To Members of the NASULGC System:

Earlier today, the Agriculture Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee held its annual hearing on funding for research, extension, and teaching programs within the U.S. Department of Agriculture. USDA witnesses were:

• Joseph J. Jen, USDA Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics
• Edward B. Knipling, Administrator, Agricultural Research Service
• Colien Hefferan, Administrator, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
• Susan E. Offutt, Administrator, Economic Research Service
• R. Ronald Bosecker, Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service
• Dennis Kaplan, USDA Budget Officer

Links to Written Statements:
Not available as this is released. Links to these statements will be posted on the nasulgc-bac.com Web site as soon as possible.

Six members of the subcommittee attended all or part of the hearing, including:

• Henry Bonilla (R-TX), Chairman
• Tom Latham (R-IA), Vice Chairman
• JoAnn Emerson (R-MO)
• John Doolittle (R-CA)
• Sam Farr (D-CA)
• Allen Boyd (D-FL)

The hearing began with Dr. Jen who read a prepared statement. Members of the subcommittee then asked questions of the witnesses. Paraphrased excerpts from this Q&A session follow:

Rep. Bonilla: The USDA budget request proposed elimination of Hatch, McIntire-Stennis, and Animal Health & Disease formula funds. Can you give the subcommittee a copy of your analysis of that proposal? Dr. Jen: We strongly believe that the best science comes from competitive grants programs. That's why we propose shifting funding from the formula funds to the NRI and the new state Ag experiment stations competitive grants program. We did an analysis and concluded that the the problems weren't significant enough to not make the change.

Rep. Bonilla: Be specific, please? Has this been adequately thought through? Dr. Hefferan: We started by looking at the attributes that we want to maintain (local and regional research, multistate, links from research to outreach and education, program continuity, etc.). We then consulted with over 1,000 people across the country. We are striving hard to make this work... first awards would come in spring 2006... concentrating on the early part of the year. Rep. Bonilla: But about the analysis... Is it a work-in-progress or was it done beforehand? Dr. Jen: It's a work in progress. Dr. Hefferan: We're going to consult closely with land-grants and other stakeholders.

Rep. Latham: In my opinion, the most important work we do in this subcommittee relates to the research programs... With respect to bioterrorism, are you doing a better job of coordinating with (DHS) the Department of Homeland Security? Dr. Knipling: Yes. We're communicating more frequently, especially about Plum Island. We're also in discussions about the need for additional facilities.

Rep. Emerson: Let's talk about the formula funds issue. Why are you looking at a move that could increase the dollars going to private universities to the detriment of our land-grants? Dr. Jen: Our goal is to get the best science from the best scientists, wherever they may be. That's why we favor the boost in competitive funding. Rep. Emerson: What about ongoing research projects at state agricultural experiment stations? Dr. Jen: We don't think many of these programs will stop. It could mean even more money for them. Rep. Emerson: Is this just an OMB-pencil-pusher exercise? Dr. Jen: No. We prefer competitive grants programs over formula funds.

Rep. Farr: Concerning funding for the 1890 institutions. Why are you proposing to roll-back funding? Dr. Hefferan: Compared to what was in the president's budget last year, we are actually asking for a net increase for the 1890s. Rep. Farr: We go by what we appropriated last year, and by that score, you're suggesting a $2 million cut in the 1890s facilities programs. Dr. Hefferan: We were working from different starting points.

Rep. Latham: I have to say that your formula funds proposal would be extremely disruptive. You would be opening up the door for really good grant writers to take funds away from existing projects. Basic Ag research requires certainty in funding. Otherwise, we'll not be able to retain the people we need. Can you make these dramatic changes without changing the law? Dr. Jen: We're only recommending reducing Hatch and McIntire-Stennis by half this year. Rep. Latham: But you're recommending zero funding next year. If formula funds for research are bad... why haven't you cut the 1890s funding line? Is this a case of some formula funds are bad and some are good? Dr. Jen: We don't view this as eliminating programs so much as changing delivery mechanisms. Rep. Latham: Did you make this request of OMB? Dr. Jen: No sir.

Rep. Latham had the last word on the subject: "I don't think we need to spend a whole lot more time on this matter, because it just isn't going to happen."

There were other questions of the witnesses. Rep. Boyd, for example, asked extensive questions about citrus canker research and eradication and Rep. Doolittle asked questions about honey bee mite research and eradication.

Fred Hutchison
Fleishman Hillard Government Relations