year of improved funding from the Iowa Legislature for agriculture research. We
established a plan to increase our base funding from the State of Iowa at a rate of
3 million dollars each year for 5 years. We have completed 4 years of the funding
plan. The support from the State of Iowa to improve our base funding has
resulted in a much more competitive research program. Funding from
extramural funds has greatly increased since 1989. Currently, approximately half
of the 60 million dollar agricultural research budget for Iowa State University
College of Agriculture is from extramural funds. The taxpayers in Iowa strongly
supported our new strategic plan to strengthen agricultural research at Iowa
State University. The "crosscutting" principles to expand agricultural research
beyond the traditional production agricultural programs was one of the major
factors to obtain new base funding for agricultural research from the State of
Iowa. I would strongly encourage the USD A, at the suggestion of your
committee to establish similar concepts for strengthening agricultural research in
the Land-Grant University System as well as the USDA-ARS research programs.
If you have further questions on the topics I addressed in the 6 questions you
provided, I'd be pleased to visit with you.
(Attachment follows:)
132
gui
01
E X
< O
Ul C
Sen
n a:
Ul 3
li
Ul IT
9 <
n
g
Q
Ul
E
H^fi
-^
"■
a s
<n S
Ul "*
O 3£
O
nr
£6
oi
<
U.5
?s
s
Oli
UlS
%
&;
o
z
g
IS
■*,-
£z
C Ul
^i
1
3 Ul
<J
oo.
2/r,
O
'Sm
*o
s
E S
o
Suj
2
Q
*
Ul
E
e
3
3
O
]5
.E
o
5«
§6
O
■D
Ul
a
Ul
-1
^
8
133
Research Centers
Iowa Agriailtuie and Home Economics
Experiment Station
David G. Tope!, Director
Thomas A. Fretz, Associate Director
Experiment Station research serves producers, agribusiness,
communities and policy-makers. Its scientists wfork in
campus laboratories, on land near Ames, at 11 research
centers throughout Iowa, and in the fields and business
places of private citizens. The station supports approximately
350 projects involving scientists from about 30 departments.
It cooperates with the USDA and other state and federal
agencies and is the administrative unit for the following
research programs.
• Utilization Center for Agricultural Products (UCAP)
Dennis Olson, Director
Increased utilization of agricultural products through
development of new products, new markets and new
processing technology is the focus of the center. It sti-ength-
ens and broadens programs in two existing ISU centers — the
Meat Export Research Center and the Center for Crops
Utilization Research.
• Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD)
Stanley R. Johnson, Administrator
This center is involved in econometric analysis of the impact
of biotechnology and technological change on the financial
condition of the agncultural industry and the structure ot
agnculture. It also focuses on resources and conservation
policy, rural and economic development policy, trade and
agricultural policy, and food nutiition pobcy. The Midwest
Agribusiness Trade Research and Information Center is
affiliated with CARD. MATRIC, a pmt effort of ISU and the
Greater Des Moines Chamber of Commerce, links the
research capabilities of the university with the needs of
agribusiness.
• The Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture
Dennis Keeney, Director
Named for conservationist Aldo Leopold, this center was
established by the Iowa Legislahire in 1987 to conduct
research on the environmental and socio-economic impacts
of farming practices and to help develop profitable farming
systems that preserve the productivity and quality of natural
resources and the environment.
• Social and Behavioral Research Center for Rural Health
Rand Conger, Director
ISU and Iowa Methodist Health System created this center in
1988 in response to concern about the increasing amount and
seventy of rural health problems. The center's mission is to
help unprove the health of rural people through research
programs and application of the insights tfiat result. The
center's research is focused on understanding rural health
risks, reducing health risks in rural areas and fostering
effective rural health policies and services. The center is
associated with the Center for Agricultural Safety and
Health, a joint effort between ISU and the University of Iowa.
• North Central Regional Center for Rural Development
Peter Korsching, Director
Serving 12 Midwestern states, the center is one of four
regional centers coordinating rural development research
and education through the land-grant institutions in the
United States. The center assists public and pnvate decision
making by encouraging and conducting research, extension
and educational programs designed to improve the social
and economic well-being of non-metropolitan communities.
• North Central Regional Plant Introduction Station
Peter K. Bretting, Coordinator
One of four regional centers, the station maintains seed
(germplasm) collections of 30,000 individual lines. The
station has three bas\c areas of activity: (1 ) to grow and store
seed to mamtam viability of the collection, (2) to conduct
research, and (3) to serve as a distnbution center for plant
scientists.
• Center for International Agricultural Finance
NeU E. Harl, Director
The center was established in 1990 to conduct schools and
short courses in agncultural banking, credit and finance.
Initially the center is focusing on countiies in Eastern Europe
and Eurasia.
• North Central Regional Aquaculture Center
Joeseph E. Morris, Asscxnate Director
This center is administered jointly by Michigan State Univer-
sity and BU. It is one of five regional centers established to
develop collatxjrative interstate research and cooperative
extension programs for commercial aquaculture-the culture
or husbandry of aquatic organisms under controlled condi-
tions.
• Seed Science Center
Manjit Misra, Director
Programs at this center include research; seed testing;
training seed specialists and seed scientists; and providing
infonnation for seed growers, conditioners and sellers
JANUARY 1993
134
ECOP
Extension Committee on
Organization and Policy
National Association of Slate Universities
and Land Grant Colleges
One Dupont Circle NW, Suite 710
Washington, DC 20036-1191
Telephone: 202/778.0818
FAX; 202/2%.6456
TESTIMONY
Before
THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS
AND NUTRITION
of
THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
on
Science and Education Priorities at the U.S. Department of Agriculture
Presented by
Dr. Zerle Carpenter
Associate Deputy Chancellor for Agriculture and
Director, Texas Agricultural Extension Service
The Texas A&M University System
College Station, TX
Chair
The Extension Committee on Organization and Policy
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges
March 25, 1993
135
Introduction
Mr. Chainnan and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Zerle Carpenter.
I am the Associate Deputy Chancellor for Agriculture and Director of the Cooperative
Extension System in the State of Texas. 1 also have the privilege of serving as the current
Chairman of the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy (ECOP) within the
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC). On
behalf of ECOP, it is my great pleasure to take part in this hearing to discuss the role and
fiinctions of the Cooperative Extension System (CES) and the possible organizational
strategies which might prove helpful to the Subcommittee as it seeks to improve efficiency
and reduce costs in the operation of the Department of Agriculture. Mr. Chairman, I
particularly want to commend you for your leadership and dedication in establishing a
thoughtful and challenging examination of the "new vision" we seek for the U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
Background
Mr. Chairman, the Cooperative Extension System links USDA to people and
communities in almost every county of the U.S. (more than 3,000), through the land-grant
universities in the SO states, six territories, and the District of Columbia. Its mission is to
help people improve their lives through a dynamic, multi-faceted educational program that
focuses scientific knowledge on contemporary problems, issues and needs facing people,
businesses, and communities. CES differs from a line agency; rather, it is a three-way
partnership between the Extension Service-USDA and state and local units of government
through the land-grant universities in each state. The partnership results in a three-way
leveraging of the federal investment through state and local funding for research, extension
and education.
Program Development
The Extension System's program priorities are identified with and for local people,
who provide approximately 70 percent of the program's funding through state and county
levels of government. The Extension System is the people's link with the total resources of
the university and with federal research. At the same time, the federal component of this
cooperative structure provides for a coordinated approach to meet national priorities.
Strategic planning is an ongoing activity in the CES. National leadership for
strategic planning in the System is provided by the Strategic Planning Council (SPC). The
SPC is the key group in synthesizing information about the future, the societal environment,
and the capacities of the CES. The SPC identifies and assesses issues consistent with
Extension's mission. It solicits and synthesizes information from fiituring panels, external
scanning processes and national advisory councils. At the State and county levels, similar
structures and processes are in use to involve citizens, staff and relevant collaborators in
strategic planning. • " i
136
Historically, since the Smith-Lever Act of 1914, CES has served agricultural
producers, families, communities, consumers and businesses. In recent years, the CES has
served the priority needs of people in agricultural profitability and sustainability, water
quality, youth at risk, consumer issues, human health and nutrition, waste management, and
community economic development. To remain relevant and to meet the constantly
changing needs of the people, CES must continue to work cooperatively with numerous
other agencies and groups and is now also networked technologically so as to better draw
upon appropriate research, disciplines, and databases.
Current Critical Issues Facing the System
Over the past five years, the CES has undergone a great deal of transition. Change
has been the operative word throughout the CES. The focus of the change has been the
move to issues-based programming. As a result of that change, some critical issues face the
CES. Among those issues are the following:
• With increased intensity through the strategic planning process to identify the
most time sensitive and critical societal issues, the CES has refocused some
resources on issues affecting agriculture, children, families, envirorunent, and
consumers. The CES has gained significant praise from some for this action
w^le being criticized by others for abandoning traditional clientele,
especially production agriculture. In fact, the proportion of resources
expended by the CES on agricultural and natural resource issues has
increased. The most highly visible current programs of the CES focus on
societal issues which relate to agriculture and consumers, such as food safety,
water quality, and waste management. These are not seen by some as
traditional agricultural production programs; however, these do address
critical challenges facing agriculture production today.
• As the CES transition occurs, there is some lack of public understanding of
the new agenda focusing on critical issues. This lack of understanding leads
some members of the media, national organizations, and, in some cases,
public officials to make statements which reflect the CES of the past instead
of current program focus.
• As the CES continues the transition to issues programming, it is becoming
increasingly apparent that the critical issues are very difficult to address in
a non-formal educational setting. The educational program must be presented
and received as non-advocacy. Staff of the CES need and will be receiving
extensive training in both process skills and technology related to the critical
issues.
• As the general economy of the U.S. has suffered, most State and local
governments have had great difficulty with budgets. This has had a
negative impact on the state extension systems and the land-grant universities
in those states. For the most part, however, most have done an excellent job
of responding to their fiscal situations.
137
The CES has a long tradition of effectively educating many segments of
society in programs related to agriculture, families, youth and communities.
This outreach success is recognized by other segments of government with
envy. The CES has an extensive infra-structure which can and should be
used by other segments of government. Apparently, some have viewed the
CES as a competitor to their ability to create a comparable outreach system.
This is unfortunate and unnecessary. The CES stands ready to cooperate,
collaborate or coordinate with other segments of government.
The Future
The CES continues to mature as a sound, proactive, nonformal, educational system
dedicated to the improvement of the lives of people by addressing critical issues and needs.
Change is accepted in the CES as condition of being part of the S/stem. The CES
continues to look to the future in hopes of continuing to be recognized as a positive force
for change in the United States and internationally.
Principles for Restructuring
Extension's interest in the potential restructuring of USDA is based upon the need to
effectively fulfill its educational mission with a broad-based program driven by people's
needs. State structures for delivering CES programs vary widely and thus, any structure
should focus on the agency's ability to maintain effective linkages to State programs.
Mr. Chairman, ECOP believes the following principles are important to consider in
any structural reorganization of USDA:
1 . Mission and function should be the primary criterion for reorganization. The
USDA and its respective agencies are responsible for functional areas
including Education, Research, Regulation, Conservation, Marketing,
Economic Forecasting and Food Assistance.
2. For Extension to continue to be effective in its educational mission, it must be
seen by clientele as a credible, unbiased organization providing science and
knowledge-based solutions to critical problems.
3. Enhanced collaboration with other federal agencies and department is
necessary for Extension to maintain a broad-based program focused on the
highest priority needs and issues facing people.
4. There is a need to retain flexibility for CES to respond to critical issues in a
timely manner (e.g.. Africanized honeybees).
5. There is a critical need to retain the tremendous networked communication
capacity that CES has built in the past several years. We are a part of the
developing national information infrastructure needed to serve our customers,
as well as cooperating and partnering with other organizations and agencies.
138
6. The USDA/Land-Grant University partnership is critical to food and fiber
production, rural development, environmental protection, and other significant
societal and economic issues affecting people in both rural and urban areas.
7. The research, extension and education functions have many commonalities,
both in constituencies and in functional relationships. Structural relationships
should support collaboration and cooperation among all relevant units, both
within and outside the Department.
Restructuring Options
Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to present the Subcommittee with
three possible scenarios for the placement of ES in a restructuring of USDA. These are:
1) placement in a Subcabinet unit with regulatory and service agencies,
2) placement in a Subcabinet unit with research agencies, and
3) placement in a Subcabinet unit with other education and information agencies.
Allow me to briefly discuss the characteristics of each of these models which are
briefly discussed below.
Placement of ES in a Subcabinent Unit with Regulatory and Service Agencies
fe.g.. FmHA. ASCS. SCS. FCIO
It is our understanding that this structure is currently under consideration by USDA.
It would provide:
• The potential for improved coordination between the educational role of
Extension and the regulatory/service role of agencies that provide a direct
service to selected users (agricultural producers).
■ Potential for increased collaboration and coordination of programs and
services at the local level.
• The potential to restrict the program to agriculture and reduce the current
collaboration with other federal units (i.e., ARS, CSRS, FNS, HNIS).
• The strong potential for reduced state and local govermnent and clientele
support if they perceive their broader expectations, beyond farm programs,
will not be met
• Separation and the potential for reduced coordination between research and
extension at the federal level.
139
• Potential perceptions of "regulation" as a role for ES, and thus the potential
-for negative perceptions of ES objectivity and credibility based on close
association with regulatory agencies. At the state and local level, both
funding and effectiveness could be jeopardized by this association with
regulatory activities.
Placement of ES in a Subcabinent Unit with Other Science and Research Agencies
fe.g.. CSRS. ARS. ERS. NAL)
Mr. Chairman, this structure would provide:
• The potential for strong coordination between research and extension at the
federal level recognizing the importance of science-based and user-driven
research and extension education programs.
• A clear demonstration of ES and its related state extension systems as a
science-based organization.
• Potential to enhance the transfer and application of relevant technology from
the several research units within USDA.
• Potential reduction in program scope and loss of the strong state/local support
base. If ES programs are defined only within the context of the current
agricultural research agenda, it may limit responsiveness on contemporary
issues such as community, economic, environmental and family needs.
• Potential of major reduction of outreach mission through suggested mergers
with ARS and CSRS (e.g., H.R. 1122).
Placement of ES with Other Education Information and Outreach Units
Mr. Chairman, creating a new Subcabinet unit for Education and Outreach that
would include Extension and other agencies/units with educational and information missions
would designate ES as the primary educational unit of USDA. Other potential agencies and
programs would include, for example, the education and outreach components of the
National Agricultural Library, Higher Education, Agricultural Cooperative Service, Human
Nutrition Information Service, Ag in the Classroom, and "others.
Such a structure would provide:
• Consistency with a reorganization based on fimction.
• Potential to enhance cooperation among USDA agencies with educational
responsibilities and increase efficiency among USDA outreach activities.
A user-friendly source of information and education from throughout USDA
(and other agencies) for clientele, including producers and consumers.
140
Enhanced USDA capacity to lead and collaborate on outreach and education
with other federal agencies that could benefit from using the CES delivery
system (e.g., Commerce, Health and Social Services, Education, HUD, EPA,
Interior, Labor, NSF, NIH, Energy).
Separation fi-om agricultural research entities (CSRS, ARS, ERS) at the
federal level (similar to model 1, page 7).
Enhanced access to research outside of USDA (universities, other federal
agencies and laboratories, etc.).
Enhanced ability to deliver a broad-based program responsive to national,
state and local needs.
Summary
Mr. Chairman, it is important that the placement of ES in any federal structure be
designed to recognize the federal, state and local partnership and the best interests of the
people in every state, who support the broad-based program of Extension.
Regardless of the structure that evolves, the Cooperative Extension System will
support the decisions of Congress and will cooperate in every way possible to enhance the
Department and serve the people.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of ECOP and the Cooperative Extension System, I once
again thank you and the members of this Subcommittee for allowing me to testify today.
We look forward to working with you and your staff on what we consider to be one of the
most important issues this Subcommittee will address in the 103rd Congress.
(Attachmencs are held in the committee files.)
141
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS
of
THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS
ANDNUTRinON
of
THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
on
Science and Education Priorities at the U. S. Department of Agriculture
Dr. Zerle L. Carpenter
142
How can we maintain the most efflcient linkages between Extension and tlie
Research community?
The research community, including both its public and private sector components, is
linked with Extension at several levels: national, multi-state, multi-county, and county.
Within and across these levels, there is need for multiple linkages between Extension and
research through (a) organizational/institutional leadership coordination and collaboration;
(b) joint program planning and implementation to address specific issues; (c) split
appointments, liaisons, and details across Extension and research agencies/organizations;
and (d) effective communication networks via conferences, courses, and electronic and
print media. Underlying the efficient linkage between Extension and the research
community is the need for a common recognition of "mutual interdependence" in meeting
public and user needs through promoting the generation and adoption of improved
technologies and practices.
The major strategic planning effort occurs through the land-grant university where the
state's Cooperative Extension System and the Agricultural Experiment Station are
located. Dialogue occurs within academic departments, at field locations, and among
users and commodity groups in the planning process.
It should be noted that the Cooperative Extension System, CSRS, and the Agricultural
Experiment Stations are strengthening their joint planning activities by addressing priority
research/Extension areas such as agriculture and the environment, as well as considering
how to forge more efficient linkages.
At the national level, CES (ECOP) and ES-USDA jointly appoint and manage a Strategic
Planning Council. The states Agricultural Experiment Stations (ESCOP) have
representation on this planning committee. Likewise, ECOP is represented on the
National Research Planning Agenda. In addition, ECOP and ESCOP have annual joint
meetings to discuss major research and Extension issues, and regional CES and SAES
directors meet, plan, and jointly sponsor study groups, task forces, and projects involving
researchers and Extension specialists.
Also, local, state, and national communication systems are strengthening the many
linkages. Extension and research professionals can communicate with each other via
electronic mail, engage in cooperative work over electronic networks, jointly contribute
to databases and decision support systems, and conduct research and Extension symposia
using multi-media, including satellite.
What percentage of your programs are production agriculture related?
Forty-seven percent of the nationwide Cooperative Extension System's programs relate
to agriculture and natural resources. This is three-and-a-half percentage points above
where we were ten years ago and near an all-time high. Within the 47 percent, we have
had some shifts toward more environmental issues such as water quality and issues that
relate to management, marketing, and policy.
