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. 



