188 



The Honorable Charles W. Stenholm 

 page two 

 April 2, 1993 



that the increase in funding for instruction over the last 10 years 

 has been far less than the increase in allocation for research and 

 service. The major problem is found at the federal level. Very- 

 large federal appropriations for research and extension dwarf the 

 funds available for campus teaching programs. As a pertinent 

 example, last year's USDA budget allocated, appropriately, almost 

 half a billion dollars each for research and extension, but barely 

 $18 million for academic programs serving students. This type of 

 funding structure containing perfectly justified funds for research 

 and extension, but woefully inadequate funds for higher education 

 helps drive the university reward system to emphasize research and 

 extension at the expense of teaching. 



The critical problem raised by these two questions has been 

 addressed by others in the federal arena. Federal interest in 

 these questions has been heightened because of the realization that 

 educated and trained human capital is a critical national resource 

 and thus a key federal responsibility. The recent report issued by 

 the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and 

 Technology (FCCSET) clearly stated its concern with this issue: 

 "Federal agencies should examine the impact of federal research 

 support on university undergraduate and graduate education and 

 identify strategies to ensure against unintentional degradation of 

 the educational mission and excellence of the research- intensive 

 universities. " 



The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology 

 (PCAST) raised the same concerns: "The federal agencies should 

 ensure that their programs encourage universities to rees^hasize 

 education rather than discourage them, even inadvertently." 



Last year, testimony before the subcommittee of the House 

 Science Space and Technology Committee reiterated this concern: 

 "if federal agencies follow the lead of the NSF and broaden the 

 base of funding for universities to embrace the full range of 

 scholarly activity, eui intportant concomitant will he increased 

 attention to teaching and the integration and application of 

 knowledge . " 



While the USDA's budget appropriately addresses national 

 concerns in the area of research and extension, it is woefully 

 inadequate in addressing the pressing national need for higher 

 education . As a specific example, the Institutional Challenge 

 Grants program in the USDA, CSRS, higher education budget is 

 structured to deal with the important concerns of our higher 

 education system. It provides opportunities for competitive grants 

 requiring matching funds to address key issues for improvement in 

 the undergraduate educational experience. It is funded at only 

 $1.5 million and thus allows for only 20 grants a year. Simply and 

 generally stated this provides about $60,000 to 20 schools for 