143
However, the manner in which one describes the "needs of production agriculture" has
shifted substantially. For instance, what percent of the total CES effort in Food Safety
education should be attributed to production agriculture? What about nutrition? It is
quite possible that some of the "agriculture" oriented effort in the youth program or some
of the rural community development efforts would be included by some of the production
agriculture community. Obviously, this is a question creating considerable dialogue, but
really defies a definitive answer. Therefore, one could propose that well over 50% of
the budgets are expended on agricultural related programs.
Describe programs which serve both rural and urban consumers.
Extension's programs focused on addressing the needs of rural and urban consumers are
aimed primarily at helping people make more informed decisions related to nutrition, diet
and health, family and economic concerns, and the environment. Some current priority
programs are described below.
Nutrition, Diet, Health, and Food Safety programs are aimed at helping consumers make
choices related to nutritional intake to maintain a high quality of life, avoid debilitating
diseases, and meet age and gender specific needs. The Expanded Food Nutrition
Education Program also provides nutrition education specifically targeted to low-income
families. Other programs focus on educating consumers about ways to meet the
nutritional needs of their families in the most economical way. Extension also provides
consumer education related to safe food purchasing and handling and preparing food to
avoid encounters with serious effects of foodbome illness. Programs in health focus on
the adoption of lifestyle practices which are necessary for maintaining healthy bodies and
minds.
Family and Economic programs focus on helping consumers manage their income and
assets in ways that meet their life-cycle goals. Programs are offered which emphasize
saving, investment, and consumer expenditure strategies which make the best use of
current individual and family income flows. Programs such as budget planning,
mortgage refinancing, and loan consolidation are all examples of these efforts. Public
policy issues are also covered. Issues such as changes in state and local tax laws, bond
financing, and their implications for consumers are covered. Youth at Risk issues arc
addressed through that initiative.
Environmental Education programs relate to preservation of the environment with respect
to clean water and air, effective solid waste disposal, and attractive environments.
Programs in Urban Integrated Pest Management (IPM) arc designed to assist consumers
in managing pests in their homes, lawns, and gardens in a safe and economical manner.
What makes the three-way partnership unique to Extension and how are Federal
dollars leveraged by state and local dollars?
Other cooperative agencies that form partnerships across governmental levels generally
are confined to Federal/state partnerships or state/county partnerships. Cooperative
144
Extension is comprised of state, Federal, and local (county and city) staffs that
cooperatively fund, plan, implement, and evaluate programs that develop practical
applications of research knowledge and inform and educate clientele regarding these
practical applications. This partnership currently leverages $426 million Federal dollars
into an additional $1 billion from state and local sources. Federal funds have a fairly
significant impact on the way many state and local funds are used. First, most Federal
appropriations suggest priorities, and the amount of state and local funds going into such
programs often far exceeds any match requirement.
It should also be understood that land-grant universities, county governments, and state
governments also provide a substantial resource in the way of offices, laboratories,
buildings, utilities, support personnel, equipment, etc. Yes, Federal funds leverage
substantial resources directed towards national, state, and local priorities. In addition,
it should be emphasized that less than 4 % of the ES-USDA congressional appropriation
is used by the small headquarters unit located in Washington, D. C. However, it is of
paramount importance to retain this identifiable unit for purposes of coordination and for
leadership on national issues of the Secretary and Congress. Without such national
coordination and leadership, it would be extremely difficult to recognize a National
Cooperative Extension System.
■ The Cooperative Extension System (CES) is an education network centered in the
nation's land-grant universities that provides research-based practical education
applied to the complex problems of America's families, communities, agriculture,
business, and industry.
■ Established by Congress in 1914, the nationwide system operates as a unique
partnership of the Federal government, the Nation's 72 land-grant colleges and
universities (including 17 historically black institutions), and the more than 3,(X)0
counties, with funding from Federal, state, and local governments.
■ Cooperative Extension faculty and staff are professionals engaged in nonformal
education programs that address social, economic, environmental, and technical
concerns of the people. CES faculty and staff efforts are multiplied by the work
of more than three million volunteers across the country.
■ Extension educational priorities and initiatives are set by elected and appointed
representative bodies at the local, state, and national levels. General areas of
emphasis are established, with regular review as needs change. All three partners
exert influence on programs and help determine priorities, with active
involvement of the public, to meet their particular needs. i
Extension programs are carried out by each of the land-grant colleges and
universities to respond to the needs of the people of the state; local staff develop
educational programs appropriate to the unique problems of their areas.
145
■ Extension field staff and specialists use a variety of educational methods — public
presentations, demonstrations, publications, computer networks, satellite and
video, newspapers, radio, and television — to reach their audience. Extension
curricula and programs are enhanced through collaboration with public and
private agencies and organizations.
As the name implies. Extension has a cooperative relationship among the three partners,
as well as with 2.8 million volunteers in which the three partners "mutually agree" on
the program to be carried out. No one partner dominates— that may be rather unique
among Federal agencies.
5. How much of Extension's work is rural development related?
About seven percent of the total Cooperative Extension System FTEs are devoted
specifically to rural development as indicated by states and counties through the national
reporting system. These FTEs are focused mainly on the Extension Initiative,
Communities in Economic Transition, providing education for: (1) community level
strategic planning for economic development; and (2) enterprise development and
business assistance. This effort is fully integrated with other program areas and is most
often delivered through the same staff at the local level. The seven percent figure does
not include the considerable Extension woric that contributes to rural development
through agriculture, natural resources, home economics, and youth programs.
The national Cooperative Extension System has collaborated with the National
Association of Counties on joint projects related to rural community development. In
addition, many programs and educational opportunities exist at the state and local level
for elected officials and community leaders. Through this mechanism, CES multiplies
many-fold what seems to be a low level of effort.
6. How is Extension adapting to the communications age and how has the increase in
technological communications enhanced the effectiveness of the Extension Service?
Extension recognized the importance of the technological communications age nearly
three years ago when it established the national Future y^plication of Communication
Technology (FACT) committee. Today, the Cooperative Extension System is linked to
its partners in research as well as many other organizations and agencies nationally and
internationally. CES is well down the road in reinventing its technology systems and
practices consistent with what will become the norm in the 21st century. CES is
networked so that all staff can program cooperatively increasing quality and efficiency
through computer and satellite technology. We may be the only nationwide, grassroots,
decentralized, science based, computer and satellite networiced organization in the United
States.
146
In many places, we are also facilitating local coop)erative ventures among higher
education, K-12, community colleges, small businesses, and medical and health services
that allow for cost-effective and efficient networking of local communities as well as new
joint programming efforts. In areas such as Oregon, North Carolina, Indiana, New
York, and Pennsylvania, Extension is working closely with mid-level networks as well
as with statewide telecommunications networks and projects on the cutting edge.
The complete penetration of the internet throughout the land-grant system and the 70%
complete penetration of the internet to county offices has greatly improved connectivity
and timely data collection and delivery on a nationwide basis. The CES approach is
based on open systems, use of internationally accepted standards, and collaborative work
through networking. ES works very closely with the National Science Foundation and
is coordinating all efforts with the Federal Networking Council. Information
management decisionmaking today is far easier given that the global internet is the
infrastructure for communicating not only with state and local entities, but many other
countries as well.
A concrete example of the tremendous capacity of this system was Extension's ability to
respond from county level to a request for possible youth service projects in less than 24
hours. Extension Service-USDA received some 1,000 responses— 800 by electronic mail
and 200 by FAX in that time period, regarding more than 3,000 possible youth service
projects.
Through the AG*SAT Corporation consortium of 43 land-grant institutions. Extension
Service-USDA, and the Cooperative State Research Service, we have the capacity to
deliver interactive, issue-based education at a distance. We are increasingly sharing not
simply our infrastructure but our quality programmatic expertise in multi-media with
other organizations and agencies. Recent examples include cooperative work with the
National Association of Counties (NACo) to conduct interactive, nationwide
videoconferences on "Aging Population and Aging Infrastructure" and "Watershed '93"
produced cooperatively with other USDA agencies and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, U.S. Geological Survey, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Park Service, and the National Water Research Institute. More
than 25 interesting and iimovative projects have been financed through the AG
Telecommunications project, and Extension is currently cooperating closely with REA
to implement the Distance Learning and Medical Link program.
We are excited about our increasing ability to connect, communicate, and manage in a
dynamic and collaborative, rather than static, sense. Extension can gain access to nearly
any database that is open in USDA, the land-grant community, other countries, and other
government agencies virtually instantaneously. Software has been developed that enables
end users to access and retrieve electronic documents via electronic mail. Developed by
one of our land-grant partners, this software (ALMANAC) is being deployed throughout
Extension, USDA, and other agencies and organizations. NSF is exploring it as an
addition to its growing software infrastructure.
147
The Cooperative Extension System believes that total quality management, decentralized
and participative management systems, a customer focus, and a real understanding of
how government can be reinvented by combining these concepts with cutting edge
technology will define successful 21st century organizations. We are already well down
the road to establishing the necessary infrastructure and changing mind-sets and practices
to serve today's citizens as well or better than ever before.
7. Describe how "crosscutting" initiatives with other agencies are included in your
planning and programming process?
The Cooperative Extension System routinely involves other agencies and organizations
from both the public and private sectors in planning and programming. For example.
Extension's national initiative on health education is being planned and launched in
collaboration with national, state, and local public health agencies; Federal and state HHS
offices of rural health policy; National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health;
Easter Seals; medical schools; the W. K. Kellogg Foundation; and numerous others. The
nature of the partnerships with other agencies and organizations varies widely and
includes joint sponsorship, funding, development of programs models, educating staff in
other agencies and organizations, participation on community advisory councils, and
interorganizational referrals.
One example is our work with the National Association of County Officials on watershed
management. In addition, ES is producing a national videoconference on the new food
labeling with FDA and FSIS. Also, we are currently working with, demonstrating, and
educating other government agencies and departments (education, USAID, NOA, EPA,
GAO, and others) on how information technology and distance education methods can
be used to serve a much larger segment of society in a much more site-specific manner.
A close and continuous planning process occurs within the land-grant university
system — both within and outside of agriculture. Through this process, the expertise and
talent of the Total University Community can be made available to the "people. " At the
state level. Extension is linked with many other public institutions and agencies. It
should also be recognized that the Extension network is actively sought for collaboration
and cooperation by many public and private organizations.
148
Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy
ESCOP
JAMES R. FISCHER
Experiment Statnn Section
The Division ot Agriculture
National Association ol State University and Land-Grant Colleges
TESTIMONY
For reply, please address:
SC Aghcuttural ExpenmenI Station System
104 Barre Hall
Box 340351
Clemson. SC 29634-0351
TEL (803) 656-3140
FAX (803) 656-3779
BIT IN% "JFSCHReCLUSTl CLEMSON.EDU"
Before
THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENTAL OPERATIONS AND NUTRITION
of
The House Agriculture Committee
on
Improving Functional Relationships in The USDA
for
The State Agricultural Experiment Stations
Presented by
Dr. James R. Fischer
Director, South Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station
Oemson University
Chair
The Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy
March 25, 1993
149
Improving Functional Relationships in The USDA
for
The State Agricultural Experiment Stations
INTRODUCTION:
Mr. Chainnan, my name is James R. Fischer and I am pleased to provide this testimony on
behalf of the Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy (ESCOP). This
committee represents the State Agricultural Experiment Stations (SAESs) which are located
at each Land Grant University in the United States.
One of the most exciting parts of USDA Science and Education is the state-federal
partnership in agricultural research which links the Cooperative State Research Service
(CSRS) with a national network of State Agricultural Experiment Stations. This linkage has
been and continues to be a major factor in the success of U.S. agriculture.
The commitment of the new Administration to the use of science and technology to
facilitate economic growth and environmental enhancement is exemplified in the document
accompanying President Clinton's address to the joint session of Congress on February 17,
1993 (A Vision of Change for America). In this document, the programs of Science and
Education in the USDA were sustained and, in some cases, expanded to address new
agendas.
The new Administration finds itself at a major cross-roads for U.S. agriculture. Agriculture
involves a much broader agenda today than before. There is growing recognition that
USDA and SAES clientele include every citizen of the U.S., not just farmers. New
problems are coupled with continuing needs for new knowledge and technology. Modem
science offers unparalleled opportunity to meet these challenges. New needs have generated
much greater expectations for the delivery of new technology.
The major new and continuing issues include food safety and nutrition, environmentally
sound and economically viable systems of sustainable agricultural production, methods to
develop alternative uses of agricultural products and enhanced economic viability for farm
families and rural communities. The new Administration calls for fresh approaches in
addressing these problems, including appropriate reorganization of the USDA.
Reorganization of the USDA offers an opportunity to improve the functional relationships
between the State Agricultural Experiment Stations and the Department. It is an
opportunity to build on and expand relationships that have historically served the state-
federal partnership very well. The reconmiendations in this paper are derived fi-om a four-
part analysis: (1) assessment of the USDA goals for reorganization, (2) definition of
attributes of the present system which meet these goals (and therefore should be continued).
150
(3) identification of functional areas where change will improve performance of the SAES-
USDA partnership and, (4) considerations for redirection or reorganization.
USDA GOALS:
The overall stated goals of reorganization of the Department are: (a) streamlining and
making the Department more efficient and "fanner friendly", (2) conserving fiscal resources,
and (3) reassessment of strategies and priorities to address changing needs. It is assumed
that the Congress and the Administration seek common goals and that changes in legislation
are possible, if needed.
In our analysis of these goals, as they pertain to the SAESs, we developed a set of derivative
goals or targets for the Science and Education community that will enhance the function of
USDA and the SAES system:
o Assure science based management of USDA programs
o Provide improved ability to define strategic issues and from this to define directions
and priorities with resource allocation to address these priorities
o Improve the communication of research results to improve use and assure
accountability
o Improve the ability to respond to national needs at the local level both with respect
to primary responsibilities of USDA and agriculture related issues in other parts of
government
o Effective linkage with other parts of the federal science establishment to enhance
cooperation and coordination of related research
o Based on a clear national strategy, improve decentralized decision making and
empowerment at the lowest possible functional level
ATTRIBUTES OF THE PRESENT SAES SYSTEM:
President Clinton, in his address to Congress on February 17, 1993, used the Land Grant
Universities as an example of the kind of re-investment in the future that his Administration
intends to make. While the system continues to evolve, and is far from perfect, the
following existing attributes seem to address the goals of the reorganization and, therefore,
should be continued and preserved:
o An existing national network involving all states and six U.S. territories with grass-
roots linkages and sophisticated broadly based university faculty having commitment
to address the problems of U.S. agriculture
151
o Early recognition and remediation of new problems and opportunities at the grass
roots level
o Relationship with the Cooperative Extension System, providing an imequaled
mechanism for education and technology transfer for all parts of U.S. agriculture
o Linkage with the higher education programs in land grant universities, drawing on
the energy and imagination of graduate and post-graduate students and contributing
to the provision of a cutting edge education of the next generations of practitioners
and scientists in agriculture
o A demonstrated track record of development and use of new knowledge and
technology that has been a major factor in the success of U.S. agrioJture
o At least a three-fold leveraging of USDA funds with state and other funds
o An existing effective and functional strategic planning process that builds from the
grass roots and identifies and prioritizes the national research agenda and results in
redirection of existing and application of new resources to changing needs
STRATEGIC PLANNING, PRIORITY SETTING, AND RESPONSE TO CHANGING
NEEDS:
The State Agricultural Experiment Stations and the Cooperative State Research Service
have made functional use of national level strategic plaiming since 1984 as a means of
developing budget proposals and redirecting resources. The Experiment Station Committee
on Organization and Policy, which represents the SAESs at the national level, along with
its Federal partner, develop a major revision of their strategic research plan every four
years. In intervening years, the plan is revised and updated as necessary to meet changing
needs and to provide input to the USDA Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences.
Each year, it is sent to every Experiment Station Director to rank the initiatives in priority
order of importance, based on perceptions of need and opportunity.
The product of ESCOP-CSRS planning is a broadly stated document that provides vision
and mission statements for the SAESs, a brief background for perspective and an array of
highest priority initiatives, with research objectives and resources needed to achieve the
goals. It includes a state and regional consensus on relative priorities based on a very broad
input from the users of the product of SAES research.
ESCOP participates in the development and advocacy of the budget proposal for the Board
on Agriculture of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges
(NASULGC). ESCOP uses the Strategic Research Plan as the principle guideline in
developing recommendations for the annual budget recommendation, maintaining close
communication at the early stages of development with CSRS. NASULGC makes a
152
proposal to the USDA for the Science and Education budget in the summer before
appropriations are made. ESCOP, along with other NASULGC counterparts evaluate the
President's budget in early spring and then take their recommendations to the Congress.
The SAESs are not tightly organized as is the case with federal agencies conducting research
and development. They represent a coordinated network of participating state agencies
which are part of land grant universities. Their strength lies in the distributed decision
making and programs of research that address the needs and opportunities of individual
states. They support a diversified set of agricultural and related industries which are based
on the specific natural resources and other factors that also make U.S. agriculture site
specific. Despite the distributed nature of this network, it has a consistent ability to find
consensus on the major national issues of over-arching importance that require programs
of research to provide new knowledge and solutions. There is a growing need and
opportunity to share resources and trade-off responsibilities in four regions of the country
into which the SAES community is divided.
The ESCOP-CSRS Strategic Research Plan has been and is successful in recognizing both
the continuing and new needs for research on food, agriculture, natural resources and the
environment. In the past, the system has redirected the existing portfolio of research
projects to meet changing national and local needs. The federal government has provided
sustaining support for the on-going programs as well as selected new funding in high priority
areas. In the present environment, this system is challenged to continue to use the basic
procedures now in place for effective planning, but to shift its budgeting strategies towards
a reinvestment of existing resources rather than an investment of new resources added to
current appropriations. While this has been done in practice at the state level for many
years, the system has less experience with seeking and maintaining consensus at the national
level in the "net sums" situation (see also appendix one).
OPPORTUNITIES FOR FUNCTIONAL CHANGE:
o Take a USDA leadership role in expanding farm programs that reward
environmental stewardship rather than production of surpluses. A science- based
approach to achieving this, through enlightened research, will maintain the option of
farming with voluntary rather than regulatory management of the environmental
agenda, while continuing to enhance international economic competitiveness.
o Develop incentives and support for regional activities that can effectively consolidate
or complement state level research and development. Use of geographic information
system methods will provide a means of assessing common natural resource bases for
regional research at the level of basins, watersheds and other natural resource
boundaries. Such methods will also enhance the effectiveness of priority setting
153
o Improve the linkage between various research and education programs which address
common critical issues. Establish a clearer vision of the contribution of "discovery"
level research (as exemplified in the National Research Initiative), applied research
and information delivery on common critical issues and assure better linkages at the
interface of these programs
o Expand and improve linkages with other federal science agencies to improve the
efficiency of the use of USDA resources through cooperation and coordination.
