[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

A REVIEW OF TITLE VII: UNIVERSITY
PERSPECTIVES ON RESEARCH AND EXTENSION PROGRAMS

=======================================================================

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION, RESEARCH, AND BIOTECHNOLOGY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

JUNE 14, 2023

__________

Serial No. 118-16

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov

_________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

53-322 PDF WASHINGTON : 2023

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania, Chairman

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DAVID SCOTT, Georgia, Ranking
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia, Vice Minority Member
Chairman JIM COSTA, California
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
DOUG LaMALFA, California ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, Virginia
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi SHONTEL M. BROWN, Ohio
DON BACON, Nebraska SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
MIKE BOST, Illinois ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan
DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota YADIRA CARAVEO, Colorado
JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
TRACEY MANN, Kansas MARIE GLUESENKAMP PEREZ,
RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa Washington
MARY E. MILLER, Illinois DONALD G. DAVIS, North Carolina,
BARRY MOORE, Alabama Vice Ranking Minority Member
KAT CAMMACK, Florida JILL N. TOKUDA, Hawaii
BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois
JOHN W. ROSE, Tennessee ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
RONNY JACKSON, Texas GABE VASQUEZ, New Mexico
MARCUS J. MOLINARO, New York JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
MONICA De La CRUZ, Texas JONATHAN L. JACKSON, Illinois
NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York GREG CASAR, Texas
JOHN S. DUARTE, California CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
ZACHARY NUNN, Iowa SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
MARK ALFORD, Missouri ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin DARREN SOTO, Florida
LORI CHAVEZ-DeREMER, Oregon SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
MAX L. MILLER, Ohio

______

Parish Braden, Staff Director

Anne Simmons, Minority Staff Director

______

Subcommittee on Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology

JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana, Chairman

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER,
MIKE BOST, Illinois Virginia, Ranking Minority Member
MARY E. MILLER, Illinois SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
KAT CAMMACK, Florida ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan
BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois
JOHN S. DUARTE, California ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
MARK ALFORD, Missouri JILL N. TOKUDA, Hawaii
GABE VASQUEZ, New Mexico

(ii)

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page
Baird, Hon. James R., a Representative in Congress from Indiana,
opening statement.............................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Finstad, Hon. Brad, a Representative in Congress from Minnesota,
submitted letter on behalf of Luther Markwart, Chief Executive
Officer, American Sugarbeet Growers Association; Anna Murphy,
Executive Vice President, Beet Sugar Development Foundation.... 109
Spanberger, Hon. Abigail Davis, a Representative in Congress from
Virginia, opening statement.................................... 4
Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from
Pennsylvania, opening statement................................ 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Submitted reports............................................ 71

Witnesses

Engel, Ph.D., Bernard ``Bernie'', Senior Associate Dean of
Agricultural Research and Graduate Education and Glenn W.
Sample Dean of Agriculture-Elect, College of Agriculture,
Purdue University; Director, Purdue Agricultural Experiment
Station, West Lafayette, IN.................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Submitted question........................................... 112
Grant, Ph.D., Alan L., Dean, College of Agriculture and Life
Sciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA........................ 13
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Submitted question........................................... 113
Kairo, Ph.D., Moses T.K., Professor, Dean, and Director of Land-
Grant Programs, School of Agricultural and Natural Sciences,
University of Maryland Eastern Shore, Princess Anne, MD........ 17
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Submitted questions.......................................... 113
Billy, J.D., Carrie L., President and Chief Executive Officer,
American Indian Higher Education Consortium, Alexandria, VA.... 24
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Submitted question........................................... 114
Krehbiel, Ph.D., Clinton R. ``Clint'', Dean, Davis College of
Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Texas Tech
University, Lubbock, TX........................................ 32
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Submitted question........................................... 116
Uhrich, Ph.D., Kathryn E., Dean, College of Natural and
Agricultural Sciences, University of California, Riverside,
Riverside, CA.................................................. 38
Prepared statement........................................... 39
Submitted question........................................... 117

A REVIEW OF TITLE VII: UNIVERSITY
PERSPECTIVES ON RESEARCH AND
EXTENSION PROGRAMS

----------

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 2023

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James R.
Baird [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Baird, Lucas, Miller of
Illinois, Cammack, Duarte, Alford, Thompson (ex officio),
Miller of Ohio, Spanberger, Slotkin, Budzinski, Sorensen,
Tokuda, and Adams.
Staff present: Caleb Crosswhite, Halee Fisher, Ricki
Schroeder, Erin Wilson, John Konya, DeShawn Blanding, Emily
Pliscott, Michael Stein, and Dana Sandman.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES R. BAIRD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM INDIANA

The Chairman. Just want to say good morning, and I guess I
better officially bring this hearing to order. I can't tell
you--this is off script, so if I do something wrong, GT, the
Chairman of our Agriculture Committee will straighten me out;
but, I can't tell you--this is a sincere comment--I can't tell
you how excited I am to have the expertise we have as witnesses
here today, and we are really looking forward to interacting
with you, and to have your expertise as we move forward to try
to do the farm bill. And so the input you have about research
and so on is extremely important.
And so, with that, I want to bring the Committee to order.
Better put my glasses on so I make sure I am on the script now.
But anyway, the title of this hearing is, A Review of Title
VII: University Perspectives on Research and Extension
Programs. And so, after we have some brief opening remarks, the
Members will have an opportunity to receive testimony from our
witnesses, and then the hearing will be open to questions from
the Members of the Committee.
So in consultation with the Ranking Member, and pursuant to
Rule XI(e), I want to make the Members of this Subcommittee
aware that other Members of the full Committee may join us
today. And, in case you hadn't picked up on it, GT Thompson,
the Chairman of our Agriculture Committee is with us. It is
good to have you with us, GT. I appreciate it. So, with that, I
would like to make an opening statement, if you will permit me,
and then the Ranking Member would like to have an opening
statement, and then we will move to testimony.
Today's hearing is about agricultural research, and all of
our witnesses are experts in that field, and extension
activities across the nation's universities. As a three-time
graduate of land-grant universities, and a former extension
agent, this is an issue near to my heart, and I am looking
forward to the discussion today. When USDA was created by
President Lincoln in 1862, the primary objective of the
Department was to: ``acquire and to diffuse among the people of
the United States useful information on subjects connected with
agriculture.'' And that continues to be a paradigm for today.
Just months after creating USDA, President Lincoln signed
the Morrill Act of 1862 (Pub. L. 37-130), establishing the
land-grant universities in each state, to teach agricultural
and mechanical arts. Today the land-grant universities have a
mission that is threefold, to provide instruction, conduct
research, and disseminate the instruction and research
throughout each state through the Cooperative Extension
Service. To ensure equitable access, Congress later expanded
the land-grant system, through the Morrill Act of 1890 (Pub. L.
51-841), which established historically Black colleges and
universities, and the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status
Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-382, Title V--Miscellaneous, Part C--
1994 Institutions), which conferred land-grant status to
several Tribal colleges and universities.
While Cooperative Extension Service is unique to 112
institutions in the land-grant system, other colleges and
universities also carry out important agricultural research and
teaching activities. Recognizing the role of other
universities, the 2008 Farm Bill included provisions to
identify non-land-grant colleges of agriculture, NLGCAs, and
Hispanic-serving agricultural colleges and universities,
HSACUs. Together, these institutions help educate the next
generation of agriculturists and perform the research necessary
to keep our American agriculture at the forefront of
productivity.
Many of the programs that provide capacity and competitive
funding for these institutions are authorized in the research
title of the farm bill. However, today's marks the first time
the House Committee on Agriculture has reviewed university
research and extension programs since the passage of the
Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018. When this Subcommittee met
a few months ago to hear directly from USDA on research program
efficacy, we discussed how agricultural research has yielded
our economy $20 for every $1 spent. I want to repeat that, $20
for every $1 we spend on agriculture research, an impressive
statistic despite public spending for agricultural research
declining since 2002. At that hearing we also heard about the
backlog of deferred maintenance on research facilities across
the nation.
To remain competitive with other countries, the United
States cannot forget the role of agricultural research, and the
important aspect that it plays in ensuring Americans have the
safest, the most abundant, and the most affordable food, fiber,
and energy supply in the world. Today's hearing presents us
with an opportunity to hear directly from all three types of
land-grants, a non-land-grant college of agriculture, and a
Hispanic-serving agricultural college or university. I am
looking forward to hearing about success stories from
investments in agricultural research, challenges facing our
institutions of higher education, and how the next farm bill
can continue to support the great work they are doing.
Today's hearing also gives us a chance to review the
research title and examine the opportunities for efficiencies
among the many programs up for reauthorization. While not every
program in the title receives subsequent appropriations, it is
worth noting that NIFA has over 60 unique funding lines that
receive appropriations each year, raising questions on
necessity and where opportunities exist to streamline.
I would like to thank the witnesses for taking time to be
here with us today. And I am especially excited to see Dr.
Bernie Engel from one of my alma maters, Purdue University, if
you will allow me, on today's panel. Just last week, Dr. Engel
was selected to be the next Glenn W. Sample Dean of Agriculture
at Purdue University. Congratulations on your appointment, and
thank you for being here today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baird follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. James R. Baird, a Representative in Congress
from Indiana
Good morning and welcome to today's hearing on agricultural
research and extension activities across the nation's universities. As
a three-time graduate of land-grant universities and a former extension
agent, this is an issue near to my heart and I am looking forward to
the discussion today.
When USDA was created by President Lincoln in 1862, the primary
objective of the Department was to ``acquire and to diffuse among the
people of the United States useful information on subjects connected
with agriculture.''
Just months after creating USDA, President Lincoln signed the
Morrill Act of 1862, establishing land-grant universities in each state
to teach agricultural and mechanical arts. Today, the land-grant
universities have a mission that is threefold: to provide instruction,
conduct research, and disseminate the instruction and research
throughout each state through the Cooperative Extension Service.
To ensure equitable access, Congress later expanded the land-grant
system through the Morrill Act of 1890--which established historically
black colleges and universities--and the Equity in Education Land-Grant
Status Act of 1994--which conferred land-grant status to several Tribal
colleges and universities.
While Cooperative Extension is unique to the 112 institutions in
the land-grant system, other colleges and universities also carry out
important agricultural research and teaching activities. Recognizing
the role of other universities, the 2008 Farm Bill included provisions
to identify non-land-grant colleges of agriculture (NLGCAs) and
Hispanic-serving agricultural colleges and universities (HSACUs).
Together, these institutions help educate the next generation of
agriculturists and perform the research necessary to keep American
agriculture at the forefront of productivity.
Many of the programs that provide capacity and competitive funding
for these institutions are authorized in the research title of the farm
bill; however, today marks the first time the House Committee on
Agriculture has reviewed university research and extension programs
since the passage of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018.
When this Subcommittee met a few months ago to hear directly from
USDA on research program efficacy, we discussed how agricultural
research has yielded our economy $20 for every $1 spent--an impressive
statistic despite public spending for agricultural research declining
since 2002. At that hearing, we also heard about the backlog of
deferred maintenance on research facilities across the nation.
To remain competitive with other countries, the United States
cannot forget the role agricultural research plays in ensuring
Americans have the safest, most abundant, and most affordable food,
fiber, and energy supply in the world.
Today's hearing presents us with an opportunity to hear directly
from all three types of land-grants, a non-land-grant college of
agriculture, and a Hispanic-serving agricultural college or university.
I am looking forward to hearing about success stories from investments
in agricultural research, challenges facing our institutions of higher
education, and how the next farm bill can continue to support the great
work they are doing.
Today's hearing also gives us a chance to review the research title
and examine the opportunities for efficiencies among the many programs
up for reauthorization. While not every program in the title receives
subsequent appropriations, it is worth noting that NIFA has over 60
unique funding lines that do receive appropriations each year--raising
questions on necessity, and where opportunities exist to streamline.
I would like to thank the witnesses for taking time to be here with
us today. I am especially excited to see Dr. Bernie Engel from one of
my alma maters, Purdue University, on today's panel. Just last week,
Dr. Engel was selected to be the next Glenn W. Sample Dean of
Agriculture at Purdue University. Congratulations on your appointment
and thank you for being here today.
With that, I recognize Ranking Member Spanberger for any opening
remarks she would like to make.

The Chairman. With that, I will recognize Ranking Member
Spanberger for any opening remarks she would like to make.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM VIRGINIA

Ms. Spanberger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too am an alumna
of Purdue University. That was where I got my graduate degree,
so a fun coming together, if you will. Thank you, Chairman
Baird. I am excited to be here with you for another
Subcommittee hearing to focus on research in the farm bill. I
look forward to collaborating with you to support universities
from Indiana to Virginia, and I am excited to have a
representative of Virginia Tech, Dean Alan Grant, here to be a
part of this conversation. I also look forward to hearing from
our witnesses today about how agriculture programs at colleges
and universities throughout the country are conducting research
to directly address the challenges faced by U.S. farmers, build
more resilient food systems, respond to workforce challenges,
and promote U.S. competitiveness.
Today we will also hear testimonies on the needs of these
research programs and how we can ensure the investments in this
year's farm bill are responsive to the institutions that are on
the front lines of this research. Public investment in
agricultural research is critical to the success of American
agriculture. Research, development, and technological
advancements have increased crop yields and improved crop
resiliency in the United States relative to other nations.
However, U.S. agricultural research funding is not currently
keeping pace with competitor nations. China is now outspending
the U.S. by more than two to one on public agricultural
research. A safe and resilient food supply is critical to both
maintaining American farmers' competitive edge over other
nations and promoting U.S. national security. We must view
agricultural research investments as part of a broader U.S.
effort to promote American competitiveness globally, as well as
support our farmers locally.
Back home in Virginia, I have heard from farmers and our
institutions of higher education about the critical nexus
between research and the success of Virginia's number one
private industry, agriculture. I hope this hearing will build
on the great discussion that I had at my Farm Bill Summit in
April, where we had panelists from Virginia Tech and Virginia
State University discuss their work on research, workforce
development, and the Cooperative Extension System.
I am amazed by the critical work done at universities in
Virginia, with our land-grant universities collaborating with
USDA to complete cutting-edge research. At Virginia Tech,
professors and students are focused on research and grants to
help farmers implement climate-smart practices, promote the
Virginia seafood industry, improve pest management tools, and
so much more. At Virginia State University, professors and
students work on research to minimize crop losses from pests,
advance specialty crops, and improve soil and water quality,
just to name a few. We then see research results put into
action through extension. And I am proud of Virginia's unique
extension system, where Virginia Tech, our state's 1862 land-
grant university, and Virginia State University, our
historically black 1890s institution, collaborate to administer
extension services in every county.
I believe collaboration between research institutions and
extension educators strengthens the service and perspective
provided to farmers across the Commonwealth. Our extension
system proves time and time again that investment in
universities and research directly translates into investment
in farmers and our rural communities. Seeing this collaboration
in action reaffirms my commitment to investing in all types of
agricultural research programs, from the original designated
land-grant universities to minority serving institutions, to
non-land-grant colleges of agriculture. All of these
institutions are also critical for training the next generation
of the agriculture workforce and promoting U.S. agriculture's
competitive edge over other nations to ensure our farmers can
thrive. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back, and
now I would like to move to the Chairman of our Agriculture
Committee, the full Committee, and let him have the opportunity
to make opening comments.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. Thompson. Well, Chairman Baird, thank you very much.
Good morning, everybody, and thank you to Chairman Baird,
Ranking Member Spanberger, for convening this really important
hearing. The farm bill that we are working on will obviously
serve those in America's number one industry, agriculture, from
2023, when we get this done, to 2028. What we need to do is
make sure we are creating a platform for the future, for what
is over the horizon. And that starts with great institutions
who are educating and preparing the best and the brightest to
be able to lead, and to be centers of exploration, and science
and technology to be able to develop those tools that we need
today, and, quite frankly, we will need even more tomorrow, and
in the future.
And so, since the 1940s, American farmers, ranchers, and
foresters have increased agriculture outputs nearly threefold
with little to no change in inputs. Just tremendously
remarkable. Nobody does it with more efficiency and more
productively anywhere in the world. This is an impressive
statistic that would not be possible without Federal and state
investments in cutting-edge research conducted at our land-
grant and non-land-grant colleges of agriculture. These
advancements further the fact that American agriculture is
steeped in science, technology, and innovation, quite frankly,
which is my definition of American agriculture. Today's hearing
is an opportunity to review programs authorized in the research
title of the farm bill to ensure our universities are equipped
to solve the challenges facing agriculture now, and well into
the future.
I am proud to represent University Park in my home county
of Centre County. Actually, University Park was originally
farmland owned by Moses Thompson, who donated it for the
construction of the Farmers' High School. I wish I could claim
a relationship, but it just doesn't work out when I look at the
family tree. But it is home of Pennsylvania's only land-grant
university today, and I had the recent opportunity to spend
some time with a number of our great Agriculture Committee
staff members, with faculty and staff from Penn State, on this
and many other issues, and I am continuously impressed with the
work they are doing.
Now, today's panel represents all types of land-grants,
non-land-grant colleges of agriculture, and Hispanic-serving
agricultural colleges and universities. And I really do
appreciate the witnesses who have taken the time, and really
the sacrifice, to be able to travel here to be a part of this
panel and joining us here today, and I look forward to hearing
about the great work that they are doing. And with that, Mr.
Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress
from Pennsylvania
Good morning, and thank you to Chairman Baird and Ranking Member
Spanberger for convening this hearing.
Since the 1940s, American farmers, ranchers, and foresters have
increased agriculture outputs nearly threefold with little to no change
in inputs.
This is an impressive statistic which would not be possible without
Federal and state investments in the cutting-edge research conducted at
our land-grant and non-land-grant colleges of agriculture.
These advancements further the fact that American agriculture is
steeped in science, technology, and innovation.
Today's hearing is an opportunity to review programs authorized in
the research title of the farm bill to ensure our universities are
equipped to solve the challenges facing agriculture now, and well into
the future.
I am proud to represent State College--home of Pennsylvania's only
land-grant university. I had the recent opportunity to spend some time
with faculty and staff from Penn State on this and many other issues,
and I am continuously impressed with the work they are doing.
Today's panel represents all types of land-grants, non-land-grant
colleges of agriculture, and Hispanic-serving agricultural colleges and
universities. I appreciate the witnesses joining us here today and look
forward to hearing about the great work they are doing.
With that, I yield back.

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And now I want to
remind other Members that they can submit their opening
statements for the record so that the witnesses may begin their
testimony, and to ensure that there is ample time for
questions.
So our first witness today is Dr. Bernard Engel. He is the
Senior Associate Dean of Agricultural Sciences at Purdue
University. And my information suggests, Dr. Engel, that you
have a--tremendous experience in agricultural, rural, urban,
and mixed land use water sheds, and a range of constituents,
including nutrients, pesticides, and soil erosion. In fact, you
are rated in the top one percent of your field globally, so I
congratulate you, and I congratulate you, as I did earlier, for
your progress in Purdue University.
And so, with that, our second witness is to be introduced
by Ranking Member Spanberger, and so I will turn it over to
you.
Ms. Spanberger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am proud to
welcome our next witness, Dr. Alan Grant, Dean of the College
of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University. He directs Virginia Tech's
great work in research on agriculture, human and animal health
and nutrition, and so much more. I am glad to have a great
representative of our Commonwealth join us here today. Thank
you for being here.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Spanberger. And our next
witness is Dr. Moses Kairo, the Dean of the School of
Agricultural and Natural Sciences at the University of Maryland
Eastern Shore.
Our fourth witness today is Ms. Carrie Billy, the Chief
Executive Officer and President of the American Indian Higher
Education Consortium. So, welcome, we appreciate you being
here.
Our fifth witness is Dr. Clint Krehbiel, the Dean of the
Davis College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources at
Texas Tech University. We had a great conversation yesterday,
so it is good to see you again, sir.
Our sixth witness, and final witness today, is Dr. Kathryn
Uhrich, the Dean of the College of Natural and Agricultural
Sciences at the University of California, Riverside.
So I want to thank all of you, and for all of your
background, and research, and so on for being with us here
today. And now we will proceed with your testimony, and each of
you will receive 5 minutes, and there is a timer somewhere in
front of you that you can keep track of the time, and it will
count down to zero, at which point your time will have expired.
So, with that, Dr. Engel, we are going to start with you, so
please begin whenever you are ready.

STATEMENT OF BERNARD ``BERNIE'' ENGEL, Ph.D., SENIOR
ASSOCIATE DEAN OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND GRADUATE EDUCATION
AND GLENN W. SAMPLE DEAN OF AGRICULTURE-ELECT, COLLEGE OF
AGRICULTURE,
PURDUE UNIVERSITY; DIRECTOR, PURDUE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT
STATION, WEST LAFAYETTE, IN

Dr. Engel. Good morning, Chairman Baird, Ranking Member
Spanberger, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to be
here to offer testimony on behalf of the College of Agriculture
at Purdue University. Thank you for hosting this hearing to
learn more about how universities utilize the research and
extension programs that are the foundation of the farm bill.
Continued support for core programs that fortify our nation's
research, extension, and education system serving U.S. food,
agriculture, and forestry systems is needed. Public colleges,
including Purdue University, foster excellence in research
innovation, while educating future leaders.
We support the policy recommendations put forth by the
Association of Public and Land-grant Universities regarding the
upcoming farm bill. USDA's NIFA is a critical partner of land-
grant institutions and provides important support through
programs within Title VII. While APLU's recommendations are
many, I will highlight three areas, capacity funds, competitive
funds, and infrastructure. These directly impact Purdue
University.
Capacity funds allow our institutions to have the right
people and capabilities in place to quickly respond to local
issues while sustaining long-term research programs. For
Purdue, the majority of these funds come from the Hatch (Pub.
L. 49-314), Smith-Lever (Pub. L. 63-79), and McIntire-Stennis
(Pub. L. 87-788) Acts. Purdue uses capacity funding, including
Hatch and Smith-Lever, to support an extension plant pathology
scientist and Purdue Plant and Pest Diagnostic Lab. Both are
critical in identifying and managing new plant diseases and
pests in Indiana, such as corn tar spot in recent years. The
Hatch Multi-State Research Fund is a critical tool for 1862
land-grant institutions that conduct research important to more
than one state. This program encourages collaborations across
institutions, and leverages funding to create greater impact.
The Smith-Lever Act provides capacity funding to delivery
extension programming to rural and urban communities, including
nutrition education, community planning, youth education, and
farm safety programs, among others. The McIntire-Stennis Act
provides capacity funds to increase forestry research and
extension. These resources have allowed Purdue to hire
scientists to provide practical resources to forest land
owners, while advancing digital technologies to manage forest
resources, making Purdue a leader in digital forestry.
I want to thank the Committee for its continued support of
NIFA's Agriculture and Food Research Initiative, or AFRI. A
Purdue strength is an emphasis on collaborations across
disciplines, and within other institutions, as well as with
industry. This has allowed our researchers to be competitive
and successful in receiving funding from AFRI programs. An
example of this success is the AFRI Sustainable Ag Systems
Program. Purdue faculty currently lead three SAS grants,
totaling $10 million each, to address building diverse ag
systems, increasing seafood production through aquaponics, and
improving forestry health through digital technologies.
Our researchers are also at the forefront of using
biotechnology to make important advances in both plant and
animal agriculture. Jianxin Ma, for example, is a leader in
soybean genomics. He is modifying soybeans using leading-edge
techniques to substantially increase soybean pod numbers, which
could ultimately lead to significant increases in yields for
farmers.
Investment in agricultural research infrastructure is
needed as we look to our universities to address additional
national challenges. China, India, and Brazil have all made
increasing investments in this area, and are quickly gaining
on, and in some cases surpassing, the U.S. in terms of
capabilities. To remain competitive, we need to strengthen our
commitment to invest in new facilities. Re-authorizing the
Research Facilities Act (Pub. L. 88-774) and increased funding
would be a first step in meeting some of these infrastructure
needs. We believe inclusion of some level of cost-share
requirement would increase the likelihood that universities and
states are committed to support and maintain that
infrastructure.
The recent global health crisis exposed significant risk to
our country's health, food, and ag resiliency. Land-grant
institutions play a critical role as conveners of partners,
including Federal agencies and private industry, to address
this issue. Purdue is working with Sandia National Laboratories
on an effort funded by the Department of Homeland Security to
create a health food and ag resiliency university consortium to
bring groups together to tackle this challenge.
In conclusion, robust Federal investment in agricultural
research and extension is necessary to ensure U.S. farmers
remain competitive globally, while strengthening our food and
ag supply chain, and ensuring the resiliency of our ag and food
systems. Thank you for the opportunity to provide remarks
today. I will be happy to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Engel follows:]

Prepared Statement of Bernard ``Bernie'' Engel, Ph.D., Senior Associate
Dean of Agricultural Research and Graduate Education and Glenn W.
Sample Dean of Agriculture-Elect, College of Agriculture, Purdue
University; Director, Purdue Agricultural Experiment Station, West
Lafayette, IN
Good morning, Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Spanberger, and
Members of the Subcommittee. I am Dr. Bernie Engel, Senior Associate
Dean and Director of Agricultural Research and Graduate Education and
Dean elect of the College of Agriculture at Purdue University, where I
am also a professor in the Department of Agricultural and Biological
Engineering. I also serve as the director of the Purdue Agricultural
Experiment Station. I am pleased to be here today to offer testimony on
behalf of the College of Agriculture at Purdue University, a top five
globally ranked college of agriculture and forestry.
On a personal note, I want to share that I was a member of the
first class of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Needs
Fellowship, a program run by National Institute Food and Agriculture
(NIFA) and authorized through the farm bill. I believe if not for that
program, I would not have pursued the career path I did. I was
finishing my MS Agricultural Engineering degree when this program
awarded the inaugural round of fellowships with highly competitive
stipend rates. I was contacted and encouraged by faculty from multiple
land-grant colleges of agriculture to explore the opportunity and
ultimately pursued and completed my Ph.D. at Purdue University in use
of artificial intelligence in hydrologic/water quality modeling. I
share that experience as an example of how Federal investment in
research can have a ripple effect as I sit before you now in part
because of that fellowship program.
Thank you for hosting this hearing to learn more about how
universities utilize the research and extension programs that are at
the foundation of the farm bill. Continued support of the core programs
that fortify our nation's research, Extension and education system
serving U.S. food, agriculture and forestry systems is needed. Our
community of researchers, extension specialists and educators make an
impact at every level of our society today while addressing the big
challenges of tomorrow.
As we look to the next farm bill, we must continue to prioritize a
strong investment in both agricultural research and extension. Public
colleges of agriculture, including Purdue University and other land-
grant universities, foster excellence in research innovation while
training future leaders in agriculture, natural resource and food
systems. Public research accelerates technology adoption, growth of the
agricultural and food marketplace, entrepreneurship, and public-private
partnerships, returning $20 to the economy for every $1 spent. In
recent years, we have seen other countries, including China, India and
Brazil, rapidly expand investment in public agricultural research which
threatens U.S. competitiveness globally.
We support the policy recommendations put forth by the Association
of Public & Land-grant Universities (APLU) Board on Agriculture
Assembly regarding Title VII, the Research Title, of the upcoming farm
bill. USDA's NIFA is a critical partner of land-grant institutions and
provides important support through the programs within Title VII. While
APLU's recommendations are many, I would like to highlight three
areas--capacity funds, competitive funds and infrastructure--that
directly impact Purdue University and the work of our researchers,
educators and Extension specialists.
NIFA provides legislatively authorized capacity funds--which are
matched at state and local levels--that allow our universities,
including state agricultural experiment stations, to perform
agricultural research and extension programs that benefit U.S.
agriculture and rural prosperity. NIFA's competitive funds allow for
our researchers and extension specialists to address the grand
challenges affecting our nation and world while training the next
generation of agricultural scientists. I would like to give some
specific examples of how Purdue University is making an impact through
both capacity and competitive programs.
Capacity Funds
Capacity funds allow our institutions to have the right people and
capabilities in place to respond quickly to local and regional issues
while also sustaining long-term research programs. These funds also
promote the creation of multi-state and multi-institutional
collaborations to form regional and national research and extension
systems to address more complex, multi-dimensional challenges. For
Purdue, the majority of these funds come from the Hatch, Smith-Lever
and McIntire-Stennis Acts. Let me give you some examples from each of
these.
The Hatch Act of 1887 supports the capacity of 1862 land-grant
universities, including Purdue University, to perform agricultural
research in university departments and at state agricultural experiment
stations.

Purdue uses capacity funding, including Hatch and Smith-
Lever, to support an Extension Plant Pathology scientist and
the Purdue Plant and Pest Diagnostic Lab. Both are critical
when it comes to identifying, tracking and managing new plant
diseases and pests that move into Indiana. In 2018, the lab
identified the first instance of tar spot in Indiana corn
fields. With resources in place, Purdue researchers and
Extension specialists were able to quickly identify and work on
management options. This also set Purdue up to lead regional
efforts to track and manage the progression of tar spot across
the north central states. Today, Dr. Darcy Telenko, Purdue's
Extension plant pathologist, has more than 100 scouting and
research plots, including at the Purdue Agricultural Centers,
across the state to monitor crop disease pressures and is
working with county Extension educators through the Purdue On-
the-Farm Program to submit data from corn and soybean fields,
including disease issues. Dr. Telenko is a great example of a
federally-supported applied research program that quickly
translates research and gets it into the hands of the
stakeholders who need it.

The Hatch Multi-State Research Fund is another critical tool
1862 Land-Grant institutions have to conduct research to solve
problems that concern more than one state. This program
encourages partnership, collaboration and coordination across
land-grants, as well as with Federal scientists, state agencies
and others, and leverages funding dollars to create impacts and
outcomes greater than what individual institutions can
accomplish on their own. Purdue researchers are involved in 93
multi-state projects, including one that looks at soybean
diseases in the north-central region and beyond.

Reducing the use of antibiotics in livestock production is
an important area of research across land-grant universities.
Researchers at Purdue are working on this challenge in a
variety of ways, including looking at how gut health impacts
the overall well-being of animals. Animal sciences researchers,
supported in part by capacity funds, are working to find out
what is happening at the gut level in pigs to help solve
problems like efficiency, waste and overall health of the
animals. Another example is work being done in Purdue's
agricultural and biological engineering department to develop
sensor-based technology to rapidly detect disease, including
specific bacteria present, in livestock on the farm instead of
sending samples to a lab. This would allow producers to quickly
treat sick animals with the correct antibiotics for the
bacteria present which can save animals and reduce unnecessary
antibiotic usage.

The Smith-Lever Act authorizes the Cooperative Extension System and
supports agricultural extension at 1862 land-grant universities.
Extension links the research performed at public land-grant
universities to its application in local communities and well beyond
with today's communications technologies. This capacity funding allows
Extension to provide a variety of reliable services to both rural and
urban communities, including nutrition education, community planning,
youth education and farm safety programs, to name just a few.

Our Extension specialists and educators also use the
Expanded Food Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) to provide
nutrition education programming to low-income families to help
them develop healthy nutrition and physical activity habits.
The nutrition education programs delivered through Purdue
Extension funded by SNAP-Ed and EFNEP are increasing access to
fruits and vegetables in limited resource neighborhoods in
Indiana through multi-level intervention and community health
approaches. In FY22 we partnered with 58 organizations
statewide to grow, donate, and distribute over 60,000 servings
of produce.

In urban settings like Gary, Indiana there is demand for
fresh fruits and vegetables and space for urban farming to
occur but very few urban farms in the city. Through applied
research and extension supported by the Sustainable Agriculture
Research and Education (SARE) program, Purdue increased
opportunities for effective and sustainable training, learning
and networking to build and sustain local growers to develop a
sustainable and resilient food system.

To remain competitive, rural and small businesses need a
well-designed online presence. Purdue Extension created a
program to share strategies for entrepreneurs and business
owners to learn how to reach more customers, how to use digital
transactions, how to be discovered by potential customers, and
ways to improve customer online experience. The results
included increased customer engagements, customer base, and
sales.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) has suggested that farmers represent an occupational
group with one of the highest levels of job-related stress. The
Purdue Farm Stress Team is working closely with the ag industry
and producers to provide resources to help manage stress on the
farm. The team has also played a role in the newly formed 988
suicide and crisis hotline, including the development of farm/
rural-specific training modules for hotline operators across
the country that will be rolled out in coming months.

Purdue Extension's Work Ready curriculum teaches skills
necessary to increase the number of qualified applicants for
U.S. job openings. Extension educators statewide teach the Work
Ready curriculum to both high school students and adults.
Educators are encouraged to choose the topics that best serve
their populations. The curriculum adheres to the Cooperative
Extension Service's practice of teaching only research-based
information in a hands-on format.

The poultry industry identified the need for coordinated and
consistent training for employees and food safety training in
table egg production. In 2019, Purdue Extension developed the
Shell Egg Academy with a holistic approach recognizing the food
safety connection between live production houses (laying hens)
and egg processing plants.

The McIntire-Stennis Act provides capacity funds to increase
forestry research and to train future forestry scientists. Indiana has
an abundance of both managed and unmanaged forests across the state,
especially in our southern counties. McIntire-Stennis funds have
allowed Purdue to hire top-notch scientists and Extension specialists
to not only provide practical resources to forest landowners but to
also develop and apply advancements in digital technology to manage
forest resources.

Purdue is a leader in Digital Forestry research. Building on
a strategic investment by the university and McIntire-Stennis
capacity funding, Purdue researchers have secured significant
Federal funding through the USDA NIFA Sustainable Agricultural
Systems (SAS) and USDA Climate-Smart Commodities program to
help landowners adopt information from digital technologies to
better manage their forests. The Center for Digital Forestry at
Purdue University is working towards developing unmanned aerial
platforms, backpack-based systems, ground based vehicle
platforms, and strategies that leverage digital technology to
measure, monitor and manage urban and rural forests to maximize
social, economic and ecological benefits. The technology has
demonstrated the potential to move from characterizing a low
percentage of trees in a typical forest management unit to
characterizing every tree in the unit with an ultimate goal of
characterizing every tree on the planet.
Competitive Programs
The Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) is the flagship
competitive grants program through USDA's National NIFA. AFRI grants
fund research, education and extension programs that address national
challenges in agriculture and food systems. I want to thank the
Committee for its continued support of AFRI and encourage its re-
authorization at the $700 million level.
I believe one of Purdue's strengths is the strong emphasis with
regards to collaborations not only across disciplines within the
College of Agriculture but also across the university, with other
research institutions, as well as with industry. This emphasis has
allowed our researchers to be extremely competitive in receiving
funding from a variety of AFRI programs.

Our researchers have been particularly successful in the
AFRI Sustainable Ag Systems (SAS) grants program which focuses
on making transformational changes in the country's food and
agriculture system. We currently have faculty who are lead
investigators on three multi-year SAS grants each totaling $10
Million to address subjects including building diverse ag
systems in the Corn Belt, increasing seafood production through
aquaponics, and improving forest health through digital
technologies.

The Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI) supports
research on fruits and vegetables with a goal to make these
crops easier to manage and less expensive to grow. We support
the reauthorization of SCRI and removal of the matching
requirement which is a hindrance in many situations. Purdue
researchers, with collaborators from University of Illinois and
University of New Hampshire, are using SCRI funding to help
small farmers in both urban and rural settings better
understand pest pressures when using high tunnels to raise
produce. The 4 year project will lead to integrated pest
management and crop management recommendations, as well as an
online tool to help growers improve yields and profits and to
improve food security for local communities across the U.S.

Purdue animal science researchers are exploring how to
maximize well-being for hens in cage-free conditions through a
NIFA competitive grant. They are developing computer simulation
models to better understand what environments hens prefer and
then will build out the environments to test the reaction of
the hens. The goal is to maximize comfort and well-being for
the hens while meeting the goals of the producer.

Our researchers are also at the forefront of using
biotechnology to make important advances in both plant and
animal agriculture. Jianxin Ma, a leader in soybean genomics
and researcher at Purdue, is modifying soybeans using leading-
edge techniques to increase the number of nodules, which fix
nitrogen, on soybean roots. His basic genomic research is
leading to a substantial increase in the number of soybean pods
on plants which could ultimately lead to a significant increase
in yields. Because of his ground-breaking work, the Indiana
Soybean Alliance--the state soybean check-off organization
funded by farmers through a small check-off fee on soybean
sales--invested in an endowed chair of soybean genetics at
Purdue, which Ma fills. This commitment by Indiana soybean
farmers extends the investment by USDA in an important area for
not only our state but the entire U.S. soybean industry.
Ag Research Infrastructure Needs
Investment in agricultural research infrastructure is needed as we
look to our universities to do leading-edge research to address
national needs and challenges and attract/retain top-level talent.
China, India and Brazil have been investing heavily in this area and
are quickly gaining on--and in some cases surpassing--the U.S. in terms
of capabilities. To remain competitive, we need to strengthen our
commitment to support new facilities that support both current and
future research.
We recently completed a 5 year master plan for a portion of
Purdue's College of Agriculture research portfolio and found more than
$300 million in needs for new facilities. This is not maintenance on
current infrastructure. This is new construction to create new
capabilities to conduct new, innovative research. Purdue and the state
of Indiana have been investing in facilities but we cannot invest fast
enough to meet all of the needs. Within the last 10 years, we have
built state-of-the-art research and teaching facilities for both animal
sciences and agricultural and biological engineering with support from
our state government.
Re-authorization of the Research Facilities Act and increased
funding would be a great first step in meeting some of these
agricultural research infrastructure needs. We believe the inclusion of
some level of cost-share requirement would increase the likelihood that
universities and states are truly invested and committed longer-term to
support and maintain this infrastructure.
Looking to the Future
The agricultural research and extension efforts--supported by
programs within Title VII of the farm bill--that I have outlined today
are ultimately about addressing today's needs while working towards the
future of our agriculture, food and natural resource systems.
We have seen the intersections of agriculture and national security
during the recent global health crises that exposed significant risks
to our health, food and agricultural resiliency. Land-grant
institutions can play a key role as a neutral convener of partners,
including Federal and state agencies, private industry and others, to
address this issue. Purdue is working with Sandia National Laboratories
on an effort funded by the Department of Homeland Security to create a
Health, Food and Agriculture Resiliency (HFAR) university consortium to
bring groups together to tackle this important challenge.
In conclusion, a robust Federal investment in agricultural research
and extension is necessary to ensure U.S. farmers remain competitive
globally while strengthening our food supply chain and ensuring the
resiliency of our agricultural and food systems. Continued investment
in the core research and extension programs and a look toward new
partnerships among Federal agencies, universities and the private-
sector will work towards the goal of food security. This investment in
a sustainable, safe and secure food and natural resource system helps
guarantee our national security.
As I noted earlier, our institution supports the APLU's policy
recommendations regarding Title VII which includes re-authorization and
funding of the core research, education, extension and infrastructure
programs to support agricultural research and extension.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to provide remarks today
on behalf of Purdue University, and thank for your continued support
for critical agricultural research and extension programs. I am happy
to answer any questions.

The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Engel. And, you mentioned
soybean genomics. That pheno-mobile, that is what I have named
it anyway, that you have, that has cameras on a spray rig that
can take pictures of those soybeans, and relate to the
phenotype and genotype. I think that is very interesting. Dr.
Grant, you can begin whenever you are ready.

STATEMENT OF ALAN L. GRANT, Ph.D., DEAN, COLLEGE OF
AGRICULTURE AND LIFE SCIENCES, VIRGINIA TECH, BLACKSBURG, VA

Dr. Grant. Good morning, Chairman Baird, Ranking Member
Spanberger, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to highlight the impacts of USDA's capacity and
competitive funding, in hopes that it will inform your
Subcommittee's work on the farm bill. I am going to start with
chatting a bit about our capacity funds.
As an 1862 land-grant university, Virginia Tech receives
capacity funds from USDA through the Hatch Act, the McIntire-
Stennis Program, Animal Health and Disease Program, and the
Smith-Lever Act. These are programs that enable us to deliver
programs throughout Virginia, and beyond. They allow us to
tailor our research and extension efforts toward regional and
local agricultural needs. It provides the boots on the ground
during unexpected events, or in times of crises, and it ensures
that our businesses have the information that they need to
serve their communities.
Giving you an example, at our Agriculture Research and
Extension Center in Winchester, Virginia, which specializes in
our commercial fruit industry and wine grape research, it is
conducting time sensitive relevant research on the spotted
lanternfly, and this is an invasive species that poses
significant threats to viticulture and the commercial fruit
production industry. It is estimated that the spotted
lanternfly leads to $40 billion in crop losses per year,
causing great concern for producers down the East Coast, but as
far west as Illinois.
And we are looking at a variety of ways to combat that
invasive species, but one way recently is the use of trained
dogs to detect spotted lantern fly eggs. And these dogs work
with producers, and they can identify infected plants, and this
allows the producer to address the invasion before the eggs are
able to hatch and destroy the crops, and it also is a way of
minimizing the use of insecticides.
In addition to capacity funding, faculty compete for grant
funding from the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative to
carry out both applied research, which is research that can be
applied quickly to the industry, translated to the industry, as
well as more long-term basic discovery research, which is
important in solving our future challenges in food and ag.
USDA funding at universities also results in faculty being
competitive for research from other Federal agencies, and state
agencies, and industry groups and foundations. To give you an
example: The faculty at the College of Agriculture and Life
Sciences alone are awarded $17 million on average annually from
USDA competitive funds. That helps them leverage an additional
$40+ million from other competitive sources to advance the food
and ag industry.
Data from USDA ERS shows that $1 in public investment has
returned $20 to American economy for food and ag research.
However, the same data also shows that spending on public ag
research peaked in 2002, but it has declined since 2002 to
where, in 2019, levels were equivalent to those in 1970. So
that just shows you the decrease in purchasing power that
inflation has on this flat funding. These are alarming trends.
They threaten the stability of the very system the U.S. relies
on to cultivate the agricultural workforce, to reinforce
domestic preparedness against pests and diseases, and ensure
the U.S. leadership in global food security and technology.
From a facilities perspective, deferred maintenance of our
agricultural research facilities and the limited growth of the
Research Facilities Act is limiting the quality and scope of
research possible. Another example, at our Winchester Station
we have faculty expertise to research new control agents for
plant diseases, but the regulatory standards for containment
have outpaced our ability to conduct such research in our very
aging facilities, and this has the potential to limit our
ability to find solutions for some of these plant diseases.
USDA capacity and competitive funding will continue to be
increasingly important at our universities. And, as we have
highlighted in our 2022 Global Agricultural Productivity
Report, which is led out of our college, increased public
investment in ag research and development is essential to
accelerate the productivity growth that is required for the
world's agricultural systems to be sustainable, to be resilient
to shocks, and USDA funding is essential in meeting this
mission.
So, again, thank you for your support of agricultural
research, extension, and education, and thank you for the
opportunity to speak today.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Grant follows:]

Prepared Statement of Alan L. Grant, Ph.D., Dean, College of
Agriculture and Life Sciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA
Thank you for the opportunity to highlight the impacts of USDA's
capacity and competitive funding in hopes that it will help inform your
Subcommittee's work on the farm bill. Strong investments in research
and extension programs are needed to keep pace with the evolving
agricultural landscape, especially as new and greater challenges
emerge.
Approximately 70% of public agricultural R&D is performed at land-
grant universities, non-land-grant colleges of agriculture, and other
non-Federal entities. The partnership between USDA and Virginia Tech is
critical in carrying out agricultural research, extension, and
educational activities. In addition to the programs that are led by
faculty on Virginia Tech's main undergraduate campus, Virginia Tech
also operates across the Commonwealth through a network of 11
Agricultural Research and Extension Centers (ARECs) and 107 local
extension offices. The programs led by the faculty at these sites serve
communities and businesses in Virginia and beyond.
Virginia Tech's ARECs and Extension offices are critical in
supporting Virginia's agriculture and forestry industries, which
contribute significantly to Virginia's economy. Virginia's largest
private industry is agriculture, which has an economic impact of $82.3
billion annually. When combined with forestry, these two industries
contribute $105 billion to the state economy and provide more than
490,000 jobs in Virginia, according to a recent study by the Weldon
Cooper Center for Public Service. As a land-grant university, Virginia
Tech works in partnership with Federal, state, and local government
stakeholders and industry to meet evolving agricultural needs in
Virginia, as well as throughout the country and around the world.
Capacity Funds
As an 1862 land-grant university, Virginia Tech receives capacity
funds from USDA through the Hatch Act, McIntire-Stennis Cooperative
Forestry Research Program, Animal Health and Disease Program, and the
Smith-Lever Act. These programs enable us to maintain a presence
throughout the Commonwealth, tailor our research and extension efforts
toward regional and local agricultural needs, provide boots on the
ground during unexpected events or in times of crises, and ensure
businesses have the information they need to serve their communities.
Hatch and McIntire-Stennis funds support research capacity at
Virginia Tech's 11 ARECs across the Commonwealth, which address
critical issues and innovations that affect agricultural production,
profitability, and sustainability, including areas like conservation,
economic analysis, food safety, invasive species, biosecurity and
precision agriculture. Virginia has a diverse agriculture industry in
terms of commodities produced. Virginia Tech's AREC system reflects
this diversity, spanning seafood research in coastal regions to
commercial fruit research in the Shenandoah Valley.
The Alson H. Smith, Jr. AREC located in Winchester, Virginia, which
specializes in the commercial fruit industry and wine grape research,
is conducting time-sensitive, relevant research directly impacting
local and regional producers. The spotted lanternfly is an invasive
species that poses significant threats to viticulture and commercial
fruit production. It is estimated that the spotted lanternfly leads to
$40 billion in crop loss per year, causing concern for producers down
the East Coast and as far west as Illinois. To combat the invasive
species, Virginia Tech researchers at the AREC are training dogs to
sniff out spotted lanternfly eggs. This detection allows producers to
identify affected plants, address the invasion before the eggs are able
to hatch and destroy crops, and prevent the overuse of insecticides.
This is only one of many examples of the great research underway at
Virginia Tech ARECs.
Similarly, Smith-Lever funds support cooperative extension and
provide the capacity needed to deliver vital, timely, practical
information to agricultural producers, small business owners,
communities, youth, and families. Extension allows us to apply science
locally, where it is needed. This past year, Virginia Tech was awarded
$80 million by the USDA to pilot a program that will incentivize
producers to implement climate-smart practices on farms of all sizes
and commodities, an initiative that could have significant impacts on
curbing climate-changing gases. Virginia Cooperative Extension will
play an important role in the delivery of this program.
Virginia Tech, Virginia's 1862 land-grant university, and Virginia
State University, Virginia's 1890 land-grant university, work together
to deliver extension programs to the Commonwealth. These educational
programs are critical to communities. In fact, USDA Economic Research
Service reports that without the U.S. Cooperative Extension System, 28%
additional [farmers] would have left farming over the last 30 years.
The work of our Extension offices can be found in every community
across the Commonwealth. The program offerings through Extension are
extensive and include nutrition education, financial literacy,
substance abuse prevention, and youth development programs. This
publicly funded, out-of-the classroom educational network combines the
expertise and resources of Federal, state and local partners to empower
youth, promote civic engagement, bolster interest in agriculture, and
help communities thrive.
Competitive USDA Grants
In addition to USDA capacity funding, faculty compete for grant
funding from the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI). USDA
grant funding supports both applied research, which can be translated
quickly to the industry, as well as the more long-term basic and
discovery research, which is important to solving our future challenges
in food and agriculture. USDA competitive grants and fellowships for
Food and Agriculture Sciences Education also support teaching programs
in agriculture and related areas. These teaching programs are important
if we are to continue preparing students to fill the growing demand for
jobs in food, agriculture, environmental, and natural resource
sciences.
The Research Facilities Act of the farm bill is also an important
source of competitive grant funding to modernize agricultural research
facilities. Access to high quality, modern facilities supports our
ability to attract top-level talent, conduct cutting-edge research, and
comply with evolving Federal research regulations. Increasing funds for
RFA in the farm bill is critical, especially given that an estimated
70% of research facilities at U.S. public colleges of agriculture are
at the end of their useful life with $11.5 billion in deferred
maintenance.
Stagnant Funding
Despite the long history of the demonstrated value and impact of
USDA capacity programs and competitive grants, funding for these
programs has remained flat or only seen minimal increases for years.
Data from the USDA Economic Research Service shows that $1 in public
investment in food and agriculture research has returned $20 to the
American economy. However, the same U.S. Economic Research Service data
also noted spending on public agriculture research peaked in 2002 and
declined to approximately where it was in 1970 by 2019, which
demonstrates the decreasing purchasing power inflation has on flat
funding. These alarming trends threaten the stability of the very
system the U.S. relies on to cultivate the agricultural workforce,
reinforce domestic preparedness against pests and diseases, and ensure
the U.S. leadership in global food security and technology.
From a facilities perspective, the deferred maintenance and limited
growth of the Research Facilities Act is leading to friction between
the quality and scope of research possible and the available facilities
to conduct the research. For example, the AREC in Winchester, Virginia
has the faculty expertise to research the impact of changing weather
patterns on specific crops, but the greenhouses are not designed to
properly test the needed research. Further, and more troubling, Federal
regulation regarding contamination requirements for agriculture
research are starting to outpace aging facility capabilities. This has
the potential to limit researchers' ability to study and understand
emerging diseases or invasive species.
Conclusion
The combination of capacity funding, which puts scientists in well-
equipped laboratories and puts extension professionals on the ground,
along with the competitive funding that supports new innovations and
discoveries, and the integration of all of this with our academic
mission, is what makes the land-grant university system so impactful.
USDA funding at universities also results in faculty being competitive
for research funding from other Federal agencies, state agencies,
industry groups, and foundations. Annually, Virginia Tech receives $16
million in capacity funding. Faculty in the College of Agriculture and
Life Sciences alone are awarded $17 million annually, on average, in
USDA competitive funds, helping leverage an additional $40+ million
from other competitive sources, such as the National Science
Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and Department of Energy, to
advance the food and agriculture industry.
Some additional impacts of USDA capacity and competitive funding at
Virginia Tech include the following:

Development of new diagnostic tools that identify disruptive
pathogens in soybean fields across the U.S., which facilitates
the selection of effective treatments, and saves billions of
dollars globally.

