STATEMENT OF
THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION

TO THE SENATE AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY COMMITTEE

ON REAUTHORIZATION OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH PROGRAMS

Presented by:

Ron Warfield President Illinois Farm Bureau

March 18, 1997

Mr. Chairman, my name is Ron Warfield. I am an Illinois farmer, serve as President of the Illinois Farm Bureau and as a member of the American Farm Bureau Federation board of directors. I am also a member of the USDA National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board. I am pleased to speak to you today on behalf of the American Farm Bureau Federation.

There are two questions that need to be addressed as you consider the reauthorization of the research title of the farm bill. The first is whether a strong federal commitment to agriculture research is still justified. Secondly, if a strong commitment is justified, how should the existing research, extension and education system be changed to best meet the needs of producers and consumers into the 21st century?

It will probably come as no surprise that we believe a strong federal investment in agricultural research is as important now as it has ever been. A growing world population and generally increasing standards of living across the globe will require that food production continue to grow. A strong, competitive advantage for American farmers in a rapidly growing marketplace is not a foregone conclusion, unless we continue to stretch our imaginations and knowledge base to make it happen.

The track record of the previous U.S. investment in agricultural research makes a strong point for continuing and building upon that investment. This investment has helped farmers and ranchers to provide consumers with the safest, least expensive, most bountiful food supply in the world. Americans spend a lower percentage of their disposable income than all other countries. This does not happen by accident. It is a testament to the effectiveness of the research and technology transfer system in the U.S. and the ability of producers to apply the results of that research to benefit all Americans.

As we look to the future, the American farmer is being called on to place greater reliance on the markets rather than government programs and to be a major player in world markets. We support this change and welcome the opportunities it presents, but we need the support of an active, innovative agricultural research program if we are to maintain and enhance our competitive edge in world markets. Continued research and technology transfer is also vital as we seek to address consumers concerns about to environmental, food safety and nutritional issues that currently exist and new ones which are certain to arise in the future.

The FAIR Act of 1996 reduced government spending on agricultural programs. Implicit in this change was a commitment to reduce the regulatory burden on producers and to provide the needed research to facilitate this move toward reliance on the market. Producers have honored their commitment to the agreement with their support of the provisions of the act. Now it is Congress' turn to honor it by providing a research system that meets the long-term needs of production agriculture and the funds needed to operate it.

Numerous studies have shown that investments in agricultural research routinely provide returns in the range of 35 to 50 percent. Despite this, the federal investment in agricultural research has been flat for years and now is in danger of being reduced. If we are to maintain our competitive advantage in world markets and respond to future consumer needs, the federal investment in agricultural research must be increased and we must use the current funds more efficiently.

A recent USDA report shows the US agricultural research investment lags behind other developed countries:

Comparisons of R/D Funding for Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing Country % of Total R/D USA 1.9 Japan 6.5 Germany 3.1 France 4.6 United Kingdom 5.5

If you are convinced, as we are, that the federal government needs to continue and expand its commitment to agricultural research, then the next logical question is how we can best provide a sound, sophisticated, well-managed, and well-funded food and agricultural research, extension and education program. On this question, Farm Bureau offers the following suggestions:

1. The major theme of agricultural research, education and extension activities should be to improve the performance of the food and agriculture sector. The benefits of this will accrue not just to agricultural producers, but also to the general public. The needs I mentioned earlier of a growing world population and generally improved standards of living will be met only if we keep a sharp focus on securing answers to questions challenging production agriculture.

2. Agricultural research, education and extension programs need stronger linkages with end users of research and related activities to ensure a close connection between the funding, prioritization and accountability of such programs. Research and extension programs should be integrated to ensure an effective and efficient transfer of knowledge and technology from basic research scientists through the system to producers. As stakeholders, we want and need to be heavily involved in the decision-making process that drives agricultural research.

Such priority setting needs to begin at the state level and include a broad range of interests. An example of an effort that has worked well in my home state is the Council on Food and Agricultural Research (CFAR). This group, which includes approximately 50 organizations representing producers and consumers, assists in identifying research priorities and provides feedback to those conducting the research. The education done by CFAR has also helped to increase public and political awareness of the need for and benefits of agricultural research.

At the national level, we urge USDA not duplicate existing efforts, but rather incorporate ongoing projects such as FAIR '95, and CROPS '99. They provide a national model of the type of effort that is needed. In each case, they bring together broad-based groups of stakeholders and define priorities that meet the needs of those being served. The results from these efforts should be used to pull together a comprehensive national plan of action. This would help to avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts.

