52 



all aware, once a facility is complete, there is a predictable drive 

 to fill it with sponsored research. 



Turning specifically to agriculture, today USDA programs con- 

 tinue to compete within a relatively fixed envelope of resources. 

 The external environment provides less and less relief. OTA foimd 

 that research funds are not evenly distributed to all experiment 

 stations. The stations in 12 States account for nearly half the total 

 research funding available to experiment stations, more thaui two- 

 thirds of USDA competitive grants and nearly 60 percent of all 

 funding from industry support and product sales. 



The State agricultural experiment station system clearly con- 

 tains **have-and-have-not" institutions. The "have-nots" rely pri- 

 marily on the traditional sources of funding, State and USDA for- 

 mula funds, while the "haves" have diversified their funding 

 sources. 



Where does this lead? OTA suggests that USDA needs to develop 

 a comprehensive strategic plan for the whole Department, not just 

 GSRS on the one hand and ARS on the other. This plan must take 

 it into the 21st century. Such a comprehensive plan must include 

 research priorities for both the short-term and long-term, including 

 research facilities. Congress may need to mandate such a plan to 

 be sure that USDA delivers in a timely manner. 



Further, the vision projected by a USDA strategic plan and fiind- 

 ing priorities should have significant influence on land-grant uni- 

 versities in the aggregate. That is, criteria for funding must be ap- 

 pUed and not just paid lip service. The administration. Congress, 

 or both can help at least to instill that vision. 



An overarching question for the subcommittee, then, is this: How 

 do research facilities rank compared to other fiinding priorities in 

 the Department's portfolio? I have heard different answers to the 

 question this morning. 



In a funding climate in which demand is increasing faster than 

 resources, something has to give. All deserving competitors will not 

 be satisfied, but priorities must be established and implemented. 

 OTA concludes that if the Federal Government supports opportuni- 

 ties for growth in agricultural research, it must recognize that 

 those opportunities create additional burdens. 



Finally, USDA and research institutions must plan their port- 

 folios of activities and infrastructure, approaching such opportuni- 

 ties with a stronger sense of realism. 



Thank you. 



[The prepared statement of Mr. Chubin appears at the conclusion 

 of the hearing.] 



Mr. Stenholm. I thank each of you for excellent testimony. 



Mr. Smith. 



Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Would you agree or disagree that the USDA has a qualified 

 merit system of prioritizing research? 



Mr. Hess. I would say that the national research initiative has 

 a system of establishing priorities based upon information from the 

 Joint Council, Users Advisory Board, consultation with users 

 groups, and those priorities then form the recommendations to 

 Congress in terms of funding in the various categories of the na- 