Identification of genes for breeding disease-resistant
soybeans.

Development of climate models to examine nitrogen loads in
the Chesapeake Bay as more extreme weather events occur and
with weather variability.

Development of the Healthy Beverage Index to measure
beverage intake patterns to assess healthy dietary patterns,
which can be used to improve public health and assist in the
battle against obesity and related chronic diseases.

Extension funding to support Virginia's 4-H programs, which
reach nearly 200,000 youth from urban and rural areas
participating in youth education programs, many of which are
from underrepresented groups that would not have access to such
programs without 4-H.

Delivery of outreach and education programs in high schools
and hospitals to address the opioid crisis, a crisis that has
impacted almost all communities in many ways including the
agricultural community.

Research and extension programs to combat invasive species,
such as the spotted lanternfly, the brown marmorated stink bug,
and avian flu, which cause millions of dollars in losses.

Discovery that inclusion of gut microbiome data is an
important factor in the prediction of feed efficiency in
cattle.

The Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) is
an essential nutrition education program that targets low-
income populations and is proven to improve diets, increase
safe food handling practices, and help make food dollars go
farther.

In summary, USDA capacity and competitive funding will continue to
be increasingly important at our universities. As highlighted in the
2022 Global Agricultural Productivity Report, led out of Virginia
Tech's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, increased public
investment in agricultural research and development is essential to
accelerate productivity growth that is required for the world's
agricultural systems to be sustainable and resilient to shocks.
At Virginia Tech, we aspire to be among the best colleges of
agriculture and life sciences, and among the best land-grant
universities for the benefit of the agriculture industry and the people
it serves. USDA funding is essential in meeting this mission.
Thank you for your support of agricultural research, extension, and
education, and thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.

The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Grant. And, I really
appreciate you recognizing the importance of animal agriculture
in agriculture. And then I always learn something from these
sessions, particularly from people like you. I didn't realize
we were training dogs to detect insects, pests, and so on and
so on. Very interesting.
Dr. Grant. Thank you.
The Chairman. So, Dr. Kairo, you may begin whenever you are
ready.

STATEMENT OF MOSES T.K. KAIRO, Ph.D., PROFESSOR, DEAN, AND
DIRECTOR OF LAND-GRANT PROGRAMS, SCHOOL OF AGRICULTURAL AND
NATURAL SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND EASTERN SHORE,
PRINCESS ANNE, MD

Dr. Kairo. Thank you, Chairman Baird, Ranking Member
Spanberger, and Members of the Committee. On behalf of Dr. Paul
Jones, President of Fort Valley State University, and Chair of
the 1890 Council of Presidents, Dr. Heidi Anderson, President
of the University of Maryland Eastern Shore, my fellow 1890
agriculture deans, and the entire 1890 land-grant community, I
thank you for this opportunity to speak about programs under
Title VII of the farm bill, which are critically important for
us.
For 137 years UMES has distinguished itself by delivering
highly impactful programs. Today UMES is a Carnegie II Doctoral
Research University, offering innovative programs in
agriculture, health care, and many STEM areas. However, today I
am honored to appear on behalf of the entire 1890 community.
Title VII provides critical resources to support the three
core mission components of research, extension, and teaching at
the 19 1890 universities. The resources provide the
foundational capacity that facilitates program implementation,
and the ability to leverage additional resources from other
public- and private-sector entities. Before I discuss why Title
VII is so important to us, please allow me to thank Congress,
the Biden-Harris Administration, and the previous
Administrations for their support and efforts on behalf of the
1890 universities. Please allow me now to mention a few
specific programs.
The Evans-Allen Agricultural Research and the 1890
Extension Programs facilitate the implementation of programs
focusing on food security, natural resources, environmental
health, human health, and development. Our work targets
critical issues with the local, regional, national, or even
global dimension. For UMES, important focal areas include
commodities like poultry, safeguarding the Chesapeake
Watershed, and addressing issues that impinge on underserved
farmers and communities.
The Capacity Building Grants Program allows 1890s to
attract and retain highly productive faculty, such as Dr.
Parveen, a food safety specialist, and Dr. Zebelo, an
entomologist who coordinates the Northeast Regional node of the
IR-4 Program. The Scholarships for Students at 1890
Institutions allow us to train the next generation of food and
agricultural workers. This game-changing investment will bear
dividends for many years to come.
The six Centers of Excellence established through the 2018
Farm Bill are fostering strong collaborative work among all the
19 universities. While the 1890 Facilities Program has allowed
campuses to undertake limited maintenance, and develop some
limited new facilities, however, project implementation takes a
long time because of the limited size and process challenges.
There is a dire need for infrastructure to support existing and
new programs, such as the Veterinary Science Program being
developed by UMES, to address the serious, and national, large
vet shortage in this area.
In conclusion, the 1890 universities are making
indispensable contributions producing a skilled and diverse
national workforce, and implementing research and extension
programs that generate and apply solutions to underpin vibrant
rural and urban communities and economies, while addressing
other critical challenges.
We are very grateful to you for your past support, and
respectfully seek your commitment to the following 1890
priorities under Title VII of the 2023 Farm Bill.
Reauthorization of the following programs, Evans-Allen, 1890
Extension, 1890 Capacity Building Grants, 1890 Facilities
Improvement, Scholarship for Students at 1890 Institution, and
Centers of Excellence. We also request that the Evans-Allen
allocation as percentage share of Hatch funds be increased from
30 to 40 percent, and that tuition and fees for graduate
students be an allowable expense. Additionally, we request that
the allocation of 1890 extension as percentage share of Smith-
Lever funds be increased from 20 to 40 percent. We also request
that the number of Centers of Excellence be increased from six
to ten, and the allocation for each be increased to $5 million
per year.
I am deeply grateful for the opportunity to give this
testimony, and to share our perspectives. I look forward to
answering questions that you may have for me. Thank you very
much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Kairo follows:]

Prepared Statement of Moses T.K. Kairo, Ph.D., Professor, Dean, and
Director of Land-Grant Programs, School of Agricultural and Natural
Sciences, University of Maryland Eastern Shore, Princess Anne, MD
Introduction
Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Spanberger, and Members of the
Committee, on behalf of Dr. Paul Jones, Chair of the 1890 Council of
Presidents and President of Fort Valley State University in Georgia,
Dr. Heidi M. Anderson, President, University of Maryland Eastern Shore,
my Fellow 1890 Agriculture Deans, Research Directors, Extension
Administrators, and the entire 1890 land-grant community, I would like
to thank you for this opportunity to speak about programs under Title
VII of the farm bill many of which are critically important for 1890
land-grant universities.
I am Moses T. Kairo, and I have the privilege of serving as a
Professor and Dean for the School of Agricultural and Natural Sciences
at the University of Maryland Eastern Shore (UMES). I have been
committed to the mission of 1890 land-grant universities for over 18
years during which time I have been fortunate to serve two of these
fine institutions in various leadership capacities.
UMES was founded on September 13, 1886, as the Delaware Conference
Academy. For the last 137 years, UMES has distinguished itself for
delivering on the land-grant mission. Today, UMES is a Carnegie II
Doctoral Research University offering innovative programs in
agriculture, health care, and STEM areas.
Some of our undergraduate majors include: Agriculture,
Agribusiness, Environmental Science and Human Ecology; and graduate
programs at the masters and doctorate level in Food and Agricultural
Sciences, Marine, Estuarine and Environmental Sciences and Human
Ecology. However, today I am honored to appear on behalf of the entire
1890 community.
Title VII of the farm bill provides critical resources to support
the three core mission components of research, extension and workforce
development at UMES, and the other eighteen 1890 land-grant
universities. The resources provide the fundamental capacity that
allows the universities to implement programs. The universities also
leverage this support to obtain additional resources from the public-
and private-sectors in furtherance of these mission components and
deliver services to clientele.
I would now like to provide a brief explanation as to why Section
VII of the farm bill is so important to 1890 land-grant universities.
But, before I do that, I would like to thank the Congress, the Biden-
Harris Administration and previous Administrations for their support
and efforts on behalf of the 1890 land-grant universities.
Agricultural Research (Evans-Allen, Section 1445) and 1890 Extension
(Section 1444) at 1890 Land-Grant Colleges, including Tuskegee
university
At UMES, the funds underpin the Agricultural Experiment Station and
1890 Extension which together implement programs focusing on: food
security; natural resources and environmental health; and human health
and development. Our work within these themes focus on critical issues
that address local, regional, national or even global dimensions. Let
me highlight a few examples to illustrate why this is so important to
our integrated activities.
Food Security--Supporting a Critical Regional Industry
The poultry industry is the major economic driver on the Delmarva
Peninsula. According to the Delmarva Chicken Association, it generated
$5 billion in wholesale value in 2022 supporting approximately 1,300
farm families raising chickens and 18,300 chicken company employees.
One of the biggest challenges for the industry is attracting new
employees. UMES plays a critical role in training and exposing students
to careers in the industry. B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. graduates from UMES
are employed by the industry. UMES faculty work closely with industry
partners such as Merck, Perdue, Mountaire, Zoetis, Micronutrients,
etc., to conduct critical applied poultry research. UMES faculty
partner with our land-grant partners, University of Maryland College
Park, and University of Delaware faculty to conduct extension
educational workshops for chicken growers on Delmarva. These workshops
are held every other month and cover critical topics in poultry
production. Average grower attendance at these meetings is about 30-40.
Protection of the Chesapeake Bay
The Chesapeake watershed encompasses no less than six states and
the District of Columbia. It is a major economic driver for the region
with a footprint of $18 billion. Therefore, its protection is a
priority for all. Using Evans-Allen dollars, UMES in cooperation with
the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) has for over 20 years
conducted monitoring of ground water for nitrogen and phosphorus to
determine lateral movement of nutrients into ditches hence into the
waters of the Chesapeake. As part of this effort, we are working on
methods to control nutrients using curtains filled with gypsum to
prevent phosphorus from moving into ditches. This method has been shown
to reduce 95% of all phosphorus from moving into ditches and has been
deployed at several farms in the region. Since gypsum as flue gas
desulfurization gypsum is a byproduct of coal burning plants, use of
this material serves to advantages providing a useful method and using
a waste product to do it. The gypsum is approved by EPA for this use.
Also, in cooperation with ARS, two techniques for reducing nitrogen
runoff have been examined. While each are in the early stages of their
development, they show in principal the promise to reduce nitrogen
runoff by injecting dry poultry liter into the soil and break nitrates
down to nitrogen gas which is returned to the atmosphere using in-ditch
reactors that act on the nitrates. Work is ongoing to examine the
source of urea in waters which at one time was thought to be due to
agricultural activities, it is now clear that it is formed through
natural processes and use of urea as an alternative source of nitrogen
by farmers does not result in nutrient enrichment of the bay. This is
part of our commitment to an environmentally responsible sustainable
agriculture.
Advancing Digital Agriculture: Leveraging Precision Techniques,
Robotics and Artificial Intelligence, Multispectral Drone
Imagery, and Variable Rate Technologies
Overcoming fundamental challenges in digital agriculture at the
frontiers of computing, engineering, agriculture, and the environment
has a vast potential for transformative innovations that can pave the
way toward a more sustainable and climate-resilient food production
system. Digital agriculture and smart farming approaches are being
explored at UMES at two different scales and scopes. The focus of our
work is to optimize production agriculture practices by harnessing the
power of subsurface drip irrigation, wireless soil moisture sensors,
drones with multispectral cameras, automated grid sampling, variable
rate seeding, and variable rate fertilizer application, to optimize
resource allocation, enhance crop health, improve yield, enhance
profit, and promote environmental stewardship for corn, soybean, and
wheat rotation crops. The `smart' agriculture team is also working on
developing intelligent GPS and digital compass-guided robotic platforms
in water and agricultural fields that collect geo-located water quality
data and agronomic field data at user-specified waypoints. A critical
component of this work is that it also provides opportunities for
experiential training of students.
A Focus on Underserved Farmers and Communities
The 1890 land-grant universities have a specific mission to reach
underserved farmers and communities many of whom are small, socially
disadvantaged, and limited-resource farmers who are faced with many
constraints that prevent them from capitalizing on available
opportunities. Thus, the 1890 universities have implemented a range of
research and extension programs that specifically target these
clientele with the goal of removing constraints. These constraints
include technical support, certifications/regulation issues,
competition in the marketplace, inability/inconsistency to produce
large volume to satisfy a market, lack infrastructure (cold storage and
hauling capacity of produce to reach long-distance markets) and
difficulty in sourcing planting materials for certain specialty crops.
In response, the UMES Small Farm Program has established the ``Around
the Bay Farmers' Alliance Inc.,'' which now has a membership of 52
small farmers across the Eastern Shore. The program has provided
farmers with a safe place where farmers can work together and get
solutions to their problems. UMES conducts individual on-farm training
on crop production practices, harvesting, storage, packaging,
marketing, record keeping, and grant writing assistance with a focus on
crop diversification. Fifty percent of the farmers have obtained GAP
training and are getting ready to be audited this year to become GAP
certified producers. Furthermore, over 50% of the farmers have
registered as local certified growers with the Maryland Department of
Agriculture and are in the process of getting their nutrient management
plan which will enable them to operate as certified local growers.
Forty percent of small farmers are connected to new markets, food hubs
and the Maryland Food Bank. UMES extension agents have worked with
these farmers to mobilize resources for the establishment of an
aggregation center equipped with cold storage, and refrigerated truck,
selling over 10,000 lbs. of produce weekly. Over 50 specialty crops and
herbs are grown on the UMES Demonstration Farm to provide small farmers
with research-based information and educational workshops annually.

We respectfully request Congress to Reauthorize:

Agricultural Research (Section 1445, Evans Allen) at
1890 Land-Grant Colleges, including Tuskegee University
and increase the authorization to the equivalent of 40
percent of Hatch appropriations; allow Evans-Allen
funds to be used for graduate students' tuition and
fees.
Extension at 1890 Land-Grant Colleges, including
Tuskegee University and increase the authorization to
the equivalent of 40 percent of total Smith-Lever 3(b)
and 3(c) appropriations.
Capacity Building Grants Program for 1890 institutions--Building
Research, Extension and Teaching Capacity
The 1890 Capacity Building Grants Program has played a critical
role in helping 1890 land-grant universities to develop capacity in
research, extension and teaching. The program allows 1890 universities
to attract and retain high quality faculty and enables them to
establish high quality programs which are responsive to stakeholder
needs. Let me illustrate the impact of the program by highlighting the
work of two faculty:
Dr. Salina Parveen has been at UMES for the last 15 years. During
this time she has leveraged funds from this program to develop a
thriving and impactful internationally recognized research and
education program in food safety and water quality, with collaborators
from academia, industry, state and Federal agencies. She has leveraged
more than $20 million to support her work. She has trained 13 Ph.D. and
five M.S. students as well as many B.S. graduates who now work for the
Federal Government, in industry and other universities. Results from
her work have been used by the scientific community, regulatory
agencies and industry to address food safety challenges for seafood and
poultry. For example, methods developed through her work to control
vibrios in oysters and Salmonella in poultry are being applied in the
field. Her research has generated many scientific publications in
nationally and internationally recognized peer-reviewed journals. She
has written many book chapters, technical reports, conference abstracts
and presentations across the globe. She has/is serving on multiple
regional, national and international committees.
Dr. Simon Zebelo, a relatively new faculty member, has been with
UMES for 8 years. He, has leveraged funds from this program to
establish a thriving research and education program which has now grown
to receive more than $7.5 million in grant support. He has trained four
Ph.D. and six M.S. students and multiple B.S. graduates who are working
for industry and academia or pursuing advanced degrees. He has
published 11 papers and more than 50 abstracts with his students. Dr.
Zebelo has established a Center for Integrated Pest Management at UMES.
He also currently provides leadership for the Northeast Regional
Component for the USDA-NIFA funded Inter-Regional Research program (IR-
4) which provides pest management solutions for minor crops. IR-4 is
another critical program under Title VII which is celebrating its 60th
anniversary this year. This program serves many farmers in the region.
Under the program, Dr. Zebelo collaborates with 23 researchers from 13
states and the District of Columbia.

We therefore respectfully request Congress to
Reauthorize the Capacity Building Grants Program for
1890 institutions.
Scholarships for Students at 1890 Institutions--Training the next
generation of food and agricultural workers
America has been a global leader in agricultural research and
innovation driven by the availability of sharp minds many of whom are
trained at land-grant universities. Over the last 4 years, the
Scholarships for Students at 1890 Institutions have made a significant
contribution in supporting a growing number of scholars across the 1890
universities. Since 2020, UMES has accepted 105 students into the
program including our incoming class. The students accepted into the
program join a special community of land-grant scholars who receive
advising and mentoring, and professional development to ensure their
success inside the university and beyond. All the funds appropriated
have been encumbered. This year we have had to turn away 470 qualified
students who wanted to join the program.
Chairman Baird and Members of the Committee, the investment of
resources to provide scholarships to students is a game-changer. Not
only do the resources allow us to recruit and retain highly competitive
students, but also they ensure that recipients can graduate with
minimal or non-existent loan burden. Investment in the future is a
smart investment that will bear dividends for many years to come by
ensuring that there is a skilled workforce to fill the many critical
jobs that will bolster the U.S. economy. This program is truly making a
difference.

With therefore respectfully request support for the
reauthorization of the Scholarships for Students at
1890 Institutions and that this program and funding be
made permanent.
Centers of Excellence at 1890 Institutions
The 2018 Farm Bill provided resources for the establishment of at
least three strategic Centers of Excellence at 1890 universities. With
the support of Congress and USDA, we have been able to stand up six
Centers. The primary purpose was to provide the universities with an
opportunity to work collaboratively and synergistically to address
critical issues of relevance to stakeholders. A critical pillar of
these Centers was to maximize on the competitive capability in multi-
disciplinary expertise while concurrently mobilizing competitive
funding resources to expand activities. A primary goal of the Centers
was to substantially increase diversity in the STEM pipeline, increase
profitability and jobs in underserved farming communities and enhance
talent preparation related to global food security. UMES coordinates
one of the centers--the Center of Excellence for Global Food Security
and Defense (CEGFSD). This Center supports teaching, research,
extension, and integrated projects designed to supply the country with
a globally educated workforce and addresses critical needs in the area
of global food security and defense. The Center brings together all 19
universities with activities being focused in eight priority areas
including agricultural productivity; reduction of global poverty;
enhancement of global food supply chains; improving food safety;
impacts of trade on food availability, access, use and stability;
advancement of long-term prosperity of the U.S. through global food
security and defense initiatives; global climate change; and emerging
technologies. Projects are implemented in four sub-regions: West/
Central Africa, East/Southern Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean.
The Center received its first award in 2020 but while the COVID-19
pandemic slowed initial startup, rapid progress is being achieved. To
date, about 126 students have participated in experiential learning
activities; 11 new or enhanced courses or curricula were developed and
offered to students; 33 new technologies and/or processes were
developed and introduced to address global food and nutritional
security challenges; 88 training or professional development workshops
were offered to stakeholders; and approximately 932 farmers were
engaged in effective production practices with market accessibility.

We therefore, respectfully request that Congress
reauthorize the existing 1890 Centers of Excellence,
that the number of Centers be increased from six to ten
and request annual appropriations of $5 million per
center. Proposed titles for the new centers are:
Climate Change/Climate Smart Agriculture; Forestry
Resilience & Forestry Conservation; Food Safety/
Bioprocessing/Product Development; and
Transdisciplinary Social Science Research for Food and
Agriculture.
1890 Facilities Improvement Program--Research and Education
Infrastructure
While the School of Agricultural and Natural Sciences has continued
to deliver impactful outcomes to clientele, there is a dire need to
update and modernize its facilities. This is imperative, if we are to
continue to be effective in attracting faculty, training students and
researching and delivering knowledge solutions. Many of the support
facilities at UMES and across the 1890 universities communities are
among the oldest on campuses, and years of limited resource support
means that they require major upgrades to allow the delivery of 21st
century research and educations programs. UMES has strategically used
resources received under the 1890 Capacity Building Program to maintain
or develop some limited facilities. For instance, the university
acquired and is operationalizing a new 382 acre research and education
farm. However, activities under the program take a long time to
implement because of the resource disbursement process. Specifically
the limited size of the program, means that it can often take years for
a university to implement a construction project. For instance, it has
taken 10 years for UMES to accumulate $9 million in order to break
ground for the construction of a 25,000\2\ research and education
building. During this time, construction prices have tripled and now
$31 million is required to implement the same project.
In addition, the United States faces a serious challenge due to the
current and projected shortage of veterinarians. According to the
United States Department of Agriculture, 500 counties in 46 states
reported a critical shortage of veterinarians in 2022. The demand for
veterinarians to serve the pet industry in the highly urbanized
metropolitan areas is expected to continue to grow. A similar high
demand exists in rural farming communities where there is an acute
shortage of large animal veterinarians as many are aging out of the
profession. There also is a critical need to diversify the veterinary
workforce in the nation. White Americans make up over 87% of the
profession, with minorities being a small proportion and blacks less
than 2% of the total. There are only 33 veterinary colleges in the
United States, which admit only about 10-15% of the applicants for the
DVM degree. Therefore, the demand for a DVM Programs is expected to be
high. Only one 1890 land-grant university has a veterinary school,
Tuskegee University. The need to establish another Veterinary Medicine
Program at an 1890 campus is imperative. UMES is exploring the
establishment of such a school with the goal of collaborating with
other universities to expand opportunities for African American and
other minority students to join the profession.
1890 universities have an immediate need to improve their academic,
research and Extension physical facilities. One hundred years of very
limited resources for agricultural infrastructure and maintenance at
the 1890 institutions and inflationary impacts have taken their toll.
There is need for infrastructure support for new programs that address
critical needs such as Veterinary Science workforce needs.

With therefore respectfully request support for the
reauthorization of the 1890 Facilities Improvement
Program with an increase from $30 million to $100
million.
We also support H.R. 8803, the IGNITE HBCU, TCU, and
MSI Excellence Act introduced by Representative Alma
Adams in the 116th Congress which would establish a
grant program to support infrastructure improvements of
historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs),
Tribal colleges and universities (TCUs), and other
minority-serving institutions (MSIs), including
Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) and Asian American
and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving
Institutions (AANAPISIs).
Conclusions
The 1890 Land-Grant universities are making an indispensable
contribution at the local, regional and national level to ensure that
the nation is supplied with a diverse, skilled workforce to fill
critical positions in the food and agriculture industry. Research and
extension programs underpin the development of vibrant rural
communities. They are generating innovations and solutions to address
critical national challenges, create jobs, safeguard and sustain our
food supply, and facilitate the utilization and protection of our
natural resources. These programs are making significant impacts on the
youth, families, producers and communities served by 1890 universities.
We are very grateful to you for your past support under Title VII
of the 2018 Farm Bill and we seek your commitments to the following
1890 universities priorities under Title VII of the 2023 Farm Bill:

Reauthorization of the Evans-Allen (Research and Education
Programs) with the percentage share of Hatch funds be increased
from 30% to 40%.

Tuition and fees for graduate students will be an
allowable expense for Evans Allen.

Reauthorization of 1890 Extension Program with the
percentage share of Smith Lever funds be increased from 20% to
40%.

Reauthorization of the 1890 Capacity Building Grants
Program.

Reauthorization of the 1890 Facilities Improvement Program

Reauthorization of the Centers of Excellence and request an
allocation of $5 million per year per center.

Increase the number of number of Centers of Excellence
from six to ten--each at $5 million per year per center:
Proposed titles: (1) Climate Change/Climate-Smart
Agriculture; (2) Forestry Resiliency & Forestry
Conservation; (3) Food Safety/Bioprocessing/Product
Development; and (4) Transdisciplinary Social Science
Research (specific to the food and agriculture sector).

Reauthorization of the Scholarships for Students at 1890
Institutions.

I am deeply grateful for the opportunity to give this testimony and
to share perspectives from UMES. I have no doubt that given the
opportunity, my fellow deans from each of the 19 universities would
share similar perspectives from their locales. Therefore on behalf of
the faculty, staff, students and clientele that we serve across the
1890 land-grant system, we thank you for your continuous support of our
institutions and agriculture. I look forward to answering any questions
you may have for me today. Thank you.

The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Kairo, for your very
informative information. We appreciate that very much. Ms.
Billy, you can begin whenever you are ready.

STATEMENT OF CARRIE L. BILLY, J.D., PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMERICAN INDIAN HIGHER
EDUCATION CONSORTIUM, ALEXANDRIA, VA

Ms. Billy. On behalf of the nation's 35 Tribal college
land-grant institutions, or 1994s, thank you, Chairman Baird
and Ranking Member Spanberger, for this opportunity to testify.
Tribal colleges are accredited, place-based institutions
chartered by American Indian Tribes or the Federal Government.
Most are located in rural Indian reservations, from the
northernmost point of Alaska to Lake Superior, and down to
Arizona's southwestern border. The 35 1994s serve about 80
percent of what is left of Indian Country in the U.S.
Tribal communities face many challenges, but our lands are
rich, and our people are resilient. The 1994s embody the intent
of the first Morrill Act. Defined by place, they provide
relevant, affordable education to all, with community-based
services like family gardening, traditional bison hunts, and
drone certification. They are working together to strengthen
Tribal economies, revitalize languages, and sustainably use our
lands, waters, and traditional foods.
About 75 percent of our land, the remaining Tribal land in
the U.S., is forested or agriculture land, and our songs,
stories, and languages come from the land, water, mountains,
and air. This means the four small 1994 programs administered
by NIFA are important. As the NIFA website states, the 1994
institutions often serve as the primary institutions of
scientific inquiry, knowledge, and learning for our Tribal
communities. Several of them also serve areas larger than five
states.
At Bay Mills Community College in Michigan, Steve Yanni
integrated all of their land-grant programs into sustainable
agriculture and food production consistent with Anishinaabek
values on their 280 acre Waishkey Bay farm. At Navajo Technical
University in New Mexico, Chelsie Whitewater is doing research
to identify the scientific properties of Navajo tea so its
medicinal qualities can be proven to western science.
At Salish Kootenai College, Adrian Leighton is using the
college's new status as a 4 year forestry degree granting
institution under the McIntire-Stennis Act to conduct tribally-
led research on invasive threats to white bark pine, a high-
altitude keystone species. If the white bark pine dies out, the
whole ecosystem could collapse, because this super nutritious,
high protein tree does everything from protecting the region
from snow melt avalanches to feeding grizzlies when they need
it most.
Sitting Bull College in North and South Dakota hosts
community markets, and coordinates research and extension in
vegetable production systems, irrigation systems, and ranching.
They also provide financial literacy and agribusiness programs.
These programs might not sound too important, but they are. In
Arizona, for example, Native farmers make up 50 percent of all
the farmers in the state, and they are aging.
So as you work to reauthorize the farm bill, we have four
quick recommendations. Work for parity in the land-grant
programming. In FY 2023 the 50 1862 land-grants receive $265
million for research programs. The 19 1890s, $89 million. The
35 1994 institution receive $5 million. For extension, $325
million for the 1862s, $72 million, for the 1890s, and $11
million for the 1994s. None of this is enough, but please
address these inequities. The 1994s need about $500,000 per
program per institution, or $17.5 million for each NIFA
program. This Subcommittee, through the farm bill, can
permanently authorize and support supplemental funding for
basic 1994 activities. You can also remove the outdated funding
cap on our equity payments.
There is a 100 percent matching requirement for the New
Beginning for Tribal Students that keeps 1994s from
participating in this program. The program provides
scholarships for Native students, precisely the students Tribal
colleges serve. The matching requirement should be eliminated
for 1994s. The 1994s also are the only institutions required to
partner with other institutions for our own research. Please
remove this requirement. We likely will partner, but it should
be our choice.
Almost all agriculture facilities are in abysmal shape. The
1994 facilities are worse. They don't exist. We need a
facilities programs for 1994s, and a broadband access and
sustainability program in rural development. We have more
amendments in our written testimony. Please carefully review
them and adopt them all. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Billy follows:]

Prepared Statement of Carrie L. Billy, J.D., President and Chief
Executive Officer, American Indian Higher Education Consortium,
Alexandria, VA
Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of the
Committee, I am Carrie Billy, an enrolled member of the Navajo Nation
and CEO of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC), an
organization comprising the 35 accredited Tribal Colleges and
Universities (TCUs) in the U.S., all of which are 1994 Land-grant
institutions. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and share
a few recommendations on the topic of agricultural research and
extension in preparation for the next reauthorization of the farm bill.
Background on Tribal Colleges
American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Colleges and Universities
(TCUs) are small public institutions of higher education, chartered by
federally recognized Indian Tribes or the Federal Government. Most are
geographically isolated--primarily located on Federal trust land. TCUs
have been established for two reasons: (1) the near complete failure of
the U.S. higher education system to address the needs of--or even
include--American Indians and Alaska Natives; and (2) the need to
preserve our culture, our language, our lands, and our sovereignty.
Collectively, TCUs have grown from one accredited institution in
1968 to 35 today, operating more than 90 campuses and sites in 15
states and serving approximately 160,000 American Indians, Alaska
Natives, and other rural residents each year in academic and community-
based programs. They are in some of the most economically impoverished
regions of the country, yet our homelands are rich in natural resources
and our people are among the most resilient in the world. Within this
context, TCUs are planting seeds of hope for the future; nurturing
languages, cultures, and traditions; helping to strengthen Tribal
economies and governments; and working to sustain and revitalize our
lands, waters, environments, and traditional foods.
TCUs as Land-Grant Institutions
In 1994, the TCUs took a significant step toward greater
participation in the American higher education system when American
Indian reservations became the last lands to receive Federal land-grant
status, and with that designation, to participate in vital agriculture
and natural resource programs operated by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA). This historic--and long overdue--recognition
occurred with the passage of the Equity in Educational Land-Grant
Status Act of 1994.
As place-based institutions of higher education whose collective
mission is to meet the needs of our Tribes and Tribal communities--and
most important, to preserve, strengthen and sustain our Tribal lands,
languages, and cultures--TCUs are proud to be part of this nation's
Land-grant family. It is important to remember that over 160 years ago,
the first Morrill Act was enacted specifically to bring education to
the people. Today, the 1994 Land-grant Institutions (1994
institutions)--more so than many other institutions of higher
education--epitomize the original intent of the first Land-grant
legislation: we truly are place- and community-based institutions. All
the 1994 institutions offer place-based agriculture (including
aquaculture), and natural resource management programs and train a
significant number of our Tribal natural resource research and
management professionals and small farmers and ranchers.
Being part of the Land-grant system is important to us because, as
I mentioned earlier, we are people of a place. Place defines who we
are. Our stories, songs, and language come from the land, waters,
mountains, and wind. Most of our land--the remaining Tribal land in
North America--is forest or agricultural land. In fact, of the 56.2
million acres that compose American Indians reservations, more than 75
percent are agricultural and forestry holdings.
The National Institute of Food and Nutrition (NIFA) administers
four modest programs for the 1994 institutions:

1. 1994 Agriculture education equity program: this foundational
program has enabled the 1994 institutions to develop and
offer small agriculture or natural resource education
programs. $7 million in FY 2023 (formula grants).

2. 1994 Endowment program: in lieu of grants of land from which to
build and sustain programs, the 35 1994 institutions share
annual interest only of Federal Government owned and held
funds. $5 million in FY 2023 (formula grants).

3. 1994 Extension program: supports 1994 outreach activities such as
community gardening, youth summer science and nature camps,
agriculture technical assistance, and financial literacy
programs. $9.5 million in FY 2023 (formula and
competitive).

4. 1994 Research program: authorized in 1998 and first funded in FY
2000 at $500,000, this modest program assists TCUs in
protecting our reservation forests, woodlands, grasslands,
and crops and monitor the quality of our soil, water, and
other environmental factors. Projects range from studying
bison herd productivity to efforts focused on the
connection between traditional plants and their role in
managing diabetes, controlling invasive species, and
revitalizing Native species. $5 million in FY 2023
(competitive).