Current agriculture research priorities are so broad that any research project may be construed as to fit under some priority. In order to make real progress in implementing the priorities of agriculture research in the future, we believe the research title should clearly define the vision, for agricultural research. In addition, the legislation must either define objectives and goals or oversight must be provided to assure that specific goals and objectives identified in cooperation with stakeholders are consistent with the vision. Greater emphasis must be placed on ensuring that the partnership which exists between the federal government, state governments and the private sector is strengthened. This can be accomplished by establishing and implementing specifically designed priorities and projects, and then tying those priorities to the funding mechanism.

3. Research funding should contain an appropriate mix of formula, competitive and special grants to assure an adequate, long-term commitment to top quality investigators and facilities and to keep research focused on the desired outcomes identified by the public. Each funding source plays a special role in our research system. We urge that growth in federal agricultural research funding be directed towards competitive grants to foster excellence and innovation. In addition, the allocation of the other funding components should be seriously assessed to ensure the most efficient use of dwindling research dollars. In order to make the competitive grants program more efficient, we suggest streamlining the time it takes to prepare proposals. We suggest that proposals be initially submitted in brief outline form to be reviewed for relevancy by the appropriate scientific and advisory groups. Upon a positive review, the developer would further define the scope of the proposal and prepare it for the next step in the review process. This would serve to reduce the amount of time and money spent pursuing grants which have little relevancy or chance of final approval. The initial review process could also be utilized to suggest modifications to the proposal or encourage collaboration among those interested in pursuing similar or related projects.

4. Programs should be evaluated not only in terms of their scientific and educational output, but most importantly, in terms of "real world" outcomes. The public support needed to sustain the needed federal commitment to agricultural research will be difficult to come by for projects that show little or no hope of producing knowledge from which the end users of such knowledge will benefit.

5. We should recognize the many strengths in the existing institutional structure supporting agricultural research, education and extension programs. The reauthorization process should not harm the parts of that structure that have provided great value to producers and consumers of agricultural products. But neither should we assume that in the future we will need all the programs and institutions that have done agriculture research in the past. The efficient and effective delivery of research, extension and education programs will require more cooperation and sharing of resources among existing institutions. Innovative communications technologies offer many new and exciting ways of facilitating this cooperation.

Taxpayers and Congress need accountability for the dollars spent on research, but we still must provide for innovative, potentially breakthrough basic research. We recognize that the relevancy evaluation suggested earlier may be more difficult for these projects, but we must assure that funding is available for this type of work as well. Basic research really is the lifeblood of future more applied research. Without it, our system will wither in the future. All branches of our research infrastructure conduct some basic research. Funding is provided, and should continue to be provided through a variety of sources. The competitive grants in the National Research Initiative (NRI) provide for basic research and long-term efforts that are primarily high-risk but which have potential high payoffs. These are usually the types of effort that private funding is reluctant to undertake due to the uncertainty of the payoff, but which are vital to future efforts. The level of support for the NRI needs to be increased toward its original commitment of $500 million. 6. The Administration needs more flexibility in some areas of agricultural research. We must still provide for innovative, potentially breakthrough basic research while maintaining flexibility so that special needs can be addressed in a timely manner. Two recent examples that have had significant impacts on producers are Karnal bunt and vesicular stomatitis. USDA was able to shift part of their research effort to address problems in these areas. As we look to a research system for the future, we need to ensure that this type of flexibility is maintained. In addition, while the law provides that 5 percent of funds may be shifted for health reasons, it does not permit shifting for economic threats or production. We believe the Secretary should be given additional authority within the research, extension and education budgets to focus on specific emergencies which are deemed to severely impact production or markets.

7. Coordination must be improved between agencies and institutions to ensure efficient use of available resources. Each part of our agricultural research system does excellent work, but often there has not been adequate knowledge of what other parts of the system are doing, resulting in a lack of coordination. There are many excellent examples of inter-regional cooperation that show the benefits that can be secured. As an example, the University of Illinois and Purdue University have worked together on many projects that show how increased cooperation can benefit producers, consumers, taxpayers, and institutions. These two land grant institutions have agreed that Dr Darrel Good at the University of Illinois will conduct economic outlooks for crops and Dr. Chris Hurt of Purdue will conduct economic outlooks for livestock. Prior to this arrangement, both institutions provided the same set of services. Under this new arrangement, professional, high-quality results are provided in an efficient and effective manner to the benefit of everyone. We recognize the need to replicate research in order to validate it, but we also know that we can not justify unneeded duplication of efforts. 8. It is appropriate, and in fact important, to review how federal dollars are being spent at the regional and state levels. We believe federal money spent on research or extension should be utilized to address priority national topics which have multi-state or national relevance, or will not be readily pursued by other entities. Institutional programs that are more locally focused should be covered by state funds. 9. Formulas fund allocation should be evaluated for its current appropriateness.

