$10 billion. With numbers this large and given our Federal budget 

 deficit, how can we avert a coming crisis in research? Given the 

 budget deficits we will be deeding with for years to come, I can as- 

 sure you that there will not be $5 billion to $10 billion available 

 to build rese£irch facilities. 



Certainly a facility is a priority, but the question is not whether 

 it is a good facility or whether good research will be done, the ques- 

 tion is whether these facilities meet priorities. At today's hearing, 

 we hope to get answers to some of the following questions: 



What is the current condition of agricultural research facilities? 



Is the current system of determining where facilities are needed 

 sufficient? 



Should the Federal Government be in the business of funding fa- 

 ciUties at land-grant colleges? 



Is our agricultural research base strategically placed to meet the 

 needs of the future? 



And finally, how can we design a better system for the future? 



We are also interested in how research priorities are set and the 

 relationship with facility placement. We also hope to ask a few 

 questions about our land-grant system, such as, why do many uni- 

 versity administrators support merit-reviewed projects, but then 

 actively compete for direct appropriations for facilities? We also 

 hope to consider briefly what is the most proactive future role for 

 the land-grant system. 



The 1990 farm bill called for the formation of a Facilities Review 

 Commission. This commission, which I consider to be similar to the 

 base closing commission, is to review all federally funded agricul- 

 tural research facilities, and with a firm set of priorities in mind, 

 determine which should be kept, which should be replaced, and 

 which should be consolidated or closed. 



Our land-grant colleges and agricultural research are in transi- 

 tion. Historically, land grants have not only been effective, but 

 have been the envy of the entire world. But we have to respond to 

 criticisms being directed against agriculture. 



We hope that these hesirings will begin to provide an environ- 

 ment for discussing the direction of agricultural research, what are 

 the agricultural research priorities, and how we can prepare for the 

 challenges of the future. With your assistance, we look forward to 

 undertaking this and other challenges with great confidence. 



I recognize Mr. Smith for any opening remarks. 



Mr. Smith. Thank you. I have no opening statement. 



Mr. Stenholm. The first witness, Hon. George E. Brown, Jr., 

 chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, a val- 

 ued member of this committee, and a gentleman that has been very 

 active in much of what I described in my opening statement. This 

 member is indeed indebted and gratified to you, George, for your 

 work. We look forward to hearing from you this morning. 



STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., A REPRESENTA- 

 TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 



Mr. Brown. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 



I want to commend you and the members of the subcommittee 

 for undertaking these hearings. They follow years of concerns about 

 the kinds of problems you mentioned in your opening statement. 