Each of the 1994 programs, though small, is critically important to
the 1994 institutions and the communities they serve. As the NIFA
website states, 1994 institutions often serve as the primary
institution of scientific inquiry, knowledge, and learning for our
Tribal communities. TCU land-grant research and extension programs
provide science-based and culturally relevant community education and
research programs for Tribal populations in areas such as diet,
nutrition, and health; the environment and natural resource management;
agriculture production and food sovereignty; economic and community
development; and youth development.
Research at the 1994 institutions provides the best science-based
foundation for addressing Tribal concerns and uplifting Tribal
communities, while also providing models for successfully working with
other institutions and researchers. USDA's National Institute of Food
and Agriculture's (NIFA) TCU Research Grant program helps the 1994
institutions become centers of scientific inquiry and learning for
remote and rural reservation communities. Through the program, TCUs
address questions that matter to these communities, such as protecting
reservation forests and monitoring water quality. Projects help Tribes
improve bison herd productivity, discover whether traditional plants
can play a role in managing diabetes and develop new strategies to
control invasive species. Grants support partnerships with other
research entities and place an emphasis on training students in
science.
The 1994 extension programs provide a local and trusted connection
to the wide range of services provided by the land-grant cooperative
extension system to remote and often isolated communities. TCUs create
extension programs for their reservation communities that target local
needs, such as reservation youth participating in fun activities in a
safe environment; farmers and ranchers gaining science-based insights
to improve their productivity; and financial literacy training that
enhances rural reservation economies. Projects may help Tribal ranchers
learn about new bison health practices, build community gardens to
promote the re-introduction of traditional foods, and establish 4-H
chapters for Tribal youth. TCU extension programs provide the
knowledge, tools, and resources that help create jobs, reduce poverty,
and increase prosperity in Tribal communities.
These TCU research and extension projects inform best practices
that protect the environment, reduce poverty, create jobs, and increase
economic prosperity in Tribal communities and within Tribal Nations.
All the 1994 Land-grant programs supported by NIFA are designed to
work in a complementary fashion. Research activities create new
science-based knowledge and solutions for 1994 institutions, and 1994
extension programs transfer and apply research findings in Tribal
communities. Likewise, Tribal communities ask 1994 Extension programs
for solutions to their needs, which then informs what 1994 research
investigates. Both 1994 research and extension inform what is taught in
the TCU classroom (1994 Equity program). This complementary
relationship between research, extension, and teaching represents the
integrated, strategic Land-grant mission at TCUs.
Examples of Initiatives at 1994 Institutions
Bay Mills Community College (BMCC) in Brimley, Michigan, has
integrated land-grant activities focusing on education, extension, and
research endeavors. Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems work is
done through the Waishkey Bay Farm, a 280 acre farm that facilitates
teaching and research on sustainable agriculture and food production
consistent with traditional Anishinaabek values. Current operations
include hoop house vegetable production, hosting a community garden,
pasture poultry production and processing, domestic blueberry
production and novel berry research, tending honeybee hives, raising
grass-fed beef, and industrial hemp research. Health Promotion
activities are held at BMCC's Mukwa Health and Fitness Education
Center, and multiple departments across campus assist with recruiting
and retention efforts. Student research projects have focused on
medicinal plants and pharmaceuticals, pesticide contamination in
waterways, and invasive species.
Sitting Bull College (SBC) in Fort Yates, North Dakota, has a land-
grant mission to ``promote and enhance the ability of Tribal members'
self-sustenance and economic well-being.'' This mission is accomplished
by providing opportunities for community members to engage in
agriculture-relevant programming at the college. Their research and
extension programs are diverse. Extension activities include
establishing and delivering a community market for local craftsmen,
artisans, producers, and other vendors. The collaboration between
research and extension can be seen in programs targeted for
agriculture-related activities: vegetable production systems,
irrigation systems, livestock care, greenhouse production, and
ranching, in addition to related business activities such as financial
literacy, facilities management, business planning, and farm
operations. In addition, SBC's Land-grant program incorporates elements
of the Dakota/Lakota culture, such as horsemanship, the history of the
horse, the use of horses in agriculture operations, training, and rodeo
activities. The program incorporates elements of extension and research
into its curriculum by offering an Associate of Science degree in Pre-
veterinarian studies.
Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College, located in Cloquet,
Minnesota, has a Thirteen Moons Extension program within its
Environmental Institute, which incorporates Ojibwe culture with the 13
large scales of a turtle's shell and the 13 months of the lunar
calendar. Among its many research, education, and extension activities
is one that helps Tribal leaders address the potential impact of
mercury contamination on both the Fond du Lac Reservation and in the
St. Louis River watershed in northern Minnesota. The St. Louis River
watershed is a large and diverse ecosystem but has mining industry
impacts near its headwaters with tributaries that flow into Lake
Superior. Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College land-grant research
investigates the microbial connection to mercury in the sediments of
the St. Louis River's tributaries. Working with the University of
Minnesota, Fond du Lac Tribal students are trained in genetic
sequencing, field sampling, data analysis, and dissemination. Research
findings inform Tribal and state leads on how to protect this critical
waterway and ecosystem.
Salish Kootenai College in Pablo, Montana, has an extension program
that is working to reduce the impact of invasive species on the
reservation and surrounding regional landscapes through education that
helps landowners restore land productivity by controlling and
containing new invaders. Educational activities include native plant
restoration and extension-led research implementing new technologies
and practices. Increasing community science literacy helps land
management, conservation, and agricultural production. TCU students
gain extension education and community research experience working with
the Tribal community agricultural producers and regional research
scientists addressing the effects of invasive species.
Haskell Indian Nations University, in Lawrence, Kansas,
collaborates with Kansas State University's Indigenous Faculty and
Staff Alliance, Kansas Association for Native American Education, and
the Kickapoo Nation School in using research on food sovereignty and
community gardens to educate the community on agriculture and nutrition
in addition to providing role models for Native youth.
These are just a few examples, but they demonstrate our fundamental
connection to the 1994 legislation: We are people of a Place.
Tragically, due to misuse, exploitation, and lack of expertise and
training, millions of Tribal acres are fallow, under-used, or are being
developed through methods that could render resources non-renewable.
For this reason, agriculture and forestry research is critically
important to the 1994 institutions and our Tribal lands and
communities.
The Need To Grow 1994 Land-Grant Programs
Production Challenge
The agriculture challenges we face as a nation and world today are
well established: constantly and rapidly changing technologies;
population growth and predicted food shortages; environmental changes,
competition over water and land access and use; obesity and health
status; and more. A common thread adding another layer of complexity to
each of these challenges is the aging agriculture workforce in the U.S.
The average demographic of farmers and producers in the U.S. is a 58
year old male. Native American farm operators tend to be slightly
younger, with more female representation. The top three states for
Native farmers and ranchers are Arizona, Oklahoma, and New Mexico, all
states with 1994 institutions. But for American Indians and Alaska
Natives (AIAN), the issue goes far beyond basic demographics. The 2017
Agricultural Census reports less than 79,000 Native American-operated
farms, representing only 2.3 percent of the approximately 3.4 million
farms in the U.S. Of these Native farms, only ten percent had a market
value of $50,000 or more, in comparison, 25 percent of all U.S. farms
were worth $50,000 or more. Although in states like Arizona, which have
a high AIAN population, 50 percent of all farmers and ranchers are
American Indians, nationally, AIAN-owned farms accounted for less than
one percent of U.S. agriculture sales and about six percent of U.S.
farmland. The bottom line is that Native farmers and ranchers are
already under-represented and under-valued in the U.S., and their
numbers will likely decline even further as today's farmers and
ranchers retire.
As a nation, we must do more to increase the number of young people
seeking careers in the food and agricultural sciences, including
agriculture research, agribusiness, food production, energy and
renewable fuels, and farming marketing, innovation, and distribution.
The need is particularly acute in Indian Country, as the numbers cited
herein attest. For Native farmers and ranchers, access to land is not
the primary issue, as it is for most potential farmers in the country.
(As noted previously, 75 percent of the remaining lands in Indian
Country are forested or agricultural lands.) Access to capital,
agriculture education and research, and technical assistance are the
major barriers for most Native farmers and ranchers. Outreach,
technical assistance, and innovative research opportunities through
traditional Cooperative Extension and education programs are limited in
many Tribal communities, often due to the rural settings and funding
limitations.
TCUs often lack the funding they need, as well as critical support
from the mainstream Land-grant system, to develop and deliver
appropriate agricultural programming and research opportunities. Yet,
with adequate funding, TCUs can provide relevant, locally and place-
based higher and technical/career education that is innovative and
which includes important Tribally driven experiential learning and
community-based research opportunities to aspiring and beginning
farmers, ranchers, and agriculture/forestry researchers and students
throughout Indian Country.
Research Challenge
Unfortunately, USDA's research portfolio has not benefited in any
significant way from the unique value that 1994 institutions can help
meet the challenges we face as a nation and world. The USDA research
portfolio is heavily oriented to large capacity and Research I
institutions. In 2003, the Government Accounting Office ([GAO]) issued
a report on the participation by Minority Serving Institutions (MSI)--
which for purposes of the GAO study included the 1994 institutions--in
USDA's research programs. The report concluded that MSIs received about
two percent of all research funding. See: http://www.gao.gov/products/
GAO-03-541. We believe the disparity described in the report has
expanded in recent years, as the program in question was a predecessor
to the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI). We know it is
the case for the 1994 institutions.
Research and experiential learning are critical components of
higher education in the classroom, the lab, and for students' careers.
Without being able to participate in USDA's flagship research program,
AFRI, 1994 institutions are losing out in ways that are almost
immeasurable. We strongly urge this Committee to address this issue and
examine USDA's overall commitment to research, including facilities at
the 1994 institutions.
Recommendations for Consideration During the Farm Bill Reauthorization
Support Educational Equity for TCUs
All 35 accredited TCUs are Land-grant institutions, and as
Indigenous Americans deeply connected to our communities and land, we
embody the spirit and intent of a Land-grant institution. Yet, there
are inequities within the land-grant system, which the 1994
institutions would like to see addressed in the re-authorization of the
farm bill.
Parity for NIFA's 1994 Land-grant program
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service,
``[w]hile land-grant designation gave 1994 Institutions new access to
Federal funding, this access is more limited than that of 1862 and 1890
Institutions . . .'' This is particularly true for our Research,
Extension, and Equity funding.
In FY 2023, the 1862 land-grants (state) research program (Hatch
Act) received $265 million; research at the 1890s (19 HBCUs) received
$89 million; and research grants for 1994s (34 TCUs) received $5
million in competitive funding. For extension programs in FY2023,
Congress appropriated $325 million for the 1862s in formula-driven
extension funds; the 1890s received $72 million, also formula driven;
and the 1994s received $11 million for competitively awarded grants.
Since FY2017, 1890 extension funding has grown by $26 million (19
institutions). During that same time, 1994 extension funding grew by
$6.5 million, for 35 institutions.
It is time to begin to address the inexcusable inequality.
AIHEC collaborated with USDA to study how much it would cost to
effectively run NIFA programs at 1994 institutions. AIHEC examined
existing land-grant program costs at 1994 institutions, unmet land-
grant strategic plan activities and goals, and program costs at other
land-grant institutions. The analysis revealed a need for $500,000 to
strategically operate an institution's land-grant program and
foundational agriculture education programming. This amount of funding
would support two to three staff at 1994 institutions with additional
amounts for travel and programming. With 35 accredited 1994 Land-grant
institutions, this funding would total $17.5 million annually for each
NIFA program and informs our FY 2024 Appropriations request for NIFA
programs (Extension, Equity, and Research).
This Committee--through the farm bill--can permanently authorize
and support supplemental funding for basic 1994 Land-grant education
and research activities, thus helping to ensure sustainability and
equity for under-funded 1994 Land-grant programs. Moreover, the
Agriculture Committee can amend the 1994 institutions' education equity
payment authorization (Section 535) by removing an outdated and
inadequate funding cap and extending the program's authorization.
We encourage Congress to authorize and appropriate the funding
needed to ensure TCUs can implement and sustain effective research and
extension programs for Tribal communities. Specifically, Congress
should address funding inequities within the Land-grant system through
the 2023 Farm Bill.
Reforms to the New Beginning for Tribal Students Program
The New Beginning for Tribal Students program within NIFA is
specifically aimed at AIAN students. Over 80 percent of Indian Country
is served by TCUs, and the 1994 institutions are well-positioned to
support USDA in its New Beginning program. However, in the first year
of the program, only four 1994 institutions received awards in New
Beginnings (4 of 33 awards, or 12 percent), and only one TCU received
an award in year 2, even though the program was specifically
established to serve AIAN students. The primary reason TCUs reported
not applying for the program was the inability to meet the 100 percent
matching requirement. There is precedent for granting waivers to or
eliminating matching requirements. Currently, the Secretary of
Agriculture has the authority to waive matching requirements for
certain 1890 and 1994 programs. Further, in the 2018 Farm Bill
reauthorization, Congress established a permanent $40 million
scholarship fund exclusively for 1890 Land-grant institutions with no
matching requirement.
In addition to eliminating the matching requirements, AIHEC
recommends increasing funding for the New Beginning program. TCUs are
located primarily on rural reservations with poverty rates nearly twice
the national average (25.8 percent for AIANs, compared to 14.1 percent
nationally). While 1994 institutions do all they can to help students,
including offering extremely low tuition, food pantries, and free
shuttle services, gas cards, and books, the unmet needs of Tribal
students are great. More than 75 percent of TCU students are eligible
for Federal Pell grants, and they often face challenges related to
child care, housing, and food insecurity. Because New Beginning funding
is limited, the program does not meet the full financial need of our
students.
To help ensure parity with other land-grant institutions, the 1994
institutions request a $40 million scholarship fund, like the $40
million annual scholarship fund established in the last farm bill
reauthorization to address equity disparities facing the 1890
institutions and Black farmers and ranchers.
Research Grants
1994 institutions' research programs seek to understand and solve
problems facing AIAN communities in areas like nutrition; health; the
environment; economic and community development; and land and water
use. Research that specifically addresses AIAN issues provides the
best, science-based foundation for lifting Native communities while
providing models for successfully working with other institutions
across the U.S. Ultimately, 1994 institution research will inform best
practices that create more jobs, reduce poverty and increase prosperity
in Native communities. 1994 institution research has been chronically
under-funded since its inception in FY 2000 and has never been funded
at an amount sufficient to build any sustainable institutional
capacity. Despite funding challenges, the 1994 institutions are
required to partner with 1862, 1890, or other institutions of higher
education or USDA facility to receive an award under the program, thus
potentially diluting the already inadequate funding.
Eliminate Required Land-grant ``Partners'' for Research Grants: The
1994 Land-grant institutions need to be recognized as full members of
the nation's Land-grant system. Currently, they are not. Unjustifiable
inequities exist between funding and program capacity for 1994
institutions compared to funding and scope for the 1862 and 1890 Land-
grant institutions. A small step toward rectifying this inequity and
moving 1994 institutions closer to being true partners in the Land-
grant system is to afford them the same ability to manage and operate
their own research grants and chose when and with whom to partner.
Currently, only the 1994 institutions are required to partner with
other Land-grant institutions, research institutions, or USDA
facilities under their research grant program. This requirement was
enacted decades ago, when the 1994 research program was newly
established by Congress and TCUs were just beginning to develop
research agendas. The requirement served its purpose for 20 years or
more. Now, it is time to allow the 1994 institutions the individual
freedom to use their judgment, expertise, and network of partners and
mentors to continue building their research capacity and working to
solve regional, national, and global agriculture, land, and
environmental challenges.
Designating construction and facilities upgrades as eligible costs
under 1994 research grants: Unlike some other Land-grant institutions,
TCUs do not have large Federal construction/facilities grant programs,
forgivable loan programs, or bonding authority. Within USDA, the only
dedicated TCU construction program is a $10 million program for
community facilities, which does not include research laboratories or
equipment. (Historically, funding at $5 million/year or less for all 35
TCUs until FY2023 doubled the funding.) AIHEC proposes an amendment to
Section 536 to allow TCUs to use a portion of their research funding
for equipment and facilities construction and renovation.
Invest in Infrastructure for TCUs and Tribal Communities
The 1994 institutions seek additional support to build their
institutions and strengthen their Native communities.
Fund TCU Facilities
A 2021 survey of 1994 institutions conducted by AIHEC revealed a
list of chronic facilities-related maintenance and rehabilitation
needs, including the lack of adequate and safe laboratories,
classrooms, and other research and education facilities, such as large
animal clinical labs. The TCUs have an estimated total need of $400
million in deferred maintenance and rehabilitation and need $2.7
billion to fully implement existing master plans. Despite the
longstanding need, no stable, significant Federal support exists for
TCU facilities, and only the two Federal 1994 institutions have
dedicated facilities construction and maintenance funding. Facilities
repairs and upkeep come out of operating budgets, robbing funds from
student support, curriculum development, research, and more.
A dedicated research and education facilities fund for TCUs in USDA
would help meet the 21st-century research and education needs of Tribal
Nations and the 1994 institutions. AIHEC supports extending the
authorization of rural development programs targeted to the facility
needs of the 1994 institutions and their communities.
Broadband program/Rural Utilit[ies] Service
When the [COVID]-19 pandemic began in the U.S. in March 2020, TCUs,
on average, had the most expensive and slowest internet connectivity,
using the oldest equipment of any other group of U.S. institutions of
higher education.
Unfortunately for most TCUs, the same holds true today, and in some
ways, the situation has grown more dire. With expanded connectivity
through COVID-19 relief funding, the costs of operating and maintaining
a broadband infrastructure in rural America have increased
significantly, to unsustainable levels. Some TCUs currently pay 70
times the national average (or more) for broadband connectivity. Others
are limping along with slower access. IT or cyberinfrastructure
challenges in Indian Country needs to be addressed in a sustainable
manner.
Although 30 of the 35 TCUs operate community libraries and serve as
community hubs, they are barred from participating in the Federal E-
rate program. In addition, the regulations to administer Federal
broadband dollars Congress provided in the Infrastructure Act are
targeted to address and expand Tribal household connectivity not the
broadband needs of 1994 institutions. Operating funding provided by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs--which has never been appropriated at the
authorized level--is inadequate to support growing cyberinfrastructure/
broadband costs.
Congress should establish a permanent TCU Broadband Service Fund
within the existing (and previously under-used) USDA-Rural Utilities
Service Program. An annual $40 million set-aside for TCUs is needed to
cover ongoing equipment costs, maintenance and upkeep, and continued
infrastructure expansion to a level that, at minimum, meets national
connectivity averages for institutions of higher education, connection
to state and regional education/research networks, and IT staffing.
Modify Extension Services to Allow Construction
The 1994 institutions' extension programs provide science-based and
culturally relevant community education to AIAN populations in areas
such as diet, nutrition and health; the environment; economic and
community development; and youth development. 1994 extension programs
provide remote AIAN communities with a local and trusted connection to
the wide range of extension services provided by the land-grant
cooperative extension system. 1994 institution extension programs
provide the tools and resources that help create more jobs, reduce
poverty, and increase prosperity in Native communities. Unfortunately,
1994 institution extension programs have been chronically under-funded
since their initial funding in fiscal year 1997 and have never been
funded at an amount sufficient to build any sustainable institutional
capacity, much less ensure that the facilities needed to operate
programs safely exist.
Honor Sovereignty and Support Our Students
As AIAN people, we are deeply connected to our land. We all have
creation stories that explain our emergence from a sacred place, from
the land, the water, or the sky. Though our stories vary from Tribe to
Tribe, we are people of this place--this land. In the pre-Columbus
Days, an estimated ten million people lived on this land, speaking
hundreds of languages that are found nowhere else on Earth. But that
quickly changed. Ships sailing across the waters and arriving on our
lands brought disease, death, near annihilation--and in some cases,
complete annihilation. They brought centuries of oppression, forced
marches, relocation, and fighting over land and resources that
continues today: a manifest destiny that to most Native people meant
loss of homeland and the only way of life they knew. These were
replaced with poverty, dependence, loss of culture and identity, and
broken promises captured in more than 400 treaties between Tribal
leaders and the U.S. Federal Government. Beginning in 1785, American
Indian Tribes relinquished their sacred lands--more than 1 billion
acres--in exchange for treaty promises. It is from these treaties that
the Federal trust responsibility grows.
Many of our treaties included education. Yet the Federal investment
in AIAN education has always been minimal, and as detailed above, the
Federal investment in AIAN agriculture and Land-grant education and
research programs is particularly dismal. This near lack of investment
is particularly frustrating since Tribal lands were granted by the
Federal Government to some states to build the nation's Land-grant
system.
AIANs are resilient people, however, and as mentioned above, we
began developing our own institutions of higher education, Tribal
Colleges, in the 1960s because the system of higher education in the
U.S.--including state Land-grant programs--failed to meet the needs of,
or even include American Indians. We sought to develop our own
education institutions, founded on our own ways of knowing, deeply
connected to the land, air, and water around us, and open to all who
sought affordable, accessible higher education relevant to the local
community. Over the years, we have developed strong partnerships with
other institutions, including other members of the nation's Land-grant
system, just as we have partnered with our Tribes, the Federal
Government, and state and local governments to advance our Tribal
nations, states, and regions.
This year, the Tribal College Movement and the American Indian
Higher Education Consortium celebrates our 50th anniversary. TCUs have
made significant strides in the past 50 years, but challenges and
inequities remain, as discussed above.
As this Committee considers the re-authorization of the farm bill,
we ask that legislators please consider basic needs and how they impact
college enrollment, persistence, and success. TCUs seek to address the
needs of our students, lands, communities, and Tribal nations in a
holistic manner, and we ask Congress to do the same. Moreover, over the
past several decades, we appreciate the evolution in understanding
regarding educational sovereignty and the increasing awareness of the
community and place-based nature of TCUs. We ask that you continue to
recognize the unique role of TCUs and that you honor the commitments
and obligations made to Tribal Nations.
In closing, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, I want to
reiterate that the 1994 Institutions have proven to be efficient and
effective vehicles for bringing education and research opportunities to
American Indians and Alaska Natives and the promise of self-sufficiency
to some of this nation's most underserved regions. The small Federal
investment in the 1994 institutions has already paid great dividends in
terms of increased employment, access to higher education and research
opportunities, and economic development. Continuation of and
significant growth in this investment makes sound moral and fiscal
sense along with addressing inequities within the system. No other
institutions better exemplify the original intent of Senator Morrill's
Land-grant concept than the 1994 institutions. I am honored to have
this opportunity to share our story and recommendations with the
Committee today. Thank you.

The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Billy. And I learned here the
health benefits of the Navajo tea. I think that is interesting,
and then the importance of white bark pine. So thank you for
your input. So, Dr. Krehbiel, you can begin whenever you wish.

STATEMENT OF CLINTON R. ``CLINT'' KREHBIEL, Ph.D., DEAN, DAVIS
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES AND
NATURAL RESOURCES, TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY, LUBBOCK, TX

Dr. Krehbiel. Thank you, Chairman Baird, Ranking Member
Spanberger, and Members of the Subcommittee on Conservation,
Research, and Biotechnology for convening this hearing to
address the critical importance and needs for agricultural
research, education, and infrastructure. It is an honor to
address this Committee on the important issue of agricultural
research, and its connection to productive and competitive U.S.
agriculture, and vibrant, successful rural communities.
Texas Tech is a comprehensive, non-land-grant university,
with an enrollment of more than 40,000 students across the
university, including the medical school, veterinary school,
law school, and graduate school. In addition, the Texas Tech
system includes the non-land-grant Angelo State University,
with significant investments in agriculture, as well as
Midwestern State University, with an agricultural program.
The Davis College at Texas Tech University has an
enrollment of approximately 3,400 students across all of our
disciplines in agriculture, and generated approximately $48
million in annual research expenditures, including
approximately $25 million in Federal research awards, primarily
from USDA, over the 2021-2022 period.
Congressional support for our research programs has real,
direct impact. For example, USDA NIFA funding helps support our
genomics research on crop stress tolerance that is leading to
seed technology that improves drought tolerance in cotton,
sorghum, and soybeans, which is critical for the future of
agricultural production. Our vital research relationship with
the USDA Agricultural Research Service's Ogallala Aquifer
Program has led to important improvements in water conservation
strategies, and increased productivity and profitability in
water-limited regions of the Great Plains. Finally, your
support for policy research through USDA Office of the Chief
Economist results in high quality policy and market analysis
that is annually briefed to, and used by, this very Committee.
As you know, agriculture is a critical component of the
U.S. economy. According to USDA's Economic Research Service,
agriculture contributed $1.3 trillion, or 5.4 percent of U.S.
gross domestic product, in 2021. In addition, agriculture
accounted for 10\1/2\ percent of U.S. employment, and food
alone accounted for 12.4 percent of U.S. household expenditures
in 2021. But despite the overall economic impact, and the
widespread availability of food, food insecurity in the U.S.
remains a critical problem, and global food insecurity is often
listed as a critical issue for U.S. national security.
To ensure a secure, safe, and sustainable food and fiber
supply, I believe the U.S. needs a concerted effort, and
investment in the research and outreach necessary to enhance
U.S. agricultural productivity and competitiveness, and that we
must be cognizant of the influences that different funding
sources may have on our ability to consistently deliver high
quality research that serves U.S. agriculture. Not only will
this investment enhance the competitiveness of U.S.
agricultural exports, that generate over $200 billion in
revenue annually, but also provide pathways that improve food
and fiber affordability, quality, and access to U.S. citizens,
supporting well-being and positive economic outcomes for both
producers and our consumers.
A 2021 report by Gordian estimated that the cost to upgrade
and address deferred maintenance at U.S. colleges of
agriculture to be about $11\1/2\ billion, with $38 billion to
replace dilapidated facilities. At Texas Tech alone our
deferred maintenance is approximately $6.3 million. The State
of Texas and private donors have made significant investments
in our research infrastructure, but that investment simply
cannot repair or replace all the requirements to meet the
research challenges and problems facing U.S. agriculture.
In Fiscal Year 2023 Congress made a modest investment in
modernization through the Research Facilities Act Competitive
Funding Program. We very much appreciate that support. To
better address the long-term needs for modernization to remain
competitive internationally, we ask that Congress support a $5
billion mandatory funding program through the Research
Facilities Act through Title VII of the farm bill.
Thank you again for this opportunity to share our
experiences and perspectives on this critical component of the
farm bill process. The non-land-grant agricultural programs
across the U.S. serve as a critical engine for the future
growth in educating our next generation of leaders, as well as
providing important research and outreach programs. Thank you
very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Krehbiel follows:]

Prepared Statement of Clinton R. ``Clint'' Krehbiel, Ph.D., Dean, Davis

College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Texas Tech
University, Lubbock, TX
Importance of Agricultural Research: Non-Land-Grant Colleges of
Agriculture
Thank you, Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Spanberger, and Members
of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology for
convening this hearing to address the continued importance and needs
for agricultural research, education, and infrastructure. It is an
honor to address this Committee on the important issue of agricultural
research and its connection to productive and competitive U.S.
agriculture, and vibrant, successful, rural communities. My name is
Clint Krehbiel and I am the Dean of the Davis College of Agricultural
Sciences and Natural Resources at Texas Tech University. Texas Tech is
a comprehensive non-land-grant university with an enrollment of over
40,000 students across the university, medical school, veterinary
school, law school, and graduate school. In addition, the Texas Tech
University system includes the non-land-grant Angelo State University
with significant investments in agriculture as well as Midwestern State
University with an agricultural program. The Davis College at Texas
Tech University has an enrollment of approximately 3,400 students
across all disciplines of agriculture and generated approximately $48.8
million in annual research expenditures, including approximately $25
million in Federal research awards, primarily from USDA, over the 2021-
2022 period.
As you know, agriculture is a critical component of the U.S.
economy. According to USDA's Economic Research Service, agriculture
contributed $1.3 trillion, or 5.4%, of U.S. Gross Domestic Product in
2021. In addition, agriculture accounted for 10.5% of U.S. employment,
and food alone accounted for 12.4% of U.S. household expenditures in
2021. But despite the overall economic impact and the widespread
availability of food, food insecurity in the U.S. remains a critical
problem, and global food insecurity is often listed as a critical issue
for U.S. national security.
Total factor productivity (TFP)

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Average Annual Growth in U.S. Output

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

U.S. investments in agriculture have traditionally paid important
dividends in terms of increasing U.S. productivity and competitiveness.
In terms of total factor productivity, output per unit of input has
almost tripled since 1948. In short, your investments mean that we have
been able to produce more with less, which is key to keeping our food
supply safe, stable, and affordable. In a world of limited budgets and
scarce resources, however, agricultural investment has waned in recent
years. In inflation-adjusted terms, U.S. public expenditure on
agricultural R&D was about \1/3\ lower in 2019 compared to the peak in
2002 according to USDAs Economic Research Service. This waning
investment has had an impact on U.S. agricultural production growth and
U.S. competitiveness globally. The U.S. had experienced sustained
output growth from the late 1950s through the early 1980s, but annual
output growth has slowed since that time. The result has been that
China, India, and Brazil, among others, have achieved total factor
productivity levels that rival or exceed the U.S., generating concern
about the long-term competitiveness of U.S. agriculture. For
perspective, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture had a FY23
budget allocation of $1.7 billion while the National Science Foundation
had a budget allocation of $11 billion the same year. Of course, NSF
covers a broader range of research issues, but USDA-NIFA is being
tasked with funding basic and applied research in genomics, animal and
crop production, food science and food safety, rural development,
markets, and economics, among others. The funding disparity between the
agricultural and food system versus other Federal priorities serves to
undermine the performance of the most critical of national assets in
our food and fiber system.
Davis College Funding Sources

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Funding, of course, comes from a variety of sources. Specific to
Davis College, research awards from USDA sources have totaled $16.9
million (or 68% of total Federal research awards) over the 2021-2022
period. Over the past several years, 26% of the total funding from all
sources in Davis College comes directly from USDA as part of Congress'
commitments from the research title of the farm bill and other
programs. I know that Texas Tech's Davis College as well as my other
colleagues on this panel are grateful for this Committee's commitment
to funding agricultural and natural resources research. Looking toward
the future, however, we note that nearly \1/2\ of all our research
awards are from private foundations, organizations, and corporations.
Engagement with these outside organizations generates important
problem-solving research but means that nearly half of our research
program is being guided by the needs of specific groups and not
necessarily focused on issues for the public good or addressing
essential basic research that will drive agricultural innovation in the
future. The mix of funding sources experienced by Davis College is not
unique compared to other non-land-grant institutions and is
sustainable, but I believe that we must not let our institutions slip
towards a mix of funding that is over-reliant on private-sector funding
if we are to continue to credibly deliver on our mission to serve the
public good.
Congressional support for our research programs has real, direct
impacts. For example, USDA-NIFA funding helps support our genomics
research on crop stress tolerance that is leading to seed technology
that improves drought tolerance in cotton, sorghum, and soybeans, which
is a critical asset for future agricultural production. Our vital
research relationship with the USDA Agricultural Research Service's
Ogallala Aquifer Program has led to important improvements in water
conservation strategies and increased productivity and profitability in
water-limited regions of the Great Plains region. Finally, your support
for policy research through the USDA Office of the Chief Economist
results in high-quality policy and market analysis that is annually
briefed to and used by the U.S. House Agriculture Committee staff.
Therefore, I believe that the data clearly indicate that the U.S.
needs a concerted effort and investment in the research and outreach
necessary to enhance U.S. agricultural output productivity and
competitiveness and that we must be cognizant of the influences that
different funding sources may have on our ability to consistently
deliver high-quality research that serves all of U.S. agriculture. Not
only will this investment enhance the competitiveness of U.S.
agricultural exports that generate over $200 billion in revenue
annually, but also provide pathways to improve food and fiber
affordability, quality, and access to U.S. citizens supporting
household well-being and economic outcomes.
Importance of Non-Land-Grant Institutions
The creation of the Land-Grant university system in 1862 and
follow-on creation of the 1890 land-grants has contributed heavily to
U.S. agricultural productivity. These institutions have a storied
tradition in basic agricultural and social sciences and engineering.
They will continue to play that vital role. But non-land-grant
institutions have dramatically increased their footprint and impact
over time.
There are approximately 70 institutions in 27 states with non-land-
grant Colleges of Agriculture, all with long histories of successful
programs in educating and preparing professionals in agricultural
sciences and natural resources. In those 27 states, as much as half of
all baccalaureate degrees awarded in agricultural sciences and natural
resources are from non-land-grant schools, with more than 50,000
students educated annually in those institutions. Texas Tech University
is a Hispanic-serving institution. And like Texas Tech, many of these
non-land-grant schools serve under-represented groups that include
first-generation, minorities, and rural students. Educating these
groups is an engine towards improving equality of economic opportunity
and rural development and economic growth. Like other similar
institutions, we are very proud of our role in educating these critical
student populations and at Davis College and we are proud of the role
we play in providing important agricultural and economic education that
focuses on rural and underserved communities.
Our institutions will need to continue to produce well-trained
graduates in agricultural sciences. According to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, growth in employment for agricultural and natural resource
sciences students will be an average of 8% from 2021-2031, which is
above average growth compared to other industries. And these are high-
paying jobs, with a median income of $74,000 in 2021. In Texas, the
land-grant Texas A&M has capped its total enrollment, so any growth in
the number of agricultural science graduates will have to come from
non-land-grant schools of which Texas Tech is the largest in the state.
Angelo State University is a Hispanic-Serving Institution and
designated as a non-land-grant college of agriculture that contributes
to the agricultural workforce, working directly with regional
commercial producers through development of livestock as well as
training secondary teachers in agriculture.
Infrastructure Needs
A 2021 report by Gordian estimated that the cost to upgrade and
address deferred maintenance at U.S. colleges of agriculture to be
$11.5 billion, with $38.1 billion to replace dilapidated facilities. At
Texas Tech, the deferred maintenance number alone is $6.3 million. The
State of Texas and private donors have made significant investments in
our research infrastructure, but that investment simply cannot repair
or replace all the requirements to meet the research challenges and
problems faced by U.S. agriculture.
On our own campus, critical research in wildlife management and
improvement, food safety, rural and urban water management, and other
critical research issues are being stymied or limited by insufficient
quality or quantity of research laboratory space. The reality is, we
can no longer meet 21st century food and fiber research need with mid-
20th century facilities.
In Fiscal Year 2023, Congress made a modest investment in
modernization through the Research Facilities Act competitive funding
program. We appreciate that support. To better address the long-term
needs for modernization to remain competitive internationally, we ask
that Congress support a $5 billion mandatory funding program through
the Research Facilities Act through Title VII of the Farm bill.
Investment impact has spillover effects in attracting great
research talent. Texas Tech was able to attract a member of the
National Academy of Science in genomics because of a substantial
investment in research laboratory space through a private donation. The
opposite is also true. Lack of facilities are major hurdles to
recruiting talent. Corporations with deep R&D pockets can recruit key
talent into the private-sector, effectively locking up that expertise
for private benefit at the exclusion of public benefits from broad-
based, publicly accessible research for all.
Conclusions
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Spanberger, and Committee Members.
Thank you again for this opportunity to share our experiences and
perspectives on this critical component of the farm bill process. The
non-land-grant agricultural programs across the U.S. serve as a
critical engine for future growth in educating our next generation of
leaders as well as proving important research and outreach programs
within our respective states. Our goal is to complement Congress'
investment in the land-grant system and to service important elements
of our populations and agricultural industries alongside our sister
institutions to foster the long-term productivity and competitiveness
of U.S. agriculture.

The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Krehbiel, and thanks for
mentioning the importance of research as it relates to food
security. And you had that through your program, so I
appreciate that. Dr. Uhrich, you can begin whenever you wish.

STATEMENT OF KATHRYN E. UHRICH, Ph.D., DEAN, COLLEGE OF NATURAL
AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE,
RIVERSIDE, CA

Dr. Uhrich. Good morning, Chairman Thompson, Chairman
Baird, Ranking Member Spanberger, and other Members of the
Committee. My name is Kathryn Uhrich, and I serve as the Dean
of the Natural and Agricultural Sciences at the University of
California in Riverside. I am honored to have this opportunity
to discuss the agriculture research that is currently being
conducted at UC Riverside, and to provide perspectives on Title
VII as you consider provisions for the next farm bill. It is
also an honor to be here today to testify from the perspective
of a Hispanic-Serving Institute, or HSI.
As part of then ten campus University of California System,
UCR is proud to be part of the land-grant partnership, as am I,
as a three-time graduate of land-grant institutions. UC
Riverside is also designated by the USDA as a Hispanic-serving
agricultural college and university, or HSACU, for short. On
June 1, 2023, UC Riverside was pleased to have been invited to
join the Association of American Universities, or AAU, which
includes the nation's top research institutions. I am also
pleased to be a witness representing from a viewpoint from
California, which continues to be the nation's top agricultural
state. I wanted to start by sharing several HSI and HSACU
priorities for the farm bill authorization process.
At UC Riverside, the agricultural research we conduct as an
HSI is unparalleled, and financially supported by many of the
agricultural programs authorized in Title VII. Specific to HSIs
and HSACU, these include reauthorizing and supporting robust
funding for the Education Grants Program for Hispanic-Service
Institution, which fall under NIFA. This program is critical to
providing education and STEM opportunities at HSIs.
UC Riverside supports the reauthorization of the Education
Grants Program for HSIs and increasing the current
authorization of funding from $40 million to $100 million each
year. Another priority for HSIs is to build capacity for the
HSACU Program. Unfortunately, the programs have not been
funded, and this has resulted in a lack of opportunities for
HSACUs to expand educational and workforce programs. UC
Riverside recommends the reauthorization and expansion of
HSACU-supported grant opportunities.
I would also like to take the opportunity to highlight some
examples of critical research that is taking place at UC
Riverside. We are at the forefront of conducting cutting edge
research to find treatments and cures for Citrus Greening
Disease, also known as Huanglongbing, or HLB. It is one of the
most destructive diseases of citrus worldwide, and it has
already devastated the citrus industry in Florida, and
threatening the citrus industry in California. One of the most
exciting discoveries in the fight against Citrus Greening
Disease was made possible in part through funding from AFRI and
ECDRE, the Emergency Citrus Disease Research and Extension
Program. Professor Hailing Jin identified a naturally occurring
peptide found in Citrus Greening Disease tolerant relatives and
had found that this peptide, can kill the bacteria that causes
the disease, and has the potential to eradicate the disease. So
that is one of our first success stories. Thank you for that
funding.
I would also like to briefly mention avocado research at UC
Riverside. We play a major role in helping California to be the
agricultural powerhouse of the nation in growing avocados, and
the campus has over 70 years' experience in breeding avocados.
So grants from the USDA, such as NIFA's SCRI Program, which is
the Specialty Crop Research Initiative Program, support our
avocado breeding program. So thanks to SCRI, which allows us to
support the over 400+ agricultural crops that we have in the
State of California, and ensure that we have an abundant supply
of avocados for the next Super Bowl.
Now I would like to address honeybee research at UC
Riverside. With the help of USDA funding and Title VII, UCR
conducts research aimed at understanding honeybee colony
collapse. UCR is home to the world-renowned Center for
Integrated Bee Research, or CIBR, that serves as a beekeeping
think tank, so several folks are working together to understand
bee health, and to address bee colony collapse. Additional
resources are needed in the farm bill for this program too.
Additional priorities also include continued support for the
Hatch and Smith-Lever Act and Cooperative Extension, as we
heard from our colleagues. This funding is critical to
supporting agricultural research, and everything that we do at
UC Riverside. Research, education, and outreach at UC
Riverside, and throughout the University of California System.
One example, another success story I would like to share,
is the work of Professor Georgios Vidalakis. He is the Director
of the Citrus Clonal Protection Program, or CCPP, which is part
of the National Clean Plant Network. He is also an extension
specialist. His job is to review all the citrus that comes into
the State of California, make sure that it is clean, and can be
propagated in not only California, but the rest of the country.
His work is at the forefront of cooperative extension and is
vital to understanding and developing science to address Citrus
Greening Disease, for example.
I would also like to lend my support to the Research
Facilities Act, again, as documented by my colleagues, and I
would also urge the Committee to consider re-authorizing and
expanding the AGARDA Pilot Program. And so with that, thank you
again for the opportunity to testify about the importance of
support for Title VII, and thank you for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Uhrich follows:]

Prepared Statement of Kathryn E. Uhrich, Ph.D., Dean, College of
Natural and Agricultural Sciences, University of California, Riverside,
Riverside, CA
Good morning, Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Spanberger, and
Members of the Committee, my name is Kathryn Uhrich and I serve as the
Dean of the College of Natural and Agricultural Sciences at the
University of California, Riverside (UC Riverside). I am honored to
have this opportunity to discuss the agricultural research that is
currently being conducted at UC Riverside and to provide perspectives
on Title VII, as you consider provisions for the next farm bill.
At UC Riverside, we are proud to be part of the Land-Grant
partnership that was developed between states and the Federal
Government with the 1862 Morrill Act, 1887 Hatch Act, and the 1914
Smith-Lever Act as part of the ten campus UC System. We acknowledge
that this partnership enterprise has, for over 130 years, advanced
scientific knowledge in food--food production, food production
capacity, profitability, and safety of the nation's food system.
Located in inland southern California, we at UC Riverside
respectfully acknowledge and recognize our responsibility to the
original and current caretakers of this land, water, and air: the
Cahuilla, Tongva, Luiseno, and Serrano peoples and all of their
ancestors and descendants, past, present, and future.
UC Riverside is one of the most diverse student bodies at any
Research 1 (R1) institution in the country. In 2008, UC Riverside
became the first UC campus to be recognized as a Hispanic-Serving
Institution (HSI). Of our UC Riverside students that were enrolled in
fall of 2022, 36% identified as Chicano or Latino and 52% of our
students were First Generation--as was I.
UC Riverside is also designated as a Hispanic-Serving Agricultural
Colleges and Universities (HSACU) Program as designated by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. HSI's were first recognized as a national
asset to be strengthened with the 1992 amendments to the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (HEA). Five years later, HSI's were incorporated
into the farm bill reauthorization of 1997 under Title VII, which
expanded their inclusion in 2008 with a HSACUs program and endowment.
In 2018, UC Riverside attained status as an Asian American and
Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institution (AANAPISI). Under
the Higher Education Act (HEA), AANAPISI Institutions are defined as
colleges or universities with an undergraduate enrollment that is at
least ten percent Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander.
Additionally, at least half of the institution's degree-seeking
students must be low income. Each year, UC Riverside graduates more
Pell Grant-eligible (or low-income) students than all the Ivy League
universities, combined.
It's also worth noting that for the fourth consecutive year, the
U.S. News & World Report recognizes UC Riverside as the No. 1 public
university in the U.S. for social mobility (2020, 2021, 2022, and
2023). The social mobility category considers the degree to which a
university elevates its low-income graduates to a higher standard of
living.
On June 1, 2023, UC Riverside was pleased to have been invited to
join the Association of American Universities (AAU). The association
includes the nation's top research universities.
Thank you for allowing me to share some highlights about UC
Riverside. I'd also like to thank you for holding this hearing today
where I can also provide some insight from an HSI and California
perspective.
California continues to be the nation's top agricultural state. For
more than a century, California's $51 billion agricultural industry has
depended on UC for the stream of new technologies and research
breakthroughs needed to stay competitive and responsible.
It is also an honor to be here today to testify from the
perspective of an HSI institution about farm bill priorities: ``A
Review of Title VII: University Perspectives on Research and Extension
Programs''.
Specifically at UC Riverside, the agricultural research we conduct
as an HSI is unparalleled and is financially supported by Title VII
programs authorized under the farm bill. I'd like to share some of the
priorities for the farm bill from an HSI perspective as well as
examples as cutting-edge agricultural research currently being
conducted at UC Riverside that has benefited from Title VII
agricultural research programs. From disease and stress tolerant and
resilient plant research to combating citrus greening disease to saving
avocado orchards from lethal fungal disease to a creating community
space to facilitate public engagement and workforce programs in
sustainable, controlled-environment, and high-tech agriculture, the
2023 Farm Bill is an opportunity to support and protect our country's
food supply.
Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI) and Hispanic-Serving Agricultural
Colleges and Universities (HSACU) Priorities for the Farm Bill
Education Grants Program for Hispanic-Serving Institutions
The Hispanic-Serving Institutions Education Grants (HSI) Program is
a critical U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) competitive grants
program, operated through the National Institute of Food and
Agriculture (NIFA). These competitive grants support STEM education
programs in the food and agricultural sciences at institutions with at
least 25 percent Hispanic enrollment. UC Riverside supports the
reauthorization of the Education Grants Program for Hispanic-Serving
Institutions during the farm bill reauthorization process and supports
expanding authorized funding for the program from the current $40
million to $100 million per year. The HSI Education Grants Program
provides assistance to HSIs to build capacity to conduct education and
research programs and to support workforce development, in the
agricultural sector. Providing additional support for the HSI Education
Grants Program would allow HSI's across the nation to have greater
opportunities to serve their communities and help to improve
educational opportunities for students in research, education, and
cooperative extension programs. Within the UC System, UC Riverside is
one of six HSI institutions.
Recommendation
UC Riverside recommends reauthorizing the Hispanic-Serving
Institutions Education Grants Program and increasing the
authorization to $100 million per FY, over the current
authorization level of $40 million per year.
Hispanic-Serving Agricultural Colleges and Universities (HSACU)
UC Riverside also supports the reauthorization and expansion of
funding opportunities under the USDA's Hispanic-Serving Agricultural
Colleges and Universities (HSACU) Program, which was first established
in the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (FCEA), and falls
within NIFA. The HSACU designation is reserved for HSI institutions
meeting certain criteria and allows HSACU designated universities to be
eligible for funding through specific competitive grants programs
created under the HSACU Program.
HSACU's are particularly vital given the evidence showing
significant job growth in the agricultural-related fields and, at the
same time, limited overall employment growth of agricultural workers in
the next decade. For example, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, the overall employment of agricultural and food scientists
is projected to grow faster than the average for all occupations. It is
estimated to increase by eight percent with an annual average of 41,000
new jobs over the next decade. On the other hand, the overall
employment of agricultural workers is projected to grow slower than the
average for all occupations (one percent growth from 2019 to 2029).
UC Riverside supports the reauthorization and continuation of the
HSACU Program and urges the Committee to increase potential funding
opportunities for HSACU designated universities as part of the farm
bill reauthorization process. While the HSACU Program authorized
promising grants and endowment funding opportunities for HSACU
designated universities to be eligible to apply for, unfortunately, the
programs have not yet been funded, which has resulted in a lack of
opportunities for HSACU's to expand educational opportunities for
students and to strengthen the agricultural workforce.
Recommendation
Increase authorized funding levels for HSI and HSACU grant
programs to reflect their rapid institutional growth and
chronic under-funding.

UC Riverside recommends that HSACU grant programs be
strengthened in the farm bill reauthorization process,
including the HSACU Endowment Program; the HSACU Equity
Grants Program; the HSACU Institutional Capacity-Building
Grant Program; the HSACU Basic and Applied Research Grant
Program; the National Resources Leadership Program; and the
HSACU Training Hispanic Agricultural Workers Grants
program.

To create and strengthen career pathways for Hispanic
students within HSIs and HSACUs to meet the current and future
demand for highly skilled jobs in agricultural-related fields
under the reauthorized Farm Bill of 2023.
Agricultural Research at the University of California, Riverside
Citrus Research at UC Riverside
Citrus Clonal Protection Program (CCPP)
With Title VII support, UC Riverside is home to the Citrus Clonal
Protection Program (CCPP), which is part of NCPN. The CCPP provides a
safe mechanism for the introduction into California of citrus varieties
from any citrus-growing area of the world for research, variety
improvement, or for use by citrus enthusiasts and California citrus
growers. CCPP is playing a vital role in preventing the spread of
citrus greening disease across California.
The CCPP is the first of its kind in the world. It began in the
1950's, and its scientists spend up to 3 years testing and clearing
citrus seedlings trees of disease so they can be released to commercial
and private growers.
By law, every citrus tree newly propagated in California can be
traced back to one mother tree created at UC Riverside through CCPP.
Program Director Georgios Vidalakis, Professor of Cooperative
Extension, and his group begin their process by testing incoming citrus
trees for more than 30 diseases, whether the diseases are known to have
emerged in the state or not.
Citrus greening disease
Citrus greening disease, also known as Huanglongbing (HLB), is one
of the most destructive diseases of citrus worldwide. UC Riverside
scientists are using a variety of approaches to fight citrus greening
disease. Research on citrus greening is made possible with support from
the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Institute
of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), California Department of Food and
Agriculture (CDFA), and the Citrus Research Board.
Damage: Leaves of newly infected trees develop a blotchy mottle
appearance. On chronically infected trees, the leaves are small and
exhibit asymmetrical blotchy mottling. Fruit from HLB-infected trees
are small, lopsided, poorly colored, and contain aborted seeds. The
juice from affected fruit is low in soluble solids, high in acids and
abnormally bitter. The fruit retains its green color at the navel end
when mature, which is the reason for the common name ``citrus greening
disease.'' There is no cure for the disease--yet--and rapid tree
removal is required to prevent its spread. Citrus greening disease is a
global problem. It has crippled Florida's citrus industry and has
already been detected in California, which grows 80% of United States'
fresh citrus. An estimated 267,000 acres of the Golden State's oranges,
lemons, grapefruits, and mandarins are at stake.
Economic Impact: Citrus greening disease is one of the most
devastating diseases of citrus. Since its discovery in Florida in 2005,
citrus acreage in that state has significantly declined. By some
estimates, the end of citrus orchards in California and Florida could
amount to $14 billion in lost commercial revenue.
Treating and preventing citrus greening disease
With USDA funding from AFRI and CDRE Professor Hailing Jin
identified a naturally occurring peptide found in citrus greening
disease-tolerant citrus relatives, such as the Australian finger lime,
can kill the bacterium that causes the disease and also activates the
plant's own immune system to inhibit new bacterial infection. This
naturally occurring molecule, an antimicrobial peptide, offers numerous
advantages over the antibiotics currently used to treat the disease.
Professor Caroline Roper, a plant pathologist, is leading new
research with USDA funding from AFRI and ECDRE that will test whether
soil amendments like manure and compost might suppress parasitic
microorganisms in roots and soil, giving trees increased strength to
combat diseases, including citrus greening.
Breeding citrus tolerant to citrus greening disease
With USDA AFRI support, UC Riverside scientists are searching for
plants that are impervious to citrus greening disease.
The first step is to search for plants that are able to grow and
produce healthy fruit despite infection. Then researchers identify the
genetic basis of the disease tolerance and make sure the next
generation of plants includes these genes. Danelle Seymour, Professor
of Botany and Plant Sciences, and Philippe Rolshausen, Professor of
Cooperative Extension, will examine a set of 350 citrus hybrids
developed and grown by project collaborators in Florida. All trees in
the set are already infected with HLB (which is why the studies are
performed in Florida), yet the tree live longer, are healthier, and
yield more fruit than their infected relatives.
UC Riverside botanist Chandrika Ramadugu is leading a research team
to breed new citrus varieties with natural resistance to citrus
greening disease. The fruits from the hybrid trees will ideally share
the best of their parents' attributes: the tastiness of the best citrus
and resistance to citrus greening disease. Currently, the team is
studying differences in the genetic makeup of the hybrids they've
already bred. Analyzing the new plants' DNA will help the team see
whether enough disease resistance has been bred into the hybrid trees,
but not so much that the fruit's flavor is compromised.
Avocado Research at UC Riverside
Seventy years of breeding avocados
UC Riverside has played a major role in helping California become
the agricultural powerhouse of the nation. Grants from the USDA
supports research led by Professor of Cooperative Extension Mary Lu
Arpaia to help UC Riverside's nearly seventy-year-old avocado breeding
program. The avocado research program creates new varieties with the
capability to be grown in diverse global areas, produces enhanced post-
harvest characteristics, and increases yield and diversity. Professor
Patricia Manosalva, Director of the Avocado Rootstock Breeding Program,
receives funding from the USDA-NIFA Specialty Crop Research Initiative
(SCRI) and USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) to evaluate the
plant safety and horticultural impact of essential oils in managing
diseases in fruits, including avocados, blueberries, peaches, and
mangos. Funding from the California Avocado Commission supports the
research of Professor Peggy Mauk, Director of Agricultural Operations,
in examining commercial-scale field testing with the potential of
releasing five elite advanced rootstocks. Research on the `Hass'
variety at UC Riverside has provided growers with essential information
for decades that has aided in the skyrocketing popularity of avocados
worldwide. This research has informed the California avocado industry
to make decisions on post-harvest care including temperature
sensitivity, storage time, and ethylene exposure.
Challenges: Avocados suffer from several fungal and Oomycete
diseases that are devastating the avocado industry. A notorious example
is Phytophthora root rot, the most common avocado disease worldwide.
The avocado breeding program is selecting rootstocks that can resist
Phytophthora root rot. The program also selects for resilience to
salinity, drought, and heat--all of which are expected to become worse
as the climate warms. In collaboration with the California Avocado
Commission, UC Riverside advanced five rootstocks exhibiting resistance
to these major challenges are being evaluated by growers throughout
California.
Economic Impact: Over the last 30 years, the avocado market has
increased 2.5-fold and per capita consumption has quadrupled,
generating interest in avocado production in many other countries.
However, diseases, climate change, and the worldwide market's
dependence on the Hass variety has threatened this market.
Avocado rootstock breeding program
With Title VII support, UC Riverside's 70 year old avocado breeding
programs house one of the most elite germplasm collections of scion and
rootstock breeding material in the world. The University of California
has partnered with California avocado growers since the inception of
the industry a century ago and has had several plant breeders
developing new varieties and rootstocks for the industry.
The avocado rootstock breeding program is one of the few well-
recognized rootstock breeding programs worldwide and has been
historically funded by the California industry through the California
Avocado Commission. The main goal of the rootstock program is to
develop and release the next generation of rootstocks that meet the
most pressing needs of growers using traditional breeding complemented
with genomic-assisted breeding approaches.
Saving America's avocado orchards
With Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI) support, UC
Riverside is working to solve problems facing American avocado
orchards, including a lethal fungal disease called Laurel Wilt. Laurel
Wilt can destroy an entire avocado orchard in a couple of weeks once
symptoms develop. Laurel Wilt is caused by a fungus, Raffaelea
lauricola, that the non-native redbay ambrosia beetle introduces in
trees of the Laurel family, which includes avocado. In addition to
Laurel Wilt and Phytophthora root rot (PRR), avocado growers face
numerous production challenges including soil salinity, which in
combination with PRR cause severe reduction in fruit yield and quality.
This combination can also completely destroy avocado orchards. UC
Riverside research is developing next-generation technological
solutions to these problems, as well as short- and long-term solutions
for managing avocado PRR, the major hindrance for avocado production
worldwide.
Scientists search for pheromones to disrupt insect mating
With significant USDA support, UC Riverside entomologist Mark
Hoddle is on the hunt for a chemical that disrupts ``evil'' weevils'
mating and could prevent them from destroying California's supply of
avocados. Avocado weevils are small beetles with long snouts that can
drill through fruit to lay eggs. The weevil grubs, or larvae, bore into
avocado seeds to feed, rendering everyone's favorite toast-topping
inedible.
Avocado weevils are native to Mexico, to prevent them from being
accidentally introduced into California, Professor Hoddle is working
with Jocelyn Millar, a UC Riverside insect pheromone expert. They are
working to discover the weevil's pheromone, with the goal of using it
to monitor these pests and prevent them from mating in avocado
orchards. Pheromones are chemicals produced and released into the
environment by an insect that can be ``smelled'' by others of its
species and affect their behavior.
Honeybee research at UC Riverside
Understanding bee colony collapse
With the support of USDA funding, UC Riverside is home to the
world-renowned Center for Integrative Bee Research (CIBER) to serve as
a beekeeping think tank. The center is one of the largest honeybee
health networks in the country, enabling entomologists, engineers,
economists, and professional beekeepers to collaborate on innovative
solutions for colony collapse. UC Riverside is leading efforts to stop
and reverse a worldwide decline in honeybees, which threatens food
security and prices. Honeybees pollinate more than 80 agricultural
crops, which account for about \1/3\ of what we eat, with a global
estimated annual value of $220 billion. U.S. beekeepers report losing
roughly 45% of their hives, with similar losses reported worldwide.
These losses have been happening on this scale for nearly 20 years and
will have a significant impact on our food security. The decline of
honeybees is the result of many factors, making this a complex issue.
Several factors, including pesticide exposure and the spread of
parasites and environmental changes, are to blame for the widespread
collapse of bee colonies over the past decade.
Managing bee health
FFAR support is helping to best manage practices to protect bees.
Lauren Ponisio, Quinn McFrederick, and Hollis Woodard, all professors
of entomology at UC Riverside, are examining how management practices
in almond orchards affect the interacting risks of inadequate bee
nutrition, pesticide exposure, and parasites. Determining whether
recommended pollinator-friendly practices are successfully improving
bee health and crop pollination will have important outcomes for farm
managers deciding whether to employ those practices.
Research on Tolerant and Resilient Plants
Helping plants to hold onto water
With the support of NIFA funding, Sean Cutler, Professor of Botany
and Plant Sciences, is leading research on creating a chemical to help
plants hold onto water, which could stem the tide of massive annual
crop losses from drought and help farmers grow food--despite a changing
climate. This chemical, Opabactin, is also known as ``OP,'' which is
gamer slang for ``overpowered,'' referring to the best character or
weapon in a game. An earlier version of OP developed by Cutler's team
in 2013, called Quinabactin, was the first of its kind. It mimics
abscisic acid, or ABA, the natural hormone produced by plants in
response to drought stress. ABA slows a plant's growth, so that it
doesn't consume more water than is available and doesn't wilt.
Genetic insights help rice survive drought and flood
With USDA NIFA support, Professor Julia Bailey-Serres, a
geneticist, is mapping out plants' own stress-busting strategies to
save one of the most important crops on Earth from extreme climate
swings. Her team has learned what happens to the roots of rice plants
when they're confronted with two types of stressful scenarios: too much
water or too little water. These observations form the basis of new
protective strategies.
While it is possible for rice to flourish in flooded soils, the
plants yield less food or even die if the water is too deep for too
long. This work simulated prolonged floods of 5 days or longer, in
which plants were completely submerged. It also simulated drought
conditions.
The researchers examined the roots' response to both types of
conditions because roots are the unseen first responders to flood and
drought-related stresses. One key finding is about a cork-like
substance, suberin, that's produced by rice roots in response to
stress. It helps protect the plants from floods and drought. The
researchers also identified the genes controlling some of rice's other
stress behaviors. One of the interesting findings is that when rice
plants are submerged in water, the root cell growth cycle pauses, then
switches back on shortly after the shoots have access to air. In the
future, the research team plans to test how modifying these stress
responses can make the plant more resilient to both wet and dry
conditions.
How plants fight against infections
As another example of USDA research funding, at UC Riverside we are
studying how plants package and deliver the small RNAs (sRNAs) they use
to fight back against plant pathogens. The study focused on Botrytis
cinerea, a fungus that causes a grey mold disease in almost all fruits,
vegetables, and many flowers. Professor Hailing Jin, a plant
pathologist, has been studying the role of sRNAs in plant immunity and
disease. Her goal is to develop effective and environmentally friendly
strategies to control plant diseases and to secure food production.
Community Partnerships
In partnership with the City of Riverside and Growing Hope, UC
Riverside is working to create the Northside Regional Agriculture
Innovation Center. The partnership was created to build regional
workforce capacity and foster innovation, entrepreneurship, and tech-
enabled businesses around modern sustainable agriculture and food
production technologies.
This multi-phase, 8 acre project will provide needed infrastructure
and state-of-the-art demonstration and training for local schools from
K-Ph.D. The project also provides incubator space for local
entrepreneurs and innovators to launch modern agricultural technologies
and sustainable cultivation in regenerative agriculture, controlled
environment agriculture, food production, food processing, and food
distribution.
The Northside Regional Agriculture Innovation Center encompasses
several key elements:
Urban greening
Nearly 7 acres of open space to sequester carbon via
planting of 450+ trees and shrubs and using healthy soils
farming practices to demonstrate heat island mitigation and
carbon-sequestration functions provided by green infrastructure
and working landscapes.

