no 



the majority would not favoi this trade-out. 



5. Wbat do you feel will happen to our agriculture research facility base if we don't 

 properly infuse either state or federal money into the system? 



The impact of continued deferred maintenance, inadequate replacement and failure to 

 provide expanded facilities for programs that can and should grow creates two consequences: 

 (a) exponential increases in the ultimate "get-well" costs—exemplified by the cost of 

 replacing rather than repainting a structure and (b) the cost of "lost opportunities" — research 

 and education that should be done but which caimot be done without adequate facilities. 

 Most policy and decision makers at the state level do not regard the present stressful 

 financial situations to be transient, rather they expect a long term down-sizing of support for 

 public education. We are seeing some innovative relationships emerge between industry and 

 universities that include development of facilities either on or at the edge of academic 

 campuses. Perhaps this paradigm will spread, but I do not believe it will replace the need 

 for govcnunent support of facihty acquisition. Absent the Kind of support that has been 

 called for in our testimony, I expect a continuing decline in the agricultural research capacity 

 of this country, a resulting decline in agricultural research productivity and an impact on the 

 food, agriculture and natural resource system that will have lasting negative long term 

 consequences. 



6. Why should the Federal government be funding Agriculture research facilities in the 

 first place? 



The federal government has assumed a historic and fundamental role in sponsoring the 

 development of new knowledge and technology that will improve the quality of life for its 

 citizens and enhance economic and environmental health of the nation. Over time, federal 

 policy has varied on the kind of science that it should support Sometimes decision makers 

 tend towards supporting research of more immediate application; this is certainly the 

 attitude of many state legislatures today. At other times, policy makers at the federal level 

 opt to support the kind of research that will not be affordable in either industry or state 

 supported programs, but which is believed to have major down-stream benefits. The space 

 program, the superconduaing supercoUidcr, and the human genome project are illustrative. 

 Agricultural research has a demonstrated record of achievement in all the areas that have 

 been judged to fall in the domain of federal responsibility. In all these cases, the federal 

 government has recognized its responsibility in enabling research; responsibility which has 

 involved development of (a) human capital, (b) facilities and equipment and (c) operating 

 costs. Failure to address die needs in any of these three vital components of research 

 assures overall failure of the enterprise. 



Sometimes when policy makers in government consider support for research, they make a 

 distinction between (1) what the government asks industty or universities to do for 

 government and (2) what industry or universities want to do and ask the govcnmient to 

 support. It is our contention in the case of agricultural research that this distinction is not 