Assure more meaningful commitments for interaction and support
o Several specific functional changes would contribute to these more general goals:
o Expand research on total farming systems to address the needs for sustainable
agricultiu'e interests and general farming programs
' o Develop mechanisms to more effectively identify and address emerging and
urgent priorities using a "research contract" mechanism to purchase focused
effort on short term crisis needs
o Develop a closer relationship in strategic planning between the elements of
Science and Education
OPTIONS FOR IMPROVED ORGANIZATION:
This analysis has focused on functions that should be established or enhanced to meet the
goals of the proposed reorganization of the USDA. We suggest that the reorganization be
considered using modem management principles, which enable decentralized decision
making based on national strategies. These principles include the use of flexible
management structures that facilitate linkages and conmiunication between organizations
that perform and those that use the results of research and development. There is also a
growing need to more effectively link parts of the system that perform related or
complementary functions. The overarching principle is to develop the functional mandate
for administrators and scientists to communicate and collaborate within whatever
organizational fi-amework that emerges.
This broad networking of related functions might best be administered using a matrix
management approach. Such an approach would facilitate:
o Effective linkages between the Science and Education agencies and the action
agencies of the USDA
o Effective linkages to related parts of the overall federal science estabUshment
154
o Coordination of programs and collaborative activities within and between
departments
o A separate mjinagement focus for the interrelated Science and Education agencies
o Mobilization of fiscal and other resources to implement strategic decisions
With respect to the partnership between the SAESs and the Cooperative State Research
Service (CSRS), there are several changes that would expedite achieving the new vision and
goals of the USDA:
o Expand the role of CSRS in facilitating interaction between the SAESs and:
o other parts of the USDA (especially the action agencies)
o other "users" of the results of agricultural research and development in the
federal system
o other parts of the federal science establishment
o Redirect CSRS resources to take on a larger role in facilitating engagements, while
reducing the effort on disciplinary reviews; place more emphasis on interdisciplinary
reviews that assess progress in achieving goals on high priority topical issues
o Reduce or eliminate pork barrel funding of research and faciUties while continuing
peer reviewed special grants of national importance, including special grants for
"contract research"
o Develop a competitive peer reviewed mechanism for selection of facilities to be
partially supported with federal funding
o Decentralize review and approval of regional research to the level of regional
associations of SAESs. Create a greater dynamic in the use of regional research
funds to address priority issues. Make more use of regional research funds as seed
money to develop multi-state collaboration for external funding
o Continue to expand the use of senior faculty and administrators from universities for
program management in CSRS, with a shift towards the NSF program director role.
o Improve the ability to provide a timely documentation of accomplishments that wiU
provide a clearer picture of accountability for the use of federal funds in agricultural
research and development. Improve the Current Research Information System
(CRIS) to provide science and management information on problem and issue based
subject matter. Make CRIS interactive with all parts of the USDA science and
education activity.
(Attachments follow:)
155
2
O
H
U
w
a:
5
w
Improved reporting of
accomplishments for
communication and
accountability
Reduce/eliminate pork
barrel projects and
facilities
Competitive peer review
system for facilities
Technology development to
assure "farmer friendly"
results
Expand CSRS role in
facilitating interactions of
SAESs with action agencies
and other users
Matrix management
organization with flexible
linkages of science and
education
W
O
z
<
a:
u
Better linkage with action
agencies of USDA and other
federal agencies with
agriculture related
responsibility
More effective coupling of
resource allocation to priorities
Improve linkages between
research and education
programs- -discovery level to
application
Regional activities that
replace, consolidate or
complement state level
research and development
Linkage with higher education
including graduate students
Improve linkages with other
federal science agencies to
improve efficiency of use of
USDA resources
C/5
w
CQ
<
Existing SAES network with
science based missions
oriented research
Existing effective strategic
planning- -grass roots to
national level
Early recognition and
remediation of new problems
and opportunities
Demonstrated track record of
development and use of new
knowledge
Linkage to Cooperative
Extension for education and
technology transfer
SAES network, with state,
regional and national priority
setting
C/3
<
o
o
<
Q
Science Based USDA
Management
Improved communication on
outcomes, better
accountability
Define Strategic issues,
establish priorities improve
efficiency and direct
resources
2I
4>
ss
4, 0
B "
0 CO
a-o
CO 4)
s; «
0 E
a-2
Eg
Linkage and cooperation
with other parts of the
federal science establishment
National strategy with
decentralized decision
making
156
STRATEGIC PLANNING, PRIORITY SETTING
AND RESPONSE TO CHANGING NEEDS:
The State Agricultural Experiment Stations(SAESs) and the Cooperative State Research
Service (CSRS) have made functional use of national level strategic planning since 1984 as
a means of developing budget proposals and redirecting resources. The Experiment Station
Committee on Organization and Policy (ESCOP), which represents the SAESs at the
national level, along with its Federal partner, develop a major revision of their strategic
research plan every four years. In intervening years, the plan is revised and updated as
necessary to meet changing needs and to provide input to the USDA Joint Council on Food
and Agricultural Sciences.
The plan is based on state and regional input from the SAESs as well as advice from a wide
array of users of the product of research in the system. This includes national organizations
representing all segments of agriculture and agribusiness and environmental and consumer
groups, among others. Input is also sought from the professional and scientific societies
representing agricultural and related scientists at the national level. A series of annual
"customer conferences" is conducted to augment written input to the planning process. In
these conferences, elected representatives and executives of various national organizations
offer advice on needs and opportunities for research. In addition, input is developed from
a national conference held every four years in Washington on agricultural research policy,
where decision makers provide broad strategic guidance. Developing the ESCOP-CSRS
plan involves active participation by all parts of l^t USDA Science and Education
community. Representatives of these agencies attend the drafting workshop and contribute
directly to the genesis of the document. Members of the faculty of CSRS are directly
involved in generating the document. The ESCOP Planning Committee initiates action on
the four-year update about two years before its publication. It becomes very active in
developing the revision for a year in advance of its publication.
The revision of the document actually occurs in a major workshop that involves both
157
administrators and senior scientists representing the broad array of scientific and
programmatic interests and responsibilities of the SAES-CSRS complex. About one-
hundred participants divide themselves into subcommittees that address the six major
components of the plan. They consider the several hundred specific inputs from the users
of the research product and develop a set of broad initiatives which define the highest
priority needs for new information and technology. They also define for each initiative a
set of research objectives that are needed to achieve the prescribed goals. There is also an
assessment of the resources required to fully implement the recommendations for each
research objective.
After the draft has been given tentative endorsement by ESCOP and CSRS, the initiatives
are sent to every Experiment Station Director who is asked to rank the initiatives in priority
order of importance, based on perceptions of need and opportunity. This grass roots
evaluation of priorities is repeated on an annual basis. There is an excellent consensus
among regions on the most important five or so initiatives out of a set of 15-20 items.
Likewise, there is good agreement on the initiatives of lower (but important) priority. The
mid-range of average priorities has less regional consensus, reflecting the diversity and site
specificity of much of what is done in agricultural research.
The product of ESCOP-CSRS planning is a broadly stated document that provides vision
and mission statements for the SAESs, a brief background for perspective and an array of
highest priority initiatives, with research objectives and resources needed to achieve the
goals. It includes a state and regional consensus on relative priorities based on a very broad
input from the users of the product of SAES research.
The ESCOP-CSRS plan is one of the inputs to the National Agricultural Research
Committee (NARC), which is part of the Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences.
This Council, mandated by the 1977 and succeeding Farm Bills, also receives input from
similar committees dealing with Extension, Higher Education and International Programs.
The NARC has membership from the SAESs , Federal agencies conducting agricultural and
158
forestry research, non-land grant universities involved in agricultural research, the Colleges
of Forestry, Veterinary Medicine and Home Economics and the research directors of the
1890 universities. The NARC provides to the Joint Council annual rank-ordered
recommendations for research priorities, a semi-annual input for the update of the Joint
Coimcil's strategic plan and annual reports on research accomplishments. The Joint Council
meets at least annually with the Users Advisory Board, also mandated by the Farm Bill. As
the name implies, this Bozird is comprised of representatives of the user community who
also make recommendations on the budget for science and education to both the Secretary
and the Congress. The product of the Joint Council is presented to the Secretary of
Agriculture and, in practice, has been a significant input to the budget development process
for Science and Education in USDA.
ESCOP participates in the development and advocacy of the budget proposal for the Board
on Agriculture of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges
(NASULGC). ESCOP uses the strategic research plan as the principle guideline in
developing recommendations for the annual budget recommendation, maintaining close
communication at the early stages of development with CSRS. NASULGC makes a
proposal to the USDA for the Science and Education budget in the summer before
appropriations are made. ESCOP, along with other NASULGC counterparts evaluate the
President's budget in early spring and then take their recommendations to the Congress.
The SAESs are not tightly organized as is the case with federal agencies conducting research
and development. They represent a coordinated network of participating state agencies
which are part of land grant universities. Their strength lies in the distributed decision
making and programs of research that address the needs and opportunities of individual
states. They support a diversified set of agricultural and related industries which are based
on the specific natural resources and other factors that also make U.S. agriculture site
specific. Despite the distributed nature of this network, it has a consistent ability to find
consensus on the major national issues of over-arching importance that require programs
of research to provide new knowledge and solutions. There is a growing need and
159
opportunity to share resources and trade-off responsibilities in four regions of the country
into which the SAES community is divided.
The ESCOP-CSRS strategic plan has been and is successful in recognizing both the
continuing and new needs for research on food, agriculture, natural resources and the
environment. In the past, the system has redirected the existing portfolio of research
projects to meet changing national and local needs. The federal government has provided
sustaining support for the on-going programs as well as selected new funding in high priority
areas. In the present environment, this system is challenged to continue to use the basic
procedures now in place for effective planning, but to shift its budgeting strategies towards
a reinvestment of existing resources rather than an investment of new resources added to
current appropriations. While this has been done in practice at the state level for many
years, the system has less experience with seeking and maintaining consensus at the national
level in the "net sums" situation.
160
RESEARCH CONTRACTS, A CONCEPT FOR FUNDING URGENT NEEDS
The State Agricultural Experiment Stations are immediately responsive to emergency or
short term urgent needs that arise within states. They are closely coupled to policy and
decision makers and to clientele from which such needs arise. Often, needs that emerge at
the national level have their first recognition and response at the state level. SAESs often
have already begun to respond before federal agencies recognize and act.
Despite this early awareness and responsiveness that comes from grass roots involvement,
the SAESs lack a mechanism at the national level that allows the Administration and
Congress to provide highly directed resources to deal with short term emergency needs. This
proposal recognizes that the Cooperative State Research Service has an established funding
mechanism which could also be employed to meet this need. CSRS Special Grants are
targeted to specific purposes of recognized national importance and usually involve relatively
applied research.
In this approach, a category of special grants would be established for one-time contracts
for highly specific products of research. There would be specifications written for the
product, along with a prescribed delivery schedule. The contracts would usually be of
relatively short duration, one to two years. The type of research done would vary with the
need, but there would be a clearly conceived and achievable product delivered at the end
of the contract. While the topic for the research contract would be highly specific, it would
deal with national needs and would be awarded competitively. Often research contracts
would be awarded to individual institutions, but there may be occasions when consortia of
institutions (sometimes including non-agricultural or industrial members) would be more
appropriate to assure timely response.
Identifying the topics of research contracts would often not occur prior to the normal
appropriations process. Thus, it would be ideal if an appropriation could be established for
161
this purpose which does not state the precise use, but allows for identification of contract
topics during the budget year. The Congress could be involved in oversight of this program,
if desired, to assure that its intent is maintained.
Research contracts would not replace, but augment the award of research grants by CSRS
and other parts of the federal system. In contrast to this program, grants draw on the
creativity of the scientist(s) who make the proposal and provide more flexibility in exploring
avenues of greatest promise as results become available.
i
(Additional attachments are held in the committee files.)
162
RESPONSE FROM DR. JAMES FISCHER
Questions Resulting from Hearing
on
Agricultural Research and Education Priorities
Subcommittee on Department Operations and Nutrition
House Agriculture Committee
March 25, 1993
1. How much accountability is there for spending of formula funds?
Formula funds are appropriated to individuEd state agricultural experiment stations by
distributing the total appropriation to states on the basis of a formula that is related to the
size of agriculture and number of farms in the state.
Each project proposed for support by formula funds undergoes a merit review, peers within
the parent institution or externally. Each proposed project is reviewed and approved by the
individual SAES and CSRS, assuring and attesting to the national scope and relevance as
well as the quality of the project. Most often, there is joint funding of the project with state
and federal appropriations.
Each project approved for federal formula funding is evaluated on an annual basis through
submission by the project scientist of a progress report to the SAES and USDA/CSRS. This
report also becomes a part of the Current Research Information System (CRIS), making it
available to other scientists across the country. At the completion of projects, a final report
is also submitted to USDA/CSRS for review, evaluation and storage in the CRIS.
Individual projects are usually approved for a period of three to five years. Projects which
are proposed for renewal are reviewed at the SAES for progress towards achieving
established goals. Such projects eure also subject to renewing review by the USDA/CSRS.
Periodically, external institutional reviews at either the department or program level are
conducted under the aegis of USDA/CSRS to evaluate broader aspects of the formula fund
investment.
In summary, accountability for spending of formula funds is based on initial merit review,
ongoing evaluation at the state and federal level, and review for accomplishments on
completion. Institutional reviews are done at about five year intervals to assess and advise
SAES directors on the status of departments or programs on a broader basis.
163
2. What criteria are used for the evaluation of research effectiveness?
SAES projects or grants have explicit statements of goals and objectives. Most projects are
established for durations of three to five years. Annual reviews are conducted at both the
state and federal level (see above). Review and evaluation of progress is made annually by
the Department Head or Chair, by the office of the Experiment Station Director/Research
Director and by responsible faculty in the CSRS.
Criteria used for evaluation of research effectiveness include:
o Extent to which time-phased goals and objectives proposed for the project are
achieved.
o Demonstrable products of research including publications, patents, germplasm
releases, demonstrated adoption by users.
o Performance of individual faculty and staff is usually evaluated on an annual
basis, where accomplishments on funded projects is a critical factor.
o Effectiveness of the research performed by faculty and staff are also critically
reviewed when they are considered for promotion, tenure, and merit salary
adjustments.
o Research effectiveness is also evaluated by professional peers in judging the
merits of publications and in local, regional or national recognition in
professional and scientific societies.
0 In some cases, research effectiveness can be estimated in terms of economic
impact, in other cases, the results are judged on the basis of environmental
impact. Results may also be estimated in terms of consumer benefits.
o Various user publics often provide evaluadon and feedback on projects
addressing their immediate interests.
o Many SAES directors and department and branch station heads also have
advisory committee inputs and other user-based evaluation exercises.
3. How can we make more effective linkages between ARS and CSRS as well as the
service agencies at USDA (FSIS. APHIS, SCS, etc)?
ARS scientists often participate in SAES regional projects, and SCS and Extension
personnel often participate as collaborators.
I
164
Presently, ARS scientists participate in the developing the ESCOP-CSRS Strategic Plan.
This involves their active participation in the debate and documentation at the first stage
of development. The ARS Strategic Plan is evaluated in draft form by the SAESs before
publication. The National Agricultural Research Committee of the Joint Council is a forum
for developing consensus on annual research priorities which are used by the Joint Council
in developing its strategic plan and its annual priorities. Regional Councils of the Joint
Council, which look at regional priorities, include participation by ARS and SAESs.
Recently, ARS, CSRS and the SAESs initiated an engagement to determine how we can
more effectively collaborate using existing resources on research dealing with food science
and safety. Lead agency responsibilities for joint areas of research are established between
ARS and CSRS (plant and animal genome research, i.e.) ARS has a more active
engagement with the service agencies of USDA to determine research priorities and to
report results than does CSRS.
The following are actions which would improve the linkage between ARS and CSRS:
o More effective linkages between ARS and CSRS could be accomplished by an earlier
involvement of the SAES-CSRS community in the development of the ARS Strategic
Plan.
o There could be established greater expectations for coordination of annual budget
requests between CSRS and ARS. This would require strong leadership at the level
of the Assistant Secretary for Science and Education and exphcit statements of
expectations of the agency heads.
o There is opportunity to improve the linkage between on-going research programs in
ARS and the SAES through enhanced communication at the local level.
o The deliberations of the NARC and Regional Councils should be continued with
restoration of funding for the engagement (which was reduced FY 1993).
o Congress could appropriate funds to programs which would be required to be
planned and executed as collaborative efforts.
Actions to improve the linkage between SAESs and service agencies of the USDA include:
o CSRS should take a more active role in brokering the relationship between the
SAESs and the action agencies of both USDA and other federal agencies whose
programs impact agriculture.
o SAES scientists should be used as advisors in developing the goals, objectives and
scope of cross cutting issues that involve multiple agencies in USDA.
165
SAES and CSRS representatives should be active participants in research-user
workshops now conducted between ARS and the action agencies of the department.
Contract research (our proposal for a new funding mechanism imder Special Grants)
could be funded with the mandate for action (service) agency that will use the
product to develop an active role in defining and monitoring the contract.
4. In developing your strategic plan, how much involvement is given to producer,
consumer and environmental groups? How much to Congress?
Stakeholders play a very active role in defining the needs and opportunities addressed in the
ESCOP-CSRS Strategic Plan. Beginning at the local and state levels, input of users of
research products is actively sought and plays a pivotal role in defining the programs of
research in the SAESs. Regional research planning is emerging as a method of facilitating
cooperation and collaboration and will seek input from regional legislative groups, industries
and other users.
At the national level, input is sought for the ESCOP-CSRS Strategic Research Plan fi-om
more than three hundred organizations that are users of the products of SAES research.
In addition, there are annual "Customer Conferences" that bring together related users of
research products to advise ESCOP on research needs. Commodity and farm organizations,
professional and scientific societies, environmental groups, and consimier organizations are
actively involved in the planning process.