The management of land-based activities in sustainable,
climate-impact mitigation methods to demonstrate how
agricultural and natural landscapes can address climate change
impacts.

Approximately \1/2\ mile of trails around the perimeter of
the project site with interpretive signs.
Workforce development

State-of-the-art solar greenhouses to train and prepare a
highly skilled workforce in sustainable, controlled environment
practices and high-tech agricultural technologies.

Four agricultural workforce programs have been
developed, with two certified by UC Riverside University
Extension.

Integration of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels over soil-
based agricultural activities to support applied research and
training in emerging dual-use agrivoltaic practices, which is
the integration of solar and agriculture practices.

Over 1.5 acres committed for soil-based training via a
Beginner Farmer Training Program certified by UC Riverside
University Extension.

Additional future opportunities include collaboration with
partners to establish an [on-site] microgrid to support
research and training in solar renewable energy management,
solar facilities, and multi-sector connectivity.
Innovation and entrepreneurship
Solar greenhouses, co-working spaces, and incubation
facilities to:

Train at least 135 individuals annually.

Incubate 6-10 new farmers and ag tech start-ups
annually with an estimated 25 companies launched over 10
years.

Specialized agriculture-based education and training will be
delivered by accredited instructors and business mentorship via
seasoned entrepreneurs in residence and education partners.
Community engagement
An open-space agricultural-themed venue for community events
including a community garden, indoor/outdoor event spaces, a
co-work learning center, and demonstrations of climate-smart
agricultural practices to educate a broad audience on how
agriculture can function in an urban environment.

Demonstration greenhouses to showcase agriculture of the
future and a teaching kitchen for food demonstrations and
events.

A 30-plot community garden and site trails for public
engagement.
University of California, Riverside 2023 Farm Bill Priorities
Title VII--Research, Extension, and Related Matters Smith-Lever Act of
1914; Sections 3(b) and 3(c) Capacity Grants; 7 U.S.C. 341 et
seq.
The Smith-Lever Act established the Cooperative Extension System at
land-grant colleges and universities in partnership with USDA and local
governments. UC Cooperative Extension develops and extends science-
based information and programming, bringing the power of UC research
into the hands of local communities on topics regarding agriculture,
natural resources, nutrition, economic and youth development.
UC Recommendation
Protect the program as it is currently written.
Impact to UC Riverside
Georgios Vidalakis is Professor of Cooperative Extension and
Director of the Citrus Clonal Protection Program (CCPP).
Cooperative Extension programs are critical to moving new
science directly to growers. As described above, the CCPP
provides a safe mechanism for the introduction of citrus
varieties in California from any and all citrus-growing areas
in the world. The CCPP safeguards our nation's citrus in the
spread of citrus diseases, such as citrus greening disease,
which has already devastated much of Florida.
Hatch Act--Agricultural Experiment Stations; 7 U.S.C. 361a et seq.
The Hatch Act of 1887 provides funding for agricultural research at
State Agricultural Experiment Stations (AES). In California, our AES
facilities include UC Berkeley, UC Davis, UC Merced, UC Riverside, and
UC Santa Cruz. Hatch Act funding has been used to conduct research on
emerging issues and allows us to work directly with producers.
UC Recommendation
Protect the program as it is currently written.
Impact to UC Riverside
All agricultural research at UC Riverside, only a portion of
which was described above, is funded by the Hatch Act.
Research Facilities Act; 7503 of the 2018 Farm Bill
The Research Facilities Act was reauthorized by the 2018 Farm Bill
to create an agriculture and food-focused research infrastructure
program for facility construction, alteration, acquisition,
modernization, renovation, or remodeling. The need to reauthorize and
fund the Research Facilities Act is clear: infrastructure in most land-
grant universities is aging, inadequate, and, in many cases, obsolete.
A national study of capital facilities and deferred maintenance
recently documented the magnitude of the infrastructure problem that
threatens to further erode the United States' preeminence in global
food and agricultural research. The conclusions from this 2021 Gordian
Report on the age of the buildings, the lack of capital investment over
time, and the levels of deferred maintenance needs are sobering--the
total deferred maintenance cost is at least $11.5 billion. For the
United States to remain a world leader in food and agricultural
research, this aging infrastructure problem must be addressed.
We cannot conduct 21s century research and innovation with 20th
century infrastructure and facilities. California has the scale, crop
diversity, and workforce to lead the world in agricultural innovation,
but bringing new food and agriculture technologies from the lab to the
fields--and to the commercial marketplace at scale--remains a
significant challenge. UC Agriculture and Natural Resources is creating
new partnerships, such as the Verde Innovation Network for
Entrepreneurship (The VINE), to better support cross-regional
collaboration, mentorship and expertise, and to bridge the rural/urban
``innovation divide'' between Silicon Valley and California
agriculture. However, these projects depend on adequate infrastructure
and basic technologies, such as broadband internet, that are not
available in rural agricultural areas.
The return on investment is high. International research from the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) indicates
that agricultural research investments result in $10-$20 in benefits
for every $1 spent on research.
For UC, our research drives the agricultural sector. We deliver
innovative technologies, we grow the agricultural marketplace, we
support job creation, and we boost the economy. However, many of our
buildings and facilities were built in the 1950s and 1960s and are in
great need of replacement. In fact, 70% of the research facilities at
U.S. public colleges of agriculture are at the end of their useful
life. Bringing our facilities up to modern standards would provide
capacity for precision agriculture, remote sensing, lab space for
CRISPR-based research, and would ensure that cutting-edge research can
continue to be conducted to meet the agricultural and natural resources
needs of California and the nation.
UC Recommendation
Reauthorize the Research Facilities Act and remove the
matching requirement.

Provide $5 billion for agriculture and food research
infrastructure for land-grant colleges and universities.
Impact to UC Riverside
Infrastructure in most land-grants is ``historic'' but
research is cutting-edge. As described above, at UC Riverside
we are using all the tools in the toolbox to find a cure for
the citrus greening disease. We use ``old'' tools, such as
crossbreeding species or splicing resistant branches onto
rootstock. We also use ``new'', 21st century tools such as
genomic sequencing to combat this disease; these are the same
tools used by pharmaceutical companies to make antibiotics for
humans--we use them to develop antibiotics for citrus trees. To
use these tools, we need sophisticated state-of-the-art
research labs.

UC Riverside is also concerned with the potential impact of
the 50 percent cash matching fund requirement in the Research
Facilities Act and suggests that Congress consider amending the
language that requires matching funds.
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI); 7 U.S.C. 3157;
7504 of the 2018 Farm Bill
AFRI was established in its current form in the 2008 Farm Bill and
AFRI-funded science is vital to meeting food, fiber, and fuel demands
as the world's population races toward a projected $9 billion by 2050
concomitant with diminishing land and water resources and increasingly
variable climatic conditions. In addition, AFRI programs help develop
new technologies and a workforce that will advance our national
security, our energy self-sufficiency, and the health of Americans.
Under the farm bill, Congress has mandated six research areas of
priorities: (1) plant health and production and plant products; (2)
animal health and production and animal products; (3) food safety,
nutrition, and health; (4) bioenergy, natural resources, and
environment; (5) agriculture systems and technology; (6) agriculture
economics and rural communities.
In the past 5 years, from fiscal years (FYs) 2016-2021, UC has
received over $135 million in AFRI funding. These awards have focused
on invasive pests, citrus research, STEM workforce development,
agricultural technology, clean water, food safety, water use and
irrigation, and providing UC labs with much-needed research equipment.
AFRI's Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act is
geared towards new investigators, and the stated criteria is too
restrictive and counterproductive for the future workforce--it does not
take into consideration pandemics or family leave options. Currently,
new investigators are defined as those who ``do not have an extensive
research publication record'' and who are ``within 5 years of the
beginning of the initial career track position.'' This does not exclude
scientists who have worked outside of academia for many years but then,
for example, take on an academic appointment. Language should be added
that specifies the applicants should be within 12 years of their
terminal degree, with an allowance for medical leave or other
extenuating circumstances, and do not already have extensive
publication records.
UC Recommendations:
Reauthorize AFRI and increase or maintain the authorization
level at $700 million per FY.

Avoid attempts to ``earmark'' AFRI for specific fields of
research or to combine it with other programs.

Change new investigator criteria to those ``who are within
12 years of their terminal degree,'' with an allowance of up to
2 years due to medical leave or other extenuating circumstances
and have fewer than 25 peer-reviewed publications as first, or
senior, author and fewer than 75 total peer-reviewed
publications.
Impact to UC Riverside
Under the farm bill, Congress has mandated research areas
where UC Riverside has excelled. Our AFRI projects focus on
plant health, food safety, natural resources, and agricultural
technology. Funding has focused on invasive pests, citrus
research, STEM workforce development, agricultural technology,
clean water, food safety, water use and irrigation, and
providing UC labs with much-needed research equipment.

UC Riverside's College of Natural and Agricultural Sciences
has $25,027,076 in active AFRI funding.
Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI); 7305 of the 2018 Farm Bill
The SCRI program within USDA's National Institute of Food and
Agriculture (NIFA) traces its roots to the 1998 Farm Bill, but it was
established in its current form in the 2008 Farm Bill. In the 2018 Farm
Bill, Congress provided $80 million in mandatory funding each FY for
2018-2023. SCRI is important to California's agricultural research
enterprise as California grows over 400 agricultural commodities and
produces over 50 percent of the nation's supply of fruits, nuts, and
vegetables. In fact, eight of our top ten commodities are specialty
crops: almonds, grapes, pistachios, lettuce, strawberries, tomatoes,
flowers, and walnuts. Since SCRI's inception in 2008, UC entities have
received over $94 million in funding.
UC Recommendations
Reauthorize SCRI and increase or maintain the mandatory
funding at $80 million per FY.

Eliminate the matching funds requirement for programs such
as the Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI) which were
imposed under the 2018 Farm Bill. Specifically, Section 7614
Matching Funds Requirement reinstated the pre-2014 Farm Bill
matching requirements for land-grant universities applying for
NIFA grants. This is exceedingly important for specialty crops:
given their unique nature and limited market share, they
require crop-specific research but lack the industry bandwidth
to offset matching costs. While Congress has included language
in several appropriations bills since passage of the 2018 Farm
Bill to allow the Secretary of Agriculture to waive the
matching funds requirement under the SCRI program, there is
still a great deal of uncertainty about whether land-grant
universities will be able to continue to apply for SCRI grants,
or for other impacted programs. UC recommends that the next
farm bill be amended to reinstate applicable language from
Subtitle P of the National Agriculture Research, Extension, and
Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3371), to again allow
land-grant universities to apply for Federal grants under NIFA
without having to meet matching funds requirements reinstated
under the 2018 Farm Bill.
Impact to UC Riverside
Through the USDA/NIFA Specialty Crop Research Initiative,
Patricia Manosalva, UC Riverside Professor and Director of the
Avocado Rootstock Breeding Program, is conducting research on
reducing avocado losses to major challenges by improving
resistance selection and disease management using next
generation technologies.

SCRI is important to the state of California--we have 400+
different crops and produce >50 percent of fruits, vegetables,
and nuts for the U.S. With its unique climate, California is
unique in our ability to produce a broad range of crops--unlike
my family in South and North Dakota, where predominantly only
grains can be grown.
Emergency Citrus Disease Research and Extension (ECDRE) program; 7
U.S.C. 7632(j); 7306 of the 2014 Farm Bill
The 1998 Farm Bill created the Citrus Disease Research and
Extension (CDRE) program within SCRI to combat Huanglongbing (HLB;
citrus greening), which is a bacterial disease spread by the Asian
Citrus Psyllid. Citrus greening has been ravaging Florida's citrus
industry and has the potential to devastate Texas' and California's
citrus industries as well. The 2014 Farm Bill re-created CDRE as the
Emergency Citrus Disease Research and Extension program (ECDRE), and
the 2018 Farm Bill funds the program through the Emergency Citrus
Disease Research and Development Trust Fund (see Miscellaneous section
of this document). Congress provided $25 million per year for FYs 2019-
2023 for ECDRE, for a total of $125 million. Since 2014, UC has
received over $52 million in funding to conduct research to combat
citrus greening from the CDRE/ECDRE program.
UC Recommendation
Reauthorize ECDRE and increase or maintain the mandatory
funding of $25 million per FY.
Impact to UC Riverside
The ECDRE program brings interdisciplinary research teams
together with citrus industry representatives to find
scientifically sound solutions to combat citrus greening
disease, as described above.

UC Riverside research funded by the ECDRE program include:
``Novel, Non-Transgenic, Hybrid Citrus Varieties with
Resistance to Huanglongbing: Evaluation and Cultivar
Development'' and ``CAP: Combining Cultural and Genetic
Approaches for Grove Success to Unravel and Enhance Resistance/
Tolerance to Huanglongbing.''
Support for Honeybee Research and a Genetics and Breeding Health Center
Honeybees are responsible for the pollination of more than 80
agricultural crops, making them a pivotable player in national security
and the production of a stable food supply. U.S. beekeepers are facing
increased threats to keep their colonies alive; as much as 40 percent
of stock has been lost each year over the past decade to issues with
parasites and pathogens, pesticides, environmental changes, and
ineffective management tools for bee health management. UC supports
additional funding for honeybee research which is critical to support
the shrinking U.S. honeybee population. UC also supports the
possibility of establishing a new Honeybee Genetics and Breeding Health
Center, which would serve as the hub of multi-state institutional
partnership addressing the pollinator crisis with a targeted approach
on extension/industry focus for the development and delivery of novel
bee health management tools that are scientifically validated and
feasible/affordable for beekeepers.
UC Recommendation
Support funding for honeybee research and a genetics and
breeding health center.
Impact to UC Riverside
Since 2014, UC Riverside's College of Natural and
Agricultural Sciences has been granted $2,896,618 in bee
funding from the USDA.

With the significant loss of the honeybee population, UC
Riverside requests continued support.
Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research (FFAR); 7603 of the 2018
Farm Bill
FFAR was created in the 2014 Farm Bill with the hope of filling in
the research gaps that are currently unfunded by other Federal agencies
and programs. The farm bill provided one-time mandatory funding for
FFAR of $200 million and all research projects require a 1:1 match--the
majority of which are raised by the individual researcher. The 2018
Farm Bill provided $185 million. Thus far, UC campuses and spin-offs
have received over $10 million in grant awards.
UC Recommendation
Reauthorize the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research
program.
Impact to UC Riverside
UC Riverside is also concerned with the potential impact of
the 1:1 matching fund requirement of the FFAR program and
suggests that Congress consider amending the language that
requires matching funds.
Higher Education Challenge Grants Program; Grants and Fellowships for
Food and Agriculture Sciences Education; 7107 of the 2018
Farm Bill; 7 U.S.C. 3152
The USDA Higher Education Challenge Grants Program is designed to
strengthen university capacity to, among other things, enhance the
quality of instruction to help meet current and future workforce needs
in the food and agricultural sciences.
UC Recommendation
Reauthorize the program and increase or maintain funding at
$40 million per FY.
Impact to UC Riverside
UC Riverside supports the HSI Grants Program and the need to
expand funding opportunities in the farm bill reauthorization
process. While the HSI Grant Program does receive funding in
the appropriations process each year within NIFA, it should be
expanded to provide greater funding opportunities for HSIs,
such as UC Riverside, that serve their communities.

HACU also focuses on expanding opportunities for HSACU
programs which were authorized in an earlier farm bill but have
not received funding. UC Riverside is listed as a HSACU
(Hispanic Serving Agricultural Colleges and Universities) by
the USDA. However, there are issues for land-grant universities
to be able to participate in HSACU programs since land-grant
universities are not eligible for HSACU funding.

At UC Riverside, we also support expanding opportunities
within the farm bill for HSACU programs which were authorized
but have not yet been funded through the appropriations
process.
USDA AGARDA Program; 7132 of the 2018 Farm Bill
The 2018 Farm Bill authorized the creation of the Agriculture
Advanced Research and Development Authority (AGARDA) pilot program, to
develop agriculture technologies. The reauthorization of the AGARDA
Program in the 2023 Farm Bill reauthorization process would help to
support the commercialization of agriculture related technologies.
UC Recommendation
Reauthorize the program and consider authorizing at a
funding level of $100 million per year.

In addition to reauthorizing AGARDA, UC also recommends
creation of the following new innovation programs to support
the commercialization of agriculture-related technologies,
modeled after existing successful programs operated by NSF and
NIH.
Impact to UC Riverside
While AGARDA was authorized in the 2018 Farm Bill, the
program has not had a chance to get off the ground to provide
potential funding opportunities to support agriculture
innovations. UC Riverside and other universities have not been
able to apply for any grants.
USDA I-Corps Hub Program
The USDA does not currently operate an I-Corps Hub program.
Creating a USDA I-Corps Hub Program, modeled after the National Science
Foundation (NSF) I-Corps Program, would help to support the
commercialization of agriculture related technologies.
UC Recommendation
Consider creating an I-Corps Program at USDA.
Impact to UC Riverside
A USDA supported I-Corps program is necessary to generate
the next generation of farmers and agricultural scientists. As
for NSF, the USDA would generate a community to translate
university inventions into tech-based businesses around modern
agricultural practices.

This program could be modeled after the Northside Regional
Agriculture Innovation Center (described above) to build
regional workforce capacity and foster innovation,
entrepreneurship, and build businesses.
USDA SBIR Phase (0) Commercialization Proof of Concept Program
Universities are not eligible for USDA SBIR programs which are
reserved for small businesses. The creation of a Phase (0)
Commercialization Proof of Concept Program at the USDA that
universities are made eligible to apply for would help to support the
commercialization of agriculture related technologies. A similar
program had been established previously at the National Institutes of
Health (NIH).
UC Recommendation
Consider creating a SBIR Phase (0) Commercialization Proof
of Concept Program at USDA.
Impact to UC Riverside
As a participant in NIH SBIR programs, I know directly how
important it is to partner with a company to move an academic
invention from an academic curiosity to a commercial product.
Without an industrial partner, our research to develop
therapeutics for liver fibrosis would not have moved beyond the
university lab.
Conclusion
On behalf of the UC Riverside community, I want to express how
grateful I am for the opportunity to speak before you today.
Congressional support for agricultural research funding under Title VII
has been paramount for all the research I mentioned today that is
taking place at UC Riverside. In training the next generation of
Hispanic leaders in agriculture, HSACUs are a vital pipeline to the
nation's agricultural workforce. With Title VII funding, the research
we do, impacts the world around us--I am extremely proud of the work
our faculty, staff, and students do day in and day out. I thank you for
your continued support for agriculture research and offer to be a
resource as you consider the reauthorization of Title VII of the 2023
Farm Bill. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
Thank you.

