[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]