At the national level, the engagement with traditional commodity and farm organizations
is longer standing and more developed than with environmental and consumer groups. But,
major emphasis is being placed on strengthening linkages with all user groups to define
research needs. The User's Advisory Board is specifically mandated by the Congress as one
mechanism of developing input for SAES (and other) USDA research.
The Congress has a pivotal impact on the research agenda through the authorizing and
appropriations process. The authorizing committees of the House and Senate provide the
broad goals and objectives and the statement of purpose for what we do. Very often, specific
instructions relative to expenditure of funds for clearly identified purposes are a part of the
Congressioncd language on CSRS appropriations. In practice, there is an ongoing dialogue
with members and staff of both the authorizing and appropriations committees in both the
House and Senate.
In developing the strategic plan, we have routinely invited members of Congress in
leadership positions to address our National Pohcy Symposia that are held in Washington
in conjunction with the quadrermial planning cycle. TTiis more formal engagement with the
planning process is symbolic of the much more frequent informal engagement that is
ongoing with Congressional leadership. We would obviously welcome the opportunity for
166
more frequent and effective engagement and would hope that these hezuings will serve as
one of the stimuli to promote such communication.
With the Congressional Fellows, we are attempting to develop a seminar series for
Congressional staff on topics of mutual interest.
5. How do we correctly balance basic and applied research? Does the current mix
contain relatively too much basic research or relatively too much applied or mission
linked research?
Although often used, the terms "basic and applied" create artificial images of the orientation
and application of research. There is a continuum of research that involves fundamental
study leading to breakthroughs or discovery of new principles or concepts at one end of the
spectrum and, at the other end, the necessary research to apply these principles to actual
operation. The latter is often site specific. By institutional definition, all SAES research
is targeted to an ultimate appUcation. A very large amount of the total research investment
portfolio lies in the middle ground between the two ends of the spectrum. Formula funds
vs competitive grants is not synonymous with applied vs basic; neither is short term vs long
term related to the application of results.
The National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council report "Investing in
Research, A Proposal to Strengthen the Agricultural, Food, and Environmental System"
(1989) concluded that there was an underinvestment in agricultural research, especially in
the employment of the new research methods of modem biology and engineering
(biotechnology). This has been accepted by both the previous and new Administrations.
Its recommendations have been incorporated by the Congress in the 1990 Farm Bill.
There have not been quantitative studies of the distribution of research across the spectrum
from discovery to application for all types of funding in the SAESs. There is not even a
consensus on how projects would be categorized across this spectrum. However, it is the
perspective of most students of this subject that a large percentage of the aggregate
investment at the state level is still directed towards the applied end of the spectrum. A
subjective estimate of the current distribution is that about 25% is oriented to the discovery
end of the spectrum, 25% to site specific application and 50% to the center of the spectrum,
combining fundamental and applied methods.
The segment of users representing interest in sustainable agriculture often seek a greater
investment of research resources at the application end of the spectrum, since they perceive
the short term need to be there. However, this group readily identifies with the need to
address needs for fundamental knowledge (at the discovery end of the spectrum) that is
required to enhance the performance of sustainable agriculture. They are especially keen
on the need for more long-term total systems research to develop management models for
167
sustainable agriculture as it applies to farms, farm families, rural communities, and broad
landscapes.
There is a perception among some that, in the aggregate, the scientific programs of the
SAESs have shifted from applied toward more basic resejirch. This may be due in part to
the increasing use of the modem tools of biology and engineering for agricultural research
which involves a shift from field to laboratory studies. But, the interval between fundamental
discovery and appUcation in the "new biology" is often very short.
There is a concern that Land Grant Universities have become broad based academic
institutions with a system of rewards that favors "single investigator fundamental research".
The balance may have shifted at some institutions in this respect. There are problems in
recognizing contributions of research and extension scientists at the application end of the
spectrum. The studies of Land Grant Universities planned by the Kellogg Foundation and
the National Academy of Sciences will explore the influence of the faculty reward system
on the effectiveness of agriculture programs. Methods of recognizing and rewarding
interdiscipUnary research (often of relatively long duration) will be one of the key issues in
this matter. The problem is not that too much fundamental research is being done, but that
there needs to be a more equitable recognition of contributions at the other end of the
spectrum.
In summary, the balance between basic and applied research is not so much the issue as is
the orientation of research to meet broadly expanding mandates from the food, agriculture
and environmental needs . The opportunity to exploit the modem tools of biology,
engineering and social sciences calls for a greater investment in the programs defined by the
National Research Initiative. However, this new investment caimot come at the expense of
the federal investment in base programs which undergird the remainder of the portfolio
which is also necessary to the health of the SAES system and U.S. agriculture.
6. What are the main purposes of "base programs"? How has an erosion of formula
funding affected these programs?
Base programs are usually equated with programs partially funded with federal formula
funds. These include Hatch, Cooperative Forestry, Evans Allen, and Animal Health funds.
As previously noted, these funds are awarded on a formula driven by the size of agriculture
and number of farms in a given state. Base programs also are funded with state
appropriations. They are generally regarded as recurring, stable, long-term sources of
revenue for the SAESs. They often provide the opportunity for assuring continuity in
funding of long-term research.
Research projects funded with formula funds are submitted to merit review (usually be
either an intemal or external peer process)" and are reviewed and certified by USDA as
being national in scope. Klost projects of this type are also supported (often to a major
168
proportion) by state appropriations. In the case of Hatch funds, 25% of the total fund must
be spend on regional collaborative research. States are required to provide a one-for-one
match of formula funds.
The main purpose of formula funds awarded to the SAESs is to provide a mechanism for
decentralized implementation of national strategies. Historically, the concept recognizes the
substantial site specificity of agriculture and thus the research programs which support these
industries. It assumes that decision making on project funding at the state level provides
optimum focus and assured relevance of the efforts.
Projects funded with a combination of state and federal formula funds are often the first to
respond to emerging problems or opportunities as they are recognized at the state level.
For instance, there was a major redirection of effort to address the emergency related to the
impact of the sweet potato white fly on cotton and horticultural crops by the affected states
well before the USDA organized a formal national campaign.
Shared long-term state-federal commitments which are enabled by the appropriation of
formula funds make the CSRS-SAES relationship unique among federal granting agencies
and universities. Long-term fiscal relationships enable and justify long-term planning and
program collaboration between the SAESs and USDA. The federal government leverages
its research investment in formula funds by at least three-to-one with state appropriations.
This type of arrangement forms a natural basis for effective partnering and is totally
consistent with the concepts enunciated in "Reinventing Government" relative to
empowerment at the lowest level, user involvement and total quality management.
Over the decade of the eighties and into the nineties, there has been a consistent small
increase in formula funding which has not always kept pace with inflation. Thus, over this
period the "science power" of this kind of funding has been reduced. Thus, the slope of the
constant dollar line for formula funds trends downward slightly over time. This is
exacerbated in some SAESs by broader institutional decisions to maintain competitiveness
by increasing salaries of faculty, even when new funds were not available. Most institutions
have offset this erosion by more aggressively seeking and acquiring grant funds both within
USDA and elsewhere, liiere is some concern that "chasing grant money" detracts, at least
to some extent, from the ability of faculty and administrators to maintain focus on the most
pressing issues and priorities.
Periodically, the appropriateness of formula funding is questioned because (1) the federal
govermnent does not have the same ability to direct these resources to specific application
as is possible with competitive or special grants and (2) there is the incorrect perception by
some that the quality of research cannot be assured since projects are not subjected to the
same rigor of merit review as in other programs.
169
Absent the ability to direct formula funds to specific application before award, the USDA
relies on initial review of proposals and evaluation of accomplishments resulting from this
research to judge relevjmce and accountability. Such reviews, which are conducted on an
ongoing basis, and which involve oversight by other parts of government from time to time,
consistently show a very high return on this investment. Moreover, as indicated above, there
is often a currency and relevancy of appUcation of these funds that is based in early
recognition and intervention which occurs at the grass roots level on unforeseen problems
and opportunities. Formula funds may, in part, be directed to long-term research goals.
But, individual projects are subjected to annual review and renewal on a three-to five-year
cycle.
The mandate to use 25% of Hatch funds for regional research has been the continuing
motivation for strong regional associations of state agricultural experiment station directors
and for promoting meaningful collaboration and cooperation among SAESs. As with other
projects funded with Hatch money, there is at least a three-to-one leveraging of federal
funding with state appropriations. And, the process of estabhshing, reviewing, approving and
evaluating regional research projects is even more rigorous than with other projects. This
provides a strong assurance regional and of national relevancy.
As part of the quadrennial revision of the ESCOP-CSRS, the CSRS is developing a major
assessment of the dynamics of base programs over a ten year period. This should be a
milestone document for evaluation of the relevance and accountabihty of formula funding.
From this description, one would logically conclude that formula funds are an excellent
federal investment with a demonstrated track record. And it would seem obvious that
individual SAES directors would prefer the maximum flexibility in investment decisions no
matter what the source of funds. With the serious erosion of research capacity that has
occurred in the last two to three years from loss of state appropriations, it would seem likely
that SAES directors would be particularly interested in maintaining and expanding formula
funds. We believe all these assertions to be true. Why then is there an apparent reluctance
for the system to place its major emphasis on securing and expanding this type of federal
support?
As testimony from other panelists has suggested, formula funds have been regarded by
several preceding administrations (especially at poUcy levels broader than agriculture) and
by Appropriations Committee staff and members as an entitlement; an open ended
appropriation for which it is difficult to assure either relevance or accountabihty.
Arguments to the contrary and analysis of the return on investment from these funds have
been sufficiently persuasive to sustain them over the years. But, the more general concern
has kept formula funds from achieving more than modest (less than inflation) growth in the
decade of the 90s.
170
On the other hand, competitively awarded special grants and the NRI are perceived by most
policy and decision makers as offering a greater ability to focus and provide a structure
against which accountability can more readily be measured.
In the real world, our experience over the last ten years or more has been that a more
achievable approach to initially acquiring and subsequently maintaining future increases in
funding is to be as specific as possible regarding the purposes to which such increases will
be applied. Thus, the advocates of formula funds have set the more limited goal of seeking
support to maintain their purchasing power through increases which offset inflation, but to
seek other mechanisms to secure major real growth in total funding.
7. Do Special Research and Facilities Grants result in an erosion of base funding?
What would the Agriculture Research System look like if there were no "pork" ?
Up to this point, there has certainly been some concept of a total available package of
appropriations for agricultural research. But, we believe that the "fbced pot" concept will be
more of a factor in the overall future strategy in the current Congress and under the new
administration.
There is ample information to show the deterioration of agricultural research facilities in
Land Grant xmiversities. TTiere is no mechanism other than special facilities grants for the
federal government to pay their share of the modernization and expansion of these
resources. The result is that the Congress has provided funds through this mechanism.
Because of its accessibility, the special grants mechanism has been used to fund
non-agricultural projects on occasion. There is not a mechanism in place to assure that
facilities grants are awarded on the basis of national priorities or that they support the
programs most likely to impact national priorities. Facilities grants are usually
initiated to fund planning or design studies, creating an implication of future funding that
has resulted in a bow-wave of almost $500 million of future funding, if all projects initiated
were funded at the level requested for the federal share. There is clearly a need for a new
mechanism to provide federal funds for facilities used in agricultural research..
Special Research Grants are a vitally importzmt part of the national agricultural research
portfolio. They provide a mechanism for focusing on national priorities. This is recognized
in the Administration's budget proposal, where a large part of the present portfolio is
recommended for continuation. There are other special grants that are national in scope
and targeted to priority areas that are not included in the President's Budget Proposal. Most
of these grants are competitively awarded on the basis of merit and relevance. We have
suggested an increase in special grant fimding for "contract research" to deal with short term
emergency issues.
171
In answering other questions, we have pointed out that there are special grants that are
awarded without competition to address site specific needs. Where this occurs, effort is
made to assure quality and relevance.
Site specific special grants provide research to address recognized needs. However, if we
were assessing the merit and value of the elements of the overall federal agricultural
research portfolio based on a national strategy, these types of grants would not rate
as high in priority as other parts of the portfolio. If shifts in funding are needed to address
new high priority national r<eeds, these grants would seem to be the most likely candidates
for review. Not all site-^Eecific grants are poor investments of federal funds. Their
continuation or eliminations should, in our view, be based on merit and relevance.
From the previous answer, one would be led to conclude that the amount of money that the
Administration will recommend and that Congress will appropriate for formula driven
programs is finite. Most of our community doubt that any more funds could have been
secured for these programs. Thus we beUeve that the gains that have been made in the NRI
and in special grants have not been at the expense of formula funds. Without these
alternative mechanisms of funding, we believe the total funds would not have grown. There
has never been a reduction in base programs during the existence of the NRI; in all but one
year, there have been modest increases. We believe that there should be substantial caution
in presenting the comparison of formula vs other funds as a comparison of the percentage
of total funds unless actual funding levels are also provided.
Up to this point, we have not been aware of an explicit trade-out between facilities and
programs, jJthough this must certainly be a factor in broad terms that is dealt with by the
Appropriations Committees.
8. How can we properly balance formula funding, competitive grants and special
grants?
There would seem to be three implicit components to this question: (1) what is the present
distribution, (2) what is the optimum distribution (as a function of total funding) and (3)
how can we generate the proper balance? In our strategic plarming, we look at issues first
and methods of funding as a second level of plaiming. Often addressing a critical national
issue involves funding from several sources and mechanisms.
Present Distribution:
There are unfortunate semantics problems in the use of the basic-applied descriptors~the
terms mean different things to different communities both within and outside of the research
community. We beUeve that applied and mission Unked are roughly synonymous, although
our perception of the NRI faculty's interpretation is that the mission linked end of the NRI
spectrum is more basic than what is more commonly defined as applied research.
10
172
By institutional imperative, all SAES research is targeted; there is no "science for science's
sake" effort that can be sustained under our state mandate. We should not confuse basic and
applied with competitive vs formula funded research. There is a very substantial investment
in fundamental research in the base programs, and some of the competitively awarded
grants are applied.
There is a perception among some of a shift in emphasis of overall program that results
from a continuing growth in sophistication of the tools of research that are used for problem
solving or applied efforts. Modem methods of biological and physical research address
applied problems with what were previously regarded as tools of basic research.
While Congress is primarily concerned with the federal funds which it appropriates, the
optimum investment strategy in the SAES-USDA partnership should consider the total
investment, not just federal funds. CSRS funds for agricultural research in FY 93, exclusive
of facilities, totals about $434 million, of which some 51% are formula funds, the NRI
accounts for about 22%, special facilities grants provide 12% and the remainder is for other
smaller efforts and administration.
The total funding for agricultural research in the System is almost two billion dollars, of
which the federal component is about one-third, the CSRS part is less than a quarter. State
appropriations provide about $1.1 billion dollars (55%) for agricultural research. Another
$249 million is derived from other sources, including about 7% derived from industry.
In our testimony, we stated that we are not aware of a quantitative assessment of how the
total funding for agricultural research is distributed. Recognizing the semantics hang-up
with using the terms basic and applied, the opinion was expressed that at one end of the
spectrum, about 25% of the total resources are directed at breakthrough or discovery
research. At the other end of the spectrum, we estimated that about 25% of the effort was
directed at very specific application of existing knowledge and technology to site-specific
effort. We believe the remainder of the investment is a very healthy mixture of
development and application of new knowledge and technology.
Optimum Distribution of Formula. Competititve and Special Grants
There is probably not a well developed consensus among SAES directors on this question.
The differences in opinion arise from the differences in resources avzulable to individual
SAESs and the external competitiveness of such institutions. We accept the charge from
this Committee that such a consensus should be sought.
The NAS/NRC study, referred to in our testimony, concluded that there is an
underinvestment in research at the discovery or breakthrough end of the spectrum. While
this study advocated new funding for that purpose, it also called for a major part of the new
investment to be in multi or interdisciplinary research, recognizing that team efforts will be
11
173
needed for problem solving. They also recommended that mission-linked research be
incorporated into the program to assure effective technology transfer.
Getting at the question of optimum distribution requires establishing a frame of reference
for the question. For instance, if we were threatened with serious cut-backs in federal
funding for agricultural research, most SAES directors beUeve that the System and the
agricultural industries we support would be best served by protecting formula funds.
We believe that the best opportunity for growth in the total program lies with increasing
funding for the NRI and selected special grants of national importance. This is especially
true with the endorsement of the new Administration for this program. As mentioned in
the answer to a previous question, we have a recurring experience at both the state and
federal level that makes us believe that the best method to acquire new money and to
sustain its re-appropriation over time, is to establish a clear, well-focused relationship of new
resources to recognized national issues of highest priority.
Our conununity believes that the special grants which £u-e awarded competitively for efforts
which address national priorities are effective and provide useful focus on contemporary
issues. Our community recognizes the prerogative of members of Congress to seek support
for their constituencies. When this occurs, every effort is made to assure both quaUty and
productivity of such efforts through merit review and evaluation. As discussed elsewhere,
many believe increased use of contraact research should be made to provide a means for
the university community to help addressees the short-term critical needs of the food,
agriculture, and enviromnental communities.
In summary, there is not a simple answer to the question of the optimum distribution of
funds. It is clear that the SAESs have a much broader mission, an expanded clientele and
a greater set of expectations for service than ever before. Also, there has been a very
substantial erosion of state funding for the SAESs resulting from the current economic
situation in the country. We are clearly under pressure to do inore with less. At the level
of many individual SAEs, both functional and institutional restructuring to meet this new
call are already underway.
In the constraints of the present environment, our first goal would be to achieve modest
growth of funding for our most important programs, looking on them as an investment which
creates economic activity, rather than a drain on taxpayers. We are pleased that the first
coitununication from President Clinton indicates strong support for the use of science and
technology to maintain and stimulate economic recovery and growth. In his statement "A
Vision of Change for America", the President establishes a growth position for agricultural
research. We believe the SAESs, as part of a larger land grant university philosophy and
commitment, are ideally suited to develop and deliver the targeted products of research that
will support this national goal.
12
174
How Can We Generate The Proper Balance;
This Subcommittee, along with the full House Agriculture Committee, have authorized
substantial growth of formula funds over the 1990-1994 time frame. There has also been
authorization of a number of special grants and other programs, including those for
sustainable agriculture that address needs and concerns of farmers and ranchers,
enviroimientalists, and consumers. The Congress has authorized a growth of the National
Research Initiative up to $500 milhon per year by the end of 1994.