The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Uhrich, and you covered a wide
range. Citrus diseases, honeybees, and avocados. I mean, you
covered it all, didn't you? Anyway, I thank all of you for your
testimony. And so, at this time, what we do is allow the
Members to ask questions, and we do that in order of seniority,
as well as alternating between the Majority and the Minority
Members. And in order to also establish that order is based on
the arrival of the Members that came to the hearing. So you
will be recognized for 5 minutes in that order, and we want to
get in as many questions as we can when we have this kind of
talent and expertise here today. So, with that, Chairman
Thompson, do you have any questions you want to start with?
Mr. Thompson. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you. Yes, I do. And
first of all, thank you to all the witnesses. Outstanding both
written and oral testimony, and just very appreciative of that.
And while I frequently hear about the need for Federal funds to
address the deferred maintenance backlog on agricultural
research facilities, this is an issue that goes back decades.
In fact, the National Agricultural Research Extension and
Teaching Policy Act of 1977, the year I graduated from high
school, required USDA to conduct a study on the status and the
future of needs of agricultural research facilities. Without
objection, Mr. Chairman, I would like to insert the two reports
that resulted from this 1977 required study into the record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The reports referred to are located on p. 71.]
Mr. Thompson. Today the deferred maintenance backlog, as we
heard from a number of our witnesses, is estimated to be over
$11.5 billion. And while I understand the need to clear this
deferred maintenance backlog, I am also interested in a long-
term solution to ensure the backlog never reaches this level
again.
So, aside from funding for a competitive grant program
focused on facilities, are there mechanisms that can be put in
place to ensure research funding is going to facility upkeep?
And I am going to open that up to anyone that would like to
respond to it on our panel today.
Dr. Krehbiel. Thank you, Chairman Thompson. Clint Krehbiel,
Texas Tech. I think we can think a lot more about flex space
and forward thinking knowing what we have learned from the last
40+ years with regard to now what is deferred maintenance. I
think the real opportunity is to predict the new technologies
might be coming forth, and make sure in any new facilities that
we are building it is more of a plug and play space, where we
can adapt it over time, and keep up with the maintenance,
instead of letting things become dilapidated, and then have to
invest large sums of money to correct those.
Mr. Thompson. Very good. Thank you. Do you want to reflect
briefly on--because I also think what you are doing with the
veterinarian school kind of speaks to that as well, in terms of
the public-private partnership, in terms of clinical space.
Dr. Krehbiel. Yes, excellent point. So we are just getting
ready to start our third class at Texas Tech Veterinary School,
and instead of building a clinic--this was before my time--but
the Committee had the foresight to really think about how do we
engage in a public-private partnership with the private
partners who are really in need of the expertise that the
veterinary school will be developing?
So there was no clinic built at the new veterinary school
at Texas Tech, and instead we will be using those private
partners to place students in their third and fourth year to
get the real world hands on experience, and hopefully be
embedded into those rural communities, and ultimately purchase
those veterinary clinics over time.
Mr. Thompson. Very good. Nice application of innovation.
Any other thoughts from any of our panelists? Please, go ahead.
Dr. Engel. Yes, thank you. Bernie Engel from Purdue. We
have not been standing still with research facilities. So our
institution, for example, has invested about $250 million in
the last 10 years in agricultural research facilities. It is
always a partnership, a partnership between the state, the
university, and donors. The other innovative thing that I think
we have begun to put in place is a quasi-endowment that is part
of the now required resources before we build a building. Those
are put in place to generate resources for maintenance.
I guess I would, though, pivot from this and say, to me,
the really big issue is about the future of research, and the
facilities we need to do the future work, the work that even we
are doing now in many cases. To me, that is a much bigger
challenge and need than talking about deferred maintenance.
Mr. Thompson. Very good. Any other thoughts? Please, go
ahead.
Dr. Uhrich. I just want to bring up one example. When I
talk about Citrus Greening Disease, one of the innovations that
come from this, again, was supported by USDA funding, is doing
genomic sequencing. Doing this type of research requires a much
more sophisticated type of research infrastructure than we
think of historically. So I am looking at UC Riverside, many of
our greenhouses were built in the 1940s and 1950s. They are
still wonderful at doing that type of research, but 21st
century research is not done in these facilities. And so
updating and upgrading, and making sure that we have the space
to do innovation, and bring these technologies to the
forefront, using the same tools as the pharmaceutical industry
does, is really important for us.
Mr. Thompson. Very good. Thank you. And, Mr. Chairman, my
time has expired.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am going to
yield myself 5 minutes now to ask questions, if you will allow
me? And the first one deals with the written testimony of Dr.
Engel, and it serves as a testament to the profound impact of
the capacity funds in transformative research at Purdue
University. So how do capacity funds, such as those provided
through the Hatch, the Smith-Lever, and the McIntire-Stennis
Acts enable institutions to respond quickly to local and
regional issues while sustaining long-term research programs?
Dr. Engel?
Dr. Engel. Thank you. Let me maybe expand on the example
that I gave very briefly in the oral testimony earlier. So in
2018, corn tar spot shows up. Had never seen it in the U.S.
before, had never seen it, certainly, in the State of Indiana.
Because we have investments in people via the capacity funds
you speak to, we had Darcy Telenco ready to act. She was the
first to discover it. She then organized colleagues in
surrounding states, and they continue now to monitor, to
cooperate, and do work across the states. I believe she has
some 100 plots this year that are important, then, to monitor
around the state, looking for corn tar spot, but also other
diseases in corn and soybeans.
So that base support via capacity funds provides that, and
then on top of that, she and her colleagues compete for other
competitive resources, through AFRI, for example, that allow
them to do much broader work that has tremendous impact.
The Chairman. Thank you. And my next question goes to all
the witnesses. The length of each farm bill is 5 years, so it
is important that the research title remains forward looking to
ensure that American agriculture can meet the future
challenges. So my question is, are the research programs, both
capacity and competitive, currently flexible enough to solve
problems the industry will face well beyond the life of the
next farm bill? So Dr. Engel, you are on the first order there.
Dr. Engel. Thank you. We certainly are able to work within
the 5 year timeframe, but always additional time to understand
and make sure that we are focusing research for the long-term,
realize that across the institutions represented, we do work
that is ready in short order, but we are also looking out 15,
20 years and beyond. And it is that work that is well into the
future that sometimes is a bit of a challenge, as we have 5
year horizons.
The Chairman. So any of the other witnesses? Dr. Grant, you
look like you are ready to say something.
Dr. Grant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just add to
that that, yes, I think the 5 year window does provide us
flexibility to address both long-term and short-term. Our
researchers do a combination of basic discovery, innovative
research that--sometimes the results of that aren't applied for
15, 20, 25 years.
But we also have researchers that are doing much more
short-term research to address current issues and problems in
the industry, and a lot of those are researchers that are
working very closely with our extension specialists and our
agents to get that information quickly to the clientele. So,
again, I think it is a combination of both long-term and short-
term adequately provided through the capacity and competitive
funds.
The Chairman. Thank you. Dr. Kairo?
Dr. Kairo. I concur with my colleagues, and, just to
highlight an example. So, we have been working on the
Chesapeake Watershed for more than 20 years. Many challenges,
but these programs have been allowing us to address the
challenges as we go forward. But at the same time, we are able
to incorporate new areas, particularly digital agriculture,
smart agriculture, and looking at that with the long-term in
mind as well. So, yes, thank you.
The Chairman. Ms. Billy, we are getting down to about 30
seconds, so--
Ms. Billy. Well, quickly, I would just say if there was
more research funding, it would definitely be a lot easier to
get the work done in 5 years, so I think that is one solution.
But NSF has some grants that are 10 years, which gives a little
longer time to complete, especially more complex research.
The Chairman. Dr. Krehbiel?
Dr. Krehbiel. Five years allows us the opportunity to
respond to the action items of today. None of us are doing our
job very well if we are only looking within the next 5 years,
so I think creating a vision, and understanding what the
potential grand challenges are in the future are certainly
important to us, but the 5 year timeframe gives us a means to
respond with the current issues of today.
The Chairman. So, Dr. Uhrich, I am over my time, but,
anyway, since I chair this Committee, we are going to let you
and University of California Riverside go ahead.
Dr. Uhrich. Thank you. I will chime in it has to do with
the crops, from my opinion. So there are some crops that you
can do some analysis, and research, and innovation over a
period of a couple years, but when you are thinking about
trees, avocados, we are looking at decades. Citrus trees,
decades. Pecans, almonds, nuts, fruits, all of those types of
research take decades. Decades and decades of research, and we
need to plan for the long-term. So we need both. We need the
short-term and the longer-term. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. Ms. Spanberger, you have 5
minutes.
Ms. Spanberger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Grant, I would
like to begin with you. I have heard from livestock producers
across Virginia's Seventh District about the challenges they
face because of limitations in the livestock processing
industry due to some workforce shortages, and that workforce
shortages, particularly on the processing side, are one barrier
for the industry's growth. I know that your team at Virginia
Tech is working on workforce development issues. Could you
potentially speak about how Virginia Tech is working with the
Virginia agriculture industry to identify workforce needs,
provide educational programming to meet these needs, and
connect students with employers?
Dr. Grant. Yes, thank you, ma'am, for raising that
important question. We know that the agricultural workforce
needs are outpacing the number of graduates with degrees in
food and ag, and natural resources and related areas, and our
universities and colleges are working hard to bridge that gap.
We are offering educational programs at all levels to help
students prepare for the many entry points into careers in
agriculture.
Through extension, we offer robust 4-H programs, for
example, which, in Virginia, expose nearly 200,000 youth to a
variety of areas, including agriculture, and it is an
opportunity for us to generate some real interest in the
agriculture and food industry. And then we also offer extension
programs for adult learners, which are taught by our extension
agents, and specialists, and we partner with a lot of
volunteers to help carry out those programs as well.
A good example of an adult learning program would be our
Beginning Farmer and Rancher Coalition Program. This is a
statewide extension program, funded largely by USDA, and it
allows us to assist beginning farmers, new farmers, startup
farmers, and it includes resources and information to assist
in, like, farm planning and land acquisition information,
business management marketing. It helps them, for example, with
finding markets for their meat products, and also assists them
with sustainable practices.
Ms. Spanberger. And, Dr. Grant, the--certainly Virginia
Tech is well known within the Commonwealth for its agriculture
programs, but even for the students who might be attending the
university, how--what are you doing to kind of connect young
people with the possibilities that exist in agriculture at this
moment, but then, as technology changes, and research
innovates, and you see that they can have a long-term future,
both as producers, if they choose to be the farmers themselves,
but certainly in the larger ecosystem?
Dr. Grant. Yes, very good question, and in our college
programs, a variety of degree programs, both at the
undergraduate, graduate level, and even in the professional
schools, like the veterinary careers, what we do is we make
sure that we include a lot of--what we call experiential
learning in our degree programs. These are experiences, hands
on experiences.
Oftentimes our students are engaged in research, and this
is research--discovery research and a basic research lab on
campus, or--we could get these students really excited about
careers in agriculture if we take them to our Agricultural
Research and Extension Center, where we are doing some applied
research that has immediate impact on the industry. And a lot
of those projects are done in collaboration with local farmers,
so these students are seeing the impact that their work is
having on the industry. That really excites them.
Ms. Spanberger. And with my remaining time, I just want to
talk about kind of the connection between what is happening at
your universities, and what we heard here in the Committee just
last month. We heard from NRCS Chief Cosby that one of the
barriers to NRCS hiring is that too many applicants apply to
the agency without required coursework in soils. And so I would
love any comments that any of the panelists might have about
how some of the hiring requirements and coursework
requirements, from your perspectives, are either very
necessary, and worth keeping, or, in the grand scheme, might
create barriers. And we will follow up in writing as well for
those that might have more extensive comments. But if anyone
wants to take that one?
Ms. Billy. I can respond to that question, just--and as an
example of what the Tribal colleges do, because we are in rural
America, and one of the major hiring sources is USDA. The
Tribal colleges work with the NRCS, and other agencies, on the
KSAs to make sure that our courses provide the skills that they
need so our graduates are trained, when they are ready. So we
work on the front-end.
Ms. Spanberger. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member. And now we go to a
neighbor of Indiana, Representative Miller from Illinois.
Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Thank you, and thank you to all
the witnesses for coming. You are really razzing us up about
the importance and the impact of our research. And, I want to
give--some of you have shared--give you an opportunity to share
what you think is the most exciting research, or perhaps the
lesser-known research that is going on at each of your
institutions. And then also, to channel the spirit of our great
hero, Dr. George Washington Carver, I am interested to know if
any of you are doing research on soil health. Okay, we will
start with Dr. Engel.
Dr. Engel. Sorry, thank you. Yes, we are doing research on
soil health, but what I want to talk about is digital forestry.
I would maintain we are among leaders globally in digital
forestry. We have a goal of being able to measure every single
tree, and characterize it, on the planet. How are we going to
do that? We are going to do that with technology. UAVs,
cameras, backpack devices under canopy, iPhones, cell phones,
other technology that is being deployed, and we are well on our
way.
Mrs. Miller of Illinois. That sounds exciting. And so are
we getting greener or not?
Dr. Engel. I think the opportunity is to really
characterize, and now use, many of the resources that in your
part of the world, my part of the world, are these small
forested areas that are under-treated, unmanaged, but are a
tremendous green resource. So a huge opportunity.
Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Thank you. Dr. Grant?
Dr. Grant. Thank you for the question. Yes, we at Virginia
Tech are also involved in a lot of soil health research and
extension, so both basic and applied research that is being
applied to the field. One of the exciting things that is
happening in our College of Agriculture and Life Sciences is a
new Center for Advanced Innovation in Agriculture.
And this includes a number of platforms. Things like cyber-
biosecurity, which is becoming more and more important as the
industry becomes more digital, and we are handling these large
databases that are being shared back and forth with a variety
of individuals and groups. It also includes platforms in
precision agriculture, and also an area of controlled
environment agriculture. This is an area that we think it--
Virginia is well suited to grow in because we are so close to
such a large population of the country, producing that locally
produced food in very controlled conditions where we can
control diseases, and so forth.
A lot of this new center is involving new ways doing
business. Lots of industry partnerships, and really engaging
the industry, and our students, in some of this real exciting
research and extension work. Thank you.
Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Thank you. Very interesting. Mr.
Kairo? Dr. Kairo?
Dr. Kairo. Thank you. So, with soil health, and being from
the Delmarva Peninsula, one of the big concerns is saltwater
intrusion, so we are doing work to try and understand the
microbiome around the rhizosphere, and to be able to see how we
can respond to saltwater intrusion into agricultural soils in
this context, looking at it from a forestry perspective.
But I think the other exciting area is just looking at how
we can deploy smart agriculture in--well, technology, digital
approaches, to address some of the existing issues, like the
nutrient management by using smart technology to apply
fertilizers and in a more effective way. Thank you.
Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Thank you. Okay, why don't we
continue on?
Ms. Billy. So I wasn't sure if you had time, but the Tribal
colleges are doing soil health research, because we are--
particularly in the Southwest, where there has been a lot of
overgrazing. So a lot of work in that area, but one of the most
exciting is juneberry research that is going on in the Great
Plains. Juneberries and bison supported the Plains Indians for
generations, until they were almost annihilated. But,
juneberries are super high protein, high antioxidant. If we
could figure out a way to grow them at scale and make them
taste really good, it could help solve some of that food
insecurity problems and the food shortages worldwide.
Mrs. Miller of Illinois. That is interesting. I have never
heard of them. Okay. Dr. Krehbiel?
Dr. Krehbiel. Yes. So life begins in the soil, and we are
doing a lot of systems work looking at how animal and plants
come together to improve soil health. We are in a semi-arid
environment in Lubbock, Texas, and so we are talking about
water in terms of years remaining, as we live on the southern
edge of the Ogallala Aquifer. So we have left it up to Davis
College Water Center, where we are really studying the
importance of water conservation. Of course, water conservation
fits in with soil health as we think of things more at a system
level.
We have also lifted up the Institute of Genomics for Crop
Abiotic Stress Tolerance. Again, with help from some USDA
funding, that we are appreciative of, we are able to attract
the National Academies of Science scientists, and they are
working on genomics for cotton and grain sorghum to decrease
the water footprint for farmers that plant those row crops.
Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Thank you. And then Dr. Uhrich?
Dr. Uhrich. Thank you. Soil health, yes. You need clean
air, clean soil, clean water in order to grow most of our
crops, so yes, with my colleagues, we are doing a lot of
research in that area, but I will do this very short. The
coolest thing I think we are doing right now is what I will
call space tomatoes. So the ability to grow tomatoes in space.
So, really, the idea is you want the fruit to be bigger and the
leaves to be smaller, so if you are going to grow it out in
space, you have to figure out what the right light wavelength
is going to be. This is work that is funded by the USDA, as
well as NASA, so it is also something that is drawing a lot of
philanthropic interest too. But, if we can grow it out in
space, that is going to help our food insecurity, but it really
starts with understanding how plants grow under certain
conditions.
Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Thank you. Thank you again for
coming and for sharing.
The Chairman. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back, and
now we are going to stay in Illinois. Representative Budzinski.
Ms. Budzinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Ranking Member. It is great to hear from all of the panelists
today, and I just want to say thank you for all of your really
important work. I found the discussion to be really
interesting. I am a proud graduate of the University of
Illinois, an 1862 land-grant university which is situated in
the 13th Congressional District that I now represent. I am
fully supportive of the land-grant mission and am actively
seeking ways to support research and extension services.
I am very grateful, again, for all of the work that you
each do every day, whether at a land-grant university
institution or not, in advancing agriculture to meet the needs
of the future. I want to acknowledge those of you representing
the 1890 and later institutions, and I look forward to building
a partnership to extend opportunities to minority and
underserved farmers, and ranchers, and researchers.
The University of Illinois, along with many community
colleges in the district I represent is situated in what I like
to call the ag tech corridor of the country, a fast growing
area of agricultural research, as I am sure you know. There are
a number of important research initiatives in Urbana-Champagne
that are moving tech into the future, from the Energy Farm, to
SoyFACE, to farmdoc Daily. The University of Illinois is
committed to serving our farmers is committed to serving our
farmers through public and private partnerships. With that in
mind, I have a few questions for our panelists about how we can
better support the land-grant mission through Title VII in the
farm bill.
My first question is, with fewer and fewer students
entering college and the workforce from farming backgrounds--
and I know Dr. Grant talked a little bit about what is
happening at Virginia Tech, which was great, and I would love
to hear from some of the other panelists as well. We are
looking at a potential shortage of farmers and agricultural
researchers. How can we partner with land-grant universities to
increase engagement of students and young professionals within
the agricultural industry?
Dr. Kairo. If I--
Ms. Budzinski. Yes, sir?
Dr. Kairo. Thank you. So we--we have been working very
solidly on the pipeline issues. We are reaching out beyond the
4-H components to also engage middle and high schools.
Ms. Budzinski. Yes.
Dr. Kairo. So in Maryland, for example, we partner with the
World Food Prize to run a statewide competition where we bring
young people to write essays about agriculture, and we expose
them to agriculture. Ultimately the winners do end up going to
Des Moines, Iowa for the World Food Prize meeting. But also,
through the Minorities in Agriculture and Natural Resource and
Related Sciences, we have been starting chapters at high
schools so we can be able to encourage and expose students at a
much earlier age before they get to us.
But I think also the linkage with industry, and being able
to provide those experiential learning opportunities, is really
critical, and we have been reaching out and forming
partnerships with the private-sector so our students can be
able to get opportunities to go out and really know what is
happening in the real world. And I think that way we can get
more.
Ms. Budzinski. That is excellent. Any other panelists like
to add what you are--how you are working on this?
Ms. Billy. I would like to just give one example that the
National Science Foundation does, where I think they would--
National Science Foundation really encourages internships, and
more of that experiential learning. They have a program called
REU, Research Experience for Undergraduates. So if you have an
NSF grant, you can apply for a small grant that funds
internships for students, to bring them in. There is not that
kind of program at USDA, and I think, with our grants, I don't
really get a sense of really encouraging the undergraduate
student involvement, so I think programs like the REUs, if USDA
implemented those, that could help address some of the problem.
Dr. Krehbiel. I am from a non-land-grant, but I may give
that perspective. I spent a lot of time at land-grant
universities but believe what we are doing kind of rivals that
approach anyway.
Ms. Budzinski. Yes, that is great.
Dr. Krehbiel. So I think public-public partnerships are
critically important. Lubbock Independent School District is
developing an Agri-STEM that will be a very comprehensive
agriculture facility, right next to one of our research
facilities.
It will be a great opportunity to connect with those high
school students and get them plugged in to opportunities that
exist for careers in agriculture. We also have elementary
schools that are now reaching out as this has taken hold. So I
think connecting, and developing partnerships--public-public
partnerships with K-12 is a huge opportunity for land-grant and
non-land-grant institutions in the future: 1\1/2\ percent of
the population is directly involved in production agriculture,
so as we all know, our clientele our consumers, are completely
disconnected with agriculture.
Ms. Budzinski. Yes.
Dr. Krehbiel. But we put the A in STEM. Agriculture puts
the A in STEM. We are a STEM field, and so I think the more
opportunities that we take and make to get in front of learners
earlier on their learning journey will help us to celebrate the
great opportunities that exist in agriculture.
Ms. Budzinski. Yes. And I am unfortunately out of time, but
I very much agree with you that starting earlier is really
where it is at. K-12, it is great to hear that there is a lot
of outreach into younger students in order to reach them while
they are starting to think about college, so--that is great.
Thank you so much, and I yield back. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields, back, and now we are
going to stay in the Midwest and go to Missouri. Representative
Alford?
Mr. Alford. Thank you, Chairman Baird. I appreciate that.
Thank you so much for everyone being here today. A stellar
group of panelists here today. In Missouri we are proud to have
both the University of Missouri, an 1862 land-grant
institution, and Lincoln University, an 1890 land-grant
institution. In fact, the University of Missouri's Ag
Experiment Station performs cutting edge research on over
14,000 acres, and houses the Bradford Research Farm, one of the
largest concentrations of research plots for crops and soils in
the great State of Missouri. To make sure the cutting edge
technologies in ag innovation developed at our universities
supports our farmers, collaboration with industry partners and
extension programs are essential.
Dr. Engle, I want to start with you. We have talked about
how public-private partnerships provide our farmers with tools
to enhance yields and optimize inputs. Let us talk about that a
little bit further. How do we grow on that concept, sir?
Dr. Engel. Yes, thank you. So I know at Purdue, for
example, that, in the College of Agriculture, I looked the
number up, a full 20 percent of our research support comes from
private partners. So private partners are at the table, they
are an important part of what we do. Another incredibly
important resource we have in the state, and in other states,
typically, as well, are check-off organizations. Corn and soy
make investments in applied research, make investments in some
longer-term research as well. So our engagement with our
stakeholders is incredibly important so that they see the
value, they make the investments, industry makes the
investments as well.
Mr. Alford. Thank you, sir. Recently, and we have talked a
little bit about this so far, there has been a lot of focus on
the ability of the United States to remain competitive with
other countries, the BRIC countries, Brazil, Russia, India,
China. And they are rapidly increasing, especially China, their
public investments in ag research. Reiterate for me again, Dr.
Uhrich, why is it so important to increase the investments in
ag research on our end to keep pace with some of these
countries like China, who is really a pacing threat to our
national security?
Dr. Uhrich. Well, I will say very simply why it is
important, because we all need to eat. So we need to make sure
that we are ensuing the safety of our food supply, so safe
food, food production, food capacity, all aspects of food, we
need to make sure that we have that in hand. And we are falling
behind. And I will just say, it is not just food, it is not
just agriculture, it is many other areas that we are falling
behind relative to the BRICs. But I strongly endorse--we need
to make sure--again, I said clean--we talked about soils. Clean
soil, clean air, clean water, we need to have a clean, and
healthy, and abundant food supply. We are all here to work to
make sure that happens, and anything we could do to support
you, we offer our services.
Mr. Alford. Thank you, Doctor. All right, I am going to
throw out a jump ball question. That means anyone jump in on
this answer, all right? I am a Member of the Congressional FFA
Caucus. My dad was an ag teacher. He led FFA, great
organization. I am curious to know how each of your
institutions work with youth development programs, like, 4-H
and FFA, to recruit the next generation, to get this vibe going
in America again where ag is so important, and we need to look
to the future. Anybody? Yes, sir, Dr. Engel.
Dr. Engel. Yes, just very briefly, FFA State Convention was
on our campus this week, so near and dear to all things we do
in our college, and I think that is true at other institutions
as well. 163,000 4-H members in the state. These are tremendous
recruiting pipelines. I would caution, though, that these are
not enough. We have to grow those that are interested in
agriculture to embrace others in our states and beyond.
Mr. Alford. We have 30 seconds or so left. Who would like
to jump in? Jump ball.
Dr. Krehbiel. So, of course, Texas has one of the strongest
FFA, if not the strongest FFA program in the nation, so we are
very blessed in that regard. And I think hosting those events
to make sure that those students are on campus is a critical
opportunity for us, but also agree with Dr. Engel that it is
not just about hosting them, but it is truly connecting them,
again, with the great opportunities that exist in agriculture.
And that takes effort on each of our institutions' part to be
in front--intentionally in front of those students to share
those opportunities.
Mr. Alford. Once again, I thank you so much for being here.
I know it is an investment in your time and resources to be
here. This Committee thanks you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Next we go to--back to Illinois,
with Representative Sorensen.
Mr. Sorensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this
important hearing. Also I would like to thank the gentleman
from Missouri for asking about vulnerabilities in the
international space. I think that is important to talk about.
Land-grant universities, like the University of Illinois
Urbana-Champagne, are responsible for about 70 percent of all
the agricultural research in the United States. These
facilities are working to develop solutions, to grow nutrient-
dense food with fewer resources, prevent the next zoonotic
outbreak, and train the next generation of scientists. But, as
we have seen mentioned here today, the disinvestment in public
agriculture research over the past couple of decades continues
to increase pressures that are facing our producers. Without
robust investment, the agriculture sector, a bedrock of our
economy, risks losing its global competitiveness, and ability
to adequately train the next generation of researchers and
producers.
I hear from--the immense importance of, for instance, the U
of I Extension for our farmers in western Illinois. And so I am
going to pose this to Dr. Engel. I would like to hear from you
because of being a fellow Midwesterner. What keeps you up at
night, with respect challenges on the horizon, with respect to
ag research, and how it impacts those producers in the Midwest?
Dr. Engel. Yes, thank you. I guess in my world facilities
is one that keeps me up at night. We have seen tremendous
escalation in costs of facilities. I am dealing with one of
those now, so that is truly one that I do worry about. And that
is probably the biggest one. So certainly more support for the
base research that we do, incredibly important. We can take
relatively small resources and do fantastic work with it, but
more is better.
Mr. Sorensen. Thank you for that. Dr. Kairo, I appreciate
that you mention, in your testimony, the importance of multi-
spectral drone and--imagery. I am working in the Science,
Space, and Technology Committee to ensure unmanned aircraft are
safe, providing the technological innovations. My question to
you is what are the challenges that you are seeing today within
the agriculture technology field?
Dr. Kairo. So, from my context, the biggest challenges is
just in terms of people, getting enough people engaged in that
space, and doing the kind of work that is required. So at UMES,
for example, the School of Ag has been linking with our
engineering folks to really be able to implement this work. And
without that sort of connection, we wouldn't be able to really
undertake that work.
The other thing is, of course, funding. We do need more
funding to support research in this space. It is a rapidly
moving field, with new things coming up each and every day. I
think the way ChatGPT just swept the world since November is a
classic example. We need to find ways to be able to utilize
these opportunities. But we lack that breadth in people to be
able to be as effective as we would like.
Mr. Sorensen. How can we ensure that Congress is doing the
right things addressing this in the farm bill?
Dr. Kairo. So for example, facilities is just one challenge
that we have been discussing. But also, being able to provide
or ensuring the capacity funding is there to be able to allow
us the breadth to grow and expand our activities in some of
these new fields and new areas that are becoming increasingly
important.
Mr. Sorensen. Thank you, sir, I appreciate that. I would
like to go to Ms. Billy next. Biodiversity is such an important
piece of a robust ecosystem. Can you tell us more about the
importance of having Native-specific agriculture research that
takes into account the need to preserve Native lands and
culture?
Ms. Billy. Thank you. One of the examples that I just gave
earlier was juneberries, for example. That is a native
indigenous plant to this country, and there is a lot of work
being done on bee research, but bees aren't indigenous to this
land.
Mr. Sorensen. Why not?
Ms. Billy. They are not a native pollinator. So Tribal
colleges are actually doing work to try to restore native
pollinators, because that is really how you sustain your place,
is by focusing on what lives and work in your place. So I think
that is one thing that Tribal colleges are doing. They are
working with juneberries. These are, as I said, super high
concentrate--high antioxidant, high protein foods. If we could
figure out a way to take that to scale, we could really solve
the food challenges in this country. It is the same with bison,
where you use every aspect of the animal, you don't just use
one part of it. There are ways that we can better use what we
have here, in the place that we are in.
Mr. Sorensen. Thank you so much for your testimony, your
participation today, and I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. And now
we go to Florida, with Representative Cammack.
Mrs. Cammack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and go Gators.
Yesterday was Gator Day on the Hill, so still feeling very
orange and blue, and very proud of the University of Florida.
Very exciting to represent a land-grant university. And as many
of you know, and I know you guys have great pride in the
institutions that you all represent, but for us, we are very
proud of our rich heritage of agricultural research and
outreach that spans over a century.
Nestled in the heart of one of the most diverse and
productive agricultural regions in the United States, the
university has embraced its unique position to address the
specific challenges and opportunities facing Florida's
agricultural industry. Indeed, we are home to over 300
specialty crops, and I am extraordinarily proud that we rank
top five for cow-calf producers in the country, and it still
astounds me, where we rank one, two, and three when it comes to
some of these specialty crops. But, as such, that requires
tremendous research and development to make sure that these
commodities stay viable for the future.
So, as agriculture has really evolved into a high-tech
space, I wanted to just kind of dive into this. Dr. Engel, you
kind of touched on one of the issues one of my colleagues was
asking about, China, and Brazil, and India, but I wanted to
follow up on that line of questioning they were going down. So,
outside of protecting our competitive edge in regard to ag, the
U.S. population is projected to grow from 336 million people in
2023 to 373 million in 2053. The global population is projected
to go from eight billion people to nine billion by 2050. With
this rapid rate of growth in population, isn't there a need for
ag research to address this, and the potential for food
security issues that will come with needing to feed that many
more people? I think we all know the answer to this, but just
for the record.
Dr. Engel. The short answer is yes, and as land-grant
institutions, we are working on this problem. We are working to
ensure that we accelerate the productivity of plants, their
efficiencies. the same in the animal space as well. So,
additional resources to ensure that we are continuing to make
that progress at the pace that you pointed out is going to be
needed is absolutely critical.
Mrs. Cammack. Thank you. This could be--Dr. Ulrich or
Ulrich?
Dr. Uhrich. Uhrich.
Mrs. Cammack. Uhrich. I was way off.
Dr. Uhrich. Close enough.
Mrs. Cammack. Good enough for government work, I suppose.
Dr. Uhrich. Good enough for government work.
Mrs. Cammack. In your testimony you write about Citrus
Greening Disease, and the devastating impact that this disease
has on the citrus industry. This isn't just a Florida problem,
but we are seeing this across the industry as a whole. As a
Member from the Sunshine State, I have personally seen the
devastating impacts, where we have gone from 250 million boxes
in the early 2000s to now about 30,000 boxes in production. You
mentioned specifically the Emergency Citrus Disease Research
and Extension Program, which has been implemented to combat
citrus greening.
Now, as we look to draft the farm bill this year, can you
speak to the importance of maintaining this important program,
specifically the need to continue funding, because, as we all
know, research is not something you can turn on and off like a
light switch, it requires that continual investment. Do you see
light at the end of the tunnel, and can you speak to that
importance?
Dr. Uhrich. Yes, I see light at the end of the tunnel.
There is a lot we can do. We brought up this before, having
that continued research over a long-term, particular for trees,
which take decades to mature, is extremely important for this
process. So, as you know, Citrus Greening Disease is
devastating. Not just in Florida.
We are very concerned about this in California. And we use
all the tools in the toolbox that we can have, from high end
genomic sequencing, to splicing, and plant breeding. Everything
that we can have that we can possibly do to make sure that the
disease does not affect California and the rest of the country,
we are working on. And it is a long-term plan. And if it is
not--it could be Citrus Greening Disease this day, but it might
be something else for peaches, and almonds, and pistachios in
the future.
Mrs. Cammack. So I know I am coming short on time, but one
word answers down the panel, and my team is going to be
terrified that I go off script.
Dr. Uhrich. Yes.
Mrs. Cammack. Talking about GMOs, right, and the need for
us to continually develop research, and solve some of these
pressing issues with things like CRISPR technology, do you
support the use and further development of GMOs, and do you
believe that there is a problem with people understanding what
they are and they aren't? Going down the line, I will start
with you.
Dr. Uhrich. Do people understand what they are? I don't
know if everybody understands what they are and they aren't. I
will get back to you--I think we need to use every tool in the
toolbox that we have.
Mrs. Cammack. Perfect.
Dr. Uhrich. Because, again, we need to make sure our food
is safe, secure, and abundant.
Mrs. Cammack. Thank you.
Dr. Krehbiel. Congratulations on the recent National
Championship.
Mrs. Cammack. Thank you.
Dr. Krehbiel. Yes. Absolutely GMOs are an important tool in
the toolbox for all things food security and safety, and would
definitely support their use, and believe that we could do a
better job of communicating what they are and what they aren't
with the general public.
Mrs. Cammack. Thank you.
Ms. Billy. Yes, I will just say ditto.
Mrs. Cammack. Perfect.
Ms. Billy. People don't know, so--
Mrs. Cammack. I know, I am sorry. I am running really,
really short on time.
Dr. Kairo. I totally agree with my colleagues.
Mrs. Cammack. Perfect. Thank you.
Dr. Grant. I agree too. They are an important tool that we
need to use to address these major challenges.
Mrs. Cammack. Perfect. Thank you. Last one?
Dr. Engel. Incredibly important tool. In my written
testimony I talk about a 40 percent increase in pods on
soybeans as a result of the technology. We need that help.
Mrs. Cammack. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, let the record
reflect the entire panel agreed with the Gator Nation.
The Chairman. We will--
Mrs. Cammack. With that, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, and we will discuss that issue
after the hearing, okay? Anyway--
Mrs. Cammack. Thank you all so much. Thank you.
The Chairman. Next we go to Representative Miller.
Mr. Miller of Ohio. Thank you, Chairman Baird, and Ranking
Member Spanberger, and thank you for holding this hearing to
review vital research initiatives to strengthen and sustain
American agriculture. Agriculture research is key to providing
the tools for farms and livestock producers to remain
competitive in the global marketplace, create efficiencies in
farm production, and meet growing food security demands.
Earlier this year I had the opportunity to view firsthand
important agricultural research initiatives undertaken in my
district at the Wooster Campus of Ohio State's University's
College of Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Sciences. State
of the art research endeavors by this land-grant institution
include the Application Technology Research Unit, which
utilizes innovative technologies, such as first in the nation
intelligent spray technology, allowing for more efficient
agricultural production, reduce targeted use of pesticide
applications, lower production costs, higher yields, lower
labor costs, and benefits to the environment.
Ohio State is also pursuing an ag tech innovation nexus to
advance science and training for next generation leaders for
agriculture and maintain a competitive advantage globally in
food production through agriculture technology. Additional Ohio
State initiatives include fostering space-focused agricultural
research recognized as vital through my work on the Science,
Space, and Technology Committee under the leadership of my good
colleague, Chairman Lucas, over there to my right.
United States agriculture must have access to advanced
technologies to compete in the global market, particularly
given rising input, labor and environmental regulatory
challenges. That is why I am proud to join my colleagues on the
Committee: Doug LaMalfa, Subcommittee Ranking Member
Spanberger, and Salud Carbajal in introducing the
mechanization, automation, accelerated research and development
program (H.R. 4173, Advancing Automation Research and
Development in Agriculture Act) to promoted advanced
technologies for more efficient agricultural production,
including the use of automation and mechanical harvesting. The
legislation emphasizes innovation in technology through
multiple disciplinary, multi-institutional approaches that
allow for public and private research institutions and
partnerships with industry.
To any of the witnesses, how can private and public-based
research serve to prepare students for the technology-driven
careers of the future in agriculture? In addition, how can
private-public partnerships enhance the land-grant mission to
re-equip farmers and agricultural professionals with new
technologies to increase agricultural output and efficiency?
For anyone who would like to jump in.
Dr. Engel. Yes, happy to jump in. My institution, Purdue
University, and I believe the others here as well, we work
every day with industry in these private-public relationships.
It is great for moving research ahead. It is great for moving
products, ultimately, to the marketplace. It is great for
developing talent who are going to be employed by those
industries and beyond. We need to continue to do more of that.
It is a great way to conduct research and get it to the
marketplace.
Mr. Miller of Ohio. Thank you.
Dr. Grant. I would also add that, as we have designed new
facilities, and had the opportunities to renovate and construct
new facilities, we are designing them with industry
partnerships in mind. So, for an example, we, about 10 years
ago, designed a new building to support our Food Systems and
Technology and Biological Systems Engineering Department. And
in that facility we designed pilot labs that would allow
industries to come in and set up their equipment, and it also
gives the students an opportunity to work closely with those
corporate partners, and learn a little bit about corporate
life, and the challenges, and the real problems that they are
having, and how to find solutions to real industry problems. So
I think that is another way to engage the industry in
supporting our students.
Mr. Miller of Ohio. Absolutely, and I could not agree more.
We must prepare for the next generation of agricultural leaders
with the skills and advanced technologies to meet tomorrow's
farm production challenges. It was my privilege to tour Ohio
State University's Agricultural Technical Institute, which
provides hands-on agricultural educational programs from dairy,
swine, and equine to horticulture as the largest institution of
its kind in the United States.
To any of the witnesses once again, can you please expand
upon the importance of land-grant institutions in equipping
students to meet the agricultural challenges of tomorrow,
including their role in training students to deploy advanced
agricultural innovations, as well as technical hands-on
training skills to carry out such advancements to create
efficiencies to best compete in the global marketplace?
Dr. Uhrich. I am going to take the privilege of being the
last one in line. One of the things that we have been talking
about a lot is specific technologies, which I am a big fan of,
but I am thinking--reflecting on the question of what keeps me
up at night, and that is the future, future farmers. Who are
the future farmers, who are the future innovators? And there is
something that is already embedded in the farm bill, and that
is related to Education Grants Program for Hispanic-Serving
Institutes, as well expanding and building capacity for the
HSACU programs. This is an important venue for us for
developing the future farmers educational programs and these
outreach programs.
Mr. Miller of Ohio. Thank you. And, Mr. Chairman, my time
is up, and I yield back. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. And next we go to South--or North
Carolina, I am sorry. Representative Adams.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
Ranking Member as well, for this hearing, and thank you for
allowing me to be here today. And, to the witnesses, thank you
for your testimony. And thank you, Dean Kairo, for your
testimony on Title VII, particularly as it relates to HBCUs and
1890s specifically. It is an important topic that we cannot
talk enough about, especially as we are working toward crafting
the text for the farm bill. I am a proud graduate twice of an
1890, North Carolina A&T State University. I spent 40 years as
a college professor at Bennett College, on an HBCU, and
received my Ph.D. from The Ohio State University, but only
because of The North Carolina A&T and HBCU, so I want to put
that out there.
But let me just--before I get to my questions, I do want to
just speak about the Centers of Excellence authorized in the
previous farm bill, and the opportunities to build on them,
because the Centers of Excellence at 1890s increase the
research capacity of these institutions, and lead to more
innovative, creative solutions to our nation's most pressing
agricultural challenges.
And, as you mentioned in your testimony, Dr. Kairo, these
centers play an important role in increasing diversity in the
STEM pipeline and increase opportunities in underserved farming
communities. And so the footprint of the center at UMES is
truly impressive because of its level of student engagement,
and its direct connection and relation to farmers. And that is
why this week I am excited to introduce, with partners in the
House and Senate, the ENABLE Opportunity Act of 2023 (H.R.
4239/S. 2058, 1890s Advancing and Building Leadership and
Excellence Opportunity Act of 2023), which expands the number
of 1890 Centers of Excellence from six to ten, reauthorizing
their funding for the next 5 years.
So let me ask you--I have heard specifically from my 1890s
that, in administering both the scholarship program and the
Centers of Excellence, that there are challenges with
administrative costs being able to be deducted. Is that
something that you are seeing at your university, if you would
just speak briefly to that?
Dr. Kairo. Thank you very much for that question, and thank
you for all you have done for the 1890 universities. So, for
the scholarships program, we sort of started implementing that
program, and it has really gained traction. At UMES, this year,
we are going to turn away nearly 400--over 400 students who are
qualified for the program, but where we do not have resources.
But I think one of our challenges is just administration of the
program. One of our goals--one of the primary goals of the
program was to ensure that students are graduating on time, we
are supporting them, linking them with industry, and without
support at the administrative level, it becomes fairly
difficult.
So the program does offer funds that go directly to
students, which is great, but it would be--also be great if
some flexibility could be allowed so that we could support some
of the recruitment and some of the student support services so
we can do an even greater job of ensuring the students get the
best experience, and that they are graduating right on time,
and getting out to the economy.
Ms. Adams. So in terms of the Small Farms Program, which is
an excellent resource for local and underserved farmers, how do
you see additional research funding here improving this
program?
Dr. Kairo. So for--small farm programs are particularly
critical for us because they really allow us to directly serve
a clientele who really have been severely underserved. So I
think any additional resources that would allow us to be more
impactful--I mean, right now we are looking at the impact of
climate change, for example, and how it affects this group of
people, and asking the question, what can we do to be able to
support them to be much more effective, from the kind of
cropping systems, or any of the other related activities? So I
think more funding would allow us to be more impactful and
support a greater number.
Ms. Adams. Great. Well, thank you very much, and thank you
to all of the witnesses. And I am HBCU strong, and want to
continue to make sure that our schools not only survive, but
that they thrive, so thank you all for the work that you do.
Madam Ranking Member and Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing
me to be here.
The Chairman. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. And,
now it is my pleasure to introduce a colleague from Oklahoma,
and he is Chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology
Committee, but if you look up here on the wall, his picture
because he is involved with the Agriculture Committee in the
past, and he really understands it. He is dedicated to science
and research. And so, with that, I give you Representative
Lucas.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Chairman Baird, and thank you,
Ranking Member, for holding this hearing today. And I apologize
for being a little late. As Mr. Baird noted, I have the honor,
and privilege, and responsibility of chairing the Science,
Space, and Technology Committee, as well as being a Member of
the glorious and all-important Agriculture Committee, one of
the things that I have had the opportunity for a long time.
And, Mr. Baird, you are also a Member of the Science, Space,
and Technology Committee, and I appreciate your labors there
too.
Long before I was Chairman of the full Committee, I
chaired, 20 years ago, the subcommittee with jurisdiction over
research, and that was my first opportunity to really
appreciate how complicated the research missions of the
universities were, the land-grants also, and the Agricultural
Research Service. Having access to the kind of infrastructure,
the kind of resources that create the opportunities that
attract the bright and brilliant science minds in this country,
just--it is very important.
So having just now come from a markup on the Science
Committee, I would like to visit with the panel about not just
the traditional resources through the Agriculture Committee,
but about the opportunities for funding that exist in other
Federal agencies, specifically the National Science Foundation
and the Department of Energy. Can the panel speak to the
importance of this kind of funding, and the challenges in
competing for that? And I would also welcome your thoughts
about how those other resources may potentially complement, and
in some ways differ, from the programs administered by USDA.
Yes, that is a broad question, but you are a bright bunch.
Dr. Engel. Let me quickly address that. So NSF is about 11
percent of the work in research in agriculture at Purdue over
the last 4 years. DOE, if I recall correctly, is five or six
percent. These are critical to us because they are often very
complementary, and they allow us to take a longer-term view,
given the scope and mission of those agencies, to think about,
further into the future, some of the research we need to be
doing. So they are important. We hope those continue to be
great assets for us as well.
Dr. Grant. It is a very good question. I would like to add
to that that, at Virginia Tech, in the College of Agriculture
and Life Sciences, USDA competitive funding is a large portion
of our research portfolio, but what that has allowed us to do
is make our faculty very competitive for other Federal agency
funds. For example, National Institutes of Health. So when you
think about a lot of the food and ag research, it also involves
a fair amount of human health issues, and nutrition issues, and
NIH is very interested in funding that type of research. So we
have a number of faculty in our college that rely on NIH
funding. In addition to the NSF, and DOE funding, and so forth.
Mr. Lucas. Anyone else?
Ms. Billy. I would like--could I just add that I think
they--those other agencies do--are important to this endeavor,
but there is a lack of coordination among the agencies, and I
think that this Committee could do a lot to encourage USDA to
work more proactively with--particularly with NSF and the--and
the NIH, and to allow more coordination of grants. They are
very concerned about double-dipping, which is important, you
don't want to do that, but not to the extent that it doesn't
allow collaboration.
Mr. Lucas. Exactly.
Dr. Krehbiel. Yes. Thanks for the question. NSF helped
Davis College and the College of Engineering at Texas Tech
University lift up the Center for Advancement of Sustainable
Fertilizer. Of course, the NSF required a match, and the state
was willing--and the university were willing to partner with
those two colleges on that effort. So they are critically
important, because what that does is it allows us to leverage
private partners that are developing technologies in that
space, and thinking about infrastructure that allows us to
develop space for those new startup companies to apply those
technologies and build those out. Either they succeed or they
fail. So they are critically important to us.
I would say the other comment, or--relative to NIH is
linking animal health with human health, with environmental
health, and so those programs that are joint, especially in our
case, between animal and human, are very efficacious, where
there is dual application for both of those models.
Dr. Uhrich. As an inventor and entrepreneur myself, I would
appreciate USDA modeling some of the programs for NIH and NSF
that develop innovation. Specifically the NSF I-Corps Program,
which trains people to be innovators and start their own
companies, as well as NIH's SBIR Programs, small business--they
have Phase Zero, Phase One, and Phase Two, which takes
innovations--inventions that are occurring in our laboratories
and moving them out and working with companies to--make it
happen to implement those technologies. And I see that as an
important space for USDA to move into, so--
Mr. Lucas. If the Chairman will just indulge me for a
minute more? We have worked for some time, whether it is the
concept of rural STEM through the Science Committee programs,
or our efforts here in Agriculture to try and make sure that
every available opportunity is there for all of our neighbors
out in rural America who are involved in production
agriculture, making sure that you have access not just to
things traditionally in your lane, but other research
opportunities, just maximizes everybody's future back home.
and, for that matter, the benefit of it. So, Mr. Chairman, I
thank you and the Ranking Member for the hearing today. This
really is an outstanding panel, and sounds like they are on
track. We just need to help them down that track a little
faster. And I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Representative Lucas. It is a
pleasure to have you here, and have you working with us, with
your background and experience. And now the witnesses--in--at
this point you can relax, because we have some formalities that
we do to finish up and close this hearing, so I just want to
give you a chance to relax. You have had 2 hours. And so, at
this point, I would like to give the Ranking--sorry--Ranking
Member--can't even talk, can I? Anyway, the Ranking Member the
opportunity for any closing remarks that she might have.
Ms. Spanberger. Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this
hearing, it has been a wonderful discussion. To our witnesses,
thank you for being here today, and I really appreciate the
testimony that you gave, all of your work when you are not with
us here in the halls of Congress. I think you have helped
provide a strong understanding of why the important programs
that are part of the farm bill are vital to our communities.
Dean Grant, thank you for your work at Virginia Tech, on
behalf of your students and Virginia agriculture. And I just
want to reiterate my continued support for making strong
investments in research. Certainly the numbers bear out the
importance, but your testimony here today conveys what those
numbers actually mean, and what those results can be. Thank you
for your good work on behalf of American agriculture, and the
farmers and producers who engage every day.
In our farm bill we must ensure that our universities have
the funding they need to continue the good work that you all
are doing, promote U.S. global competitiveness, and ensure
cutting edge research to strengthen our food systems and our
resiliency. So thank you all for your time, thank you for your
testimony. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the hearing, and I yield
back.
The Chairman. Well, thank you, Ranking Member, I appreciate
your presence here. And I really want to make sure that you
understand how much we appreciate all of you, as witnesses,
being here today. Your testimony and your expertise is really
beneficial for helping us make the decisions we make about
legislations.
So, to continue with that, earlier this Congress we held a
hearing to review the USDA research programs, and today
provided us with a opportunity to hear directly from those
universities receiving funds from capacity funding and
competitive grant programs in the research title. So I would
like to thank all of our witnesses again, and add my thank you
for you being here, and sharing your expertise with the Members
of this Subcommittee. I know we all have greatly appreciated
the opportunity to spend more time reviewing research programs,
and the implementation of the research title in the farm bill.
And I would like to thank Ranking Member Spanberger for her
comments and questions, and for her strong support of
agricultural research.
We cannot forget about the importance of agricultural
research in ensuring the United States continues to have the
safest, most abundant, and most affordable food and fiber
supply in the world. Continued American leadership in ag
research is critical to national importance, both domestically
and abroad.
Under the Rules of the Committee, the record of today's
hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days so that we can
have and receive additional material and supplementary written
responses from the witnesses to any question posed by a Member.
And this hearing of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Research,
and Biotechnology is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Reports by Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress
from Pennsylvania
Report 1
July 19, 1979

2065

Hon. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.,
Speaker of the House,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Speaker:

In accordance with Section 1462 of Public Law 95-113, I am
submitting a report entitled ``Facilities for Food and Agricultural
Research.'' The report provides policies and criteria for making
decisions on agricultural research facilities. These policies and
criteria have been adopted by this Department. They are being applied
to all requests for facilities within the Department and in response to
requests from Congress and others.
In the conduct of the comprehensive study required for this report,
we solicited the cooperation of the Joint Council on Food and
Agricultural Sciences. The Joint Council provided me with its findings
and recommendations. These were carefully considered in developing the
report of the Department. For your information, a copy of the Joint
Council's report is enclosed also.
During the preparation of its report, the Joint Council conducted
an extensive survey of facility plans by state universities and USDA
agencies. The data are currently being assembled. In making use of this
information, the Department will analyze the data in accordance with
the criteria specified in the enclosed report.
Sincerely,

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Hon. Bob Bergland,
Secretary.
Facilities for Food and Agricultural Research
Report to the Secretary of Agriculture in response to Section
1462, Public Law 95-113, Food and Agriculture Act of 1977

March 1979

Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences
Foreword
In Section 1462 of Public Law 95-113, Congress requested the
Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a comprehensive study of the status
and future needs of agricultural research facilities and to submit a
report on this study to Congress and the President.
Congress specified that the report should include recommendations
``. . . in accordance with the requirements of state, regional and
national priority programs of research . . . '' Consequently, the
Department of Agriculture invited the Joint Council on Food and
Agricultural Sciences to join in the conduct of the study. The Joint
Council accepted.
This is the report that was prepared by the Joint Council for
consideration by the Secretary in preparing his report. In its
preparation, there were extensive interactions among representatives of
research performers within the total food and agricultural research
system. A great deal of negotiation was required to produce a set of
recommendations that the Joint Council believed was acceptable to the
research community. The Council believes this report meets that
objective.
Executive Summary
This report provides policies and criteria for making decisions on
facilities to serve the needs of the U.S. food and agricultural
research system. It also provides preliminary data from the nationwide
facility survey currently underway for the purpose of determining the
status of and future needs for research facilities. Complete data from
this survey will be reported as soon as they are available.
A discussion of the U.S. food and agricultural research system is
presented together with information on legislative authorities for
financing facilities and a summary of previous studies concerned with
facility needs.
Of the several policy issues related to decisions on research
facilities, there are three of major importance. These are: (A) Should
the planning and funding of agricultural research facilities be an
integral part of planning and funding programs? (B) To what extent
should facilities be federally owned or leased? and (C) To what extent
should the Federal Government finance construction or maintenance of
state-owned research facilities?
Recommended policies are:

Research facility planning and budgeting should be an
integral part of total program planning in the agricultural
research system. Facility funding needs should be an aggregate
of the facility needs of specific programs and the needs for a
continuing, broadly based effort.
Each major program should be analyzed to determine whether it
can be most effectively carried out by use of federally owned
or leased facilities with in-house scientists, extramural
funding, or a combination of these. Program planning and
budgeting will include proposals for the specific mix that is
considered optimal.
The policy in regard to Federal funding of state-owned
facilities requires that program planning between USDA and
cooperating institutions will include facility needs and that
funding proposals will identify allocations to specific
programs and locations. The Federal Government and the states
share a responsibility in assuring that facilities required by
high priority research programs supported by the Federal
Government in the states are adequate to accommodate the
programs. Such a principal is in keeping with the longstanding
partnership of the U.S. Department of Agriculture with
cooperating institutions in developing productive and effective
nationwide efforts in the food and agricultural sciences.
Where facilities for such joint programs are not available or
cannot be otherwise acquired, and where appropriate to the
program plan, the Federal Government has a role and obligation
to assist in funding state-owned facilities. Provision of USDA
financing for state-owned facilities at any cooperating
institution should be based on clear documentation that the
facilities needed for federally funded, state-performed
research in the individual state(s) are inadequate or
unavailable. This policy applies to the Congressional request
for a broad facilities program which meets the requirements of
state, regional, and national priorities as well as the
requirements of specific program thrusts of the USDA.
Federal funding in support of state-owned facilities should
take the form of a combination of formula funds to maintain an
effective research base and specific funds for high priority
programs.

Criteria for facility decisions:
Two major sets of criteria are recommended for use in developing
decisions on facility needs. These are for (1) program requirement
decisions and (2) implementation decisions. For program requirement
decisions, the relative and absolute need for facilities in one
research program as against the relative and absolute need in other
programs can serve as principal criteria in deciding whether or not
facility funds are essential to program effectiveness and in setting
priorities on facility needs among programs. In appraising facility
proposals, these criteria would indicate whether or not the proposal
was for a program having relatively great or relatively modest facility
needs. Preliminary data from the facilities survey currently underway
indicate wide variation in the relative need in different research
programs and between Federal agencies and the states. These partial
data indicate a total need for additional office and/or laboratory
space for 822 SY's and a need to renovate or modernize existing office
and/or laboratory space for over 1,700 SY's. Also, data indicate that
there will be excess office and/or laboratory space equivalent to the
needs of 879 scientists in other Federal facilities projected for 1981.
Projected excess space in other state facilities for 1981 will be for
eight scientists. However, previous studies have indicated that
matching excess space with space needs has rarely been possible due to
location differences and programmatic incompatibility. Also, excess
space often requires major renovation before it can be used
effectively.
Once a decision is made that there is a facility need for a
specific program, then implementation decisions are required on the
type, location, and form of management for the facility. These should
be based on answers to the following questions: (1) Is the research
best conducted at national and/or regional centers or at dispersed
locations? (2) Do research requirements suggest that the facility be
located in isolation from or in conjunction with facilities at
cooperating institutions? (3) Are there compelling reasons that the
facility be federally owned or leased as contrasted to state owned? (4)
Should Federal facilities be obtained by lease or by construction or
purchase? (5) Should the Federal facility be USDA operated or managed
by other arrangements? (6) Should state and Federal-owned facilities by
shared? (7) What should be the specific accountability requirements for
Federal research facility funds provided for state-owned facilities?
(8) Should the facility design be specialized or flexible? (9) Should
Federal funds be used for modernization and renovation?
Criteria to be used in answering each of these questions are
included in this report.
Table of Contents
Outline of Study
Introduction
Background
Procedure
Policy Issues
Facility vs. Program Funding
Federal Facilities
Federal Financing of State-Owned Facilities
Criteria for Decisions on Facility Needs
Program Requirements
Implementation Decisions
Appendix I--Review of Previous Facility Studies
Appendix II--Work Group Membership
Facilities for Food and Agricultural Research Outline
I Introduction
II Background

A. The Food and Agriculture Research System
B. Historical Support for Facilities
C. Previous Studies

III Procedure
IV Policy Issues

A. Facility Versus Program Funding

The Issue

For:
Against:

Policy Alternatives
Recommended Policy

B. Federal Facilities

The Issue

For:
Against:

Policy Alternatives
Recommended Policy

C. Federal Financing of State-Owned Facilities

The Issue

For:
Against:

Policy Alternatives
Recommended Policy

V Criteria for Decisions on Facility Needs

A. Program Requirement Decisions
B. Implementation Decisions

1. Is the Research Best Conducted at National and/or Regional
Centers or at Dispersed Locations?
2. Do Research Requirements Suggest That the Facility be
Located in Isolation From or in Conjunction With Facilities at
Cooperating Institutions?
3. Are There Compelling Reasons That the Facility be
Federally Owned or Leased as Contrasted to State Owned?
4. Should Federal Facilities be Obtained by Lease or by
Construction or Purchase?
5. Should the Federal Facility be USDA Operated or Managed by
Other Arrangements?
6. Should State and Federal-Owned Facilities be Shared?
7. What Should be the Specific Accountability Requirements
for Federal Research Facility Funds Provided for State-Owned
Facilities?
8. Should the Facility Design be Specialized or Flexible?
9. Should Federal Funds be Used for Modernization and
Renovation?
I Introduction
This report provides policies, criteria, and procedural steps for
making decisions on facilities for food and agricultural research. This
report also provides preliminary data from the nationwide facility
survey currently in progress. The report is in response to a request
from Congress for ``. . . a comprehensive study of the status and
future needs of agricultural research facilities.'' (7 U.S.C. 3304)
This study was to ``. . . cover agricultural research facilities
and materials including, but not limited to, buildings and farms,
laboratories, plant, seed, genetic stock, insect, virus, and animal
collections, and lease and purchase items such as computers, laboratory
instruments, and related equipment.''
This report from the study was required to ``. . . include
recommendations for a program to provide the United States with the
most modern and efficient system of research facilities needed to
advance agricultural research in all fields, and recommendations with
regard to priority requirements for research instrumentation and
facilities needing modernization, construction, or renovation in
accordance with requirements of state, regional, and national priority
programs of research and based on the fullest utilization of human,
monetary, and physical resources.''
Later, the Senate Committee on Appropriations further explained
Congressional requirements for the study in Report No. 95-1058. The
Committee noted that ``. . . without a comprehensive facility plan for
federally funded research facilities, only ad hoc decisions could be
made on individual projects.''
The Committee mentioned the legislative request for a research
facility review and stated that the studies should ``. . . provide a
valuable matrix in which individual projects can be analyzed and
evaluated as part of a comprehensive program of research facility
construction.''
The Committee further stated that ``If the intent of the
legislation is to be met, and the results of the studies to be of
significant value, careful attention must be given to the development
of a general facility development plan and structure criteria, and
policy decision making on new facility proposals.''
II Background
A. The Food and Agriculture Research System
The term ``food and agriculture sciences'' (Section 1404, P.L. 95-
113) means sciences relating to food and agriculture in the broadest
sense, including the social, economic, and political considerations
of--

1. agriculture, including soil and water conservation and use, the
use of organic waste materials to improve soil tilth and
fertility, plant and animal production and protection, and
plant and animal health;

2. the processing, distributing, marketing, and utilization of food
and agricultural products;

3. forestry, including range management, production of forest and
range products, multiple use of forest and range lands, and
urban forestry;

4. aquaculture;

5. home economics, human nutrition, and family life; and

6. rural and community development;

Publicly supported food and agricultural research has been a joint
Federal-state effort since 1887. The research activity is dispersed
among all the states and territories. The Hatch Act states: ``It shall
be the object and duty of the state agricultural experiment stations .
. . to conduct original and other researches . . . bearing directly on
and contributing to the establishment and maintenance of a permanent
and effective agricultural industry of the United States, including
researches basic to the problems of agriculture in its broadest aspects
. . . having due regard to the varying conditions and needs of the
respective states.'' Later it was recognized that economic and social
development in agriculture of the nation is based on wide distribution
of scientific expertise and educational opportunity.
The nationwide research program has several objectives:
a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Research to Meet U.S. and World Food Needs, Volume II, July
1975.

to solve local, regional, and national problems affecting
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
food and agriculture, forestry, and other renewable resources.

to provide a continuing flow of new scientific knowledge
essential to the solution of future problems.

to provide scientific competence for teaching, including
graduate student research, to train future scientists.

to provide scientific expertise to (1) local, state, and
Federal agencies, (2) private organizations and individuals,
and (3) programs of overseas development.

Traditionally, the Federal-state system has involved three USDA
agencies, 56 state agricultural experiment stations (SAES), 16 schools
of forestry in addition to Forestry Units included in the state
agricultural experiment stations, and 16 Land-Grant Colleges of 1890
and Tuskegee Institute.b The number of scientist years
(SY's) for each performer is shown in Table 1. More recently efforts
have been made to formally include other institutions which conduct
agricultural research, including those veterinary schools and colleges
which are not a part of SAES.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\b\ Herein after referred to as ``1890 Institutions.''

Table 1. The Publicly-Supported Agricultural Research System

Scientist-
Performing Units Years in FY
1977

Federal Agencies:
Agricultural Research (AR-SEA)........................ 2,996.9
Forest Service........................................ 951.6
Economics, Statistics and Cooperative Services (ESCS). 478.36
---------------
Subtotal............................................ 4,426.8
---------------
Non-Federal Units:
State Agricultural Experiment Stations (SAES)......... 6,555.4
Forestry Schools (For. Sch.).......................... 208.7
1890 Institutions (1890's)............................ 153.1
Veterinary Schools (Vet. Sch.)........................ 281.5
Subtotal............................................ 7,198.7
===============
Grand Total....................................... 11,625.5

The state institutions are under the control of administrative
bodies which direct activities of higher education and are responsible
to state legislatures. The institution's administrators and scientists
are non-Federal employees. In addition to research, many of the
scientists have university teaching responsibilities, particularly at
the graduate level, and some have extension duties. Over 10,000
graduate students are associated with the research programs.
The USDA research agencies are directed by Federal administrators
located in Washington, D.C. They have field installations throughout
the country including many at cooperating institutions. USDA laboratory
directors and staff scientists are Federal employees. Some USDA
scientists work under joint arrangements with cooperating institutions
and share state facilities with state scientists. Some are members of
the faculties of cooperating institutions, assist in training graduate
students, participate in seminars, and other educational and research
activities. The USDA agencies also support research at cooperating
institutions through grants and contracts. In addition, the Federal
Government supports agricultural research under authorizations such as
Hatch and other formula funds.
B. Historical Support for Facilities
Appropriations from Congress for research facilities to house
Federal employees have been provided since 1862 when the Department of
Agriculture was established. Currently there are USDA research
facilities at 201 locations.
The Hatch Act as passed in 1887 and in later amendments provided
formula grant funds for the state agricultural experiment stations. The
authorized uses of these funds include ``. . . in addition . . .
purchase and rental of land and construction, acquisition, alteration,
or repair of buildings necessary for conducted research.'' (7 U.S.C.
331) Similar authorities were provided in 1977 to the 1890
institutions. (91 Stat. 1009)
Over the years, the state program directors have used these funds
primarily for program support rather than facilities on the rationale
that if such funds were used as a major source of funding for
facilities, their usefulness for maintaining a continuing research
program base would have been adversely impacted. It would also have
been difficult to utilize these funds for physical facilities because
there were no carry-over provisions and facility construction may take
longer than 1 year. Facilities and improvements have come mainly
through specific state and Federal appropriations.
In 1963, P.L. 88-74 was enacted to provide funding for research
facilities at the State Agricultural Experiment Stations. Funds
appropriated are distributed in accordance with a statutory formula. To
date, $10,242,000 has been appropriated under this authority. This law
was amended in 1977 (91 Stat. 994) to broaden the eligibility for funds
to include institutions receiving McIntire-Stennis funds, and the 1890
institutions.
Another authority for facility funding was provided by Congress in
the Rural Development Act of 1972, P.L. 92-419 (7 U.S.C. 2661-2668).
This Act authorizes funds for equipment, and rent, repair, and
maintenance of research and extension facilities needed to carry out
the purpose of the Act. Funds may not be used to purchase or construct
buildings.
Legislation in 1977 provided added authorities for financing
research facilities at cooperating institutions including veterinary
schools (91 Stat. 992-994). No appropriations for facilities have been
made under the 1977 authorities.
Table 2 summarizes the legislation authorizing Federal funding for
state facilities. As shown in the table, Congress has stipulated that
Federal funds will provide only part of the cost of facilities for the
states by requiring matching funds in some laws. Facility funding for
veterinary schools must be matched according to Section 1415 of P.L.
95-113. (U.S.C. 91 Stat. 993-4) Cost-sharing is required for facility
grants authorized for State Agricultural Experiment Stations and
forestry schools under Section 1414 of P.L. 95-113 (U.S.C. 91 Stat.
992-3) as was the case in P.L. 88-74. Provisions for matching are
required in the Hatch Act for state experiment stations, but these
apply to the total funds appropriated and not necessarily to those
specifically used for facilities.

Table 2. Summary of Legislation Authorizing USDA Funding of State
Research Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legislation Eligible Recipients Matching Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hatch Act of March 2, All State Agricultural At least 50 percent in
1887 (24 Stat. 440- Experiment Stations excess of a base
442, as amended; 7 endowment. Not
U.S.C. 361a-361i) specifically those
used for facilities.
Physical Facilities Act All State Agricultural At least 50 percent.
of July 22, 1963 (77 Experiment Stations
Stat. 90-92, as
amended; 7 U.S.C. 390,
390a-390k) Prior to
1977
Rural Development Act Adminstered through None.
of 1972 (7 U.S.C. 2661- recipients of Hatch
2668) Act
1977 Amendments to All State Agricultural None.
Physical Facilities Experiment Stations,
Act of July 22, 1963, including Connecticut
(91 Stat. 994) SAES at New Haven and
Ohio SAES at Wooster;
the 1890
Institutions; and
institutions
receiving McIntire-
Stennis Funds
National Agricultural 1890 Institutions None.
Research, Extension,
and Teaching Policy
Act of 1977, Subtitle
G, Section 1445 (91
Stat. 1009-1011) 7
U.S.C. 3222
Special Grants Act of State Agricultural At least 50 percent
August 4, 1965 (79 Experiment Stations, above [$]50,000 for
Stat. 431; 7 U.S.C., institutions each recipient except
4501) as amended by receiving McIntire- no matching for
P.L. 95-113 (91 Stat. Stennis funds, and colleges of veterinary
992-993) accredited colleges medicine.
of veterinary
medicine
National Agricultural Schools of veterinary At least 50 percent.
Research, Extension, medicine
and Teaching Policy
Act of 1977, Subtitle
C, Section 1415 (91
Stat. 993-994)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the other hand, Congress has omitted any matching requirements
for facility funding in other laws. Section 1445 of P.L. 95-113
requires no matching for use of funds on research facilities by the
1890 Institutions. No matching is required by the eligible institutions
under P.L. 88-74 as amended (U.S.C. 390, 390a). No matching is required
for rural development research and extension facilities in P.L. [92]-
419.
Research facilities are also addressed in Section 4 of P.L. 95-307,
the new forestry research legislation enacted in June 1978.
In summary, Congress has authorized Federal support for facilities
related to research at both Federal and state locations. Congress has
been selective in requiring that the states provide a portion of the
financing of state facilities in order to receive Federal funds.
C. Previous Studies
There have been nine major studies dating from 1959 which contain
policies and plans for USDA support of food and agricultural research
facilities at Federal and cooperating institutions. A review of these
studies is included in Appendix I. In brief, these[:]

reiterated the need for Federal-state discussions and
planning on facility needs.

encouraged sharing of facilities.

emphasized need to locate Federal facilities at or near
facilities of cooperating institutions.

called for regional and national research centers when the
research results would have a wide range of applicability, the
research is not location specific, and the center mission can
be specifically defined.

recommended the construction and financing of specific
facilities.
III Procedure
The U.S. Department of Agriculture invited the Joint Council on
Food and Agricultural Sciences to join in the conduct of this study.
The Joint Council accepted. As a consequence, two Federal-state groups
were appointed.
Once group was charged with obtaining data on the status and future
needs of research facilities in accordance with the requirements of
state, regional, and national priority programs. This group developed a
questionnaire and undertook a survey of USDA agencies and those
institutions currently authorized to receive Federal funds for research
facilities. For each agency and institution, the group requested data
on scientific occupancy and effective capacity of current and committed
research facilities as well as facility needs at program levels
projected for FY 1981. Committed facilities are those presently under
construction or for which funds are in-hand for construction--both
scheduled for completion by 1981 and thus effecting increased scientist
capacity.
For facilities needing additional space or renovation of existing
space, detailed information was requested on the extent and type of
need and for which research program. Needs for land, support
structures, repair and maintenance, equipment and instrumentation were
to be included. Additionally, the extent and type of space excess to
needs was to be furnished together with information describing major-
unique collections in existence that are or could serve as important
tools for the conduct of agricultural research. At the time of this
report, not all data from this survey have been obtained and analyzed.
However, as will be shown later, preliminary results have been
incorporated into this report. The full data will be reported as soon
as they are available.
The second group was charged with developing recommendations on
policies and criteria for appraising needs and making decisions on
Federal support of facilities for food and agricultural research.
Membership on both these groups is shown in Appendix II.
IV Policy Issues
Decisions on research facilities are generally those needed to: (1)
determine facility needs of specific programs, (2) approve or reject
proposals for specific facilities, and (3) determine provisions needed
in legislative authorities. Of the possible policy issues related to
these decisions, there are three of major importance. These are:

A. Should the planning and funding of agricultural research
facilities be an integral part of planning and funding for
programs?

