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) . 