We do not know how the Congress will position itself with reauthorization of these funds
in the 1995 Farm Bill. We would hope that the concept of an investment with demonstrated
payoff would make funding for agricultural research sufficiently attractive that it will be
sustained and enhanced in the new farm bill.
We recognize there is a move on the part of senior members of the Congress to develop a
closer relationship between the authorization, budget, and appropriations processes, both
in terms of substance and function. We assume the more general decisions that emerge
from this debate will drive the results of deUberations on agricultural science and education.
In our testimony, we suggested that Congress and the Administration could facilitate
stronger collaborative activities for the SAESs at the regional level which could consolidate
or complement state level research and development. The SAESs are strongly motivated
to cooperate because of shortage of funds and pressures from governing bodies to assume
greater responsibihties with shrinking resources. There are current examples of how such
programs work including the Integrated Pest Management Program, Aquaculture Program,
National Pesticide Impact Assessment Program and Sustainable Agriculture Research and
Education Program. There might be other targeted special grant programs for regional
research. Regional Centers of Excellence (without walls) could be considered.
As we contemplate the staggering financial pressures that exist today on almost every land
grant university, it seems most likely that these institutions will continue to seek relief
anywhere it can be found. Thus, while those concerned with the total picture at the national
level might wish it otherwise, the most likely scenario is that individual institutions will
continue to seek help from the Congress in securing funding for projects or facilities that
benefit their institutions and states, even if some projects are not of the highest national
priority.
Congress and the Administration could establish alternative mechanisms for providing this
kind of support and establish jmd use ground rules that would make this process more
orderly and constrained. If such ground rules were in place and understood, we believe the
land grant university community would respect them. To illustrate this concept, we
proposed in our testimony that the concept of a competitive facilities grant program be
revived and restudied.
13
175
9. Describe briefly the grassroots planning of research priorities.
This question was answered in detail in the supplemental testimony submitted for the record
at the time of our oral presentation. It is included as Attachment 1.
This statement shows that inputs at the county, state and national level are sought on a
continuing basis in planning and evaluating research priorities and in the advocacy of
resources identified with the needs and objectives. The process is not perfect, but the
involvement is growing. Because of the great regionality (site specificity) of the industries
we serve, translating grass-roots input into national strategy is challenging but achievable,
based on our experience.
10. How are you including "cross-cutting " programs such as basic plant and animal science
research and environmental science research in your strategic plan?
Implicit in this question is the assumption that the disciplinary mix of science to accompUsh
research objectives is embedded across the six major areas of the ESCOP-CSRS Strategic
Plan and in the seventeen initiatives grouped under these areas. This is the case. In
addition, the resources segment of the plan identifies the science years and cost of
implementing each research objective. We are in the process of more expUcitly defining the
kind of science mix needed to achieve the goals of our plan.
The ESCOP Planning Subcommittee recognized a need to develop what we came to call the
"Science Dimension" to our joint plan with CSRS about a year ago. The purpose is to
provide a means of more effectively communicating with the broad science commimity
within our land grant universities and to display our current and future programs in a
context that will be imderstood by federal funding agencies outside USDA.
We are in the process of translating the "outcome oriented" elements of our present
planning process into terms describing the science required to achieve the stated goals. The
descriptors for the science dimension are those used by the National Science Foundation
in their reporting of federally funded grants and contracts.
We anticipate developing this document as part of the quadrennial update of the ESCOP-
CSRS plan, which is being developed at this time. We believe this will offer a better
possibility to communicate in another dimension both in the academic conrniunity and with
federal granting agencies.
11. Describe contract granting research which you mentioned in your testimony.
The State Agricultural Experiment Stations are immediately responsive to emergency or
short term lurgent needs that arise within states. They are closely coupled to policy and
14
176
decision makers and to clientele from which such needs arise. Often, needs that emerge at
the national level have their first recognition and response at the state level. SAESs often
have already begun to respond before federal agencies recognize and act.
Despite this early awareness and responsiveness that comes from grass roots involvement,
the SAESs lack a mechanism at the national level that allows the Administration and
Congress to provide highly directed resources to deal with short term emergency needs. This
proposal recognizes that the Cooperative State Research Service has an established funding
mechanism which could also be employed to meet this need. CSRS Special Grants are
targeted to specific purposes of recognized national importance and usually involve relatively
applied research.
In this approach, a category of special grants would be established for one-time contracts
for highly specific products of research. Specifications would be written for the product,
along with a prescribed delivery schedule. The contracts would usually be of relatively short
duration, one to two years. The type of resejirch done would vary with the need, but there
would be a clearly conceived and achievable product delivered at the end of the contract.
While the topic for the research contract would be highly specific, it would deal with
nadonal needs and would be awarded competitively. Often research contracts would be
awarded to individual institutions, but there may be occasions when consortia of institutions
(sometimes including non-agricultural or industrial members) would be more appropriate
to assure timely response.
Identifying the topics of research contracts would often not occur prior to the normal
appropriations process. Thus, it would be ideal if an appropriation could be established for
this purpose which does not state the precise use, but allows for identification of contract
topics during the budget year. The Congress could be involved in oversight of this program,
if desired, to assure that its intent is maintained.
Research contracts would not replace, but augment the award of research grants by CSRS
and other parts of the federal system. In contrast to the contract approach, grants normally
draw on the creativity of the scientist(s) who make the proposal and provide more flexibility
in exploring avenues of greatest promise as results become available.
12. Describe what you mean by science-based management.
In his early comments on organization and operation of the USD A, Secretary Espy used this
term. It was following his early experience with the outbreak of E. coli food poisoning in
the Northwest. The use of modem surveillance and screening tools was an obvious part of
the action needed to reduce the likeUhood of such occurrences.
In our translation of his very brief statement, we infer that Mr. Espy intends to move
towards assuring that all programs of the action agencies in the department will be
15
177
increasingly driven by sound strategic planning and decision making based on solid use of
information and technology derived from modem science and technology development.
While we believe that the USDA already uses this type of enlightened decision making, we
saw in the new Secretary's early agenda setting an indication of new emphasis and an
opportunity to effectively communicate our belief that the science and education community
is in a position to be a very positive contributor to a management strategy that uses science
based information and technology.
13. How much research is funded either through check-ofT dollars or industry? Do you
feel this is a viable alternative for the future and how can we avoid the appearance
of conflict of interest?
According to CSRS estimates, about $134 million of the $1,981 billion for agricultural
research in FY 1991 was derived from industry. This is about seven percent of the total.
Of these industry funds, it is estimated that about $40-45 million is derived from check-off
funds.
Check-off funds, managed by producer boards, are usually preferentially directed to market
development as opposed to research. Research grants are almost always awarded for very
short term, one-time studies that have a highly predictable outcome and product. This is a
necessary condition to securing the continuation of the check-off commitment by
participants. These funds are almost always leveraged with public funds, frequently to a very
large degree. From the perspective of scientists performing research, check-off funds often
provide badly needed operating funds for existing areas of research, especially in today's
situation where an increasingly large percent of pubhc funds are spent for salaries.
In our opinion, the growth of check-off funds expended for research will be finite. ITus
would not seem to be a source of funding that could grow from the present small portion
of the total resource to a point where it would significantly oifstt public funding. Such
funds, spent in a partnering mode, have another kind of utility, however. This is in
increased "ownership" and support of public programs by industry which comes from their
shared investment
In addition to check-off funds, industry provides other kinds of funding to support
agricultural research. Larger companies engage the SAESs at both the fundamental and the
application ends of the research spectrum.
There is increased partnering between SAESs and industry on discovery level research in
biotechnology; the kind of research that produces new products such as diagnostics and
vaccines. Here, successful technology transfer must be measured by fielding a product, and
this requires an industrial partner in almost all cases.
16
178
Industry also engages the SAESs in site-specific evaluation of new products (often chemical
products). Perhaps here, more than in any other part of our industrial relationship, we are
accused of being in the position of having a potential conflict of interest. We are asked to
accept funding from a manufacturer to evaluate the efficacy of a product produced by that
company. Environmentalists and consumers frequently express concern about this
relationship. It is one which requires and is receiving increased attention at the institutional
level.
In summary, we are seeking an increased engagement with industry, believing the
relationship to be mutually beneficial. In the process of doing this, we aim to maintain the
objectivity of our insdtutional and scientific identities. The issue is complex, but a case-by-
case examination almost always reveals areas of sensitivity, where mechanisms can be
employed to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest.
17
179
Attachment One
STRATEGIC PLANNING, PRIORITY SETTING
AND RESPONSE TO CHANGING NEEDS:
The State Agricultural Experiment Stations(SAESs) and the Cooperative State Research
Service (CSRS) have made functional use of national level strategic planning since 1984 as
a means of developing budget proposals and redirecting resources. TTie Experiment Station
Committee on Organization and Policy (ESCOP), which represents the SAESs at the
national level, along with its Federal partner, develop a major revision of their strategic
research plan every four years. In intervening years, the plan is revised and updated as
necessary to meet changing needs and to provide input to the USDA Joint Council on Food
and Agricultural Sciences.
The plan is based on state and regional input from the SAESs as well as advice from a wide
array of users of the product of research in the system. This includes national organizations
representing all segments of agriculture £uid agribusiness and environmental and consumer
groups, among others. Input is also sought from the professional and scientific societies
representing agricultirral and related scientists at the national level. A series of annual
"customer conferences" is conducted to augment written input to the planning process. In
these conferences, elected representatives and executives of various national organizations
offer advice on needs zuid opportunities for research. In addition, input is developed fi-om
a national conference held every four years in Washington on agricultural research policy,
where decision makers provide broad strategic guidance. Developing the ESCOP-CSRS
plan involves active participation by all parts of the USDA Science and Education
community. Representatives of these agencies attend the drafting workshop and contribute
directly to the genesis of the document. Members of the faculty of CSRS are directly
involved in generating the document. The ESCOP Planning Coimnittee initiates action on
the four-year update about two years before its publication. It becomes very active in
developing the revision for a year in advance of its publication.
The revision of the document actually occurs in a major workshop that involves both
administrators and senior scientists representing the broad array of scientific and
programmatic interests and responsibilities of the SAES-CSRS complex. About one-
hundred participants divide themselves into subconmiittees that address the six major
components of the plan. They consider the several hundred specific inputs from the users
of the research product and develop a set of broad initiatives which define the highest
priority needs for new information and technology. They also define for each initiative a
set of research objectives that are needed to achieve the prescribed goals. There is also an
assessment of the resources required to fully implement the recommendations for each
research objective.
18
180
After the draft has been given tentative endorsement by ESCOP and CSRS, the initiatives
are sent to every Experiment Station Director who is asked to rank the initiatives in priority
order of importance, based on perceptions of need and opportunity. This grass roots
evaluation of priorities is repeated on an annual basis. There is an excellent consensus
among regions on the most important initiatives. Likewise, there is good agreement on the
initiatives of lower (but important) priority. The mid-range of average priorities has less
regional consensus, reflecting the diversity and site specificity of much of what is done in
agricultural research.
The product of ESCOP-CSRS planning is a broadly stated document that provides vision
and mission statements for the SAESs, a brief background for perspective and an array of
highest priority initiatives, with research objectives and resources needed to achieve the
goals. It includes a state and regional consensus on relative priorities based on a very broad
input from the users of the product of SAES research.
The ESCOP-CSRS plan is one of the inputs to the National Agricultural Research
Committee (NARC), which is part of the Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences.
This Council, mandated by the 1977 and succeeding Farm Bills, also receives input from
similar committees dealing with Extension, Higher Education, and International Programs.
The NARC has membership from the SAESs , Federal agencies conducting agricultural and
forestry research, non-land grant universities involved in agricultural research, the Colleges
of Forestry, Veterinary Medicine, and Home Economics, and the research directors of the
1890 universities. The NARC provides to the Joint Council annual rank-ordered
recommendations for research priorities, a semi-annual input for the update of the Joint
Council's strategic plan, and annual reports on research accomplishments. The Joint
Council meets at least annually with the Users Advisory Board, also mandated by the Farm
Bill. As the name implies, this Board is comprised of representatives of the user community
who also make recommendations on the budget for science and education to both the
Secretary and the Congress. The product of the Joint Council is presented to the Secretary
of Agriculture and, in practice, has been a significant input to the budget development
process for Science and Education in USDA.
ESCOP participates in the development and advocacy of the budget proposal for the Board
on Agriculture of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges
(NASULGC). ESCOP uses the strategic research plan as the principal guideline in
developing recommendations for the annual budget recommendation, maintaining close
communication at the early stages of development with CSRS. NASULGC makes a
proposal to the USDA for the Science and Education budget in the summer before
appropriations are made. ESCOP, along with NASULGC counterparts, evaluate the
President's budget in early spring and then take their recommendations to the Congress.
The SAESs are not tightly organized as is the case with federal agencies conducting research
and development. They represent a coordinated network of participating state agencies
which are part of land grant universities. Their strength lies in the distributed decision
19
181
making and programs of research that address the needs and opportunities of individual
states. They support a diversified set of agricultural and related industries which are based
on the specific natural resoiu-ces and other factors that also make U.S. agriculture site-
specific. Despite the distributed nature of this network, it has a consistent ability to find
consensus on the major national issues of overarching importzuice that require programs of
research to provide new knowledge and solutions. There is a growing need and opportunity
to share resources and trade-off responsibiUties in four regions of the country into which the
SAES community is divided.
The ESCOP-CSRS strategic plan has been and is successful in recognizing both the
continuing and new needs for research on food, agriculture, natural resources, and the
environment. In the past, the system has redirected the existing portfolio of research
projects to meet changing national and local needs. The federal government has provided
sustaining support for the on-going progrsmis as well as selected new funding in high priority
areas. In the present environment, this system is challenged to continue to use the basic
procedures now in place for effective planning, but to shift its budgeting strategies towards
a reinvestment of existing resources rather than an investment of new resources added to
current appropriations. While this has been done in practice at the state level for many
years, the system has less experience with seeking and maintaining consensus at the national
level in the "net sums" situation.
20
182
Academic Programs Committee on Organization and Policy
Academic Programs Section
The Board on Agriculture
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges
TESTIMONY
on
Science and Education Priorities
at the
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Statement to the Subcommittee of
Department Operations and Nutrition
Committee on Agriculture
U.S. House of Representatives
by
James H. Mortensen, chair
Academic Programs Section,
Board on Agriculture
NASULGC
March 25, 1993
183
The New USDA and Higher Education:
An Imperative
INTRODUCTION:
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Jim Mortensen, chairman of the
Academic Programs Section of the Board on Agriculture, NASULGC. I am very pleased to have
this opportunity to participate in these hearings regarding priorities for the USDA of the future.
Like the function 1 represent. Academic Programs and Higher Education, this testimony will be
small but very, very significant
RATIONALE:
Recently the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology (FCCSET),
and the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PC AST), issued their
reports dealing with the relationship of the federal government to research-intensive universities.
Two recommendations from these reports demand your attention.
First from the PCAST report, "The federal agendes should ensure that tfieir programs
encourage universities to re-emphasize education rather than discourage them;" and from
the FCCSET report, "Federal agencies should examine the impact of federal research
support on university undergraduate and graduate education and identify strategies to
ensure against unintentional degradation of the educational mission and excellence of the
research-intensive universities."
184
-2-
With these recommendations we strongly agree.
The federal agency link with higher education is especially critical to American agriculture. The
American Food and Agricultural system is the world's largest commercial industry with assets
exceeding $1 trillion. This great size and the system's very favorable competititve position in
the world economy is due in large measure to our ability to substitute scientific knowledge for
natural resources and labor.
Thus a strong case can be made for the fact that the most critical challenge to the food,
agricultural, and natural resource system in the 1990s will be attracting and educating the
requisite human resources. Not enough talented college graduates in the food and agricultural
sciences are being produced to fill highly important roles in business, science, and environmental
management Of course the contribution of state funds for the education of undergraduates in
the food and agricultural sciences is enormous. Yet critical "catalytic" federal funding is
necessary to encourage innovative cooperative programs at our colleges and universities.
SITUATION:
The Office of Higher Education Programs of the Cooperative State Research Service is key to
the continued improvement of the quality of higher education in our nation's colleges of
agriculture. And this continued improvement in the academic programs is a national need of
185
great importance if the USDA is to continue to address the needs of an environmentally sound,
economically significant American agriculture in order to insure our continued supply of high
quality, safe, affordable food for the American consumer.
The Office of Higher Education Programs administers competitive grants programs such as
Institutional Challenge Grants, Institutional Capacity Building Grants for 1890 Land-Grant
Institutions and National Needs Graduate Fellowships Grants. In addition we are collaborating
with this office to develop a Minority Scholars Program to help attract qualified minority scholars
to agriculture and the agricultural sciences.
RECOMMENDATION:
Secretary Espy has called for a new USDA which is science-based and user-friendly, a
department that utilizes the newest and best science and technology to solve human problems.
We concur.
Therefore our recommendation regarding the priorities of the new and visionary USDA is a call
for ascendence of higher education in the form of increased support for its office of Higher
Education Programs. Inherent in this suggestion is the expectation that the Assistant Secretary
for Science and Education will play an increasingly important role in agricultural, environmental
and rural development policy.
186
The Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences, under the direction of the Assistant
Secretary for Science and Education, has been the interface for policy discussions between the
land-grant community and the USDA science and education administrators. The priorities
developed each year by this council play a significant role in directing USDA and land-grant
colleges of agriculture activities. A continued and expanded role for this congressionally
mandated joint council should be a priority for the USDA of the future.
In addition we recommend that the new USDA make a very special effort to forge a closer link
between the mutually agreed-upon priorities of the Joint Council and subsequent USDA funding.
Finally, we would like to point out that the functions of research and teaching, whether formal
undergraduate instruction or non-formal extension education, are complementary activities and
are best organized in conjunction with each other. Thus any discussion of priorities should
thoughtfully consider the necessary close working relationship of research and education.
Again 1 appreciate the opportunity of participating in these hearings and pledge to your
subcommittee the support and expertise of the Academic Programs Section of the NASULGC
Board on Agriculture.