B. To what extent should the facilities be federally owned or
leased?

C. To what extent should the Federal Government finance construction
or maintenance of state-owned research facilities?

The following discussions of these issues include arguments for and
against policy alternatives and recommendations.
A. Facility Versus Program Planning
The Issue
Should the planning and funding of agricultural research facilities
be an integral part of planning and funding for programs?

For: The studies of agricultural research during the past
decade, as well as studies of research facilities, have
emphasized the need for integrating facility plans with those
for research programs. New construction proposals should be
justified on the needs of specific programs.
In the past, the isolation of facility planning from program
planning has been one of the reasons why little Federal funding
has been provided for state-owned facilities, despite the
several authorizations by Congress to do so. This practice
tends to force program funding to follow facility
appropriations.

Against: In the past, facility funding has sometimes preceded
program development. The rationale suggested that research
construction has the same purpose as construction in industry.
Once the general area of expansion is identified, then the
first requirement is to establish the buildings and equipment
needed. Therefore, facility development should precede detailed
program development.
Some administrators believe that high-priority needs in
agriculture are so wide-ranging and so under funded that it is
necessary to encourage participants in the system to seek
support for programs and facilities wherever and whenever
possible. Another argument against integration of facility and
program planning is the need for continually updating
facilities for the ongoing base effort supported by Federal
formula as well as in-house funds. Without a broad, continuing
support for facility funding, these needs would be neglected.
Policy Alternatives:
1. Plan and seek funds for research programs and facilities as
independent activities.

2. Plan and fund research facilities and develop programs to fit the
facilities provided.

3. Integrate facility and program planning. Develop facility needs
for both specific programs and for continuing base
programs.
Recommended Policy:
Research facility planning and budgeting should be an integral part
of total program planning of the agricultural research system. Facility
funding needs should be an aggregate of the facility needs of specific
programs and the needs of the continuing broadly based effort.
B. Federal Facilities
The Issue
To what extent should the facilities be federally owned or leased?
The answer to this question largely determines any obligation the
Federal Government may have to house its scientists in Federal
facilities. The issue is essentially one of in-house versus extramural
funding for research.

For: Government-owned or leased facilities can best perform
research and development which is in direct support of missions
of Federal action and regulatory agencies; which is not within
the resource capability of individual states; and which is not
economic for the private-sector to undertake. Specifically, the
R&D functions can best be performed in federally owned or
leased facilities when there is:

1. Need for special containment facilities and specific
procedures to protect
and promote national interests.

2. Need for research results in direct support and close
cooperation with
Federal regulatory and action agencies.

3. Need for immediate application to national emergencies.

4. Need for centralized program requirements.

Against: Research should not be performed in Federal
facilities because it is important that agricultural research
take full advantage of the opportunity to contribute to
graduate and undergraduate training. This is possible primarily
at universities where many faculty members carry out both
research and teaching responsibilities. A considerable amount
of funds available to cooperating institutions is used in
support of research associated with education activities. In
this way important contributions are made to the development of
future agricultural scientists and other professionals.
Agricultural scientists who are employees of cooperating
institutions have many opportunities because of their faculty
membership, to cooperate with scientists outside of agriculture
in their institutions.
Limitations on number of Federal employees have been imposed
by both the Executive Branch and Congress. This calls for a
policy of providing the needed research with a minimum of
Federal employees, i.e., extramural grants to states and also
the private-sector.
Policy Alternatives:
1. Use only federally owned or leased facilities to carry out all
federally financed research that is in direct support of
Federal action and regulatory agencies and is not within
the resource capability or purposes of state financed and
private-sector research.

2. Develop the aggregate mix of Federal versus non-Federal
facilities in accordance with the most effective means of
carrying out specific programs.

3. Minimize the construction of federally owned and operated
facilities by utilizing extramural funding mechanisms as
much as possible.

4. USDA conduct no research in federally owned or leased
facilities--all facilities to be owned by the state.
Recommended Policy:
Each major program should be analyzed to determine whether it can
be most effectively carried out by use of federally owned or leased
facilities with in-house scientists, extramural funding, or a
combination of these. Program planning and budgeting will include
proposals for the specific mix that is considered optimum.
Criteria for deciding on federally owned or leased facilities as
contrasted to extramural funding using non-Federal facilities are as
follows:

1. Situations appropriate for use of federally owned or leased
facilities:

a. Research on exotic animal diseases which have not entered
this
country but which continually threaten to do so--for
which special con-
tainment facilities and procedures are required.
Present Federal law re-
quires these activities to be done only in specially
equipped Federal
laboratories.

b. Development and maintenance of national and international
reposi-
tories and collections of plant and animal germplasm.

c. R&D in direct support of, and close cooperation with, Federal
regulatory
and ``action'' agencies.

d. Research and development readily and immediately applicable
to na-
tional emergencies.

e. Highly mission-oriented R&D which is the focus of specific
Congres-
sional appropriations and for which early action is
mandated.

f. A minimum level of research necessary to preserve knowledge
of the ag-
ricultural (or other) system as a whole within a
readily available na-
tional talent pool. This provides insurance against the
unexpected and
thus may apply only to research areas that are critical
to national de-
fense and the general welfare.

g. Maintenance of a Federal research presence to serve as a
catalyst and/
or core in bringing together other institutions to form
a critical mass
or consortium needed to attack a particular problem.

2. Situations for use of non-Federal facilities:

a. Strong need for training of graduate students in the subject
matter
of the program.

b. Strong need for researchers to have both research and
teaching respon-
sibilities.

c. Strong need for cooperation of university departments outside
of agri-
culture.

d. Federal employment restrictions require limited in-house
funding.
C. Federal Financing of State-Owned Facilities
The Issue
To what extent should the Federal Government finance construction
or maintenance of state-owned research facilities?

For: One argument is that Federal support for research
facilities should be based on the same premise as Federal
support for research programs, i.e., in order to meet
nationwide needs in food and agricultural research that cannot
be met by the states or the private-sector. Nationwide needs
include not only specific national goals, but also the
aggregate of local and state goals. In agricultural research
the aggregate of local and state goals is much more a national
goal than in some other research areas, because a great part of
agricultural research must be carried out in the specific
geophysical environment in which the results are to be
utilized. Research on lettuce for people in the Cities of New
York or Baltimore must be conducted where most of the lettuce
is grown, e.g., Texas, California, and other states far away
from many major cities.
A similar situation holds for a large number of agricultural
products. Therefore, it is in the national interest to have
Federal involvement in the research on a great many products.
Related to this argument is the one that program
responsibilities and support should be complemented by facility
support. Facility needs are inherent to program needs and
should be considered along with salaries and expendable
supplies. Precedent for this argument is demonstrated in the
actions of Congress starting in 1887. Federal funding of
facilities as part of program support can also insure that
facility planning becomes an integral part of nationwide
program planning. Thus, increased efficiency in use of
resources could result.
Another argument is that Hatch Act and other formula funds
are not suitable for use on facilities even though the law
authorizes such use. The large lump sum requirements in any 1
year for a major facility would have to be subtracted from the
support for ongoing programs. This would seriously disrupt the
essential continuity of the ongoing program.
Still another argument is that the cooperating institutions
are currently housing approximately 600 Federal (USDA) research
employees. Therefore, the Federal Government is not meeting its
housing obligations to its own employees unless it provides the
states with facility support.

Against: An argument against Federal support for state-owned
facilities is that traditionally, state agricultural experiment
station directors have elected to use Hatch funds to support
research programs rather than facilities.
Another argument is that USDA, in contrast to some other
Federal agencies, puts 65 percent of its funding into in-house
research. Therefore, there has been a strong commitment, which
should continue, for providing support for both in-house
scientists and Federal facilities.
Policy Alternatives:

1. There should be no Federal funding of state research facilities.

2. Federal funding of state-owned facilities should be allocated to
meet the requirements of specific high priority programs
and when such facilities are inadequate or unavailable in
the individual states.

3. Federal funding of state-owned facilities should be provided to
cooperating institutions through annual formula funds which
allow the institution administrator to determine its use
for specific programs.

4. Federal funding of state-owned facilities should be both by
formula basis to insure a continuing effective research
base and by specific appropriations for high priority
programs.
Recommended Policy:
Funding of state-owned facilities requires that program planning
between USDA and cooperating institutions will include facility needs
and that funding proposals will identify allocations to specific
programs and locations. The Federal Government and the states share a
responsibility in assuring that facilities required by high priority
research programs supported by the Federal Government in the states are
adequate to accommodate the program. Such a principle is in keeping
with the longstanding partnership of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
with cooperating institutions in developing productive and effective
nationwide efforts in the food and agricultural sciences.
Where facilities for such joint programs are not available or
cannot be otherwise acquired, and where appropriate to the program
plan, the Federal Government has a role and obligation to assist in
funding state-owned facilities. Provision of USDA financing for state-
owned facilities at any cooperating institution should be based on
clear documentation that the facilities needed for federally funded,
state-performed research in the individual state(s) are inadequate or
unavailable. this policy applies to the Congressional request for a
broad facilities program which meets the requirements of state,
regional, and national priorities as well as to the requirements of
specific program thrusts of the USDA.
Federal funding in support of state-owned facilities should take
the form of a combination of formula funds to maintain an effective
research base and specific funds for high priority programs.
V Criteria for Decisions on Facility Needs
The following criteria are recommended for use when developing
decisions on facility needs. They should be useful when planning
programs, evaluating specific facility proposals, and appraising
requirements for legislation. They consist of two major types: (1)
program requirements and (2) implementation decisions.

A. Program requirements. For purpose of inventory and planning, food
and agricultural research has been classified in accordance
with 48 Research Programs (RP's). Two other categories have
been included, namely: multiple program and unclassified.

These classifications are shown in Table 3. Table 3 also shows
the absolute and relative needs of each program for
additional space and for renovation and modernization to be
met by 1981 after committed program and facility changes
have been effected. These absolute and relative needs were
compiled from data obtained in a survey of all USDA
agencies and cooperating institutions currently eligible to
receive Federal funds distributed by formula under various
legislative authorities.

Table 3. Relative Need of Each Research Program for Additional Space and for Renovation and Modernization Based on Committed Program and Facility
Changes to 1981
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1977 Base Additional Space Needs Office and/or Renovation Needs Office and/or Lab
------------------------------- Lab ---------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
Research Programs Fed State Total Fed State Fed State Total As % of
(SY's) (SY's) (SY's) Facil. Facil. Total As % of Facil. Facil. (SY's) RP
(SY's) (SY's) (SY's) RP (SY's) (SY's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.01 Soil & land use 125.3 277.6 402.9 1.9 46.5 48.4 12.0 17.3 55.7 73.2 18.2
1.02 Water & watersheds 183.3 124.8 308.1 4.8 24.7 29.5 9.6 13.0 11.9 24.9 8.1
1.03 Recreation 27.7 27.7 1.8 1.8 6.3 .8 .8 2.9
1.04 Environmental quality 184.8 290.4 475.2 .5 42.4 43.0 9.0 7.0 23.5 30.5 6.4
1.05 Weather modification 4.0 35.3 39.3 2.7 2.7 6.9 2.9 2.9 7.4
1.06 Fish & wildlife .8 63.6 64.4 19.7 19.7 30.6 11.5 11.5 17.9
1.07 Remote sensing 5.0 6.0 11.0 .5 .5 4.6 1.6 1.6 14.6
2.01 Inventory forest res. 37.6 31.2 88.8 16.5 1.8 18.3 20.6 1.0 1.0 1.1
2.02 Timber management 219.3 153.2 372.5 25.6 19.7 45.3 12.2 3.0 20.8 23.3 6.4
2.03 Forest protection 245.9 101.8 347.7 31.0 10.6 41.5 12.0 11.0 7.5 18.5 5.4
2.04 Harv. mkt. fors. prod. 198.7 145.3 344.0 9.0 11.6 20.5 6.0 2.0 23.5 25.5 7.4
2.05 Fors. wtrshds & poltn. 128.7 62.4 191.1 9.2 12.0 21.2 11.1 5.9 5.9 3.1
2.06 Range fish & wildlife 65.7 45.1 110.8 9.8 8.0 17.8 16.1 6.0 3.1 9.1 8.2
2.07 Forest recreation 19.4 30.6 50.0 5.8 3.6 9.4 18.8 .7 .7 1.4
2.08 Alternate land uses 18.5 19.1 37.6 3.1 3.1 8.2
2.09 Technical assistance 3.0 1.1 4.1 1.0 1.0 24.4
3.01 Corn 88.4 162.5 250.9 12.9 12.9 5.1 30.1 22.3 52.4 20.9
3.02 Grain sorghum 21.3 50.0 71.3 7.2 7.2 10.1 4.8 9.2 14.0 19.6
3.03 Wheat 92.9 129.7 222.6 1.0 7.9 8.9 4.0 20.8 8.4 29.2 13.1
3.04 Other small grain 35.9 76.9 112.8 6.3 6.3 5.6 3.2 6.2 9.4 8.3
3.05 Rice 17.5 35.2 52.7 4.0 4.0 7.6
3.06 Soybeans 96.0 197.5 293.5 24.1 24.1 8.2 34.7 16.3 51.2 17.4
3.07 Peanuts 26.2 44.1 70.3 6.4 6.4 9.1 4.0 2.4 6.4 9.1
3.08 Sugar 52.9 53.5 106.7 2.0 4.0 6.0 5.6 18.0 .3 18.3 17.2
3.09 Forage range pasture 153.2 330.9 484.1 7.9 49.3 57.2 11.8 10.9 22.5 33.4 6.9
3.10 Cotton 274.7 132.5 407.2 16.5 16.5 4.0 5.0 16.5 21.5 5.3
3.11 Tobacco 49.5 60.7 110.2 3.8 3.8 3.4
3.12 New crops minor oilsd. 56.1 39.7 95.8 8.9 8.9 9.3 24.0 6.3 27.3 28.6
3.13 Fruit 182.3 464.2 646.7 2.0 33.7 35.7 5.5 30.4 43.0 73.4 11.4
3.14 Vegetable crops 140.2 494.2 634.4 4.0 44.5 48.5 7.6 22.8 70.3 96.1 14.7
3.15 Plants enhanc. envir. 45.9 216.0 261.9 .8 13.6 14.4 5.5 10.5 11.6 22.1 5.4
3.16 Bees & other polntrs. 32.1 17.3 49.9 1.6 1.6 3.2 .3 .3 .5
4.01 Beef 152.1 486.0 638.1 6.0 35.3 41.3 6.3 21.5 31.5 55.0 5.3
4.02 Dairy 98.4 153.0 453.4 2.0 24.9 26.9 5.9 40.0 40.0 3.3
4.03 Poultry 71.0 253.1 324.1 1.0 12.8 13.8 4.3 .5 49.5 50.1 15.5
4.04 Sheep & wool 55.8 80.0 135.8 2.3 5.5 7.8 5.7 10.0 .9 10.9 8.0
4.05 Swine 53.9 180.2 234.1 1.0 16.1 17.1 7.3 6.0 20.3 26.3 11.2
4.06 Other animals 15.8 102.2 118.0 .7 4.1 4.8 4.1 6.2 6.2 5.2
4.07 Aquatic food & feed .1 72.1 72.2 3.4 3.4 4.7 3.8 3.8 5.3
5.01 Food & nutrition 183.1 210.5 393.6 6.5 24.3 30.8 7.8 12.0 37.9 49.9 12.7
5.02 Food safety 134.9 114.3 249.7 9.9 9.9 4.0 58.6 17.9 76.5 30.6
5.03 Rural dev. qual. living 72.1 314.2 386.3 7.2 7.2 1.9 19.1 19.1 4.9
5.04 Insects affect man 29.8 41.6 71.4 .5 4.9 5.4 7.6 19.0 7.2 26.2 36.7
5.05 Res. on admn. of res. 10.8 10.8
6.01 Farm adj. price inc. 82.9 134.1 217.0 9.4 9.4 4.3 13.4 13.4 6.2
6.02 Foreign trd. eco. dvl. 118.3 32.7 151.0 1.5 1.5 1.0 3.0 .2 3.2 2.1
6.03 Mkt. & competition 258.1 172.4 431.5 12.8 12.8 3.0 3.0 18.3 24.3 4.9
7.01 Gen. resources 274.2 539.2 363.4 48.6 48.6 5.6 36.5 32.8 139.2 16.1
8.01 Multi res. programs 3.2 3.2 298.0 182.3 480.8
9.01 Unclassified 1.0 127.9 128.9 17.0 17.0 13.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 4,426.8 7,198.7 11,625.5 151.9 670.5 822.4 7.1 792.3 934.0 1,726.5 14.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table based on incomplete data and will be revised when information is available from all performing groups.

Absolute need is expressed as the number of scientists (SY's)
inadequately housed. Relative need is expressed as the
percentage of all Federal and state SY's requiring
additional or renovated office and/or laboratory space in
Federal and state facilities. Utilizing preliminary data,
these needs are shown in Table 3 for each research program
(RP).
Thus, RP 1.01 Soils and Land Use, Federal facilities need
additional office and/or laboratory space for 1.9 SY's;
state facilities need additional space for 46.5 SY's; and
together, comprise an absolute need for space of 48.4 SY's
and a relative need of 12% in that RP. Also, for the same
RP, there is need to renovate office and/or laboratory
space for 17.5 SY's in Federal facilities and for 55.7 SY's
in state facilities, a total of 73.2 SY's which is 18.2% of
the total in that RP.
The preliminary data in this table indicate the highest
relative needs for additional office and/or laboratory
space are in the Fish and Wildlife and in the Technical
Assistance Research Programs. The highest relative needs
for renovation are in New Crops and Minor Oilseeds, Food
Safety and Insects Affecting Man and His Belongings
Research Programs. For all Research Programs, the relative
need for additional space is 7.1% and for renovation 14.8%.
This is consistent with earlier studies. For 15 RP's,
absolute need is more than 20 SY's. The total absolute need
is 822 SY's.
The large absolute need for additional space for Federal
facilities in RP's 2.01-2.03 is primarily due to existing
leased space being unsuitable for the type of research
underway. If the proper space cannot be obtained through
lease arrangements, new construction must be considered.
The additional needs for these three RP's are based on this
assumption.
Absolute need for renovation exceeds 20 SY's for 24 RP's and
the total need for such upgrading is more than 1,700 SY's.
The Absolute Need value is a criterion useful in assessing the
comparative level of funding needed for additional space or
for renovation.
In appraising legislative authorities, this criterion could be
used to determine the relative value of grants for
facilities, per se, versus grants for facilities of
specific programs such as human nutrition.
The Relative Need value is a criterion for assessing the need
or lack of it in one RP as compared to another.
In planning decisions for an RP, this criterion would be an aid
in deciding whether or not to provide facility funds. For
planning with an RP, it would be necessary to examine the
data from the survey in more detail than shown in Table 3.
In appraising facility proposals, this criterion could indicate
whether or not the proposal was for a program having
relatively great or relatively modest facility needs as
compared to total program investments.
The values for Table 3 for Federal agencies (Forest Service and
Science and Education Administration) are based on
essentially complete data whereas the data for state
institutions (State Agricultural Experiment Stations, 1890
institutions, colleges of veterinary medicine and forestry
schools) are only 76 percent complete. Values based on
complete data will be provided as soon as the data are
received and analyzed. Other types of information
forthcoming will include the extent of need for support
structures, land, repair and maintenance, equipment and
instrumentation together with documentation on the
existence of major collections of germplasm, insects, etc.
that serve as important tools for the conduct of
agricultural research.
In addition to the extent of need for additional space and
renovation, data have been obtained on the extent of
scientist capacity which is excess to needs projected for
FY 1981. In 1977, federally owned or controlled facilities
had excess office and/or laboratory space for 811
scientists. In 1981, after committed program and space
changes have been effected (assuming 1979 constant level of
support), it is estimated that there would be excess space
for 879 scientists. The President's Budget for 1980
proposes a reduction in the number of Federal agricultural
scientists. This would result in additional excess space
for approximately 224 scientists making the 1981 total
1,103. The 1981 estimates include space for approximately
92 scientists in facilities currently under construction,
such as the Human Nutrition Center in Boston,
Massachusetts.
In considering additional facility requirements for specific
programs, the feasibility of using the excess space in
Federal facilities would be determined before any requests
are made for new construction. However, previous studies
have shown that matching excess space with space needs
within the Federal or within the state and between Federal
and state has rarely been possible due to location
differences. Also the excess space in many instances will
limit the type of research it will accommodate and may
require major renovation before it can be used effectively.
Preliminary data, based on 49% of the state facilities
reporting to date, show that in 1977, there was excess
office and/or laboratory space equivalent to the needs for
24 scientists. After committed program and space changes
are effected, excess space projected for 1981 will be for 8
SY's.

B. Implementation Decisions. Once a decision is made that there is a
facility needs for an RP or a specific program, then
decisions are required on the type, location, and form of
management for the facility or facilities. These are
essentially implementation decisions, and the following
criteria are recommended as aids to developing them:

1. Is the Research Best Conducted at National or Regional
Centers or at
Dispersed Locations?

Criteria for deciding on developing research centers versus
the con-
ducting of research at widely dispersed locations are
as follows:

a. Conducting research at widely dispersed locations is
appropriate
when:

(1) the research must be carried out in accordance with
the varying
needs of the several states and localities;

(2) elements of the environment, such as soils, climate,
pests, etc.,
require research at diverse locations, i.e.,
when a significant
treatments locations interaction is expected
because of different
responses under different environments.

b. The establishment of regional or national centers is
appropriate
when:

(1) the national or regional effort requires
concentrated, continued
research on a specific issue;

(2) the subject can be research at a single center
including one hav-
ing selected satellite locations organized to
meet a specific need;

(3) the scale of concentrated effort requires a very
large critical
mass best provided in a single location;

(4) requirements for isolation prohibit dispersal.

2. Do Research Requirements Suggest that the Facility Be Located
in Isola-
tion From or in Conjunction With Facilities at
Cooperating Institutions?

It is the policy of USDA to locate Federal research
facilities on or near
campuses of major state research centers whenever
possible.

Criteria for specific locations are:

a. Needs of the program, including access to users of new
knowledge
and technology;

b. proximity to a complementary concentration of expertise
such as re-
search, teaching, graduate students, etc.;

c. accessibility to special services such as libraries,
computers, experi-
mental farms, human investigations, special
equipment, etc.;

d. in regions where there are significant complementary
programs at
other institutions;

3. Are There Compelling Reasons That the Facility be Federally
Owned and
Operated as Contrasted to State-Owned?

These criteria are stated beginning on p. [79] and will not
be repeated
here.

4. Should Federal Facilities be Obtained by Lease, by
Construction or By
Purchase?

Leasing versus Federal ownership are viable options to be
considered.
Research is usually long-term in nature and should not
be subjected to
disruption or premature termination associated with
leases. Provisions
for leasing should be considered to accommodate
amortizing leasing with
title transfer to an appropriate owner upon completion
of payment.
Proposed criteria:

a. Research facilities should generally be provided through
purchase of
existing facilities or construction of new ones,
particularly:

(1) when clearly long-term in nature,

(2) when facility requirements are very unique and not
accessible
through leasing,

(3) when the known cost effectiveness favors
construction and own-
ership.

b. Exceptions to ownership may be judged for short-term
programs for
which delay in obtaining ownership would jeopardize
the urgency re-
quirement of research. In such short- or
intermediate-term research,
the housing could be obtained in facilities built
by others and pay-
ment made for space for the duration of the
specific program. In such
cases, the expected termination of the research
should be from 1-5
years.

5. Should the Facility be USDA Operated or Managed by Other
Arrange-
ments?

While USDA R&D managers are turning more to contractual
services
in in-house laboratories, USDA research facilities have
been operated tra-
ditionally with USDA personnel. In contrast, DOD, NASA
and HEW have
used a variety of management arrangements such as
management con-
tracts with cooperating institutions. OMB policy
stresses that government
agencies should perform only those functions that are
clearly govern-
mental in nature and should utilize the competitive
incentive of the pri-
vate enterprise system to the fullest extent possible.
Current and ex-
pected restrictions on Federal employment point up the
need to consider
the applicability of such an arrangement to USDA
facilities. Contracting
services may include sub-professional support services
such as custodial,
guards, repair and maintenance, training programs, data
processing, sec-
retarial services, technicians in laboratories, and for
entire programs and
centers.
Criteria for deciding on Federal operation or other
arrangements are as
follows:

a. Management will be based on the needs of specific
programs.

b. Contractual arrangements will be considered when:

(1) the agency mission will not be impaired,

(2) services are readily available,

(3) services are cost-effective relative to USDA
operation and com-
peting services.

6. Should State and Federal-Owned Facilities be Shared?

Both the cooperating institutions and the Federal
Government have
encouraged the sharing of research facilities as a
means of enhancing
state-Federal cooperation, interdisciplinary team work,
and the intellec-
tual motivation of scientists. Throughout the Federal
Government there
has been encouragement to provide opportunities for
state and private re-
search personnel to utilize Federal laboratory space.
The 1972 Federal-
State-Industry study on facilities recommended
increased efforts to locate
cooperator personnel in USDA space.
Currently, nearly 600 USDA scientists are located in
cooperator facili-
ties at no direct cost to USDA. There are 116 state
scientists in Federal
facilities. In recent years, however, competition for
space by teaching and
other university needs has put considerable pressure on
the space that
can be made available for USDA researchers in
cooperator facilities.
Criteria for making decisions on sharing include:

a. Sharing of facilities by USDA and cooperator personnel is
re-
commended wherever feasible. This applies to
location of cooperator
personnel in USDA facilities as well as housing
USDA personnel in
cooperator buildings. The housing of USDA personnel
in a
new or renovated cooperator facility funded
entirely or in part by
USDA should be considered and agreed upon as part
of the plans.

b. Factors which support sharing of facilities include:

(1) sharing the present objectives and programs of
mutual interest,

(2) maintaining a critical mass not otherwise possible,

(3) concentration of effort to reduce costs or increase
productivity,

(4) provision of specialized equipment and unique
resources.

7. What Should be The Specific Accountability Requirements for
the Federal
Research Facility Funds Provided for State-Owned
Facilities?

Federal financing of state-owned research facilities at
cooperating insti-
tutions is complicated by the practice of housing
research, teaching, ex-
tension, and technical information activities in the
same building. Federal
funds for research facilities, on the other hand, will
most probably be pro-
vided only for research and sometimes only for a
specific research pro-
gram.
Criterion:

Accountability should be required for Federal funds in
accordance
with the purposes for which the funds are provided.

8. Should the Facility Design be Specified or Flexible?

The complex and dynamic nature of research to meet changing
needs
emphasizes the need to provide maximum flexibility in
the initial design
of new and modernized facilities. Efficient facility
utilization over the
long-term requires an initial design which permits use
of the buildings
for a variety of programs and a potential for expansion
or conversion.
This requirement can conflict with the tendency to
construct facilities for
specific program needs. Both requirements have merit.
Design requirements are further affect by local, state, and
Federal
standards for safety and other purposes.
Criteria for building design are:

a. Plans for buildings funded wholly or in part by USDA will
be mutu-
ally agreed upon by the cooperating institutions
and the USDA.

b. Flexibility of design is preferred whenever possible.

c. Exception may be justified for special requirements of
research such
as that on recombinant DNA, animal health, human
nutrition, large
animal research, etc.

d. Designs of facilities funded wholly or in part by USDA
funds must
conform to sound building practices and meet safety
and other re-
quired standards of local, state, and Federal
regulations.

9. Should Federal Funds be Used for Modernization and
Renovation?

In the 1972 Federal-State-Industry study on facilities and
in other
studies, the need for renovation and modernization was
found to be far
greater than the need for new construction for both the
states and USDA.
Criterion:

Renovation and modernization of existing buildings is
preferred to
new construction whenever the former are shown to be
cost-effective
and consistent with limitations set by Congressional
legislation.
Appendix I_Review of Previous Facility Studies
There is a long history of USDA-state joint planning and
development of agricultural research programs and facilities. This
review is limited to the more recent studies that provide useful
background information relevant to the current facilities study.
Principles Relating to Federal-State Cooperation in Agricultural
Research (1959)
A joint 11 man USDA-SAES (State Agricultural Experiment Stations)
committee was appointed in 1959 and charged with reviewing the existing
patterns of cooperation between the Farm Research Division of ARS and
the several State Agricultural Experiment Stations and with making
recommendations for strengthening this overall cooperative effort.
During the three meetings of the joint committee, the discussion
from time to time centered on certain procedures involved in the
cooperative research which seemed to have stood the test of time.
Certain other procedures were discussed which, in the judgement of the
committee, should be considered as principles. Directly or indirectly,
most of the 15 items that were identified and distributed to Federal
and state administrators are relevant to the planning and development
of facilities (appendix A).
Facility Needs--Soil and Water Conservation Research (Senate Document
59)
In the 1959 agriculture appropriations bill, the Senate
Subcommittee on Agriculture Appropriations requested USDA to conduct a
study and make a report on the ``facility needs--soil and water
conservation research.''
A four man, Federal-state review team was established by Secretary
E. T. Benson on July 23, 1958, to carry out the study.
The charge to the committee was to develop information on facility
needs in relation to major physiographic and soil association areas
with due consideration to expression by user groups of the state and
local needs. This was accomplished by holding 14 regional meetings that
provided opportunity for input by more than 200 interested individuals
and groups. The working group gave consideration to existing Federal,
state, and private facilities. Facts were developed and recommendations
were made regarding existing facilities, the feasibility of additional
facilities, overcrowding of facilities, the need for modernization and
renovation of facilities, the number of SAES personnel housed in SAES
facilities, and the number of SAES personnel housed in USDA facilities.
The report was submitted to the Subcommittee on Agriculture
Appropriations, March 2, 1959. The Senate of the United States on
September 9, 1959, resolved that the report of the findings of the
working group appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture entitled
``Facility Needs--Soil and Water Conservation Research,'' be printed as
Senate Document 59.
Recommendations were made for soil and water research (1) at seven
locations where no capital construction was needed, (2) at 13 locations
where capital construction was needed at existing locations, (3) at
seven existing regional and national research centers, (4) for new
regional and national research centers where specific expensive
facilities are needed that are beyond that which can be justified and
provided by individual units, and (5) for new work and new facilities
at eight locations.
It is significant to note that funding has been provided for a
number of programs and facilities that were recommended. In addition,
others are at various stages of implementation as the result of recent
Congressional action. The current facility work group will be provided
detailed information on the status of implementations of
recommendations in Senate Document 59.
There are a series of statements and recommendations in Senate
Document 59 relative to the planning and devolvement of facilities that
are as relevant today as they were when incorporated in the report;
some of these follows:

1. Major regional and national laboratories should be jointly
planned by USDA-SAES administrators.

2. Laboratories should be located on or near the campus of a land-
grant institution unless there are appropriate and
compelling reasons for other locations.

3. Maximum effective use of existing facilities should be ensured by
careful planning and coordination among SAES and USDA.
Expansion of research facilities should be contingent on
the advice of a study group.

4. First priority should be that adequate financial support be
provided for ongoing programs in existing state and Federal
facilities.

5. Agricultural research cannot be effectively undertaken by any
single method of approach. Some problems can be
investigated most effectively by highly organized,
specially designed research facilities. Other problems can
be attacked best by the coordinated effort of scientists
working in independent laboratories. Still other problems
can be studied effectively by the wholly independent
efforts of investigators outside the framework of an
organized national or regional structure. Whatever the
method of approach, the individual investigator with an
idea is still the chief producer of research. Therefore,
any expansion of agricultural research should provide for
adequate support of individual scientists and teams of
scientists whose work may not be included in any of the
highly organized projects.

6. Regional and national research centers should be established when
it seems obvious that the research information would have a
wide range of applicability. The solution to many
agricultural problems can be most effectively solved by a
multidisciplinary team of scientists. Centers of research
should have defined responsibility for finding solutions to
specific problems regardless of the number or diversity of
scientific disciplines.

7. The centers will need to provide the type of highly specialized
or expensive physical facilities and equipment that exceed
the financial capability of existing individual units. The
charter of responsibility given each center should be
specific and definite. It should include the responsibility
to plan, coordinate, and carry out or arrange for whatever
studies are necessary to obtain solutions to specific
problems assigned to it. The center's function should not
be allowed to be diluted or diverted to extraneous
activities.
Guest Scientists, Engineers, and Trainees (1969)
USDA issued a publication in December 1969 setting forth the policy
procedures and locations whereby, ``The USDA cooperates with the
scientific community by making available to guest scientists,
engineers, and trainees research facilities that are unique and too
expensive to duplicate.
``The activity is a part of a government-wide program designed to
fully utilize Federal laboratories and federally supported research
centers. It provides state and local government and private research
groups an opportunity to broaden their scientific activities--and thus
serves to advance science more rapidly.
``In practice, most science guests of USDA are sponsored by their
home institution, although sponsorship from other sources also occurs.
``Guest scientists and engineers are provided laboratory space and
equipment to conduct their research independent or in collaboration
with studies being carried out by the Department.''
Although several have taken advantage of this opportunity, it
appears that additional opportunities exist for capitalizing on this
arrangement. It has been suggested that the current facilities work
group give due consideration to the potential.
Review of USDA Research Facility Needs (1963)
In a letter of June 13, 1963, Secretary Orville L. Freeman
commented as follows, ``I feel that it is extremely important to review
certain aspects of the Department's agricultural research program that
are of mutual interest to cooperating state experiment stations. It is
essential that a careful study be made of the needs for additional
research facilities, to serve as a basis for planing future programs
and budget estimates. The construction of new facilities for
agricultural research should be at locations best suited for most
effective and efficient pursuit of specific investigations. When
located in the field, they preferably can be at, or convenient to, our
land-grant colleges.
[``]The Agricultural Research Service, the Forest Service, and the
Agricultural Marketing Service have just completed a study of the
laboratory and field station facilities that should be developed for
their respective research programs. Many of these investigations are
cooperative with state experiment stations; so, the proposed facilities
are of joint concern to the Department and the states.
[``]In order to ensure the best possible analysis of our research
facility needs, I am establishing a joint review team composed of
representatives of the state institutions and of the Department
research agency.
[``]It is recognized that an understanding of the overall research
program objectives for the future progress of American agriculture is
necessary in weighing the needs for and location of research
facilities. Problems related to the adequacy of supplies of food,
fiber, and other agricultural commodities--at a reasonable price--are
of proper concern to the Federal Government and its Department of
Agriculture. These problems are of prime interest also to land-grant
colleges and other state institutions.
[``]I appreciate the need for an adequate scientific investment
that will ensure the continuous and progressive growth in agriculture
required to keep pace with other segments of our advancing general
economy. We must provide also for the level of support for basic
research that will build the new knowledge essential for continued
progress in agricultural technology in the future. Laboratories and
field stations should be planned and located not only to make maximum
use of Federal and state research funds but also to attract more young
scientists to careers in agricultural research''.
The joint review team was composed of six state representatives and
six representatives from USDA agencies.
At the first meeting of the review team, Dr. Byron Shaw,
Administrator of ARS, stated that the real need is for improving
research facilities at many of the field locations where the Department
has long engaged in research and at the same time emphasizing our
continuing review of the need for these field locations and of our
objective of concentrating our research effort wherever circumstances
warrant. According to him, priority of need must be established between
improving these facilities for ongoing research against the need for
major new regional research facilities generally at new locations. He
also emphasized that the tentative projections of needs made by the
Department which are being reviewed by the review team must be
considered in relation to the capacity of each state to provide certain
types of research facilities.
The review team would hope that a projection of state plans would
be forthcoming. He reiterated a long-time objective of the Department
to establish Federal research facilities on or adjacent to university
campuses wherever there are no overriding reasons for location away
from university centers. This point was emphasized by distributing to
the group a set of principles which had evolved from a joint
Department-state experiment station committee during 1959 and 1960.
The review team agreed to consider the summary of the program for
new buildings and facilities needed for research in USDA, item by item.
It is of interest to note that several of the facilities on the list to
be reviewed have been constructed. The review team held meetings on
June 27-28, 1963; July 17, 1963; and September 18, 1963. Minutes of
these meetings, which summarized the general reaction of the review
team, are available. Many of the comments and suggestions on facility
needs in the USDA-SAES study are as appropriate today as they were at
that time.
Facility Needs to Implement the Long-Range Study, 1970
The USDA-SAES study of facility needs initiated following the
publication of ``A National Program of Research for Agriculture'' is
the most comprehensive of a series of reports on facility needs made
over a period of years. The study relates the projected 10 year
research needs with existing facilities and additional facilities
needed to accommodate the projected program increases. Information was
obtained from performing groups of USDA and State Agricultural
Experiment Stations under the following general headings:

1. Additional office and laboratory space needed to relieve
overcrowding.

2. Costs to renovate and modernize existing research facilities and
to relieve overcrowding.

3. USDA personnel in SAES facilities and SAES personnel in USDA
facilities.

The report was not published as an official public document, but it
has served as a useful source of information to guide both state and
Federal administrators in formulating requests for facilities to meet
the projected program increases as outlined in the report. Although
some progress has been made in obtaining the necessary facilities,
overall there have been minimum increases in funding for both
facilities and programs during the last 10 years.
Federal-State Research Facility Planning, 1972
As a follow-up to the USDA-SAES study of facility needs of the
long-range study, Secretary Butz on May 2, 1972, issued a memorandum
(Secretary's Memorandum No. 1770) that provided for research facilities
planning. A task force was established consisting of the Under
Secretary (Chairman), the Assistant Secretary for Administration, the
Director of Science and Education, five university administrators, and
three industry representatives. The task force was asked to report its
findings by December 1, 1972.
In establishing the task force, the Secretary said, ``Planning for
agricultural research facilities needed in the future is essential to
the development of efficient and effective agricultural programs
serving high-priority needs. Due to the close relationship between
Federal and state agricultural research programs and the facility needs
of each, such planning is most effective if conducted jointly and
cooperatively among the states and the Department of Agriculture.
Detailed joint planning of research programs and facilities is provided
for through the national agricultural research policy advisory
committee and related planning systems. To strengthen the joint
planning for agricultural research facilities, there is hereby
established an Agricultural Research Facilities Review Task Force to
review Federal support and facilities for agriculture research.
``In making this review, the task force will consider the long-
range needs of agricultural research programs, the capacity of existing
facilities to meet these needs, the problem areas for which additional
facilities are needed, the magnitude of the additional needs, the
regional distribution of the additional needs, and criteria for
determining whether the facilities would be university or federally
owned.''
The Agricultural Research Facilities Review Task Force reported to
the Secretary on February 28, 1973. The report contains 14 specific
recommendations (appendix B). No specific follow-up has been made to
this report, although this information has been useful to both Federal
and state administrators in formulating requests for facilities to meet
the needs.
Agriculture Research Policy Advisory Committee (ARPAC) Facility Study--
Update of Long-Range Study, 1974
As a follow-up to the ``blue-ribbon facilities committee report,''
ARPAC established a work group to update the information provided in
the facility study that followed the long-range study of agricultural
research needs and that of the committee established under Secretary's
Memorandum No. 1770. This report provided updated information on the
following:

1. New space completed and occupied since July 1, 1972.

2. Space lost since July 1, 1972.

3. Space that urgently needed renovation.

The report was submitted to the Secretary of Agriculture and the
President of the National Association of State Universities and Land-
grant Colleges. No specific action or formal response was made; but as
they have done previously, Federal and state administrators have used
the information as a basis for requesting additional support for
facilities. In recent years there has been minimum response to the
request for facilities to meet research needs.
Federal Research Facilities Surveys, 1975 and 1977
At the request of the House Committee on Appropriations, April
1972, the survey staff prepared the first comprehensive listing of all
Federal laboratories, staffing, and equipment. The survey was conducted
during 1973, reported to the committee in March 1974, and published in
part VII of the hearings before the Subcommittee for Agriculture--
Environmental and Protection Appropriations for 1975. This survey
included data on facility construction costs, capacity, occupancy,
amount of space, operating costs, mission of the facility, type of
research, and major equipment. One hundred and twenty-seven facilities
owned or leased by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) were
surveyed. In 1977, the same staff conducted a similar survey of Federal
facilities as an update to the 1975 survey. The findings are available
in part II of the 1979 House hearings. In this survey, ARS reported on
114 facilities. The reason for the difference in the number (127)
reported in 1975, and that (114) reported in 1977 is the aggregation of
two of more facilities at a location and the closing of several
facilities. The primary purpose of these surveys was to determine the
extent and location of unoccupied space which could be utilized by
Federal agencies instead of constructing new facilities.
Facility Needs of the Colleges of 1890 and Tuskegee Institute (1977)
Detailed information on existing facilities and projected needs was
obtained from each of the 17 institutions. A computer print-out of the
data is available. Follow-up may be required on specific items at some
locations, but in general the information will meet the needs of the
current facility study.
I-A--Memoranda from the Joint Committee on Cooperative Research
United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service,
Washington, D.C.
Office of Administrator
January 17, 1961

To: Administrators and Research Personnel Concerned with Federal-
State Cooperation in Agricultural Research

From: Joint Committee on Cooperative Research

Subject: Principles Relating to Federal-State Cooperation in
Agricultural Research

The Administrators of the Agricultural Research Service, USDA, and
the Chairman of the Experiment Station Committee on Organization and
Policy, in February 1959, jointly created a study group composed of ARS
and State Experiment Station administrators. This 11 man group,
designated as the Joint Committee on Cooperative Research, was charged
with reviewing the existing pattern of cooperation between the Farm
Research Divisions of ARS and the several State Agricultural Experiment
Stations and making recommendations for strengthening this overall
cooperative effort. Having completed its assignment, this Committee was
discharged in November 1960.
During the three meetings of the Joint Committee on Cooperative
Research, the discussion from time to time centered on certain
procedures involved in cooperative research which seemed to have stood
the test of time, and certain other procedures were discussed which, in
the judgement of the Committee, should be considered as principles. At
our final meeting in November 1960 it was the consensus of opinion that
these statements should be brought together as a statement of
principles that could be duplicated and distributed among Federal and
state research administrators to serve as a useful guide in further
development of cooperative relationships. The statement referred to is
attached.

/s/ E. C. Elting,
Chairman
Attachment
Principles Involved in Federal-State Cooperation in Agricultural
Research \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A statement developed by an 11 man committee comprised of
directors of State Agricultural Experiment Stations and administrators
of the Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. That the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and the State
Agricultural Experiment Stations are individually
responsible for accounting for the research resulting from
the use of moneys appropriated or allocated to them.

2. That ARS is primarily responsible for research on problems of
national and regional concern to agriculture, and on those
problems involving relationships between the U.S.
Government and the governments of other nations.

3. That the State Agricultural Experiment Stations are primarily
responsible for research problems within the borders of
their respective states, and for such regional research as
is of importance to the area. Statements 2 and 3 are not
intended to be mutually exclusive.

4. That basic research is a responsibility both of ARS and the state
experiment stations and should be advanced in each
institution and in each area so far as feasible.

5. That ARS and the State Agricultural Experiment Stations will
cooperate, on a voluntary basis, in research whenever
cooperative action will be more effective than separate
action (regional research will usually be cooperative).

6. That joint planning should be an essential phase of cooperation.

7. ARS and State Agricultural Experiment Stations will continue to
share facilities to the extent that their respective
primary responsibilities permit, and will share the
operating costs of such facilities as may be mutually
agreed upon.

8. ARS and state experiment stations will examine each of their
locations with respect to effective concentration of
Federal and state personnel.

9. That, to the fullest extent practicable, necessary adjustments in
ARS farm research at field locations be fully explored with
each experiment station director concerned before any
action is taken.

10. That negotiations on cooperation be conducted between state
experiment station directors and directors of ARS research
divisions.

11. That locations for regional concentrations will, so far as
possible, be mutually agreed upon by the states in the
region and ARS.

12. That, so far as budgetary considerations and other limitations
permit, there be a full discussion of needs and plans for
additional Federal research facilities in the several
states.

13. That ARS facilities be located at or adjacent to land-grant
colleges or established subunits thereof unless there are
appropriate and compelling reasons for other locations.

14. That ARS divisions continue to explore opportunities for their
maximum contributions to organized cooperative research.
(While this refers particularly to regional research as
authorized by Section 3c3 of the Amended Hatch Act, it is
applicable to all voluntary cooperative regional research.)

15. That ARS, the state experiment stations, and other appropriate
research organizations, individually and jointly, have
responsibility for the evaluation of public programs
relating to agriculture with respect to their effectiveness
and their consequences.
I-B
Department of Agriculture, Office of the Secretary, Washington, D.C.
February 28, 1973

Subject: Report of the Agricultural Research Facilities Review Task
Force

To: The Secretary

The Agricultural Research Facilities Review Task Force appointed by
Secretary's Memorandum No. 1770 respectfully submits the following
report.
The Task Force reviewed the adequacy of current agricultural
research facilities of the Agricultural Research Service, the State
Agricultural Experiment Stations, and the Land-Grant Colleges of 1890.
In its review the Task Force had available the results of a recent
study of research facilities conducted by the USDA and these
cooperating institutions. The following facts from that study are
considered particularly significant by the Task Force:

1. All State Agricultural Experiment Stations reported space
inadequacies both in laboratory and office facilities. To
provide adequate space for all SAES scientists would
require additional laboratory facilities for about 981
scientists.

2. Many SAES office and laboratory facilities are in serious need of
modernization and renovation. Cost of renovation and
modernization needed to provide efficient up-to-date
facilities in SAES would total about $23,000,000.

3. Current funding of agricultural research at Land-Grant Colleges
of 1890 will provide staff far exceeding the facility
capacity of those institutions in a few years.

4. There is space in many of the 181 ARS locations that is under
utilized or unused. Such space could accommodate about 690
scientists. Use of much of this space would involve
renovation costs.

5. ARS has 142 scientists in leased space and 506 in SAES facilities
working in close coordination with SEAS scientists.

6. A high proportion of the ARS excess space is reported to be
suitable for use in research programs by SAES when space
need is the only consideration.

7. A high proportion of the ARS scientists in SAES facilities work
in research programs that are similar to programs where
SAES space deficiencies are reported to exist.

8. The correlations between ARS excesses and SAES deficiencies and
between ARS occupancy of SAES space and SAES deficiencies
are poor when compared within states and seem to be even
poorer when specific facility requirements are compared.