10. Special grants for national centers of excellence within the land grant university system should be awarded competitively and recognize unique abilities, institutions strengths and specialized regional needs. These grants should encourage alliances among land grant universities, state governments, USDA and private industry. Consideration should be given to incentives for proposals from national centers of excellence rather than proposals from individual institutions. A formula such as the one used in the new Environmental Benefits Index is one possibility. Modern communications systems can facilitate the collaboration of researchers with similar interests at different institutions. Such efforts must be encouraged in order to make the most effective use of existing resources.

Farm Bureau strongly supports full funding of the Global Food Security and U.S. Agricultural Competitiveness Agri-Genome Project being developed to systematically map the genes of the most important U.S. crops and livestock species. We believe this is an example of a project which would be well served by a special grant for a national center of excellence.

11. The Competitive Research Facilities program should be reauthorized. The facilities construction fund should also be tied to nationwide priorities and limited to areas where funds are not available elsewhere.

12. A comprehensive, user-friendly data base of all federally funded research would be extremely valuable. The Current Research Information Service (CRIS) program is beneficial, but not easily used. In addition, it does not include ongoing research. If it did, research duplication might be minimized.

13. Extension plays a vital role in disseminating knowledge and has served the nation well, but it needs to be reinvigorated and improved in order to meet the needs of the future. While many of the traditional functions of extension are being filled or supplemented by the private sector, new demands in both traditional and non-traditional areas of agriculture provide the opportunity for outreach programs to continue their relevance. Increased emphasis on management and marketing as well as developing knowledge and providing unbiased analysis of privately developed products is a critical function for extension relative to production agriculture. Unfortunately, funding limitations coupled with increased non-traditional agriculture demands have tended to reduce the capability of the extension programs to adequately address historic mission responsibilities. We believe that federal funding for extension should be focused on production agriculture, recognizing that the majority of extension funding originates with the states who will establish specific priorities for non-federal funds.

14. We are concerned that the current National Advisory Research, Extension and Education Advisory Board's membership is largely vested in system personnel - administrators and scientists -- rather than system stakeholders. We believe the structure of the Board should be changed so that a majority of the Advisory Board members are producers and industry representatives. In addition, we would prefer that one-third of the Board be appointed by the Senate Agriculture Committee, one-third by the House Agriculture Committee, and one-third by the Secretary of Agriculture.

15. The need for over 100 ARS laboratories and over 70 land grant institutions must be evaluated. We know it is highly unlikely Congress can pursue this initiative this year since no member of Congress is likely to "step up to the plate" to volunteer the facilities in their state be closed. However, we do recognize that a dwindling research budget will not allow us to continue to maintain the "brick and mortar" of all of these facilities, and still conduct pertinent research. We hope that the upcoming Strategic Planning Task Force can make some credible recommendations on the future of these facilities. Agriculture must be well represented on the Strategic Planning Task Force. The Secretary of Agriculture is in the process of naming a 15-member Strategic Planning Task Force to "review all currently operating agricultural research facilities constructed in whole or in part with federal funds, and all planned agricultural research facilities proposed to be constructed with federal funds, pursuant to criteria established by the Secretary, to ensure that a comprehensive research capacity is maintained." The task force was mandated under the 1996 farm bill. Last November several farm organizations, including Farm Bureau, wrote to the Secretary supporting this comprehensive assessment and evaluation. We also emphasized the need for a diversity of expertise among members of the task force and asked that the membership of the task force include at least five producers or farm organization representatives.

In addition, we want to emphasize that we view this Task Force as a first step in the process rather than as the final word. We hope this Committee will encourage a continuous look at guidelines for closure and consolidation of facilities in the future, and ways to reallocate budget savings to other facilities.

I close with a point that represents a belief that many farmers back home have expressed many times. We believe agriculture has already sustained many billions of dollars in cuts to farm programs. This has been done with the understanding that a significant portion of those funds would be reinvested in programs that could give us a better chance to be competitive in an increasingly competitive global agricultural economy. We took that as a commitment and will work hard to see that this commitment is met.

Now we believe it is time for Congress to honor its commitment to American farmers. There are many reasons to be excited about the future of production agriculture. But we will not realize that bright future and compete as effectively as we can and should if we do not have the benefit of a strong food and agricultural research, education and extension program. We ask for your help.

We are eager to assist you in your efforts to craft a research title that ensures a growing and efficient food and agricultural system for the United States into the 21st century.