187
NASULGC National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges
April 2. 1993
The Honorable Charles W. Stenholm
Chairman
Subcommittee on Department Operations and Nutrition
Committee on Agriculture
1301 Longworth House Office Building
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I appreciated the opportunity to represent the Academic Programs
Section of the Board on Agriculture, NASULGC before your
Subcommittee on Department Operations and Nutrition. We also
greatly appreciate this opportunity to respond to the written
questions you submitted at the close of the hearings. The two
questions are timely, important and closely related. I would like
to answer each question specifically and then provide an
overarching answer that addresses the full import of both
questions .
QUESTION #1. How does adequate funding for both basic and applied
research affect the production of your most important commodity -
Students? (your emphasis) .
As you well know, the designation between basic and applied
research is in many cases arbitrary. This is especially so in a
discipline such as agriculture which is inherently applied. Hiring
faculty to teach and research with either an interest in basic or
applied research in and of itself causes no problem for the
teaching program if the faculty, college and university have a
strong commitment to the education of students. In almost all
cases the strength of this commitment is directly related to the
emphasis of the reward system. If the faculty reward system is
skewed excessively toward research the production of our most
important commodity is certainly affected.
QUESTION #2. Do you feel that our Land Grant Universities spend
relatively too little or too much on teaching programs compared to
research and extension?
Universities spend large amounts of money on their teaching
programs. Many feel this sum must be increased. However, when it
is compared to the amount allocated by universities for research
and extension, it is probably appropriate, although one must note
One Dupont Cirde, NW Suite 710 • Washington, DC 20036- 1 191 • (202)778-0818 • Fax (202) 296-6456
188
The Honorable Charles W. Stenholm
page two
April 2, 1993
that the increase in funding for instruction over the last 10 years
has been far less than the increase in allocation for research and
service. The major problem is found at the federal level. Very-
large federal appropriations for research and extension dwarf the
funds available for campus teaching programs. As a pertinent
example, last year's USDA budget allocated, appropriately, almost
half a billion dollars each for research and extension, but barely
$18 million for academic programs serving students. This type of
funding structure containing perfectly justified funds for research
and extension, but woefully inadequate funds for higher education
helps drive the university reward system to emphasize research and
extension at the expense of teaching.
The critical problem raised by these two questions has been
addressed by others in the federal arena. Federal interest in
these questions has been heightened because of the realization that
educated and trained human capital is a critical national resource
and thus a key federal responsibility. The recent report issued by
the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and
Technology (FCCSET) clearly stated its concern with this issue:
"Federal agencies should examine the impact of federal research
support on university undergraduate and graduate education and
identify strategies to ensure against unintentional degradation of
the educational mission and excellence of the research- intensive
universities. "
The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
(PCAST) raised the same concerns: "The federal agencies should
ensure that their programs encourage universities to rees^hasize
education rather than discourage them, even inadvertently."
Last year, testimony before the subcommittee of the House
Science Space and Technology Committee reiterated this concern:
"if federal agencies follow the lead of the NSF and broaden the
base of funding for universities to embrace the full range of
scholarly activity, eui intportant concomitant will he increased
attention to teaching and the integration and application of
knowledge . "
While the USDA's budget appropriately addresses national
concerns in the area of research and extension, it is woefully
inadequate in addressing the pressing national need for higher
education . As a specific example, the Institutional Challenge
Grants program in the USDA, CSRS, higher education budget is
structured to deal with the important concerns of our higher
education system. It provides opportunities for competitive grants
requiring matching funds to address key issues for improvement in
the undergraduate educational experience. It is funded at only
$1.5 million and thus allows for only 20 grants a year. Simply and
generally stated this provides about $60,000 to 20 schools for
189
The Honorable Charles W. Stenholm
page three
April 2, 1993
educational improvements while those same schools receive many-
millions more each year to conduct appropriate research and
extension. The Graduate Training Fellowships, Minority Scholars
Program and 1890 Capacity Building Grants are similar underfunded
programs in higher education. This extreme underfunding helps
create the excessive emphasis on research in university faculty
reward systems and is a specific example of the issue that has
concerned the President's Science Committees and the House Science,
Space and Technology Committee.
Obviously then this is a national concern that Congress could
readily address by significantly increasing the funding for higher
education programs in the USDA, CSRS budget.
Your committee could do much to ameliorate this imbalance in
USDA support by assuring a key role for the office of higher
education in the policy making levels of the USDA. The ascendency
of higher education programs at the USDA through both funding
increases and an elevated role in policy decisions is an obvious
adjustment necessary in any plan for USDA reorganization.
Again, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
committee and answer these questions. Our organization stands
ready to help you and your colleagues wrestle with the important
issues facing the USDA, American agriculture and our national
competitiveness .
Sincerely,
Jim Mortensen
Chair, Academic Programs Section
Board on Agriculture
NASULGC
JM/kms
68-792 - 93 - 7
190
CARET
Council for Agriculhiral Research,
Extension and Teaching
One Dupont Circle, Suite 710
Washington, DC 20036-1191
Tel: 202-778-0824
Fax: 202-296-6456
TESTIMONY BY
ROBERT GUERNSEY
ON BEHALF OF
THE COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH,
EXTENSION AND TEACHING
(CARET)
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AND NUTRITION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MARCH 25. 1993
A voluntary dlizens organization cooperating with the
National Association of State Univereities and Land-Grant CoUeges • Board on Agriculture
191
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you
today to offer comments on the science and education priorities of USDA. I am Robert
Guernsey. A farmer from Indiana, I have a family operation where I produce hogs, beef, com
and soybeans. Today, I come before you on behalf of the Council For Agricultural Research,
Extension and Teaching (CARET) where 1 currently serve as the past chairman. CARET is a
national voluntary citizens organization whose grassroots membership is comprised of such
individuals as agricultural producers, commodity leaders, agribusiness leaders, state and local
officials, homemakers, consumers and members of agricultural advisory boards. Each state and
territory is represented by at least one delegate. CARET was established in 1 982 as a mechanism
through which citizen support could be expressed for the agricultural research, extension and
teaching programs of the land-grant university system.
1, like all other CARET members, have greatly benefitted from the unique partnership
between USDA and the land-grant university system. Without the assistance I have received
during my more than 30 years of farming, I doubt that I would have the kind of farm operation
1 have today. Through assistance from Extension and resources at my land-grant university, I
computerized my operation early-on in the 1980's; I have consistently cut down on the use of
insecticides; I am using herbicides in a manner that is sensitive to the environment; and am
learning to apply fertilizers in a more safe and efficient manner. This assistance allows me to
continue to manage my farm business while adjusting my products to meet the needs of
consumers and to comply with farm-program regulations. Our farm operation consists of my
wife and I, our son and his family. If I had to rely on professional consultants to assist us in
some of the decisions we must make on a regular basis, our costs would escalate which in turn
would limit our fmancial ability to avail ourselves of new scientific knowledge and technology
in our farming efforts.
As the present debate ensues on how USDA should look, what its priorities should be and
to what extent its programs should be funded, we, in CARET, have the following concerns: ( 1 )
that the base programs of Hatch, Smith-Lever, 1890s, etc., be strengthened; (2) that the
Extension Service remain one of education and outreach; (3) that an effective balance be struck
between basic, applied and mission-linked research; (4) that agricultural academic programs be
strengthened within the Department of Agriculture; and (5) that these agricultural research,
extension, and teaching programs be allowed to respond to current, as well as future, concerns
of both the producer and consumer, such as food safety, water quality, genetic-engineered plants,
youth at risk and family problems to name a few.
1. The strengthening of base-program funding of Hatch, Smith-Lever, the 1890's,
Morrill-Nelson, and Mclntire-Stennis, is CARET'S number one priority. These programs provide
the infrastructure to the agricultural research and education programs. Base programs guarantee
that there will in fact BE a continuing agricultural research and education effort at our land-grant
universities. Without base programs, states would not have the necessary flexibility in
responding to on-going needs or to situations of crisis. Competitive and special grants, while
extremely important and essential, do not and cannot, by their very nature, provide the on-going
attention that is necessary. Research, by its nature, requires a long-term effort that does not
produce results overnight
192
2. CARET believes that Extension must be inextricably linked to the agricultural
science and education efforts of our land-grant universities. In order to remain competitive, we,
the users, depend heavily on Extension because the transfer of technology takes place through
this mechanism. Without the education and training we receive through our Extension Service,
we could be cut off from the advances being made through the research done on our own or
neighboring land-grant campuses. We, in CARET, would be very concerned if Extension were
seen as part of any farm program or regulatory effort The whole community, the young, the
senior, the rural, the urban, and local government feed upon the knowledge and resources flowing
from our land-grant institutions.
3. A strong research effort provides the foundation for any scientific and technological
advances. We, in CARET, would urge a balance between basic, applied, and mission-linked
research so that needs of all kinds can be met Because of the diverse needs of our society, we
would urge that multi-disciplinary research efforts be increased. Knowledge gained from basic
research is distributed quickly and widely, but it is the competitive application of applied research
that gives me the cutting edge in global competition.
4. Well-educated people guarantee the continuation of new knowledge and progress.
It is, therefore, important to CARET that the higher education programs housed widiin USDA
be strengthened. These federal dollars are multiplied many times by state and private dollars
while securing high quality talent for the future. This partnership of leveraging support allows
entry into the higher education system of the land-grants by individuals regardless of economic
or social status.
5. Finally, in order for any of these agricultural research and education efforts to be
effective, they must respond to the needs of the American people. We need to continually
strengthen the partnership between the user and the researcher so that the right questions are
asked and the right problems are worked on for solutions. Many of us in CARET have served
in priority sessions and on fiituring panels for research, education, and extension. We need to
maintain effective advisory boards, which include the participation of both the research and
education community as well as the private citizen from rural and urban areas with a wide variety
of agricultural groups who are traditional and non-traditional users of the land-grant system. By
taking a more comprehensive approach to our communities, we can address many issues and
problems that face producers and consumers. Creating effective dialogue between such diversity
ensures that I, as a producer, will know what the public wants and how to deliver safe and
nutritious products while being sensitive to the impact on my community and my environment
1 want to express my deep appreciation for this opportunity to share grassroots thoughts
with this committee about what we feel is vital to our complex communities. I would welcome
questions or comments.
193
CARET
Council for Agricultural Research,
Extension and Teaching
One Dupont Circle, Suite 710
Washington, DC 20036-1191
Tel: 202-778-0824
Fax: 202-296-6456
May 3, 1993
The Honorable Charles Stenholm
Chairman
Subcommittee on Department Operations
and Nutrition
Committee on Agriculture
U.S. House of Representatives
1301 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I very much appreciated the opportunity to appear before you and your committee on March
25, as part of your consideration of the science and education priorities of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. I am pleased to respond to additional questions submitted to me
after the hearing; my responses follow below.
Question la. Do you feel that current base funding is adequate?
In real dollars, base funding has not kept up with rate of inflation which has caused
states to either find ways to pick up the slack or cut staff and program. In Indiana
alone, withia the last six years, 200 extension/research positions on campus and in the
field staff have been cut. In some counties of Indiana there is such a strong feeUng
for extension that county government has picked up the total cost of the agent that
was due to be eUminated because of federal and state budgets. A total of 22 Indiana
counties out of 92 are now picking up this tab. I feel that a strong base funding in
research and extension allows each state to have a structure that can respond quickly
to crisis and site specific issues or problems.
Question lb. How might inadequate base funding influence a university's ability
to compete for competitive grants?
If the research/extension staffing is stretched so thin fi-om inadequate base funding,
the infrastructure is loaded down handling present programs. Being able to compete
for competitive grants puts those states which can't find other funding at a
disadvantage fi-om a higher overhead cost perspective.
Question 2a. How do we more effectively^arget basic and applied research?
I feel that problems or issues of national or regional nature can be targeted by special
grants. Although there is much disciission about special grants, I feel that special
grants that ar| rego,|^ig^ature^can^a^ess^rob^em|„cg,igsu with a broad
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges • Board on Agriculture
194
The Honorable Charles Stenholm
May 3, 1993
Page Two
audience or community impact. Site-specific special grants generally don't have as
broad a constituency and there becomes a question of whether this should be state
funded and/or possible private funds. Again, this is where a strong formula funded
infi-astructure creates the ability for states to leverage private funds. (Check-oflf
dollars, private industry, foundations, etc.) to address very important issues or
problems that are very site specific in nature. My state, Indiana, has taken the stand
that it will not go after federal dollars for site specific problems but will compete very
aggressively for dollars that will bring about collaboration with other states. In this
case, usually one state is designated the lead and collaborates with other states which
have like interests. Through the National Research Initiative (NRI), national
priorities can be addressed and is, in fact, fociising on high-priority issues. Most
priorities set by the public or users are of the appUed research nature and this calls
for basic research and/or mission-linked reseauxh to bring us to the position of
application.
Question 2b. Do you feel there is currently too much basic research being done or
too much applied research being done? Describe how each is essentiaL
Let me give you an example of how a very important break-through will give the com
growers across this country the abihty to not only be good stewards of the
environment but to also be able to avoid a disastrous harvest situation. Several years
ago, I was at the Purdue campus on a tour of the lab work being done. The highhght
of the day was the demonstration of the tobacco plant and the ability to manipulate
this plant genetically. With this break-through came the question of how long would
it be before we could expect the com plant to produce nitrogen similar to a legimie or
for the plant to repel insects? I have tried to harvest com after the southern corn-bore
have devastated the crop. Not only is there economic loss with com lying tangled on
the ground, but some of my farm fiiends have lost arms, legs and, in some cases, their
lives while trjring to harvest in fi-ustration with equipment that can't handle such a
crop. I was in Louisiana a couple years aft«r my Purdue experience and saw genetic
work being done on the rice plant. I reported this to Purdue when I got home and
found that they were also working with rice but with mission-Unked goal of producing
a com plant to not only repel, but possibly to selectively kill, destructive pests while
not harming other insects. This was exciting. Even though I was ready for the seed
com when I first saw the tobacco work years ago, I knew that it would take years to
bring an application to the farm. This genetic manipulation has moved through the
tobacco, tomato, rice, and now to com. The break-through in rice has other
applications elsewhere; but for me, the mission-linked com project is very important,
and I am now awaiting the appUed research side to adapt hybrids and bring to the
farm a long-awaited product. As a layman, I can't really answer the question as to
how much basic or appUed research is essential. While I know what my expectations
are of apphed research, I can't begin to estimate how much basic research has to be
done before it's ready for apphcation.
Question 3. How has agricultural research benefitted you personally?
Since I didn't follow anyone in to agricultiore, and I did not graduate fi-om an
agricultural school, I have been in a continuous mode of education. I depend on the
195
The Honorable Charles Stenholm
May 3, 1993
Page Three
Extension Service to not only feed me information, but to listen to input of problems
and send them up the line to be addressed by research of Extension. As I stated
earlier in statements before your committee, we need a strong infrastructure to keep
us on the cutting edge of information and application. As an example of my reading
and gleaning, I am including ONLY two weeks of articles that I have cUpped out of
only a few of my agriculture newspapers that tend to get their information from our
institutions. They address a wide range of issues, and it is up to me to pick out those
for which I need further information and appUcation. I can use my local Extension
Agent, or I can resource the university. This can be done several ways - (telephone,
mail, electronics, or personal visits). My clippings include:
Exhibit A: Food Issues
Exhibit B: Youth and Family Issues
Exhibit C: Environmental Issues
Exhibit D: Farm Safety Issues
Exhibit F: Production Agriculture Issues
Exhibit G: Miscellaneous Issues and Implications
(The articles are held in the connnittee files.)
Question 4a. Do you feel that fanners, ranchers and consumers are adequately
included in the priority setting process?
Each state probably has their own way of collecting input. Our state uses several
ranking devices for research and extension with a cross-section of people in the state.
Our state CARET (Council on Agriculture, Research, Extension and Teaching) has
three members from every coimty in the state, and they are a part of this ranking
system. I feel that because of state and local funding in partnership with federal
dollars, research and Extension do indeed respond to current needs. There is local
input needed to get local important dollars, and this process is used at each level.
This is not to say that we need not to always be looking for more legitimate voices
that are being raised for total community good. I feel that it is not the loud voices
that should drive the priority setting, but voices that can sit down to the table and
rationally discuss our needs.
Question 4b. How can we more effectively include them?
There needs to be a continuous effort to include the organic, sustainable, traditional
production type, livestock, research. Extension, consiuner, food processor, hanking,
agricultiu-al industry, secondary and higher education, local and state government,
forestry, environmental, etc., persons. We need to accept that some farmers, ranchers,
and consimiers are like students in the public schools. The taxpayers pay for public
education, provide for transportation in most cases, and even provide meals at a
reasonable cost (some cases free); and yet, there are some who will not finish high
school and later will say that the school never did anything for them. Yet, out of that
same school will come doctors, teachers, scientists, entrepreneiu^ that include farmers
and all kinds of self-employed, even our future researchers, and all kinds of skilled
labor and technicians. The information and knowledge base is there for the taking
but we as individuals need to identify what it is that we want before we can get
answers.
196
The Honorable Charles Stenholm
May 3, 1993
Page Foiir
We have, by Congressional mandate, two committees that are organized within USDA
to evaluate £uid prioritize for the future in the Users Advisory Board and the Joint
Covincil. The UAB is a cross-section of people and could be a very efifective tool to vise
at the federal level. Unfortunately, with the cut in the budget, UAB and JC only meet
two times annually, which leaves these federal committees somewhat ineflfective.
Congress needs to make a decision to either have federal committees with such a
cross-section to be effective or to just do away with them. Oiu" national CARET has
had a Uaison to these Boards, and we have input into the process. As an example.
Rich Rominger, who was recently named as Deputy Agriculture Secretary, is a farmer
and was CARETs liaison to the Joint Council.
On the day I was present before your committee, I heard a statement about the disconnection
between the user and the Extension/research institution. As a user and a producer, I don't
see such a disconnection. In fact, I see a closer tie to the people who really want to work
with the sjrstem. The system can always be refined, but I find that many people don't use
the system and then blame it when times are tough.
CARET is a cross-section of volunteers who are seeking ways to assist decision makers in the
Congressional, administrative, academic, commodity groups, and research/Extension areas.
We need to improve our communication skills and strive to be representative of our states.
Meeting and working with such a diverse group of people fix)m across the coimtry that makes
up CARET has broadened my horizon and gives me a perspective that goes beyond the farm
gate. It is with this though that I hope I have given you some of my views that are truly
grassroots. Once again, thank you for this opportunity.