9. About 85 percent of the ARS scientists are at or adjacent to a
university campus or at other locations with 20 or more
scientists. The remaining 15 percent are at about 90 small
widely scattered facilities.

The Task Force is concerned about: (1) The need to provide adequate
facilities to enable scientists to conduct effective programs, (2) the
need to make effective use of available facilities, (3) the necessity
to maintain flexibility in programs in order to meet the primary needs
in a constantly changing society, and the need to have a high degree of
coordination of Federal, state and industry programs of agricultural
research. The following recommendations are made to help achieve these
objectives:

1. The Committee recommends greatly increased coordination of
agricultural research between USDA and the universities and
within individual research programs in order to increase
efficiency in use of human, monetary and physical
resources. This coordination should give priority attention
to adjustments in programs concerned with changing
priorities, serving unmet needs, development of
specialization at and among research centers, concentration
of effort on promising opportunities, and elimination of
wasteful duplication. These analyses will indicate the
requirements for new facilities and for remodeling and
renovation to meet the program needs.

2. The Committee anticipates that only very limited funds will
become available in the foreseeable future for construction
of new agricultural research facilities. Therefore we
strongly recommend close Federal-state-public and industry
coordination in planning any new Federal or state
facilities and the programs to be conducted in them.

3. The USDA and the cooperating state institutions should explore in
detail the extent to which SAES and 1890 deficiencies can
be met by housing SAES personnel in ARS facilities with
excess space.

4. The USDA should explore in detail the extent to which ARS
personnel in leased space can be moved to ARS excess space
owned by Federal Government.

5. The USDA and cooperating state institutions should explore in
detail the extent to which ARS facilities with excess space
can be transferred to SAES and 1890's to meet deficiencies.

6. The USDA is encouraged by the Committee to continue the location
of ARS and SAES scientists in the same facilities, as a
highly valuable means of achieving Federal-state
cooperation and coordination, interdisciplinary team
effort, and intellectual stimulation of scientists.

7. The Committee recognizes large unmet opportunities to improve the
effectiveness and efficiency of state and Federal
agricultural research programs by modernizing and
renovating research facilities that have been in service
for long periods. Such modernization should generally
receive a higher priority than new construction when
allocating facility funds.

8. The 1890 institutions have only recently become significant
participants in federally supported agricultural research
programs. Although these institutions are fully utilizing
their limited facilities for this program development,
their existing facilities will not allow development of the
authorized research programs. These institutions,
therefore, have special facility needs that should receive
high priority consideration in seeking funds from any
source.

9. USDA and SAES should make every effort to eliminate small
isolated research locations. When the work performed at
these installations is low in productivity, duplicative of
other efforts or of low priority, the work should be phased
out. In other situations the work should be consolidated
with other work at central locations where research
resources can be more efficiently utilized.

10. The complex and dynamic nature of research to meet the needs of
the changing times as they develop emphasizes the need to
provide for maximum flexibility in the initial design of
new facilities and the modernization of existing
facilities. This will prevent undue delay in making shifts
in programs with a minimum cost for remodeling and
renovation.

11. As a result of changes and adjustments in NASA, atomic energy and
defense research plans, space in several large Federal
laboratories has and is becoming available. In lieu of
developing new research facilities, universities are urged
to obtain the use of this surplus Federal space to the
fullest extent it is appropriate. This effort should be
assisted by USDA. The assistance should include identifying
facilities as well as helping make the facilities
available.

12. The Committee recommends exploration of the possible use of
Federal and state leasing authorities to provide needed new
space, in ways that would involve state or university
construction of facilities to be leased in whole or in part
by the USDA or state agencies.

13. New Federal and state facilities of agricultural research should
be planned and located so as to provide (a) flexibility for
adaptation to new uses when the original purpose has been
served, (b) possible cooperative Federal-state research
programs using the same facilities, (c) opportunities for
use of established libraries, training facilities and other
essential supporting services, (d) intellectual stimulation
among scientists, and (e) an atmosphere for
interdisciplinary team problem solving work. Generally such
locations should be at or near appropriate university
campuses or other clusters of research facilities.
Deviations from such a policy should be made only in
exceptional circumstances, where a specific location is
essential for specific research jobs.

14. The USDA can be of great assistance to universities in obtaining
funds for needed agricultural research facilities from
public and private sources. The Committee urges the
Department to help actively in this endeavor when research
planning demonstrates the desirability of developing
specialized facilities at SAES.

/s/ J. Phil Campbell,
Under Secretary of Agriculture.

Membership of Task Force on Agricultural Research Facilities

Industry Universities

Dr. Clifford M. Hardin Dr. William L. Giles
Vice Chairman of the Board President
Ralston Purina Company Mississippi State University
St. Louis, Missouri 63183 State College, Mississippi 39762
Dr. D. W. Brooks Dr. H. Brooks James
Chairman of the Board Vice President
Gold Kist Inc. University of North Carolina
P.O. Box 2210 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514
Atlanta, Georgia 30301 Dr. J. B. Kendrick, Jr.
Dr. Edwin A. Crosby Vice President Agricultural
Sciences
Director University of California
National Canners Association Berkley, California 94720
1133 20th Street, N.W. Dr. R. D. Morridson
Washington, D. C. 20036 President
USDA Alabama A&M University
Mr. J. Phil Campbell Normal, Alabama 35782
Chairman Dr. C. Brice Ratchford
Under Secretary President
Mr. Frank B. Elliott University of Missouri
Assistant Secretary for Columbia, Missouri 65201
Administration
Dr. Ned D. Bayley
Director, Science and Education

Appendix II--Working Group Membership
Research Facilities Study Work Group
Donald T. Black, Co-Chairman, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Science and Education Administration, Joint Planning and Evaluation
H. R. Fortmann, Co-Chairman, NE Regional Coordinator, SAES
Glenn Cooper, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
George M. Browning, Acting NC Regional Director, SAES
J. E. Halpin, SR Director-at-Large, SAES
M. T. Buchanan, WR Director-at-Large, SAES
Edward Miller, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Science and
Education Administration, Cooperative Research
Dan Greco, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Science and Education
Administration, Administrative Management
Kent Adair, Stephen F. Austin State University
O. C. Simpson, Prairie View A&M University
Nelson King, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Science and Education
Administration, Cooperative Research
Nelson King, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Science and Education
Administration, Cooperative Research
James Turnbull, University of Maryland
Ad Hoc Research Facilities Policy Committee
John S. Robins, Chairman, Washington State University
Anson R. Bertrand, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Science and
Education Administration
Richard D. Morrison, Alabama A&M University
William H. Anthony, Sr., Alice Sidney Farms
Roberta Jane Archer, Illinois Department of Agriculture
Report 2
Facilities for Food and Agricultural Research Survey Results
Report to the Secretary of Agriculture, in Response to Section 1462,
Public Law 95-113, Food and Agriculture Act of 1977
January 1981

Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences

March 31, 1981

1669

Hon. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Speaker:

Transmitted herewith, pursuant to Section 1462 of the Food and
Agriculture Act of 1977, is a final report on Facilities for Food and
Agricultural Research. This report was prepared by the Joint Council on
Food and Agricultural Sciences at the request of the Department.
We will consider any potential Federal role in funding of the
identified needs as part of our budget development process.
Sincerely,

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Richard E. Lyng,
Deputy Secretary.

Received April 2, 10:43 a.m., The [unreadable] Rooms, U.S. House of
Representatives

The Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences was established
under authorization of Section 1407 of Title XIV of the Food and
Agriculture Act of 1977. The purpose of the Joint Council as set forth
in the legislation is to foster and coordinate research, extension, and
higher education in the food and agricultural sciences.
This report was prepared under the direction of the Joint Council
Research Facilities Study Committee which, as of December 1980,
included the following:

Mark T. Buchanan, Western Agricultural Experiment Stations, Co-
Chairman
Steven C. King, SEA, USDA, Co-Chairman
Kent Adair, Stephen Austin State University
James E. Halpin, Southern Agricultural Experiment Stations
Keith A. Huston, North Central Agricultural Experiment Stations
Nelson B. King, Auburn University
Ronald Lindmark, FS, USDA
E. C. Miller, SEA, USDA
T. S. Ronningen, Northeastern Agricultural Experiment Stations
O. C. Simpson, Prairie View A&M University

Staff support was provided by:

Donald Black, SEA, PPS (retired)
Timothy Blosser, SEA, PPS
William Schwiesow, SEA, PPS

Special appreciation is expressed to Federal, state, and other
cooperating institutions who contributed to the results contained in
the survey.
For copies of this report, please write to:

Executive Secretary
Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences
USDA, Room 351-A, Administration Building
14th & Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20250
Contents
Executive Summary
Introduction
The Survey
Results and Interpretations

Table I
Table II
Table III
Table IV
Table V
Table VI

Discussion
Conclusion
Executive Summary
This is the final report in response to Section 1462, Public Law
95-113. The first report of the Secretary, ``Facilities for Food and
Agricultural Research'' to the President and Congress and an
accompanying report of the Joint Council on Food and Agricultural
Sciences to the Secretary, dealt primarily with policy issues. This
report deals with the results from a survey of USDA agencies and those
institutions currently authorized to receive Federal funds for research
facilities to determine the status and future needs of agricultural
research facilities and makes recommendations for a program to provide
the United States with the most modern and efficient system of research
facilities needed to advance agricultural research in all fields as
requested by Congress.
The recently published ``Global 2000 Report to the President''
emphasizes the significant world problems in food and fiber production
in the next 2 decades. In predicting the situation in the year 2000,
the report states: ``For hundreds of millions of desperately poor, the
outlook will be no better. For many it will be worse.'' The report
further states: ``Accelerated erosion, loss of natural soil fertility
and other deterioration of the agricultural resource base may have more
effect in the coming years than is indicated in the Global 2000 food
projections.''
Agricultural research is clearly a good investment. A recent paper
on economic benefits from Agricultural Research (Evenson, et al.
Science 205: 1101, 1979) stated: ``Despite annual returns of the order
of 50 percent, which an economist would call clear evidence of
underinvestment, investment remains static . . .'' ``. . . a nation
bent on increasing productivity by innovation can learn from
agriculture. A public system of research can be decentralized in a
manner that induces articulation among science, invention and practice
to yield great returns. But thus far, the system remains undervalued.''
The Survey
The Joint Council responded to the Congressional request by
appointing a Federal-state study group to obtain data on the current
status of, and plans for, research facilities in accordance with state,
regional, and national priority programs. The Group developed a
questionnaire and undertook a survey of USDA agencies and those
institutions currently authorized to receive USDA funds for research
facilities.
The survey was conducted in the winter of 1978-79. Organizations
included were (1) USDA's Science and Education Administration and (2)
Forest Service; (3) State Agricultural Experiment Stations; (4) The
Colleges of 1890 \1\ and Tuskegee Institute; (5) the Forestry Schools
receiving McIntire-Stennis funding, and the (6) Colleges of Veterinary
Medicine eligible to receive animal health funding. With the exception
of the Forestry Schools, 100% participation was achieved for each
organization surveyed. The overall response rate was 98%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The land-grant institutions established under the Morrill Act
of 1890.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Questionnaire. For each agency and institution, the Group
requested data on scientist occupancy and capacity of current and
committed research facilities and facility plans at program levels
projected for Fiscal Year 1981. For plans requiring additional space or
renovation of existing space, detailed information was requested on the
extent and type of space and the specific research program for which
the space was planned. The extent and type of space in excess of needs
also were furnished. Needs for land, support structures, repair and
maintenance, and equipment and instrumentation were included. Also
obtained was information describing major, unique collections in
existence that are or could serve as important tools for the conduct of
agricultural research.
The questionnaire's respondents were asked to relate facility needs
to research programs in three situations as follows:

(1) Situation as of September 30, 1977, reflecting facility needs as
of that date and using data from the Current Research
Information System (CRIS). This was the latest year for
which such data were available when the request was made.

(2) Situation anticipated as of September 30, 1981, reflecting
facility changes completed or in progress assuming a
constant level of support using the FY 1979 appropriations
as a base.

(3) Situation anticipated as of September 30, 1981, reflecting
facility changes completed or in progress and assuming that
the 20% increase level in program support documented in
``1976-81 Cycle for Projecting and Analyzing Research
Program Adjustments--Part II'' was implemented.
The Results
The survey showed that as of September 30, 1977, the two Federal
organizations, the Science and Education Administration (SEA) and the
Forest Service (FS), had greater capacity than occupancy. Excess space
in SEA was 552 Scientist Years (SY) and in FS, 95 SY. The state
organizations had an overall deficit (by 965 SY's) of office and
laboratory space. The facility needs of the non-land-grant universities
were not ascertained and are not included in this report.
The survey further showed that by 1981, assuming no change in
funding level, the underutilized space in Federal facilities would
increase to 708 SY's (638 SY, SEA; 70 SY, FS). On the other hand, in
state organizations, the need for additional space would be even more
acute than in 1977 increasing to 1,048 SY's.
Opportunities and intentions for sharing of facility space were
also indicated by the survey. By 1981, 168 state SY's are expected to
be in Federal facilities and 687 Federal SY's are expected to be in
state facilities.
Unfortunately, surplus space in Federal facilities does not lend
itself to meeting deficient space needs of the states because of
differing geographical location and because of limitations in the
design of the facilities for which the research was intended. Often the
surplus space does not even fit deficient space needs of other Federal
research programs and would require expensive renovations.
Research Program Facility Needs. The study examined facility needs
of 50 Research Programs (RP's). For the total of all RP's, Federal
programs will have an absolute need for additional space for 133 SY's
(3% of 1978 base) in 1981. These needs are principally in seven (7)
forestry RP's and, therefore, cannot be met by space surpluses in other
Federal facilities operated by SEA. For state programs there will be a
need for 1,110 scientist spaces (15.4% of their 1978 base). For state
programs there will be a need for additional space for greater than 10
SY's in 29 of the 50 research programs. Renovation needs exceeding 10
SY's exist for 29 of the 50 research programs; renovation needs in
excess of 10 SY's exist in 18 of the 50 RP's in Federal facilities.
Estimated costs for providing additional office and or laboratory
space are $7.7 million for Federal facilities and $94.2 million for
state facilities. Estimated costs for renovation are $21.0 million for
Federal facilities and $72.3 million for state facilities. (For
Colleges of 1890, estimated costs for providing additional office and/
or laboratory space are $19.3 million and $3.1 million for
renovation.[)]
Needs in Addition to Offices and Laboratories. Estimated acre needs
for land and dollar needs for efficient conduct of research, for
ancillary structures, for equipment and instrumentation and for
maintenance and repair were also identified. The latter item is
especially critical because of aging buildings, tightening budgets, and
the necessity for energy conservation measures.
For Federal research programs, anticipated needs by 1981 are for
about 23,000 acres of land, $58 million for ancillary structures, $37
million for repair and maintenance ($23.5 million for catch up and
$13.6 million for annual needs) and $37 million by 1981 for equipment
and instrumentation. For state research program support, the needs are
for about 92,000 acres of land, $320 million for ancillary structures,
$72 million for repair and maintenance, ($46.5 million for catchup and
$26.2 million annual needs) and $80 million for equipment and
instrumentation by 1981.
Projected Needs Based on Future Program Increases. Future program
increases were based on the ARPAC projections of a 20% increase level
in program support based on the 1976-81 cycle for all performing
organizations except the Colleges of 1890 and the Colleges of
Veterinary Medicine. The survey showed that for Federal research
programs there would be a need for additional space and renovation for
an additional 372 scientists if program funds were increased. For state
facilities a future increase in program funds would result in a need
for new and renovated facilities for 1,346 SY's. The estimated cost for
providing additional and renovated space for Federal programs would be
about $16 million and for state programs about $105 million.
The total additional funding requirement for Federal facilities by
1981, assuming a future program increase, would be $39.6 million and
for state facilities $119.7 million.
Summary of Agricultural Facility Needs and Costs. Table A
summarizes the key statistics on agricultural facility needs and costs
by 1981. The table includes both statistics mentioned in the Executive
Summary and additional key figures from the body of the report.
Five Year Implementation Plan for Meeting State and Federal
Facility Needs. When the total fund needs for facilities are
distributed over a 5 year period at the future program increase level
projected by the Agricultural Research Policy Advisory Committee
(ARPAC) and others, the annual total cost, state and Federal, for new
facilities is nearly $43 million and for renovations, slightly over $20
million. In addition, the total annual fund needs, state and Federal,
at the future program increase level, are $152 million. The Joint
Council will be pleased to develop, if requested, more specific
implementation needs with priorities by research program, source of
funding and location.
Major Unique Collections. The survey resulted in the collection of
valuable, new information concerning 188 major, unique collections of
bacteria, phages, insects, viruses, seeds, etc. Information concerning
these collections and their availability for use for scientific
purposes will be published in a separate report which will be given
wide distribution.
Available Data. A wide array of data in any combination of agency
or state, program is available in computerized form for those wishing
more detail.
Summary Observations. In directing the Secretary of Agriculture to
prepare a report on a comprehensive study of the future needs for
agricultural research facilities, Section 1462 of the Food and
Agriculture Act of 1977 further states, ``The report shall include
recommendations for a program to provide the United States with the
most modern and efficient system of research facilities needed to
advance research in all fields . . . and based on the fullest
utilization of human, monetary and physical resources.''
It is quite clear from the study reported herein that raising the
national agricultural research capability to an acceptable level would
result in substantial facility, renovation and research program fund
needs. A 20% increase in research funding (ARPAC projections) is needed
and probably conservative when one considers the need to double food
production by the year 2000.
Conclusions and Recommendations. To provide for a national
agricultural research program in the United States which will assure
our populace of an adequate food and fiber supply by the year 2000 and
to provide world leadership in agricultural technology, it is
imperative that our country expand and upgrade the national
agricultural research effort. This includes the construction and
renovation of facilities for both state and Federal research. The Joint
Council recommends that a 5 year implementation plan for improving the
physical plant for U.S. agricultural research capability be developed
and initiated immediately.

Table A. Summary of Agricultural Facility Needs and Costs, State and
Federal, by 1981, Based on Current Levels of Funding and Projected
Increases \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Level of Projected
Funding Increases
Research Program Needs ---------------------------------------
Federal State Federal State
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Offices and Labs
Space (expressed as SY's) 133 1,110 372 1,346
Funds, dollars (million) 8 94 7 105
Other
Renovations, dollars (million) 21 72 9 --
Ancillary structures, dollars 58 320 7 40
(million)
Repair and maintenance, 37 72 14 26
dollars (million)
Equipment and instrumentation, 37 80 19 49
dollars (million)
Total dollar needs for offices 152 544 49 115
and labs and other, excluding
land, dollars (million)
Land, acres (thousand) 23 92 2 12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Projected increases are over and above current level of funding.

Introduction
This is the final report in response to Section 1462, Public Law
95-113. This report deals with the results obtained from a survey of
USDA agencies and those institutions currently authorized to receive
Federal funds for research facilities, and makes recommendations for
facilities needed to advance agricultural research in all fields.
The two prior reports, Facilities for Food and Agricultural
Research, Report (of the Joint Council on Food and Agricultural
Sciences) to the Secretary of Agriculture and the Report (of the
Secretary) to the President and Congress dealt primarily with policy
issues.
Legislation
Section 1462 states

`` . . . (b)(1) The report shall cover agricultural research
facilities and materials including, but not limited to,
buildings and farms, laboratories, plant, seed, genetic stock,
insect, virus, and animal collections, and lease and purchase
items such as computers, laboratory instruments, and related
equipment.
(2) The report shall include recommendations for a program to
provide the United States with the most modern and efficient
system of research facilities needed to advance agricultural
research in all fields, and recommendations with regard to
priority requirements for research instrumentation and
facilities needing modernization, construction, or renovation
in accordance with the requirements of state, regional, and
national priority programs of research and based on the fullest
utilization of human, monetary, and physical resources.''

As stated in the earlier reports, the Department of Agriculture
invited the Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences to join in
the conduct of the study. The Joint Council accepted. Two Federal-state
groups were appointed.
One group was charged with developing recommendations on policies
and criteria for appraising needs and making decisions on Federal
support of facilities for food and agricultural research. The second
group was charged with obtaining data on the current status and plans
for research facilities in accordance with the requirements of state,
regional, and national priority programs. Members of both groups were
listed in the Appendix of the earlier reports.
This is the report to the Secretary of Agriculture by the Joint
Council based on the activities of Group Two.
This Group developed a questionnaire and undertook a survey of USDA
agencies and those institutions currently authorized to receive USDA
funds for research facilities. For each agency and institution, the
Group requested data on scientist occupancy and capacity of current and
committed research facilities and facility plans at program levels
projected for Fiscal Year 1981. Committed facilities are those
presently under construction or for which funds are in hand for
construction, scheduled for completion by 1981.
For plans requiring additional space or renovation of existing
space, detailed information was requested on the extent and type of
space and the specific research program for which the space was
planned. The extent and type of space in excess of needs also were
furnished. Needs for land, support structures, repair and maintenance,
and equipment and instrumentation were included. Also obtained was
information describing major, unique collections in existence that are
or could serve as important tools for the conduct of agricultural
research.
A summary of results of the survey is presented herein. The entire
body of data is stored in computer form and readily accessible in a
variety of forms and levels of aggregation.
Relation to Report on Policy
Policies and criteria for making decisions on facilities to serve
the needs of the United States food and agriculture research system
were discussed in the two earlier reports. The policies and criteria
adopted by the USDA are those provided in the Report (of the Secretary)
to the President and Congress. The policies and criteria in the report
that was prepared by the Joint Council for consideration by the
Secretary in preparing his report contains recommendations believed to
be acceptable to the research community. There were extensive
interactions among representatives of research performers within the
total food and agricultural research system in the preparation of the
Report (of the Joint Council) to the Secretary. ``A great deal of
negotiation was required to produce a set of recommendations that the
Joint Council believed was acceptable to the research community. The
Council believes this report meets that objective.''
The questionnaire, the survey, and the conduct of the study
reported herein were designed to obtain the best judgement of
scientists and research administrators themselves, system-wide, to the
challenges posed by the Congress. The data are subject to analysis
based on indeterminate criteria, policies, or other guidelines.
Previous Studies
There is a long history of USDA-state joint planning and
development of agricultural research programs and facilities. A review
of recent, relevant studies is provided in the two previous reports.
Purpose of Report
The purpose of this report is to present, in a highly summarized
manner, the results of the survey conducted during the winter of 1978-
79 to determine the status and future needs of agricultural research
facilities in the United States. The results depict the best judgment
of scientists and administrators within the food and agriculture
research system of the United States with reference to ``. . . modern
and efficient system of research facilities needed to advance
agricultural research in all fields.''
The Survey
Organizations included in the survey were those currently
authorized or eligible to receive Federal funds for facilities: USDA's
Science and Education Administration and Forest Service; State
Agricultural Experiment Stations; the Colleges of 1890 and Tuskegee
Institute; the Forestry Schools receiving McIntire-Stennis funding; and
the Colleges of Veterinary Science eligible to receive Animal Health
funding.
The Questionnaire
It was apparent that the scope of the study mandated in Section
1462 required the collection of a considerable amount of information on
the status of facilities of the research organizations included. The
Work Group conducting the study developed a questionnaire to obtain the
information needed without excessive effort.
The basic premises of the questionnaire were:

1. It would not involve or require an inventory of existing
buildings.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Facilities Survey Committee of the Joint Council decided
not to require an inventory of facilities because of the time factor in
obtaining responses and because of difficulties in interpreting
responses once obtained. Instead, the best judgments of scientists and
administrators were solicited.

2. It would rely heavily on the judgement of the individual
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
preparing the report.

3. It would relate facility needs to research programs by selecting
three situations existing or anticipated at two points in
time and would ask the respondent to report the status of
facilities at these times under three specified conditions:

(a) As of September 30, 1977, reflecting the program reported to
the Current
Research Information System (CRIS) as of that date.
This was the latest
year for which such data were available when the
request was made.

(b) As of September 30, 1981, reflecting changes, completed or
in progress.
These are referred to as Committed Changes. In the case
of facilities,
these Committed Changes were those which (I) were
completed after
September 30, 1977, (II) were under construction or
renovation, or (III)
for which funds were in-hand for construction,
renovation, or transfer of
space ownership. By research programs, the data reflect
changes in Sci-
entists Year (SY) assignments among Research Programs
(RP's) occurring
after September 30, 1977, which (I) have been
accomplished, or (II) would
be accomplished by September 30, 1981. In the absence
of known appro-
priation changes, a constant level of support was
assumed for the future
using the FY 1979 appropriations as a base. Internal
changes in RP's
would not be reported unless the changes required
additional research
space or released space making it excess to needs at
that time. If there
were no change in program or facilities, the same data
reported for Sep-
tember 30, 1977 would be reported for September 30,
1981.

(c) As of September 30, 1981, assuming that the 20% increase
level in pro-
gram support documented in ``1976-81 Cycle for
Projecting and Analyzing
Research Program Adjustments--Part II'' were
implemented. These pro-
jections were developed by the National and Regional
Planning Commit-
tees under the sponsorship of the Agricultural Research
Policy Advisory
Committee (ARPAC). If there were no RP increases or
decreases projected
by ARPAC for an organization's facility location, the
same data reported
for the previous situation would be reported for this
one.

4. It would require data on facilities only for those Scientists
Years which require additional or renovated space or for
which excess space is available.

5. It would tie facility needs to research programs only for new or
renovated office and/or laboratories. It would not tie
support structures, land, repair and maintenance, or
equipment and instrumentation needs to specific RP's since
these items generally serve multiple RP's.

6. It would separate ``Renovation'' into two parts. One part is the
renovation which would change the number of SY's housed.
The other is the renovation which would upgrade the
research facilities, thereby improving the efficiency of
the scientists ``on board.''

7. It would request textual identification of the single most needed
new research facility or facility improvement for each
facility location.

8. It would solicit information on the existence of major-unique
collections (plants, seed, insect, virus, animal, etc.)
that are or could serve as important tools for the conduct
of agricultural research.

In the development of the questionnaire, major emphasis was placed
on minimizing the amount of information requested to that which the
study group believed would meet the requirements of Section 1462. The
composition of the questionnaire permitted each respondent to complete
only those sections applicable to his reporting unit. For those
reporting units with no additional needs or underutilized space, the
reporting requirements were minimal.
The questionnaire was also designed to facilitate computer editing,
recording of data, analysis and preparation of tables.
Procedure
Following completion of the development of the questionnaire, the
survey was initiated in December 1978. The members of the study group
who represented the organizations to be surveyed were responsible for
the distribution, receipt, and review of the questionnaires for their
respective organizations.
The data were then subjected to both manual and computer editing
prior to inclusion in the data base. The response in completing the
questionnaires should be considered outstanding (98% overall) realizing
that the incentive for doing so was not great due to the lack of
positive results from previous facility studies and the current poor
outlook for Federal appropriations for facilities. However, to obtain
the high level of participation, the time limit for response had to be
extended until January 1980. With the exception of the Forestry
Schools, 100% participation was achieved for each research organization
surveyed.
To present the survey's statistical and financial data for use in
current and future facility planning, several tables were developed.
The types of tables developed are listed below.

(1) Scientist Year (SY) occupancy and capacity.

(2) SY needs for additional office and/or laboratory space by
Research Program (RP) (including square feet, estimated
costs, and laboratory type).

(3) Excess SY office and laboratory space (square feet and
laboratory type).

(4) SY needs for renovation of office and/or laboratory space by RP
(square feet, and estimated cost).

(5) Needs for support structures (number, type, square feet,
estimated cost).

(6) Excess support structures (number, type, square feet).

(7) Needs for land (type, acres).

(8) Excess land (type, acres).

(9) Repair and maintenance expenditures (present level, required for
catch-up, future needs per year).

(10) Equipment and instrumentation needs (for replacement, meet
additional requirements, meet ARPAC projections).

Space reported as underutilized or excess to needs is not
identified with specific RP's since such space could serve the needs of
several different RP's.
In all cases tables are available both on a state basis by
performing organization such as SEA, SAES, etc., and on a national
total basis for each of the three situations, i.e.,: As of September
30, 1977; reflecting changes by September 30, 1981; and resulting from
Agricultural Research Policy Advisory Committee (ARPAC) or other
projections by September 30, 1981.
Data from the Current Research Information System are available for
Departments of Veterinary Science and for Departments of Home Economics
within the State Agricultural Experiment Stations and are included in
this report. However, no additional information is available from
Colleges of Veterinary Medicine and Colleges of Home Economics
concerning their future needs. In addition, the report does not include
information from non-land-grant publicly supported colleges and
universities or from private universities.
Results and Interpretations
Tables showing highly summarized data are included herein. These
tables present an overview of the status and future needs of
agricultural research facilities in the U.S. As stated previously, much
additional information is available.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Summary tables by state are available from the Executive
Secretary, Joint Council on Food and Agricultural Sciences, USDA,
Washington, D.C. 20204.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupancy and Capacity
Table 1 presents the status of occupancy and capacity of the six
research performing organizations under the three situations described
earlier. Occupancy for each facility is defined as the number of senior
research scientists (SY's) on board or projected. Non-agricultural
research scientists or administrators are not included. Capacity is
defined as that level of occupancy, expressed on an SY basis, for which
there is sufficient and functional office and laboratory space for the
scientists' research programs.
As of September 30, 1977, the two Federal organizations together
had greater capacity than occupancy. For the Science and Education
Administration, this surplus was 551.9 SY and for the Forest Service,
95.5 SY. This means that this additional number of SY's, either Federal
or state, could have been housed in Federal facilities at that time.
For the state organizations, however, the reverse was true. These four
organizations had a deficit of adequate office and laboratory space
amounting to 965.2 SY's.
In comparing the 1977 status with that in 1981, which includes
committed (funded) changes in programs and facilities, the capacity of
Federal facilities will have increased at a greater rate (5.7%) than
occupation resulting in a greater amount of underutilized space (708.1
SY's) in 1981. For the state organizations, the trend is reversed.
Their occupation will have increased at a 6.5% rate while their
capacity increased 6.2%, resulting in a net increased need for space
(1,048.1 SY's).
It should be noted that the figures in the difference (DIF) column
of this table are net differences. As an example, the difference
between occupancy and capacity for the Science and Education
Administration and Forest Service together is shown as 708.1 SY's,
(637.6, SEA; 70.5, FS) as of September 30, 1981. The actual amount of
underutilized space is 841.3 SY's, but this is offset by the space need
for 133.2 SY's at other facilities.
In regard to the status resulting from future program increase
projections, all organizations with the exception of Science and
Education, will have a net need for additional space. While future
increase projections for the Colleges of Veterinary Medicine have not
been developed, it is assumed their need for additional space also will
increase based on their deficiency reported for 1981.

Table 1--National Summary of Facility Occupancy (OCC) (Federal & State), Capacity (CAP) and Difference (DIF) by Performing Organization by Scientist
Years (SY's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status September 30, 1977 Status September 30, 1981 Status Resulting From Future Program
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Projections
Performing -----------------------------------------
Organization OCC Fed OCC State OCC Fed OCC State OCC
SY's SY's Cap. SY's Dif. SY's SY's SY's Cap. SY's Dif. SY's OCC Fed State Cap. Dif. SY's
SY's SY's SY's
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science and Education 2,379.9 \3\ 123.3 3,055.1 551.9 2,491.3 \3\ 122.3 3,251.2 637.6 2,866.4 \3\ 121. 3,251.2 263.1
7
Forest Service 899.8 39.0 1,034.3 95.5 954.7 46.0 1,071.2 70.5 1,088.5 52.0 1,071.2 ^69.3
State Agricultural 610.9 6,489.6 6,300.3 ^800.2 642.9 6,746.6 6,615.0 ^774.5 685.5 7,721.2 6,615.0 ^1,791.7
Experi-
ment Stations
Colleges of 1890 0.0 180.6 75.4 ^105.2 0.0 276.4 105.7 ^170.7 0.0 586.4 105.7 ^480.7
Forestry Schools \1\ 36.0 230.8 249.0 ^17.8 43.0 251.6 259.0 ^35.6 45.8 295.2 259.0 ^82.0
Colleges of Veterinary 0.8 331.1 289.9 ^42.0 0.8 432.8 366.3 ^67.3
Med-
icine \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............... 3,927.4 7,394.4 11,004.0 ^317.8 4,132.7 7,875.7 11,668.4 ^340.0 4,686.2 8,776.5 11,302.1 ^2,160.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Status data for Forestry Schools incomplete.
\2\ Future program projections not available for Colleges of Veterinary Medicine.
\3\ This figure includes Economics and Statistics Service employees housed in state-owned space.
Note: A minus sign indicates a deficiency in SY space.

The extent of sharing of facility space with cooperators is also
displayed for each of the organizations. As an example, the number of
state SY's in Federal facilities is expected to be 168.3 in 1981, while
the number of Federal SY's in state owned facilities will be 686.7.
While the extent of such sharing could be increased, it should not be
assumed that all underutilized space in Federal facilities could be
utilized by state cooperators to reduce their additional space needs.
Much of the underutilized Federal space is at scattered locations
remote from cooperators in the state organizations.
This table also points out that the greatest need for additional
space by 1981 is by the Colleges of 1890 and Tuskegee Institute. Based
upon their planned occupancy, 62% of the SY's will need new space.
Relation to Research Programs
Under the terms specified by Congress, facility needs are to be
related to programs of research. Table 2 provides a summary of the
absolute and relative need of each research program for additional
space and for renovation and modernization based on committed program
and facility changes to 1981.
Additional space includes that obtained through new construction or
through changes that result in increased SY capacity. Renovation
includes only those physical changes that serve to upgrade existing
space, thereby improving the efficiency of the scientist.
For purposes of inventory and planning, food and agricultural
research has been classified in accordance with the 50 Research
Programs (RP's) listed in table 2. Two additional categories have been
included, namely: multiple research programs to be used where the same
space would serve several RP's and an unclassified category.
Absolute need is expressed as the number of SY's inadequately
housed and needing new or renovated office and/or laboratory space.
Relative need is expressed as the percentage of Federal and state SY's
requiring additional or renovated space based upon the inventory of
SY's for 1978 for each RP.
Thus, for RP 1.01 Soils and Land Use, Federal facilities need
additional office and/or laboratory space for 1.9 SY's which is 1.5% of
the 1978 base of 123.4 SY's; state facilities need additional space for
65.5 SY's which is 23.2% of the base of 282.2 SY's. Also, for the same
RP, there is need to renovate office and/or laboratory space in Federal
facilities for 170.0 SY's or 13.8% of their base and for 62.1 SY's in
state facilities or 22% of their base.
For the total of all RP's, Federal facilities have an absolute need
for additional space for 133.2 SY's or 3% of their 1978 base; however,
\2/3\ of this need is for Forestry RP's and is 8.8% of their base. For
state facilities, there will be a need for 1,110.5 scientist spaces or
15.4% of their base.
Renovation needs for both Federal and state facilities are
substantial. Federal programs require renovation for 820.7 SY or 18.4%
of the 1978 base. State programs require renovation for 1,249.5 SY or
18.7% of the 1978 base.

Table 2--National Summary of Absolute and Relative Need, By Scientist Years (SY's), of Each Research Program for Additional Space and for Renovation and
Modernization Based on Committed Program and Facility Changes to 1981
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal State
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Add. Space Needs Renov. Needs Off. Add. Space Needs Renov. Needs Off.
Research Programs 1978 Base Off. and/or Lab and/or Lab 1978 Base Off. and/or Lab and/or Lab
\2\ -------------------------------------------- \1\ -------------------------------------------
(SY's) Number Number (SY's) Number Number
(SY's) % of RP (SY's) % of RP (SY's) % of RP (SY's) % of RP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.01 Soil & land use 123.4 1.9 1.5 17.0 13.8 282.2 65.6 23.2 62.1 22.0
1.02 Water & watersheds 184.1 4.8 2.6 12.1 6.6 123.3 30.2 24.5 14.9 12.1
1.03 Recreation 0 0. 0. 0. 0. 26.9 2.6 9.7 0.8 3.0
1.04 Environmental quality 158.5 0.6 0.4 7.0 4.4 284.0 75.6 26.6 37.1 13.1
1.05 Weather modification 4.0 0. 0. 0. 0. 36.3 5.8 16.0 3.9 10.7
1.06 Fish & wildlife 2.2 0. 0. 0. 0. 68.1 21.9 32.2 15.0 22.0
1.07 Remote sensing 5.8 0. 0. 0. 0. 6.2 2.0 32.3 2.1 33.9
2.01 Inventory forest res. 64.3 4.4 6.8 0. 0. 27.3 3.2 11.7 4.0 14.7
2.02 Timber management 218.3 20.9 9.6 3.0 1.4 153.6 25.7 16.7 21.3 13.9
2.03 Forest protection 244.0 29.0 11.9 11.0 4.5 98.7 10.9 11.0 7.6 7.7
2.04 Harv. mkt. fors. prod. 211.2 9.0 4.3 2.0 0.9 144.1 14.7 10.2 25.2 17.5
2.05 Fors. wtrshds. & poltn. 118.7 8.7 7.3 0. 0. 60.5 19.4 32.1 8.0 13.2
2.06 Range fish & wildlife 70.5 7.6 10.8 6.0 8.5 47.2 9.2 19.5 3.3 7.0
2.07 Forest recreation 25.4 5.8 22.8 0. 0. 33.4 5.9 17.7 0.7 2.1
2.08 Alternate land uses 18.0 0.8 4.4 0. 0. 23.3 4.1 17.6 0.5 2.1
2.09 Technical assistance 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1.0 1.0 100.0 0. 0.
3.01 Corn 88.3 0. 0. 30.1 34.1 171.8 25.0 14.6 27.7 16.1
3.02 Grain sorghum 17.5 0. 0. 4.8 27.4 51.9 8.3 16.0 10.8 20.8
3.03 Wheat 89.1 1.0 1.1 20.8 23.3 128.9 16.6 12.9 13.0 10.1
3.04 Other small grain 29.3 0. 0. 3.2 10.9 78.9 9.9 12.5 7.6 9.6
3.05 Rice 18.0 0. 0. 0. 0. 34.3 0. 0. 5.0 14.6
3.06 Soybeans 101.3 0. 0. 34.7 34.3 200.4 46.6 23.3 31.3 15.6
3.07 Peanuts 27.0 0. 0. 4.0 14.8 41.0 8.4 20.5 5.4 13.2
3.08 Sugar 56.0 3.0 5.4 18.0 32.1 56.0 4.4 7.9 0.3 0.5
3.09 Forage range pasture 148.6 7.9 5.3 23.0 15.5 337.8 58.4 17.3 35.5 10.5
3.10 Cotton 263.5 1.0 0.4 5.0 1.9 117.9 21.1 17.9 18.7 15.9
3.11 Tobacco 45.6 0. 0. 0. 0. 56.6 0.3 0.5 10.3 18.2
3.12 New crops minor oilsd. 52.0 0. 0. 21.0 40.4 44.3 9.1 20.5 7.8 17.6
3.13 Fruit 194.2 2.0 1.0 48.4 24.9 451.1 41.9 9.3 47.8 10.6
3.14 Vegetable crops 145.7 4.0 2.7 22.8 15.6 483.5 54.7 11.3 77.3 16.0
3.15 Plants enhanc. envir. 50.4 0.8 1.6 9.7 19.2 220.3 14.0 6.4 11.6 5.3
3.16 Bees & other polntrs. 33.9 0. 0. 0. 0. 17.9 1.6 8.9 0.3 1.7
4.01 Beef 188.4 6.0 3.2 21.5 11.4 493.8 70.7 14.3 80.8 16.4
4.02 Dairy 82.0 2.0 2.4 0. 0. 345.7 46.9 13.6 68.1 19.7
4.03 Poultry 73.9 1.0 1.4 0.5 0.7 258.7 29.8 11.5 70.1 27.1
4.04 Sheep & wool 61.6 2.3 3.7 10.0 16.2 78.3 15.4 19.7 10.4 13.3
4.05 Swine 53.0 1.0 1.9 6.0 11.3 185.6 42.4 22.8 30.8 16.6
4.06 Other animals 12.6 0.7 5.6 0. 0. 85.1 19.4 22.8 24.4 28. 7
4.07 Aquatic food & feed 0.2 0. 0. 0. 0. 68.9 6.0 8.7 7.0 10.2
5.01 Food & nutrition 180.9 6.5 3.6 12.0 6.6 205.0 69.7 34.0 66.5 32.4
5.02 Food safety 121.2 0. 0. 58.6 48.3 119.8 12.3 10.3 28.0 23.4
5.03 Rural dev. qual. living 74.3 0. 0. 0. 0. 333.1 39.8 11.9 32.7 9.8
5.04 Insects aff. man 33.8 0.5 1.5 19.0 56.2 42.1 4.9 11.6 7.2 17.1
5.05 Res. on admn. of res 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 8.9 0. 0. 0. 0.
6.01 Farm adj. price inc. 81.8 0. 0. 0. 0. 145.9 17.4 11.9 21.5 14.7
6.02 Foreign trd. eco. dvl. 105.8 0. 0. 3.0 2.8 33.3 2.8 8.4 0.2 0.6
6.03 Mkt. & competition 254.8 0 0. 2.0 0.8 177.2 20.0 11.3 31.2 17.6
7.01 Gen. resources 313.3 0. 0 86.5 27.6 589.9 67.7 11.5 64.6 11.0
8.01 Multi res. programs 0. 0. 0 298.0 0. 27.2 280.1
9.01 Unclassified 7.9 0. 0 0. 0. 136.1 0. 0. 9.0 6.6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 4,454.3 133.2 3.0 820.7 18.4 7,216.1 1,110.5 15.4 1,349.5 18.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes estimated base for Colleges of Veterinary Medicine.
\2\ Includes 494.5 SY's in other federally owned facilities in the District of Columbia but not included in the survey.

The greatest absolute and relative need for additional space for
Federal facilities is in the forestry RP's. This need is primarily due
to the large amount of existing leased space in the Forest Service and
is unsuitable for the type of research underway. If the proper type
space cannot be obtained through lease arrangements, new construction
must be considered.
For state programs, there is an absolute need for additional space
for greater than 10 SY's in 29 of the 50 RP's while renovation needs
exceeding 10 SY's exist in 29 RP's. Renovation needs in excess of 10
SY's exist in 18 of the 50 RP's in Federal facilities.
Both the absolute and relative needs for additional space and for
renovation provide information needed for estimating facility needs
within and among programs.
The estimated fund needs at 1980 costs for providing additional
office and/or laboratory space and for renovation to meet the
scientists' needs shown in Table 2 follow:

Federal
Facilities State Facilities

Additional Office and/or $7,726,000 $94,243,000
Laboratory
Renovation of Office and/or 20,967,000 72,267,000
Laboratory
-------------------------------------
Total $28,693,000 $166,510,000

Ancillary structures, land, repair and maintenance, equipment and
instrumentation
Recognizing the importance of material support items for the
efficient conduct of research, data were obtained on the need for such
items as ancillary structures, land, repair and maintenance, and
equipment and instrumentation. These needs, as of September 30, 1981,
are shown in Table 3 for each of the six performing organizations. It
is assumed that any committed program and facility changes will have
been effected.
Ancillary structures include such buildings as greenhouses, animal
shelters, feed mills, storage, and service. The need is shown in
dollars. Land, shown in acres, includes that for crops, forest, range,
and building sites. The estimated cost for such land is not available.
Due to the lack of adequate operating funds at many facility
locations, proper maintenance and timely repair has been neglected
resulting in deterioration of such facilities. Table 3 also shows both
the amount of funds required to restore all facilities to a serviceable
or operable condition (catch-up) and the amount needed annually for an
adequate repair and maintenance program for all existing or committed
facilities.
Another important research support area is the equipment and
instrumentation that would allow scientists to conduct their present or
future research programs more efficiently and effectively. This table
expresses needs two ways: that amount needed to replace existing, but
out-of-date or worn out equipment and instrumentation, and that needed
additionally for present and committed research programs. These needs,
shown in dollars, were limited to items costing over $20,000 or where
lease costs per item exceed $10,000 per year.