Sincerely,
Robert Guernsey
Past Chair
enclosxires
197
I
'^J^^^^A NASULGC National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges
TESTIMONY
Before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS
AND NUTRITION
of the
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
on
Science and Education Priorities at the U. S. Department of Agriculture
Presented by
Dr. R. Rodney Foil
Vice President for Agriculture, Forestry, and Veterinary Medicine
Mississippi State University
Mississippi State, MS
and
Chair
Council of Administrative Heads of Agriculture
Board on Agriculture
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges
Washington, DC
March 25, 1993
One Dupom Circle, NW Suite 710 • Washington, DC 20036 - 1191 • (202)778-0818 • Fax (202) 296-6456
198
Introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Rodney
Foil. I am the Vice President for Agriculture, Forestry, and
Veterinary Medicine at Mississippi State University. In addition,
I serve as current Chairman of the Council of Administrative Heads
of Agriculture within the National Association of State
Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. On behalf of my colleagues,
I want to thank the Subcommittee for their interest in the
important issues facing agricultural science and education in the
United States and the world.
Background
My role today is to pull together some of the more cross-cutting
issues covered today. In doing so, I will focus more on the
philosophical and longer term issues, in an attempt to summarize
and highlight certain areas. As you continue your deliberations on
this and related topics, we hope that you will find our statements
to be helpful and thought provoking. Each of us, as well as our
associates in every state in the union, will be most happy to
return any time that you feel our participation can be of benefit.
Summary Statements
The testimony presented today contains a wealth of information
regarding our current system for setting priorities, conducting
programs, and relating our activities to the broader educational
community, the federal government, and, most importantly, the users
of the research and technology that is being developed. In
summary, I would like to stress five characteristics of our system
which are important to your deliberations, and should form part of
the basis for the important policy development process with which
you will be involved.
1 . The land-grant system is broad and deep. From previous
testimony, and from your own personal experience, you should
be aware of the breadth and depth of the land-grant university
system, both in function and in disciplinary capacity. Our
activities range from pioneering efforts in the most
fundamental of sciences to hands-on assistance to millions of
U.S. citizens with their lives and livelihood. From our first
and most fundamental mission, that of educating tomorrow's
professional leaders, to teaching basic parenting skills to
teen-aged mothers, our faculty members each day address issues
critical to the future of our nation. While our roots, and
our major eir^jhasis is on agriculture and family life, and our
primary linkage to the federal government is through the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, the increasing complexity of
today's society has resulted in activities and programs that
support and amplify virtually all aspects of human activity
and collaborate with numerous departments of government.
199
The breadth and depth of this interesting capability
represents a great strength for the nation, and at the same
time, its complexity presents challenges to those of us who
seek to guide and direct these activities. As you continue to
explore ways in which we can improve our planning and priority
setting, as well as our implementation of programs, I know you
will look broadly upon our capacities, and continue to
challenge us to serve through multiple functions across broad
areas of human interest.
Strength through inter-dependence. Along with a broad range
of subject matter competency and functional activity, the
land-grant university system of academic programs, fundamental
and applied research, and extension education, forms a complex
web of inter-dependent relationships. Faculty creativity, the
most precious of our human resources, can be focused across a
broad spectrum of human needs, and is often redirected to meet
new challenges and opportunities. This inter-dependence
provides both serendipity and the opportunity for redundancy
without loss of efficiency. To fully draw on this strength
requires an understanding of the manner in which the parts
interact. While change can be both rapid and positive, care
must be exercised to prevent unforeseen damage elsewhere
within the system.
Partnerships can support strong priorities. The long time
partnership between federal, state, and local entities
supporting the land-grant system has proven its effectiveness.
As this model is applied across a broader and broader range of
subject areas and functional relationships, the need to
harmonize the priority process increases. As has been
mentioned, federal funding for activities within the land-
grant system is augmented better than three to one by non-
federal funds. This synergistic relationship is possible
because priorities identified at all levels receive
appropriate attention. Utilization of the varied funding
arrangements now available makes it possible to target
priorities of variable interests in a most efficient fashion.
As the capabilities of the university system are focused on
more and more broad objectives within the Department, and as
these programs are combined with programs of interest to other
Departments of government, the need to redefine the
partnership becomes more critical.
America's higher education system is changing, and land-grant
agriculture is at the forefront . Few can argue that America's
system of higher education is the envy of the world, yet
recent years have brought unprecedented change in public
satisfaction with and expectations of this system. As perhaps
the most visible and client oriented element of this system,
the land-grant agricultural units have undergone intense self
examination and rapid change during the past decade. These
200
-3-
changes have been dramatic, and are not yet coit^lete. As the
parent institutions redefine their role, and as the national
system of higher education develops new paradigms for meeting
changing needs, the land-grant units will be called upon to
further manage change and modify both structure and function
to match new expectations. While these changes may enhance
the ability to respond to national interests of the
Department, there is also the possibility that shifting
priorities will dictate reconsideration of relationships.
Land-grant: where the grass roots meet the ivorv tower. For
over a century, the land-grant university agricultural system
has balanced the short-term imperatives of local clientele
with long-range opportunities identified by minds functioning
at the forefront of human knowledge. This unique approach to
setting priorities, identifying opportunities, and
implementing programs has proven to be a most effective means
of infusing science into the daily activities of productive
citizens. It is evident that the future of our nation is
heavily dependent on our ability to capitalize on past
experience and extend these abilities to ever-changing
problems and opportunities. You may be assured that this
system is both strong enough and flexible enough to continue
its productive role in the Department of Agriculture of the
future.
201
RESPONSES OF R. RODNEY FOIL TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS
Question 1: How well is forestry research funded at USDA?
Response: Not well at all.
The two main sources of support for forestry research are the USDA Forest Service budget and
Mclntire-Stennis funds administered through the Cooperative State Research Service. A report
issued by the National Research Council in 1990 entitled "Forestry Research: Mandate for Change"
reported that Forest Service research funding had declined 14 percent (1982 $) during the previous
10 years. During the same period, Mclntire-Stennis funding remained essentially level. Since
1990 Forest Service funding has increased somewhat while Mclntire-Stennis funding has declined
to its 1982 level. (Attached table) This situation has been exacerbated by a five-year decline of 50
percent in industry-sponsored forestry research.
Funding levels for forestry research are in sharp contrast to the growing public perception of the
importance of forests and the many societal needs and concerns related to the economic and
environmental role of forests. Accordingly, the National Research Council recommended the
following: (1) increase competitive grants for forestry research to $1(X) million annually; (2)
increase USDA Forest Service research budget by 1() percent each year for the next five years; (3)
increase Mclntire-Stennis funds over the next five years to the full authorization level of 50 percent
of the Forest Service research budget (currentiy Mclntire-Stennis support is approximately 10
percent of the Forest Service research budget).
1 concur with these recommendations. The forestry research community, in common with the
administration and members of Congress, is caught up in the growing public concern over ancient
forests, threatened and endangered species, global warming, wetlands, wilderness preservation,
tropical deforestation and related environmental issues. Regrettably, the science to which resource
management and national state and local policy measures can be anchored is simply inadequate.
The urgent need for research on environmental issues related to forest lands is most apparent at the
state and local levels. Management of land for timber, water, wildlife and recreation is becoming
increasingly more difficult and expensive for lack of reliable information on the best management
and harvesting practices on a site-specific, landscape and regional basis. It is noteworthy that
environmental research was ranked first among research needs - above timber production - by the
Southern Industrial Forestry Research Council, an organization representing the major forest-based
industries in the South.
Forestry and the associated industrial base account for a significant fraction of our GNP and are of
fundamental importance to the economy of literally hundreds of communities across the United
States. There is convincing evidence that forestry will become even more important in the future.
Global demand for forest products is increasing. This increase in demand coincides with
diminishing wood supplies in many established wood-producing countries of the world. The
United States is well positioned in terms of timber supply and manufacturing and transportation
infrastructure to satisfy a major share of this increase in demand. However, continued profitably
of forest-based industries will require: (1) that we develop more efficient and environmentally
compatible production and processing systems if we are to compete in a growing international
market where competition is also increasing; and (2) that we resolve some of the environmental
issues which threaten to disrupt timber supply - demand relationships. Both of these will require
additional investments in research.
202
Question 2: Some individuals feel that the placement of forestry within USDA represents a
conflict of interest Where do you feel forestiy should be placed in any reorganization scheme?
Response: Rather than being a conflict of interest, the association of agriculture and forestiy in
USDA has been highly complementary. The two share many things in common. The science
base, economic principles, and management concepts to which the practice of agriculture is
anchored arc also applicable to forestry. Additionally, they share many of the same problems -
economic, social, and environmental - and benefit mutually from the solutions to these problems.
At the local and state level, forestry and agriculture are inseparable. Together, they provide the
economic underpinning for much of rural America.
The question of where forestry should be located within the federal organizational structure has
been studied extensively in the past The conclusion from these studies that forestry should remain
in USDA is still valid. The benefits both presentiy and prospectively of the Jissociation between
agriculture and forestry outweigh any benefits that may result ftom moving forestry out of this
department
Question 3: As an administrator, how do you include "cross-cutting" initiatives in your planning
process?
Response: In our setting, initiatives may be considered "cross-cutting" for any one of three
reasons. Some initiatives cut across disciplinary lines, and require special mechanisms in order to
ensure appropriate coverage of the areas of expertise necessary for an optimum solution. A second
form of "cross-cutting" issue has been increasing in its importance in recent years, and those are
issues that cut across commodity or clientele areas of interest Such issues as water quality,
environmental protection, and food safety are good examples of these kinds of issues. A third
kind of issue that requires special attention is one that cuts across functional areas of the university.
Since we are funded under separate directives for teaching, research, and extension, we sometimes
have to exert special effort to assure that all functions are considered appropriately.
As the university vice-president in charge of all functions and disciplines directly related with
agricultural and forestry problems, a gcxxi deal of my personal effort must be directed to assuring
appropriate consideration for the issues described above. Unit managers, be they heads of
functional, disciplinary, or commodity focused units in our system are routinely involved with
planning activities extending beyond their area of direct responsibility. All program planning and
implementation teams are formulated to assure participation by a variety of faculty members across
disciplines and functions.
Perhaps the greatest stimulus to good planning with regard to cross cutting issues is the direct
involvement of clientele representatives in program planning and evaluation activities. Those who
apply the results of our science and technology in Uieir everyday activities are quick to point out
omissions of coverage.
In summary, proper attention to cross disciplinary, functional, or commodity lines presents a
unique challenge to any administrator. In a university setting, these challenges are sometime
exacerbated by reward systems and peer pressure. Qne of the substantial strengths of the land
-grant system is the maintenance of mission oriented and directed research responsibilities in the
experiment station director, along with clear responsibilities for extension programming through
the extension director. When those two agencies are appropriately meshed with the academic
structure supporting the teaching mission, one can be reasonably sure that cross-cutting issues will
be adequately considered.
(Attachment follows:)
203
CO
Q <S|
s; CO S
0) S
Q « "^
CO |«»-
CL «
a. *
<
0»
iiil
£
o
u.
I
aiae^NMMmn^iotfKDCQoe
M
CO
I
3
S
o
co«
204
1
Priorities for Agriculture Research and Extension at USDA
Statement of the American Veterinary Medical Association and the
Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges
March 25, 1993
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Department Operations and Nutrition Subcommittee:
Veterinarians are uniquely poised to assist both the Congress and the U.S. IDepartment
of Agriculture in setting research priorities on animal health, disease and other disciplines related
to agriculture and public health. As clinicians, every day we take basic science and transform
it into practical application on the farm, in the laboratory, in private corporations, in non-profit
organizations, and in our hospitals, clinics and university facilities. We view ourselves as
facilitators and implementors of animal research information transfer.
The profession bridges the public and private sectors through enthusiastic business and
entrepreneurial spirit, meeting matching funds with corporate grants, and seeding private and
industrially cosponsored projects, to promote the creation of new research ideas, products and
technologies. For example, one school of veterinary medicine is engaged in a major research
partnership with private industry to develop a new class of compounds that stimulates animal
immune systems and aids in wound healing.
In another project, the pet food industry funded a nutritional research project on cats.
Veterinary researchers were able to make a crucial determination that taurine deficiencies in pet
food formulations could lead to a triad of disease syndromes, including heart disease
(cardiomyopathy), reproductive failures and blindness. Once this discovery was made, the
researchers made simple nutritional formula suggestions to the manufacturers of commercial pet
foods, thus leading to a quick and effective solution to a complex problem for pet owners, the
veterinary profession and the pet food industry.
The dairy industry has been concerned about the increasing incidence of coliform
mastitis. To address this, a state milk advisory board entertained proposals for control methods
for this form of mastitis, awarding a veterinary faculty member funding to address vaccine
research on a mutant form of E. coli J-5. The vaccine developed has proved very successful,
and the faculty member is now working to help identify a vaccine company to prepare vaccines
for national and international industry use. In that state alone, the vaccine is saving the dairy
industry over $11 million annually.
205
The facilities within which we perform our agriculturally-related research range from
primate centers to extension field stations, from sophisticated diagnostic laboratories to
conservation centers at zoological parks. We are striving daily to turn our basic research not
only into practical applications, but to provide society and the nation as a whole with safe,
wholesome foods, effective and efficacious vaccines, comfortable and well-cared-for domestic
and wildlife animal species, high caliber diagnostic laboratories and laboratory tests for the
detection of animal disease and biohazards, and environmental health and maintenance through
our research on water quality, genetic engineering, conservation, and epidemiological expertise
during epidemics and natural emergencies.
For example, many animal disease research programs, such as those on brucellosis and
tuberculosis, are heavily dependent on animal biocontainment facilities in which testing of new
vaccines occurs in animals challenged with virulent organisms. On average, a single
biocontainment facility for a single steer can cost nearly $500,000 to construct and about
$100,000 a year to maintain and operate. A lack of adequate biocontainment facilities across
the country can result in delays in critical experiments on nationally significant diseases.
Modem and adequately sized biocontainment facilities are necessary in order to safely move
scientific discoveries from the laboratory to the field and apply them effectively for the
improvement of animal agriculture.
Primate centers are another example. Up to 3,500 nonhuman primates can be housed
at these centers, where veterinary faculty researchers carry out investigations on AIDS,
environmental toxicology, reproduction and other research of significance to public and animal
health. The average cost of maintaining such a facility is approximately $5. 1 million per year.
Finally, the AAVMC and the AVMA would specifically like to address three issues
brought up at your Subcommittee's hearing on March 25, 1993: (1) How to best apply basic
research for public wants and needs; (2) How to address accountability, whether it be in relation
to peer-reviewed/merit-reviewed research or earmarked site-specific research; and (3) How to
balance competitive grant funding with formula-funded research.
Dr. Savage stated in the question and answer session of the hearing that universities often
focus only on basic research, and pay mere lip-service to applied research. At veterinary
medical schools and colleges, clinicians and researchers work hand-in-hand, in the hospitals and
in the field to address basic research that will solve practical problems. We meet and greet the
public every day, gleaning detailed medical histories of our patients from their owners; then we
change hats, move to the laboratory and become or at least collaborate with the laboratory bench
scientists.
Whether the issue is veterinarians investigating surgical procedures and materials
necessary for orthopedic hip replacement (both within veterinary and medical school ci^cities),
so that both animals and humans with severe a^ritis or osteoporotic lesions can live in comfort.
206
whether the issue is a cooperative scientific effort between veterinary microbiologists and food
scientists (involving veterinary medical schools, veterinary and animal science departments and
food science departments), such as occurred at the University of California the day after the
foodbome E. coli outbreak began in the Pacific Northwest, or whether the issue is a comparative
examination of animal models for the investigation of diseases transmissible from animals to
humans, i.e. protection of the public's health regarding diseases such as rabies or tuberculosis,
the only functional approach is the team approach, relating basic science data to practical
solutions. Veterinary medical researchers are not able to remain cloistered in their ivory towers,
far removed from practical hands-on applications, because research and practice exist side-by-
side in veterinary medical training facilities.
As academicians, veterinarians understand the amount of time and effort "peer-review"
or "merit-review" involves. With the incredible amount of scientific information being generated
daily, accountability reporting, as much of an added cost of time and effort as it may be, is the
best way to track animal disease, treatment, response and health. Accountability details
effectiveness of basic science applied to public needs, and helps assure those providing the
funding that hard work is ongoing. In our veterinary medical colleges and schools, we
continually must sort out what scientific research project proposals to accept and what ones to
deny. Clinical veterinarians regularly contribute to the scientific literature by writing, editing
and re-editing peer-reviewed scientific journal articles. Each of these activities involves deciding
where the funds that come to our institutions and facilities will be best spent. We understand
what centers of excellence are, because we see the full-spectrum, big-picture of science from
basic laboratory research to client histories about their animals' health to practical applications.
In transference of basic to applied science, the norm is modification of ideas rather than
outright acceptance or rejection. Yet, as veterinarians, we realize that scientific claims can only
be validated by constant, continuous long-term observations, generating repeatable data to back
up those claims. Formula- funded research, as long as accountability is there, can be equally as
valid as competitive research, in that often in the course of experimentation and in the process
of proving or disproving an hypothesis, we come up with results and practical applications that
are not able to be anticipated at the start of a scientific project. The excitement of discovery is
what draws us to science, and the satisfaction of applying what we derive in the laboratory to
the animals we work with every day sets the profession of veterinary medicine in a distinct
category of its own. As veterinarians we are committed to science, animals and people, and thus
are uniquely poised to assist in determining research priorities.
We hope that the Subcommittee on Department Operations and Nutrition will consider
our veterinary clinicians, our professional veterinary medical school researchers and
academicians, and our Federal veterinary practitioners as expert witnesses should you decide to
hold further hearings or meetings on this most crucial and pivotal issue of priority setting for
agricultural and extension research programs. Please do not hesitate to call upon us as you
continue to examine these important issues.
207
International Committee On Org«ni««tlon And Policy
Ibe OMaton of Afrtcuttmc
KtlflBalA— nrteWnnof8tMeUm»efiltte»«idUnd-Ci«HtOonete»
Statement
on
Science and Education Priorities
U.S. Department of Agriculture
An Intematioiial Perspective
Submitted to
Subcommittee of Department Operations and Nutrition
Committee on Agriculture
U.S. House of Representatives
by
Monika C. Escber, Cbair
International Committee on Organization and Policy
Board on Agriculture
NASULGC
208
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Monika Escher, Chair of the
International Committee on Organization and Policy (ICOP), of the Board on Agriculture,
NASULGC. I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in these hearings on the
science and education programs at USDA.