Table 3--National Summary of Research Support Needs by Performing Organizations Based On Committed Programs and
Facility Changes to 1981
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science & Forest Colleges College of Forestry
Research Support Item Education Service State AES of 1890 Vet. Med. Schools Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land (acres) 23,167 7 64,679 6,573 2,835 18,551 115,812
Ancillary Structures ($000) 46,476 11,537 127,519 20,068 171,112 1,774 378,486
Repair and Maintenance
For catchup ($000) 19,657 3,815 36,070 7,828 1,646 817 69,833
Annual need ($000) 11,274 2,320 20,935 3,298 1,047 793 39,667
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total ($000) 30,931 6,135 57,005 11,126 2,693 1,610 109,500
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment and
Instrumentation
For replacement ($000) 12,589 1,115 25,911 4,976 3,787 2,885 51,263
Additional ($000) 21,179 2,405 26,827 8,079 6,430 1,213 66,133
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total ($000) 33,768 3,520 52,738 13,055 10,217 4,098 117,396
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In summary, the data in Table 3 show the total funding requirement
(exclusive of land) for ancillary Federal items to be $132.4 million.
For state ancillary items, the need is for $473 million.
Projected needs
Table 4 presents a summary of the absolute and relative need of
each research program for additional space and for renovation solely to
meet future program increase projections. For performing organizations
except the 1890 Colleges and the Colleges of Veterinary Medicine these
needs are based on the 20% increase in program support projected by
ARPAC. The Colleges of 1890 have used a recently projected increase of
112%. No future projections are available for the Colleges of
Veterinary Medicine.
The projected program support for Federal facilities would increase
by 860.5 SY's and require additional space and renovation needs for
43.3% of those SY's or for 372.5 scientists. Only 6 RP's would require
additional space and renovation needs for more than 15 SY's. This
comparatively low level of need is due to the availability of
previously underutilized space for most of these program expansions.
However, where previously underutilized space is not available or
suitable for the new programs, new construction or major renovation is
required to meet the need.
For state facilities, 83% of the projected increase of 1,621.7 SY's
would have needs for additional space and/or renovation. This is due to
essentially all currently existing or committed space being fully
occupied already. As discussed earlier, it has been assumed that all
space needing renovation as shown in Table 2 would have been satisfied.
The only SY need for renovation shown in Table 3 would be for
previously underutilized space that now is needed to meet part of the
program support increase.
For some of the RP's shown in this table, relative needs (percent
need of the program increase) exceed 100%. This is due to a greater SY
need for additional space to meet more recently developed future
planning than was projected earlier.
For 2 RP's (Tobacco and New Crops Including Minor Oilseeds) the
projected change in SY's for Federal facilities is a reduction,
reflecting a projected shift from these crop programs to others of
higher priority.
The estimated costs for providing additional and renovated space to
meet the future program increase projections shown in Table 4 are as
follows:

Federal
Facilities State Facilities

Additional Office and/or $7,241,000 $105,019,000
Laboratory
Renovation of Office and/or 9,099,000 88,000
Laboratory
-------------------------------------
Total $16,340,000 $105,107,000

Table 4--National Summary of Absolute and Relative Need, By Scientist Years (SY's), of Each Research Program for
Additional Space and Renovation and Modernization To Meet Future Program Increase Projections
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal State
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Add. Space & Renov. Add. Space & Renov.
Research Programs Project. Needs Off. and/or Lab Project. Needs Off. and/or Lab
Increase ------------------------ Increase -----------------------
(SY's) Number (SY's) \1\ Number
(SY's) % of RP (SY's) % of RP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.01 Soil & land use 35.3 6.0 17.0 81.8 65.1 79.6
1.02 Water & watersheds 42.8 8.4 19.6 57.9 39.0 67.4
1.03 Recreation 0 0 0 6.3 5.4 85.7
1.04 Environmental quality 30.8 2.3 7.5 56.9 59.0 103.7
1.05 Weather modification 0.4 0 0 8.6 10.4 120.9
1.06 Fish & wildlife 0 0 0 15.8 12.6 79.7
1.07 Remote sensing 1.2 0.2 16.7 15.4 11.7 76.0
2.01 Inventory forest res. 27.7 15.8 57.0 7.3 11.2 153.4
2.02 Timber management 17.6 22.6 128.4 27.6 16.2 58.7
2.03 Forest protection 5.2 8.9 171.2 14.3 18.4 128.7
2.04 Harv. mkt. fors. prod. 47.4 20.0 42.2 32.6 14.0 42.9
2.05 Fors. wtrshds. & poltn. 30.7 14.5 47.2 19.7 15.0 76.1
2.06 Range fish & wildlife 41.1 10.9 26.5 20.4 22.2 108.8
2.07 Forest recreation 15.5 6.0 38.7 6.3 5.7 90.5
2.08 Alternate land uses 2.4 0 0 13.6 10.2 75.0
2.09 Technical assistance 0 0 0 3.2 1.0 31.3
3.01 Corn 12.1 1.5 12.4 43.4 31.2 71.9
3.02 Grain sorghum 4.5 0 0 16.9 11.2 66.3
3.03 Wheat 6.7 1.2 17.9 38.8 21.5 55.4
3.04 Other small grain 5.5 0 0 22.5 16.4 72.9
3.05 Rice 7.8 0 0 10.3 6.2 60.2
3.06 Soybeans 35.7 1.8 5.0 57.0 44.3 77.7
3.07 Peanuts 9.2 0 0 16.9 11.6 68.6
3.08 Sugar 5.5 3.0 54.5 10.3 1.8 17.5
3.09 Forage range pasture 58.8 19.4 33.0 95.4 68.3 71.6
3.10 Cotton 3.1 2.0 64.5 7.8 9.9 126.9
3.11 Tobacco ^3.3 0 0 8.5 1.9 22.4
3.12 New crops minor oilsd. ^8.2 1.5 0 16.1 16.6 103.1
3.13 Fruit 37.2 8.8 23.7 68.3 67.4 98.7
3.14 Vegetable crops 22.1 12.1 54.8 70.8 66.6 94.1
3.15 Plants enhanc. envir. 9.1 0.3 3.3 18.5 27.0 145.9
3.16 Bees & other polntrs. 4.4 1.6 36.4 8.3 4.1 49.4
4.01 Beef 42.2 21.4 50.7 115.0 79.6 69.2
4.02 Dairy 19.7 5.4 27.4 56.8 43.8 77.1
4.03 Poultry 6.4 3.6 56.3 32.8 32.5 99.1
4.04 Sheep & wool 4.6 9.0 195.7 7.4 12.9 174.3
4.05 Swine 26.9 1.8 6.7 48.8 36.1 74.0
4.06 Other animals 3.2 0 0 29.9 18.2 60.9
4.07 Aquatic food & feed 0 0 0 15.5 12.8 82.6
5.01 Food & nutrition 44.4 22.2 50.0 112.2 100.7 89.8
5.02 Food safety 30.9 1.5 4.9 41.1 38.7 94.2
5.03 Rural dev. qual. living 21.6 0 0 99.5 93.1 93.6
5.04 Insects aff. man 7.7 5.0 64.9 16.5 14.0 84.8
5.05 Res. on admn. of res. 0 0 0 3.0 1.0 33.3
6.01 Farm adj. price inc. 9.1 0 0 31.3 18.1 57.8
6.02 Foreign trd. eco. dvl. 17.8 1.0 5.6 14.7 11.8 80.3
6.03 Mkt. & competition 27.5 3.0 10.9 45.5 32.9 72.3
7.01 Gen. resources 86.6 8.4 9.7 55.5 58.4 105.2
8.01 Multi res. programs 121.4 3.5
9.01 Unclassified 3.6 0 0 ^1.3 14.5.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 860.5 372.5 43.3 1,621.7 1,345.7 83.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Projected increases and facility needs not available for Colleges of Veterinary Medicine.

Table 5 summarizes the needs for additional research support items
to meet the same future program projection increases shown in Table 4.
In Table 5, these needs, expressed in dollars with the exception of
land, are displayed for land, ancillary structures, annual need for
repair and maintenance, and equipment and instrumentation required to
meet future programs. Of these, the greatest need is for equipment and
instrumentation reflecting the higher costs associated with highly
refined basic research needed for the future.
In summary, the data in Table 5 show the total additional funding
requirement (exclusive of land) for Federal facilities to meet program
projections to be $39.6 million including $13.6 million needed annually
for repair and maintenance. For state facilities, the cost would be
$119.7 million including $26.1 million needed annually for repair and
maintenance. Future needs for the Colleges of Veterinary Medicine are
not available.
Recapitulation of Cost
A summary of the total costs, excluding that for land, associated
with meeting current needs (including committed changes in program and
facilities to 1981) is as follows:

Federal ($000) State ($000)

Additional Office and/or 7,726 94,243
Laboratory
Renovation of Office and/or 20,967 72,267
Laboratory
Research Support Items 132,367 473,015
-------------------------------------
Total 161,060 639,525
-------------------------------------
Cost per SY occupancy \1\ 44.6 76.2

The additional costs associated with meeting future program
increase projections are summarized as follows:

Federal ($000) State ($000)

Additional Office and/or 7,241 105,019
Laboratory
Renovation of Office and/or 9,099 88
Laboratory
Research Support Items 39,553 115,472
-------------------------------------
Total 55,893 220,579
-------------------------------------
Cost per SY increase \1\ 65.0 136.0
\1\ Cost per SY occupancy (or
increase) was calculated by
dividing costs for additional
offices and/or laboratories,
renovation of offices and
laboratories and research support
items by SY figures (Federal or
State) shown in Table 1, page
[101] or Table 4, page [105]. For
example: $161,060,000 (2,491.2
+ 122.3 + 954.7 + 46.8) = $44,600/
SY.

Table 5--National Summary of Additional Research Support Needs by Performing Organizations To Meet Future
Program Increase Projections
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
College of
Research Support Item Science & Forest State AES Colleges Vet. Forestry Total
Education Service of 1890 Med.\1\ Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land (acres) 1,851 0 10,461 769 500 13,581
Ancillary Structures ($000) 6,810 305 36,485 2,540 1,340 47,480
Repair and Maintenance
Annual need ($000) 11,274 2,320 20,935 3,298 1,047 793 39,667
Equipment and
Instrumentation
Need ($000) 17,260 1,584 39,764 7,020 2,250 67,878
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Future needs not available for Colleges of Veterinary Medicine.

The principal factor contributing to the higher costs per SY in
states than in Federal research facilities are greater state needs for
Class A buildings while Federal needs are principally for support
structures. The state needs also include space for graduate students
and for post-doctoral appointees. Such space requirements are not a
significant part of Federal needs.
A 5 year projection has been developed for fund allocation for
facility construction and renovation and for research programs and is
shown in Table 6. This plan would involve the annual expenditure of
about $19 million for new facilities, $14 million for renovations and
$95 million for research support for committed programs in the states.
For Federal research committed programs needs are for about $1.5
million for new facilities and $4.1 million for renovations, and $26.5
million for research support. If a future increases in research program
funding are provided (ARPAC and other projections), the additional
annual cost for new facilities would be $21 million, and for research
support about $23 million. Comparable annual costs for Federal research
programs would be $1.4 million for new facilities, $1.7 million for
renovations, and nearly $8 million for research support.
Facilities Priorities
As indicated previously, each respondent was asked to identify the
single, most needed new facility for each location. This information is
available from the Executive Secretary of the Joint Council.
Other aids to priority selections include the results from the
1979-84 projections cycle (Interim National Research Planning
Committee), the Joint Council's ``Areas of Emphasis in the Food and
Agricultural Sciences for the Early 1980's'' and reports of the
National Agricultural Research and Extension Users Advisory Board. All
of these are available through the Executive Secretary of the Joint
Council.
Major Unique Collections
The survey resulted in the collection of valuable, new information
concerning 188 major, unique collections of bacteria, phages, insects,
viruses, seeds, etc. Information concerning these collections and their
availability for use for scientific purposes is to be published in a
separate report which will be given wide distribution.

Table 6--A Five Year Projection for Fund Allocation for Facility Construction and Renovation and for Research Support for State and Federal (SEA-AR and
FS) Agricultural Research Programs \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Facilities Renovations Research Support Items
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Future Future Future
Increase \2\ Increase \2\ Increase \2\
Committed in Research Total $000 Committed in Research Total $000 Committed in Research Total $000
Programs $000 Programs Programs $000 Programs Programs $000 Programs
$000 $000 $000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each Year for 5 Years
State 18,849 21,004 39,853 14,453 18 14,471 94,603 23,094 117,697
Federal (SEA-AR) 545 1,064 1,609 4,081 1,666 5,747 9,342 5,815 15,157
Federal (FS) 1,000 384 1,384 112 154 266 17,132 2,096 19,228
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 20,394 22,452 42,846 18,646 1,838 20,484 121,077 31,005 152,082
================================================================================================================================
Total 5 Years 101,968 112,258 214,226 93,232 9,190 102,420 605,385 155,025 760,410
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Figures are based on 1979 costs. Inflationary trends must be considered in using these figures to estimate costs in subsequent years.
\2\ ARPAC projections of a 20% increase level in program support (1976-81 cycle) were used for all performing organizations except Colleges of 1890 and
Colleges of Veterinary Medicine.

Discussion
The Congress wants ``. . . recommendations for a program to provide
the United States with the most modern and efficient system of research
facilities needed to advance agricultural research in all fields, and
recommendations with regard to priority requirements . . .''
Obviously, performers of agricultural research are one group to go
to to get useful information for developing such recommendations. This
report deals primarily with a study designed to obtain the judgement of
scientists and research administrators concerning available and needed
research facilities.
As is usually the case, this study is subject to a number of
criticisms:

It could be viewed as ``self-serving'' because the answers
were provided by those who might be considered the
beneficiaries of increased support for physical facilities.
Yet, who is in better position to assess needs for physical
facilities than those who work in them.

The study could be criticized also as being overly limited
and limiting. Colleges of Veterinary Medicine were not
included; neither were non-land-grant, publicly supported
colleges and universities. Private universities were not
included. Land-grant, non-land-grant and private universities
all play a part in training future scientists who will be
needed to conduct research on the important problems which lie
ahead.

More importantly, respondents were limited to three situations
for total SY's: those on board September 30, 1977; those
committed for September 30, 1981, and those projected for
September 30, 1981. Each of these was under the ARPAC
constraints for regional and national planning purposes. Thus,
under September 30, 1977, and the first assumption for
September 30, 1981, redirection only could be accommodated.
Under the second assumption for September 30, 1981, a total
growth in SY's of 20 percent was permitted (ARPAC growth
projections), divided among program areas as recommended by the
research administrators of the responding units.
The point is that respondents were not permitted to say, for
example, that the total food and agricultural research effort
should be doubled in 5 years as one might imply from the
authorizations for funding under Section K, Title XIV of P.L.
95-113. Thus, their responses regarding physical facilities
were limited.

The report does not address the question of the ultimate
need for facilities in order to provide a level of research
effort to enable world food needs to be met in the future--say
the year [2000] or later. The report does address needs in
terms of current level of effort and a modest increase of 20
percent over a 5 year period. Public and private research has
met current food production needs; however, the rate of
increased productivity appears to be slackening according to
many authorities and a more futuristic study is needed to
determine whether current levels, modestly increased, or
greatly increased levels of effort will be needed to meet
future world food needs.

The program priorities are those provided by the
respondents, the research performers. Undoubtedly, the answers
given were influenced by many advisory groups, informal
contacts, budget development, and justification activities. A
mix of local, regional, and national concerns is presented in
the tables cited.

The casual reviewer may look at the surplus space reported
for the Federal agencies and inquire--How could they ask for
more?--or, Why don't the Federal agencies invite the states in?
The fact is, of course, that the Federal agencies have invited
the states in. The states don't come in for the same reasons
that new construction, remodeling, and the like are requested
by the Federal agencies including those with ``excess'' space.
The space is in the wrong geographical location, funds have not
been provided for its intended use, space has become obsolete,
and to remodel sometimes costs more than new construction.

The Joint Council believes that the study results provide a
substantial part, but not all, of the answer to the requests made by
the Congress in Section 1462.
Conclusion
When all these criticisms, potential criticisms, and others not
explicitly mentioned are considered, one conclusion is apparent. There
is a substantial need for remodeling, refurbishing, and new
construction of the physical plant for food and agricultural research
in the United States. There is a need as well for equipment,
instrumentation, land and other items. This conclusion stands whether
or not there is growth and whether or not there is redirection in
research programs. It is a basic need for the system as a whole.
The study results provide an indication only of the ultimate
funding to be required. The indication, however, is that funding needs
are very substantial and should be part of the annual budget process.
It is quite clear that serious national and international problems
in food and fiber production confront us in the next several decades
for which the answers must come from new technology developed by
increased research effort. These problems have been described recently
in ``The Global 2000 Report to the President--Entering the Twenty First
Century'' and--in the proceedings of the national conference on
``Animal Agriculture--Research to Meet Human Needs in the 21st
Century.'' The proceedings of the latter conference state: ``Society
must provide researchers with signals of funding and moral support to
assure that sufficient human and financial resources are spent on
appropriate research.'' A recent editorial in Science states:
``American scientists admire and applaud the new leadership
achievements of European nations in providing first-rate new facilities
for their scientists, and envy the Japanese scientists and engineers
their nation's wholehearted support and admiration. We would not have
it otherwise. But we are in a serious if friendly, global competition
with our allies. America no longer can take technical strength for
granted.''
Agricultural research expenditures as a percentage of total Federal
research and development expenditures, have declined substantially--
from 39% in 1940 to 2% at the present. Funding of agricultural research
since 1967 has barely kept pace with inflation. Yet agricultural
research programs have been requested to respond to an expanding array
of issues and needs. Furthermore, the demand for science and education
programs to address more traditional issues and problems has generally
increased rather than diminished. Additional facilities for
agricultural research to respond to real societal needs are important
if the U.S. expects to maintain its preeminence in food and fiber
production, processing and distribution.
The Joint Council, as a result of this study, is convinced of the
importance and urgency of the real need to provide additional research
facilities. The Joint Council recommends that a 5 year implementation
plan for improving the physical plant for U.S. agricultural research
capability be developed and initiated immediately.

U.S. Government Printing Office: 1981-0-340-931/SEA-400
______

Submitted Letter by Hon. Brad Finstad, a Representative in Congress
from Minnesota; on Behalf of Luther Markwart, Chief Executive Officer,
American Sugarbeet Growers Association; Anna Murphy, Executive Vice
President, Beet Sugar Development Foundation
June 14, 2023

Hon. James R. Baird,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology
House Agriculture Committee,
Washington, D.C.;

Hon. Abigail Davis Spanberger,
Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology
House Agriculture Committee,
Washington, D.C.

Chairman Baird and Ranking Member Spanberger,

Thank you for holding today's hearing titled: ``A Review of Title
VII: University Perspectives on Research and Extension Programs.'' The
work conducted by universities and extension offices across our country
plays an invaluable role in agriculture. We welcome the opportunity to
provide input based on our experience with our public partners.
Together the American Sugarbeet Growers Association and the Beet
Sugar Development Foundation represent the 10,000 family farmers in 11
states that raise sugarbeets on 1.2 million acres and cooperatively own
all 21 factories in the U.S. that process sugar from sugarbeets. We
also represent these cooperatives and the four sugarbeet seed-related
companies in their active beet sugar research and education.
Collectively, we produce over half of all domestically produced sugar.
The U.S. beet sugar processing industry is 100 percent farmer-owned and
cooperative in structure.
The U.S. beet sugar industry has become a global leader in
environmental sustainability as we have invested in significant
programs that preserve our natural resources, family farms, unionized
workforces, and rural communities for future generations. As a result,
our industry now produces 29 percent more sugar on eight percent less
land than 20 years ago, and sugarbeets now require significantly less
water and fuel. Many of these advancements are made possible through
public-private research partnerships.
In general, universities play a central role in advancing American
agriculture. Progress relies on a broad spectrum of activities that
range from basic to applied research. Combined, university research,
extension activities, and private undertakings each play a role in this
progress.
Extension programs, uniquely in tune with the American farmer,
occupy a niche that is very important to support. Generally, extension
programs are the final step to commercial implementation that evaluate
new products coming to market, develop efficacious use protocols, and
test scalability of novel practices. Extension enjoys a high degree of
trust from growers as an unbiased partner. Not only do they conduct
research, but they also host demonstration plots, field tour listening
sessions, and seminars that educate growers on new technologies that
advance farming. Their work directly contributes to the work of our
farmers and the agronomy departments at every cooperative.
In our own specific experience, extension scientists have also been
key players in assisting farmers in obtaining emergency exemptions from
EPA in order to meet specific needs related to pests and disease.
Without their assistance our growers would have been negatively
impacted due to lack of availability of effective tools to treat these
problems within our crop. A good example of this is the Section 18
emergency exemptions granted by EPA for Acifluorfen and Provysol, from
which our growers have greatly benefited. More recently, NDSU helped
with the successful limited use approval of Phenmedipham through a
Section 24c for the control of kochia and lambsquarter. Many of the go-
to chemistries that have worked in the past are either ineffective,
have terminated registration, or have been banned. Extension scientists
identified all these alternatives in hopes of preventing major
catastrophes.
The work of university researchers is so important to our industry,
our farmers invest their own resources through their local grower's
association to fund critical and relevant research. Together, farmers
and cooperatives prioritize research focused on current and anticipated
challenges for their growing area, select grant applications, and fund
a wide range of research through universities, extension, and USDA-ARS.
This is often funded as a per-acre deduction from grower's beet
payment. The industry spends roughly $5M annually on research to
advance sugarbeet production, with $2.2 million invested to directly
support university and USDA research. Below are some examples of the
collaborative work being done.
At the University of Idaho, Colorado State University, and Montana
State University researchers are characterizing herbicide resistance in
key weed species common to sugarbeet production. Using cutting edge
technology and high-throughput screening methodology, widespread
unbiased screening is conducted to determine occurrence and spread of
resistance to three major herbicides (glyphosate, glufosinate, and
dicamba). These data are key to helping farmers with early detection,
risk mitigation, and long-term resistance management strategies across
Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Nebraska, Wyoming, and Montana.
Furthermore, these data will help growers implement emerging seed
technologies to ensure greatest efficacy.
Beet curly top virus, spread by the beet leaf hopper, represents a
significant challenge for growers across the western United States.
From 2020 through 2022 Snake River growers supported scientists at
Colorado State University to develop best management practices for
managing the insect transmitting the virus. These practices were
developed from detailed evaluation of all available insecticides and
include judicious use of the most effective products as part of an
overarching integrated pest management strategy. This information helps
growers with planting and crop management decisions which ultimately
mitigate crop and financial loss.
This work was expanded in 2023-24 to include other common pests of
sugarbeet: aphids and lygus bugs. These data support current farming
practices and are shared openly with state departments of agriculture
and the Environmental Protection Agency in support of informed
regulatory decision-making.
These same scientists are also working towards identifying key
genetic factors influencing virus transmission and disease progression
in the hopes of fully replacing today's insecticides with novel host
resistance mechanisms.
In the RRV, research into pests and disease has been invaluable.
Using the knowledge they gathered on epidemiology, university
scientists developed disease prediction models for optimizing fungicide
applications to control Cercospora leaf spot, one of the most
significant financial drains on our industry. In partnership with the
USDA-ARS, university scientists have helped to characterize fungicide
resistance within Cercospora populations and developed rapid detection
tools. These studies directly impact farming by reducing reliance on
fungicides, ensuring applications are effective, and reducing
resistance development within the pathogen population.
Other scientists working in the RRV elucidated a major waste stream
from sugarbeet refining acts as a natural suppressant of Aphanomyces
root rot. This discovery has revolutionized waste management at
processing facilities across the United States who now beneficially
reuse tens of thousands of tons of would-be waste every year while
reducing reliance on synthetic pesticides. Furthermore, extension
specialists in the region have helped bring numerous, highly effective
new products to the market for the management of root maggot,
Cercospora leaf spot and Rhizoctonia root rot, reducing economic losses
and environmental impact of domestic beet sugar production.
All of the university research on pests and disease in this region
has been closely coordinated with efforts at the USDA-ARS. In many
instances, projects are based in formal collaboration with ARS
scientists to maximize synergisms, reduce duplication in efforts, and
ensure proper resource allocation. The epidemiological and pesticide
field screening of the universities ties in beautifully with ARS pre-
breeding programs that identify and release novel traits for pest and
disease management that get integrated into commercial hybrids. This
includes instrumental ARS involvement in the development of improved
Cercospora resistance trait, known as CR+. ARS scientists, relying on
molecular characterization of the fungal-plant interactions within CR+
genetics, are developing best management practices to protect the
efficacy and longevity of this valuable trait.
ARS is also the only public research entity with research programs
fully focused on sugarbeet storage. Processing sugarbeets cannot be
done all at once. After harvest, sugarbeets are stored in giant piles
where they await processing. Pile loss directly reduces profitability
of coops and by extension, grower-owners. The result of these efforts
is a robust integrated pest management program implemented on sugarbeet
farms across the United States as well as implementation of post-
harvest crop management to optimize sugar recovery and minimize food
waste.
Monitoring physical changes to soil health in real time is next to
impossible because of the slow rate of change and inherent variability
across grower fields. Scientists at Colorado State University have
developed biomarkers (e.g., microbes correlated with improved soil
health) that can be used for rapid and reliable impact assessment of
various cultural practices on soil health. This work has been
complimented by efforts of extension scientists at the University of
Nebraska focused on development of novel practices to regenerate soil
health using waste streams from processing. Efforts continue to expand
biomarker validation in hopes of utilizing the system in soil carbon
monetization. The biomarker platform is also being expanded to include
key factors necessary in hybrid selection and in season crop management
to optimize land use efficiency and minimize reliance on synthetic
pesticides.
Scientists working for the University of Nebraska have helped
farmers improve nutrient use efficiency. Despite yields increasing
nearly 35% in the region, scientists were able to credibly demonstrate
that changes to cultural practice would allow for nitrogen use to be
reduced by over 20% while still supporting optimal crop growth and
development. When implemented universally across the Rocky Mountain
West, this new approach will reduce total greenhouse gas emissions
between 10-15%.
As this Committee works to understand the impact of public research
on growers, we would point to the examples listed above, and many more,
as success resulting from past Congressional effort. Looking forward,
we believe improvements could continue to be made. The layering effect
of different types of research by different partners can directly
benefit growers.
It's been our experience that the USDA-ARS system, with hard
funding, should be focused on long-term projects such as novel trait
development, phylogeny, gene annotation, and in-depth characterization
of sugarbeet physiology. University faculty focused on basic research
have shown the ability to excel in development of novel RNAi and
CRISPR-Cas9 targets to improve sugarbeet production and storage; using
emerging technologies to solve real farming issues. University
extension scientists should largely focus on the shorter-term issues,
maximizing existing or in-reach tools. All these efforts are necessary
to sustain and move the industry forward.
As much good as public research has provided our industry, more is
needed. Over the past several decades, public spending on agriculture-
based R&D has been increasingly replaced by private spending. The
details of this were covered extensively in written comment to USDA's
Request for Information on Competition and the Intellectual Property
System: Seeds and Other Agricultural Inputs (Docket No. AMS-AMS-22-
0025). Like many others, this trend concerns us as a medium-acreage
crop that does not enjoy the same level of private investment as other
large-acreage crops. As you are aware, adequate public funding is
necessary to keep the U.S. in a position of leadership in ag
innovation. With the lack of public investment, our industry has
stepped in with direct support from farmers to supplement university
research. But our investment cannot offset this void.
We are also concerned that the shift from public to private
research comes at a cost to growers. Public research is just that. The
benefits can be felt far and wide and the costs are broadly shared.
Private research benefits are narrower and more costly. Our growers
bear more cost and private companies must be profitable for
shareholders and their owners. Lastly, the reduction in public
investment can also tie up IP, which delays market access and increases
cost to producers.
We urge this Committee to build on all the good brought about by
public research as well as grapple many of the challenges outlined
above. Thank you again for your important contributions in this space.
The impact on growers cannot be overstated.
Sincerely,

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Luther Markwart, Anna Murphy,
Chief Executive Officer, Executive Vice President,
American Sugarbeet Growers Beet Sugar Development Foundation.
Association;

______

Submitted Questions
Response from Bernard ``Bernie'' Engel, Ph.D., Senior Associate Dean of
Agricultural Research and Graduate Education and Glenn W.
Sample Dean of Agriculture-Elect, College of Agriculture,
Purdue University; Director, Purdue Agricultural Experiment
Station
Question Submitted by Hon. Abigail Davis Spanberger, a Representative
in Congress from Virginia
Question. Last month, the Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology
Subcommittee heard from NRCS Chief Cosby that one barrier to NRCS
hiring is that too many job applicants apply to the agency without the
required coursework in soils. A recent article from E&E News reported
that another factor contributing to this issue is that even at
universities that offer soil courses, students may not be interested in
taking these courses, despite their importance to agriculture and that
they are an NRCS requirement for soil technician positions. Soil
technicians will be in high demand in the coming years, and NRCS is
currently hiring across the country for this position. Does your
university offer soil courses and if so, are there any trends regarding
student interest and enrollment in these courses? Do your institutions
aim to align required courses with mandatory qualifications for common
and growing occupations in agriculture, such as NRCS positions?
Answer. August 1, 2023

To: Subcommittee on Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology, U.S.
House Agriculture Committee
From: Dr. Bernie Engel, Glenn W. Sample Dean of Agriculture, Purdue
University

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Re: NRCS Soils Course Requirement

A basic knowledge of soils is foundational to many areas of
importance in agriculture, as well as to the protection of natural
resources and the environment. Purdue University is committed to
ensuring students in our programs have this foundational knowledge.
Given the mission of NRCS, and other USDA conservation programs, we
believe such courses are also necessary to help NRCS identify the best
solutions for the partners they support.
Purdue University currently offers 16 courses in Soil Science with
the word soil appearing in the title through the College of
Agriculture's Agronomy Department.
Current Soils Classes at Purdue

AGRY 15500--Introduction to Soil Morphology

AGRY 25500--Soil Science

AGRY 36500--Soil Fertility

AGRY 39900--Soil and Civilization

AGRY 46500--Soil Physical Properties

AGRY 56500--Soils and Landscapes

AGRY 34900--Soil Ecology

AGRY 38500--Environmental Soil Chemistry

AGRY 45000--Soil Conservation and Water Management

AGRY 54000--Soil Chemistry

AGRY 55500--Soil and Plant Analysis

AGRY 56000--Soil Physics

AGRY 56500--Soils and Landscapes

AGRY 58000--Soil Microbiology

AGRY 58500--Soils and Land Use

AGRY 58500--Soils and Land Use (Capstone)

We continuously audit and evaluate these courses to ensure the
subject matter is relevant and recently added a new course--AGRY 399,
Soils and Civilization. Purdue routinely places students with NRCS upon
their graduation from our program.
To our knowledge, NRCS will only count agricultural or
environmental classes with the word ``soil'' in the title to meet the
minimum soil science requirement. Students who apply for positions at
NRCS thinking they meet the minimum standards based on classes they
take that don't have ``soil'' in the name are often disappointed. There
is an appeal process for hiring rejection, but few use it.
Ron Turco, former head of Purdue's department of agronomy and
current Associate Dean of Agricultural Research and Graduate Education,
is working with colleagues at the Soil Science Society of America to
develop a survey to all of the Land-Grant programs to gather more
information about soil science classes in response to this issue. As a
general note, he does not believe universities have dropped many soil
courses, though student numbers are down.
One action Purdue's Department of Agronomy has taken is to offer
AGRY 255--General Soils online. We believe there is potential to grow
the enrollment for this online course, which is a significant part of
the NRCS requirement, within our own College of Agriculture and also
work with other institutions to offer it to their students.
Response from Alan L. Grant, Ph.D., Dean, College of Agriculture and
Life Sciences, Virginia Tech
Question Submitted by Hon. Abigail Davis Spanberger, a Representative
in Congress from Virginia
Question. Last month, the Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology
Subcommittee heard from NRCS Chief Cosby that one barrier to NRCS
hiring is that too many job applicants apply to the agency without the
required coursework in soils. A recent article from E&E News reported
that another factor contributing to this issue is that even at
universities that offer soil courses, students may not be interested in
taking these courses, despite their importance to agriculture and that
they are an NRCS requirement for soil technician positions. Soil
technicians will be in high demand in the coming years, and NRCS is
currently hiring across the country for this position. Does your
university offer soil courses and if so, are there any trends regarding
student interest and enrollment in these courses? Do your institutions
aim to align required courses with mandatory qualifications for common
and growing occupations in agriculture, such as NRCS positions?
Answer. The College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Virginia
Tech offers numerous soils courses. The enrollment in these courses has
been fairly stable in recent years. For example, the number of students
enrolled in our introductory soils course over the past 6 years has
averaged 105 students per year (with a range of 99 to 124 per year);
however, we are observing some decreased interest in pursuing a degree
in Crop and Soil Science. The curriculum in our college is reviewed and
revised on a continuing basis in order to ensure that students are
provided courses that prepare them for common and growing occupations
in agriculture. Several of our majors require soils courses, e.g., our
Crop and Soil Science major requires 7 credit hours of soils courses,
and additional soils classes are offered as electives.
In response to the growing demand for soil technicians, NRCS has
been in discussions with the Academic Programs Section of the
Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU) to explore
ways to enhance recruitment of students into NRCS positions. FAEIS, the
Food and Agricultural Education Information System, is also being used
in these discussions to study enrollment trends and number of graduates
in relevant degree programs among universities and colleges across the
U.S. FAEIS is a federally mandated survey that compiles nationwide
higher education data (e.g., student enrollment, degrees awarded, and
transfer and placement at all degree levels) for the life, food,
veterinary, human, natural resource, and agricultural sciences. FAEIS
is operated and funded through a cooperative agreement with the USDA-
NIFA and the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Virginia Tech.
Response from Moses T.K. Kairo, Ph.D., Professor, Dean, and Director of
Land-Grant Programs, School of Agricultural and Natural
Sciences, University of Maryland Eastern Shore
Question Submitted by Hon. Abigail Davis Spanberger, a Representative
in Congress from Virginia
Question. Last month, the Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology
Subcommittee heard from NRCS Chief Cosby that one barrier to NRCS
hiring is that too many job applicants apply to the agency without the
required coursework in soils. A recent article from E&E News reported
that another factor contributing to this issue is that even at
universities that offer soil courses, students may not be interested in
taking these courses, despite their importance to agriculture and that
they are an NRCS requirement for soil technician positions. Soil
technicians will be in high demand in the coming years, and NRCS is
currently hiring across the country for this position. Does your
university offer soil courses and if so, are there any trends regarding
student interest and enrollment in these courses? Do your institutions
aim to align required courses with mandatory qualifications for common
and growing occupations in agriculture, such as NRCS positions?
Answer. The University of Maryland Eastern Shore (UMES) offers two
Soil Science courses including SOIL 203 Introduction to Soils and AGNR
423/653 Soil Fertility & Plant Nutrition. While SOIL 203 is offered at
the undergraduate level, AGNR 423/653 is a graduate level course. Over
the last 5 years, SOIL 203 has attracted undergraduate students from
various disciplines but mostly those in the General Agriculture and
Agribusiness Management majors.
The overall enrollment trend for SOIL 203 has fluctuated over the
last 5 years, but a forecast analysis demonstrated an upward pattern
over the same period indicating a consistent interest by students in
the course. The course is important for students because SOIL 203 and
204 (Lab section) are mandatory for students studying Urban Forestry
and General Agriculture with concentration in Plant and Soil Science.
Question Submitted by Hon. Alma S. Adams, a Representative in Congress
from North Carolina
Question. Dr. Kairo: 1890s Institutions have faced an ongoing
challenge with matching, requiring a waiver when states do not meet the
federally required match which reduced public funding for the
Institution. Six universities received waivers in fiscal year 2022,
including UMES. Can you talk about how you managed to continue to
produce great research despite this challenge, and what more you could
be doing if you received full funding? What mechanisms might help your
institution achieve that full match?
Answer. Like other 1890 universities, we at UMES have always
strived to do more with less. However when the full match is not
provided, this seriously curtails the capacity of 1890 universities to
deliver research and extension programming that is critically needed to
address significant local issues within the respective states. The
research and extension programs that we implement at UMES address
important stakeholder driven issues. Our work addresses challenges on
food security, climate change, environmental health and sustainability,
and human health and development. One of our critical goals is to
improve the social and economic well-being of Maryland's citizens. As a
rural campus, we have a significant emphasis on enhancing rural
prosperity and reaching underserved communities. Furthermore, the
programs allow us to provide research and experiential training
opportunities for students at both undergraduate and graduate levels,
thus addressing workforce development needs of the nation.
We are very grateful to Governor Wes Moore and the Maryland
Legislature for providing the full match for UMES' Evans Allen
Research, 1890 Extension, and McIntire-Stennis Forestry programs
beginning July 1, 2023. This will allow UMES invest the resources in
expanding initiatives that address critical issues for Marylanders. We
have greatly appreciated the support provided by Congressional leaders
who have reached out and highlighted the importance of this issue to
state leadership.
Response from Carrie L. Billy, J.D., President and Chief Executive
Officer, American Indian Higher Education Consortium
Question Submitted by Hon. Abigail Davis Spanberger, a Representative
in Congress from Virginia
Question. Last month, the Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology
Subcommittee heard from NRCS Chief Cosby that one barrier to NRCS
hiring is that too many job applicants apply to the agency without the
required coursework in soils. A recent article from E&E News reported
that another factor contributing to this issue is that even at
universities that offer soil courses, students may not be interested in
taking these courses, despite their importance to agriculture and that
they are an NRCS requirement for soil technician positions. Soil
technicians will be in high demand in the coming years, and NRCS is
currently hiring across the country for this position. Does your
university offer soil courses and if so, are there any trends regarding
student interest and enrollment in these courses? Do your institutions
aim to align required courses with mandatory qualifications for common
and growing occupations in agriculture, such as NRCS positions?
Answer. August 4, 2023

Hon. Abigail [Davis] Spanberger,
Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on [Conservation,] Research, and Biotechnology
Committee on Agriculture
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.

Dear Ms. Spanberger:

Thank you for contacting us following the June 14, 2023 hearing on
``A Review of Title VII: University Perspectives on Research and
Extension Programs''. Specifically, you requested additional
information from Tribal Colleges and Universities, or 1994 Land-grant
institutions, on coursework in Soils and the alignment of that
coursework with mandatory qualifications for positions within the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service
(USDA NRCS) and other entities.
The American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC) comprises
the 35 accredited Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs) in the United
States. The TCUs operate more than 90 campuses and sites across 15
states and serve students from more than 250 Federally Recognized
Indian Tribes. AIHEC surveyed all 35 TCUs, and responses were received
from 13. Of those who responded, they identified a Soils course as a
barrier to obtaining a Federal position; however, it was not the
primary issue.
As we understand it, Federal natural resource management agencies
(including the NRCS, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and Bureaus of Land Management, Indian Affairs, and
Reclamation) hire based on requirements set forth from the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM). The positions you are inquiring about are
specialized positions--or series--called ``Mission Critical
Occupations'' (MCOs). Each series also includes a ``technician''
series, which is at a much lower pay scale (GS 3-5) and provides little
room for promotion. However, the technical series have fewer academic
course requirements, making them appear more accessible to students
attending TCUs, which are place-based institutions offering a wide
variety of workforce development and job creation positions. Our
students are predominantly very low income and concerned about making
their communities and lands better and more sustainable by joining the
local workforce.
Historically, professional societies and academics--rather than
people from the field--defined many of the position requirements. Thus,
the MCO requirements are very academic and have high course
requirements. As an example--the Range 0454 series, referenced by NRCS
Chief Cosby as one his agency is struggling to fill, requires 18
semester hours of courses in Range Science alone, plus an additional 18
hours in other ecology courses. The Soil Conservationist positions are
similar. These positions require at least 12 hours of Soils courses
(for a total of three to four courses, not just one) along with other
ecology courses. Among the TCUs providing Soil courses, the majority
have the capacity and resources to teach only one 3 hour course per
semester. It would be almost impossible for under-resourced TCUs (or
1994 Land-grant institutions) to teach as many courses in Range or
Soils as OPM requires without hiring several accredited Range or Soils
professionals as faculty members, which the 1994 Land-grant
institutions cannot afford.
Students who do not meet the Federal qualifications for the
positions you refer to in your question (i.e., students attending TCUs)
can qualify only for the lower technician positions. Thus, they are
funneled into low paying positions with little or no hope of
advancement beyond a GS-3-5. Unfortunately, they usually stay at that
level since qualifying for higher-level positions would require
returning to school to acquire the additional courses needed for the
specialized careers. These programs, as I mentioned above, are
inaccessible at TCUs (rural Indian Country) due to the college's lack
of resources and expertise, even should the students have the resources
to pay for additional education, which they do not. This leaves our
students outside of the leadership and decision-making positions that
lend Indigenous voices to land management policy within the Federal
Government. (We believe, although we do not know, that under-resourced
HBCUs and their students may experience the same challenges as TCUs and
our students.)
Last, TCU faculty told us that the OPM career series are siloed.
Students must choose between disciplines, rather than looking
holistically at managing an entire ecosystem. This Western approach to
natural resource management is counter to Native ways of knowing and
being. Our 1994 Land-grant institutions are thus looking at strategies
for adapting the required coursework to ensure that it is culturally
appropriate and relevant to Tribal lands and workforces--yet still
count toward any Federal course requirements.
A summary of the responses received is below.

Does your university offer soil courses and if so, are there any
trends regarding student interest and enrollment in these courses?

Six TCUs stated they have one soils course.

One TCU noted, ``One soils course will not make a difference
for students because the technician series does not require
Soils, and if they want to apply for other professional series
positions, they will have to meet all of the other course
requirements, along with Soils.''

Tohono O'odham Community College (TOCC) in Sells, Arizona
stated that enrollment in its Soils class has increased in
recent years due to renewed interest in traditional
agriculture. TOCC is developing certificates in agriculture and
natural resources.

Little Priest Tribal College (LPTC) in Winnebago, Nebraska
has seen enrollment slightly increase. However, teaching the
courses has been difficult to do online because the course
requires a lab, and LPTC lacks the resources to make take-home
labs available.

Do your institutions aim to align required courses with mandatory
qualifications for common and growing occupations in agriculture, such
as NRCS positions?

None of the 1994 Land-grant institutions that responded currently
align with mandatory qualifications for Federal positions.

Salish Kootenai College (SKC) in Pablo, Montana stated the
college does not align its curriculum and courses due to cost.
To meet the mandatory requirements, SKC would need to hire
several faculty, and they do not have the necessary financial
resources.

Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College (FDLTCC) in
Cloquet, Minnesota has not aligned its courses for two reasons.
First, there is concern that if a class is technical or career,
it may not qualify under the Minnesota Transfer Curriculum
requirements. Second, FDLTCC has questions about which agency
its faculty should attempt to align with, noting that U.S.
Forest Service KSAs differ from USDA, etc.

LPTC faculty noted that one course of their courses would
not make a student qualified; however, they have aligned
objectives from their courses to ensure they build a strong
foundation for students who move on to higher-level soils
course.

Fort Peck Community College in Popular, Montana has aligned
its coursework with the Tribe's positions and is working to do
so with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health
Service.

We hope this information is helpful to you and your staff. Should
you have any additional questions, please contact Ahniwake Rose,
AIHEC's Vice-President of Congressional and Federal Relations
([Redacted]) or me. We would be happy to speak with you further.
Sincerely,

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Carrie L. Billy,
President & CEO.
Response from Clinton R. ``Clint'' Krehbiel, Ph.D., Dean, Davis College
of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Texas Tech
University
Question Submitted by Hon. Abigail Davis Spanberger, a Representative
in Congress from Virginia
Question 1. Last month, the Conservation, Research, and
Biotechnology Subcommittee heard from NRCS Chief Cosby that one barrier
to NRCS hiring is that too many job applicants apply to the agency
without the required coursework in soils. A recent article from E&E
News reported that another factor contributing to this issue is that
even at universities that offer soil courses, students may not be
interested in taking these courses, despite their importance to
agriculture and that they are an NRCS requirement for soil technician
positions. Soil technicians will be in high demand in the coming years,
and NRCS is currently hiring across the country for this position. Does
your university offer soil courses and if so, are there any trends
regarding student interest and enrollment in these courses?
Answer. Texas Tech University offers several soils courses to
undergraduate and graduate students, and the Department of Plant and
Soil Science (PSS) is the primary department offering pure soils
courses, which include principles and practices of soils, urban soils,
and undergraduate and graduate courses on soil fertility, soil
chemistry, soil microbial ecology and microbiology, soil physics, and
environmental soil science. Notably, we are one of a few universities
who offer both undergraduate and advanced graduate soil classification
courses, which are important for the Natural Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS). In a diverse department that encompasses seven
disciplines, soils accounted for more than 10% of both students taught
(190 undergraduate students and 64 graduate students in formal soil
science courses) and student majors (19 undergraduate soil and
environmental science majors of 175 students) in 2022.

Question 1a. Do your institutions aim to align required courses
with mandatory qualifications for common and growing occupations in
agriculture, such as NRCS positions?
Answer. Our institution aims to align required courses with
mandatory qualifications for NRCS, USDA, university research and
extension, and commercial positions in soil and environmental sciences,
and more than 100 students from the Davis College of Agricultural
Sciences and Natural Resources at Texas Tech have earned employment
among these groups in the past 10 years. We were early adopters of
online soil science education since 2010, which has become increasingly
popular for both students and professionals. We offer both face-to-face
and distance course modalities, including a soil science certification
that can be acquired completely online.
Response from Kathryn E. Uhrich, Ph.D., Dean, College of Natural and
Agricultural Sciences, University of California, Riverside
Question Submitted by Hon. Abigail Davis Spanberger, a Representative
in Congress from Virginia
Question. Last month, the Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology
Subcommittee heard from NRCS Chief Cosby that one barrier to NRCS
hiring is that too many job applicants apply to the agency without the
required coursework in soils. A recent article from E&E News reported
that another factor contributing to this issue is that even at
universities that offer soil courses, students may not be interested in
taking these courses, despite their importance to agriculture and that
they are an NRCS requirement for soil technician positions. Soil
technicians will be in high demand in the coming years, and NRCS is
currently hiring across the country for this position. Does your
university offer soil courses and if so, are there any trends regarding
student interest and enrollment in these courses? Do your institutions
aim to align required courses with mandatory qualifications for common
and growing occupations in agriculture, such as NRCS positions?
Answer. August 2, 2023

U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
1. Does your university offer soil courses?
Yes, the Department of Environmental Science has been offering a
number of soil science related courses, mostly at the undergraduate
level. These courses include ``Introduction to Soil Science'' (ENSC100,
with a lab component), ``Environmental Soil Chemistry'' (ENSC104),
``Soil Physics'' (ENSC107), ``Soil Ecology'' (ENSC 120), ``Pedology''
(ENSC138) and ``Soil Conditions and Plant Growth'' (ENSC13). With past
and upcoming faculty attritions, we are concerned about the opportunity
to offer a few of these courses (``Pedology'', ``Soil Physics'', and
``Soil Conditions and Plant Growth'') and will address with ongoing
hires.
2. if so, are there any trends regarding student interest and
enrollment in these courses?
When these courses are offered, we usually have had close to
capacity enrollments, suggesting strong and sustained student interest.
It is also worth noting that some of the upper division courses often
have graduate student enrollments, due to the need for some graduate
students to acquire knowledge in soil science.
3. Do your institutions aim to align required courses with mandatory
qualifications for common and growing occupations in
agriculture, such as NRCS positions?
Yes, to a large degree. Our current soil science course offerings
are adequately aligned for lower-grade positions such as technicians
and associates or scientist positions not strictly in the area of soil
science within USDA agencies like USDA-ARS and USDA-NRCS. Our course
offerings fall short for USDA Soil Scientist positions. However, to
meet the minimum requirements for a Soil Scientist position, we would
need to develop/revive courses including ``Soil Fertility'', ``Soil
Microbiology'', and/or ``Soil Conditions and Plant Growth''.
Thank you for the opportunity to address your questions and support
your mission.
Sincerely,

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Kathryn Uhrich, Ph.D.,
Dean.

[all]