The rapid spread of technological change is revolutionizing virtually all aspects of our
lives, from the genetic mapping of plants to the near-instantaneous transmission of
information anywhere in the world. In order for the United States to sustain a
competitive advantage in the world, the U.S. science and technology base must be
maintained and enhanced. Any reorientation of the USDA science and education agencies
must consider that the prosperity of U.S. agriculture will depend on our active partici-
pation in the global science and education networks.
Developing international research, higher education, £ind information programs that
result in economic benefits to U.S. farmers can be accomplished by systematically linking
the U.S. science and education commimity - the land-grant system ~ to its international
counterparts. Global interaction can be realized in the following areas:
■ Research: Collaboration with international agricultural research centers is necessary
to ensure that U.S. scientists have access to state-of-the-art products and tech-
nologies. New relationships with overseas agricultural research institutes need to be
established.
209
* Higher education: Internationalizing higher education programs will create a human
resource base educated to successfully function in the global marketplace.
• Information: Rapid access to global information is essential in order for U.S.
agricultural scientists to keep pace with global scientific and technology
developments.
In the 1990 farm bill, Congress authorized an enlarged role for USDA in terms of
collaboration with institutions throughout the world engaged in agriculture and related
research and extension activities. The international dimension of science and education,
not as a separate component, but fully integrated into USDA, must be a priority.
210
NASULGC National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges
TESTIMONY
Before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS
AND NUTRITION
of the
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
on
Science and Education Priorities at the U. S. Department of Agriculture
Presented by
Dr. C. Peter Magrath
President
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges
March 25, 1993
OneDupom Circle, NW Suite 710 • Washington, DC 20036- 1 191 • (202)778-0818 • Fax (202) 296-6456
211
SCIENCE AND EDUCATION PRIORITIES AT
THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA)
Statement to the Subcommittee on Department Operations and Nutrition
Committee on Agriculture
U. S. House of Representatives
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am C. Peter Magrath, President of
the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, (NASULGC). I am very
pleased to have this opportunity to participate in these hearings regarding science and education
priorities at the U. S. Department of Agriculture. As president of NASULGC, whose
membership includes all 73 land-grant universities, I wish to convey our deep concern for the
future of the science and education programs in research, extension and education, and for
strengthening the long-standing collaborative USDA/land-grant partnership that has served
America so well for more than a century. As pointed out recently by columnist George Anthan
of the Des Moines Sunday Register, "Our Agriculture Department, especially its research and
extension functions, are the envy of the world."
Both the United States and the world, and therefore the environment in which the land-
grant universities and the U.S. Department of Agriculture operate, have changed dramatically
since the early fruition of the land-grant university movement For one thing, American
agriculture today has totally changed so that less than two percent of our citizens are directly
involved in production agriculture. The very success of the scientific revolution in agriculture,
led by the land-grant universities in close collaboration with and significant support from
Congress through the U.S. Department of Agriculture, has made archaic and unnecessary many
of the practices and structures of the old or traditional land-grant model. However, the basic
principle—pioneering basic research in agricultural science, the application of science to the
problems of food, environment and renewable resources, dissemination of knowledge through the
Cooperative Extension System— all remain relevant.
As we are so well aware, the United States faces massive problems converting from a
substantially defense-driven economy, while at the same time adjusting to the new realities of
world trade and competition, reinvigorating its industrial competitiveness, dealing with the
massive problems of education and addressing major environmental and infrastructure needs.
Such consequential political and economic transformations challenge all of us to look
closely at the mission, structure, and constituencies of our organization. It occurs to me that the
U.S. Department of Agriculture and land-grant universities, again, have both an opportunity and
a need in common. It is the opportunity and need to redefine our constituencies— to identify the
sectors of our citizenry for whom we have the capacity to improve their quality of life. Certainly
that includes farmers and ranchers. It also includes a significant number of others who live in
212
-2-
rural America. Likewise, we both have the capacity and are currently doing a great deal to
improve their nutrition and health, and to improve the educational opportunities of those who live
in both rural and urban areas.
Let's look for a moment then at what we do best, what the preeminent land-grant system
has to offer the American citizen and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Those who argue that
the mission of higher education ought to be narrow-focused exclusively on studying and learning
about the world but not being engaged with the needs of the world—do not understand the true
purpose of higher education. The purpose of higher education, certainly land-grant education,
is to serve the needs of the people in ways that flow out of the skills and knowledge of our
colleges and universities.
Addressing your interest in an active, positive role by extension, what I call the "new
land-grant model," means serving social and economic needs as determined by society through
its elected representatives in collaboration with university leaders on a basis of mutual discussion,
negotiation, and trust It is the land-grant model in the sense that it is based on the principle of
extending knowledge-reaching out-to meeting ever-changing social, economic, and human
needs. It involves extending and linking the research base within both the USDA and research
universities with producers and consumers as well as with businesses, with community and local,
state and other federal agencies, and with volunteer public service associations in order to deal
with environmental and other societal challenges. This assertive role must be a broad and
collaborative one if we are to achieve the kind of consensus and support essential to effective and
sustainable extension efforts. Social progress depends on economic progress, and both depend
on effective, sustained education that promotes understanding and knowledge, and extends that
knowledge to our society.
This is what we, the land grant universities, have provided our citizens and society over
the last century, and this is also what has helped forge such a successful partnership with the
USDA and American agriculture. Virtually all observers would agree that American agricultural
production has been one of the wonders of the world because of the linkage that was developed
between university faculty, practitioners in the field, and USDA scientists. It is imperative
therefore that as we look at change in the USDA, we keep in mind the concomitant change
taking place in our society and its institutions in order to insure ourselves that the new USDA
meets the needs of our future.
Secretary Espy has articulated his vision of the new USDA as one that is "science-based
and user-friendly." This vision based on science to serve the people parallels perfectly the land-
grant universities' re-commitment to acquiring new knowledge and sharing that knowledge in the
service of the people. It is also the right approach for a federal department that finds itself at
the very interface between emerging technology and the timeless problems of people.
213
-3-
It is our understanding that the USDA will undergo restructuring in the near future, and
our recommendations for such restructuring address those areas of the department's mission that
must utilize modem science and technology to solve critical human problems. We believe that
reorganization should include the ascendence of research, extension, and higher education in the
form of increased emphasis on the role and mission of the Cooperative State Research Service,
Extension Service and the Office of Higher Education. Inherent in this suggestion is the
expectation that Science and Education will play an increasingly important role in determining
agricultural, environmental, social and economic development policy. In addition, we believe that
the Science and Education community should not be constrained by traditional limitations, but
should be encouraged to work across the department Increased interaction and collaboration
between Science and Education and relevant USDA agencies—and indeed with other federal
departments-is essential for a more functional and effective Department of Agriculture.
The research, formal undergraduate, graduate and non-formal extension education
responsibilities have many commonalities, both in constituencies and functional relationships.
These commonalities are mirrored in the organizational structure of universities which use the
same scientists and scholars for their research, teaching and extension efforts. In any
reorganization effort, provision must be made for strengthening the close working relationships
among these functions.
Our land-grant universities have been leaders in the scientific and technological
breakthroughs that are providing an entirely new way of communicating information through
computer technology and electronic systems. These advances arc fundamentally changing the
way in which information and education arc being transmitted and will be transmitted in the
future. Such technology should be considered integral tools for a redesigned USDA eliciting
improved service and simultaneously achieving budgetary savings.
The USDA Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences has been directed by
Congress to improve the planning and coordination of research, extension and higher education,
and to rclate them to the federal budgetary process. The Council membership includes federal
agency and land-grant university administrators, thus providing a forum for understanding and
assessing ongoing changes in agriculture. Continued strong support of this council will enhance
coordinating efforts in setting programmatic priorities.
Recent recommendations by both the Federal Coordination Council for Science
Engineering & Technology and the Presidents Council of Advisors on Science & Technology
recommend that federal agencies such as the USDA play a stronger role in support of
undergraduate and graduate education at our nation's colleges and universities, especially those
designated "research-intensive universities." We agree with this recommendation and suggest that
any USDA reorganization strengthen the department's role in higher education through the Office
of Higher Education in the Cooperative State Research Service. This support is especially critical
214
-4-
when we realize that the 1890 Land-Grant Capacity Building Grants and Minority Scholars
Programs, those programs specifically designed to enhance minority involvement in agriculture
and agricultural sciences, are a responsibility of this office.
One of the questions you asked in your letter of invitation to testify, Mr. Chairman,
concerned optimum modes of funding. I would suggest that there is substantial merit in
continuing a combination of formula and competitive grant funding. Formula funds, along with
state funding, permit each state to maintain that essential core of faculty and staff that an
institution must have in place to provide a degree of continuity and the capacity to respond
immediately to crisis situations.
It has been my honor and pleasure to present this statement today to the Subcommittee.
My colleagues of the NASULGC Board on Agriculture, who were also invited to testify today,
will address your specific questions in more detail.
215
Association
of Administrators
of Home Economics
m>
In Stcate Universities and Land Grant Colleges. Inc.
TESTIMONY
Before
THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS
AND NUTRmON
Of
THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
on
Science and Education Priorities at the U.S. Department of Agriculture
Presented by
Dean Barbara S. Stowe
Dean, College ot Human Ecology, Kansas State University and
Asst. Director Agricultural Experiment Station, Kansas State University
Manhattan, Kansas
Chair
Research Committee of Board on Home Economics
Strategic Planning Committee of Board on Home Economics
March 25, 1993
216
statement of the
Association of Administrators of Home Economics and
Board on Home Economics of the
Nationai Association of State Unh^erslties and
Land Grant Coileges on
Reorganization of the United States Department of Agriculture
The Board on Home Economics (BOHE) is one of five which constitutes the
Commission on Food, Environment, and Renewable Resources of the National Association of
State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC). The Board is composed of
representatives of the Association of Administrators of Home Economics who are deans of
colleges in the land grant university system, and/or directors of research and extension
education progrsuns. This board brings to the Commission on Food, Environment, and
Renewable Resources expertise to address the needs of families —elderly, youth, and
children; nutrition and its relation to human health; food quality and food safety; product
development for multicultural consumer markets; resource management for limited resource
families among others. The Board on Home Economics, as a constituent member of the
Commission on Food, Environment, and Renewable Resources, interacts with the Boards on
Agriculture, Veterinary Medicine, Forestry and Natural Resources, and Oceans and
Atmosphere for strategic planning, and for development of budget and policy
recommendations for the science and education functions of USDA.
It is the strong symbiotic relationship between the land grant university system and
USDA which heightens our interest in reorganization of the latter. The Board on Home
Economics supports the principles set forth in President C. Peter Magrath's letter of February
23 to Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy. We take this opportunity to emphasize some
specific factors which the BOHE would like to have considered in reorganization plans and
which we believe will enhance the ability of the USDA to capitalize upon the strengths within
our l^nd Grant colleges.
Science and education has related functions of discovery and dissemination which
operate very effectively through the land grant structure which links higher education for the
preparation of scientists and teachers, research, and extension education which disseminates
science-based information to the public. Science and education of the USDA is likely to
benefit from some reorganization, but the relationship of the higher education, research, and
extension education functions under the same Assistant Secretary is paramount to their
effectiveness. The contemporary extension education component is increasing in importance
as the knowledge base increases exponentially.
The Clinton administration has placed emphasis on restoring vitality of the U.S.
economy, part of which is putting displaced workers into productive jobs. U.S. agriculture
has experienced enormous transitions, including the major transition from the family farm to
corporate production. The USDA should be expected to play a role in helping the country
and the economy adjust to transitions that it has played a role in helping to create. Science
and education is providing educational support for communities, families, and small
businesses to productively weather transitions. The system is in place to effect such support;
217
it is a matter of adjusting priorities to better utilize ttiat system. No other government agency
has a nationwide system or network ttiat the USDA has through its regional research and
cooperative extension systems. Through sterte, county, and private partnerships, federal
dollars are effectively leveraged. It would be costly not to utilize what is in place, or worse
yet, reinvent it
The USDA, through a system of 73 land grant universities, has in place a structure
which provides working relationships t>etween predominately black and predominately white
institutions. That is an important asset for an increasingly multicultural and multiethnic
society. Assuring quality nutritkin requires an understanding of cultural differences in food
preparation and eating patterns, assuring global markets for the food euid fit>er products of
U.S. agriculture requires an understanding of cultural and ethnic differences within those
markets, and assuring a productive workforce requires the ability to capitalize upon skills of a
multicultural society.
Human nutritkMi and food science are key components of science and education of
the USDA. Any reorganizatkm must retain the links among quality human nutridon, food
product development, and production of the food supply in the research and information
dissemination units of the agency. These links exist within the land grant universities,
espceially within colleges of home economics, agriculture, and veterinary medicine. Public
concern about the relationship between food consumption and overall human health has
reached an di\ time high in tfie 1990's. Dietary excess or imbalance has t>een implicated in
half of tiie leading causes of deatti in the United States. While the food supply in this country
is recognized as high quality, concerns continue to grow atx)ut microbial and chemical
contamination. Land grant colleges are the source of information to deal with food safety
concerns and to create new knowledge where information gaps are evident Perception that
food is unsafe is as potent a force in determining consumer choice as the reality of measured
levels of contamination. Social scientists in the colleges represented by the Board on Home
Economics have the ability to accurately measure and interpret consumer perceptions.
Nutrition researchers in these colleges have the capacity to determine the relationships
t>etween nutrients and levels of other substances in food as they impact human health. And
our extension educators have the ability to interpret complex research findings in ways that
can enable citizens to make informed decisions at)out food choices. We must expand our
nutrition information base and educational strategies to meet the needs of a more diverse
population. Americans now consume 43% of their meals away from home. Consequently,
the food service and processing industries are making new demands for research based
information on nutrition and food quality. Consumers who do eat at home, are demanding
more convenience in preparing those meals.
The decade of the 1980's exemplified the urgent need for research that contributes to
solutions of rural famfly and community pressures associated with the cost —price squeeze,
declining rural populations and an aging population. Strategies to enhance the economic
health of rural communities is a national priority within the USDA. Human devetopment and
other social scientists within our larKl grant universities have the ability to assess citizen
attitudes arKl needs in ways that will provide an accurate information base for policy makers
and community devetopment organizations. There is dear evidence that families and
communities can firxJ many of their own solutions to problems of health care, teenage
pregnancy, housing and servk»s for the elderty if ttiey have the information base and the
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
218
3 9999 05018 454 6
leadership skills to do so. For too long we have neglected development of the social science
information base that would help assure viable families and communities, and build a
competent work force that will sustain the agricultural enterprise and related economic
development.
The development of new markets will generate additional income that will stimulate
economic growth in rural America. Enlightened market development starts with the premise
that we identify what the consumer wants; whereas, unenlightened market development starts
with the premise that we must convince consumers that they want to buy what we have to
sell. Within our land grant universities we must develop a better information base on
consumer wants and interests and recognize that consumers are a complex group of culture
2ind ethnicity, age range, and economic capacity.
New research in processing and adding value to raw products can result in the
development of new markets for agricultural commodities and overall enhanced economic
activity based on new products and processing technologies. Research in this area has the
potential for converting waste products into usable items and for creating new and modified
products which are environmentally compatible. Land grant universities have the ability to put
together interdisciplinary research teams of nutritionists, food scientists, textile and polymer
scientists, and engineers who can create new processed foods, create non-food uses for
agricultural products, and address problems of solid waste management. Concomitant
research in this area would assess consumer and industrial acceptance, product quality and
safety, as well as the creation of new products and uses.
Priorities for U.S. agriculture are shifting from production driven markets to consumer
driven markets; from a focus on commodities to the quality of the workforce which has the
capacity to convert commodities to consumer acceptable products; from production for
domestic markets to production for global markets; from a focus of maximizing productivity to
a focus of optimizing productivity in concert with the environment; and from the cure of
disease to production of a nutritious food supply which will help prevent disease. The USOA
in concert with the land grant university system which includes colleges of home economics,
veterinary medicine, forestry and engineering as well as agriculture; has the responsibility and
capacity to lead these and other transitions and should be organized to do so.
219
i^^pp^^^ NASULGC National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges
TESTIMONY
Before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS
AND NUTRITION
of the
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
on
Priorities for Research and Education at the U. S. Department of Agriculture
Presented by
Dr. J. T. Vaughan
Dean of Veterinary Medicine
Auburn University
Chair
Board on Veterinary Medicine
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges
March 25, 1993
One Dupont Circle, NW Suite 710 • Washington, DC 20036 - 1 191 • (202)778-0818 • Fax (202) 296-6456
220
STATEMENT FOR VETERINARY MEDICINE
Under the aegis of the NASULGC Commission on Food, Environment, and Renewable
Resources, Veterinary Medicine stands alongside Agriculture, Home Economics, Forestry &
Natural Resources, and Oceans & Atmosphere in shouldering its responsibilities to both human
and animal health and well-being. These statutory and professional obligations extend to animal
health and disease, animal welfare, public health and regulatory medicine (including animal
diseases transmissible to humans), environmental issues, and public policy related to the use of
animals and products for the benefit of animals. Performance of these obligations will necessitate
attention given to the funding of higher education, research, development and technology transfer.
It is important to preserve and foster multilateral relationships with the allied sciences for
the sake of economy, efficiency, and effectiveness.
CRITICAL ISSUES
1. PRODUCTION ANIMAL MANAGEMENT - Veterinary research based upon a
comprehensive approach to food animal health will advance the management of
animal production systems.
2. FOOD SAFETY - research on food safety, particularly during the preharvest
phase, is needed to assure wholesome animal origin foods.
3. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY - assessment of the interactions of animals and
production systems with the environment is essential to the mutual benefits that
accrue from improvement of the ecology of both human and animal species, while
maintaining agricultural productivity and profitability.
4. ANIMAL WELFARE - further research is needed to define the effects of stress
and disease on present day animal production systems. Better understanding of
normal and pathological behavior is necessary to control stress and improve
management. This in turn will enhance production cost:benefit ratio as well as
animal well-being.
Accomplishment of these objectives will require coherent public policy that integrates the
cognizant disciplines and rewards cooperation between members of such scientific coalitions as
found in the Commission on Food, Environment, and Renewable Resources.
o
ISBN 0-16-041165-3
9 780160"41
1656
90000
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11