Agriculture Research Funding May Wither Under Republican 'Contract With America'

Land-grant college officials fear their institutions may be among hardest hit if proposed policy is enacted Agricultural scientists and research administrators, already beset by budget cuts and the effects of political turmoil in the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), warn of a much more formidable threat to their support looming on the horizon. Particularly affected, according to these observers, would be land-grant colleges. The "Contract with America," if enacted by the new, Republican-controlled Congress, would mortally cripple the colleges, say administrators familiar with the document. It calls, they estimate, for cuts of up to $700 million in agricultural research and extension services in a USDA budget of about $1.3 billion. Some reports have total cuts as high as more than $800 million. "Enacting that contract would have a devastating effect," declares Thomas Fretz, dean of the College of Agriculture at the University of Maryland. "We are worried, but until we see more, there is little we can do." With a general cost-cutting mood on Capitol Hill and in several newly Republican-dominated state legislatures, officials at the nation's 74 land-grant agricultural colleges- -established in the 19th century by the federal government to concentrate on agricultural research--see even tighter constraints in what they say has been a five-year cycle of flat budgets and research downsizing. "Here we go again. And there's no way to get leaner," laments Durward Bateman, dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Science at North Carolina State University. He has cut one- fifth of his staff and $9 million from his budget since 1990, but the new Republican legislature in North Carolina wants to find another $200 million in savings. "There's no way to maintain a quality college with further cuts," Bateman says. In the current climate, even time-honored, politically generated sources of academic research funding, such as administration line-item funding as well as pork-barrel earmarking of projects, are likely to be greatly reduced, observers predict. For individual agricultural researchers, they anticipate that an already-beleaguered USDA program of peer-reviewed, competitive grants is sure to take another hit in the coming budget go-round. "Everyone's concerned now about federal and state funding," maintains Neville Clark, executive director of the Southern Association of Agricultural Experiment Station Directors, located at Texas A&M University. "Politicians may support the concept of ag research, but I think they deliver a bullet addressed 'to whom it may concern.'" While they have not yet revealed the specifics of planned cuts for agricultural research, Republican congressional leaders acknowledge that reductions are coming. USDA's funding of land-grant colleges probably won't be exempt from the tax ax, confirms Bill O'Connor, staff member for Rep. Pat Roberts (R- Kan.), the new head of the House Agriculture Committee: "There will be a deep and abiding pressure to cut, and every sector can anticipate real budget pressures." Agricultural colleges stand to lose out in several ways from cuts at USDA and in congressional appropriations. They could forfeit a portion of USDA "formula" funding, which pays for agricultural-extension services and basic research, both under the administration of the colleges. Those monies, averaging about $500 million annually, have not risen much since 1990. Such support represents only a minute portion of the overall USDA budget. The department received a total of $65.2 billion in 1994, of which almost $41 billion went into food-assistance programs, such as food stamps. Subsidy programs for farmers constituted the next biggest chunk, at almost $13 billion. Nonetheless, says congressional staffer O'Connor, "while agriculture research may not be a particular target, it probably won't get a free ride, either." Agriculture committee chairman Roberts, he notes, "is supportive of research that is helpful to farmers. The question is whether all of the funded research is helpful to them." Jim Cubie, who works in the office of outgoing Senate Agriculture Committee chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), also predicts that "ag will be very much pinched." The new chairman, Sen. Richard Luger (R-Ind.), has spearheaded the bill to reorganize and trim USDA, which passed Congress in mid-October, a process he is expected to continue to be involved in. The colleges are also likely to suffer from fewer "special" grants, administrators say. There are two categories of such grants. One includes presidentially approved line-item competitive research funds, such as those allocated in 1994 for integrated pest-management and global-change research. Last year, an estimated $73 million was spent on these types of proj-ects, and such funding is "very useful and important" to start new work or meet local research needs, Maryland's Fretz stresses. The second type of special funding is a product of pork-barrel politics: funds earmarked by Congress to individual states for specific research or building projects, generally the result of lobbying by local congressional leaders. In 1994, $57 million was spent in "building facilities" projects that were never requested by USDA, and another approximately $50 million went to "special research," according to staffers on the former House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology (recently renamed the House Committee on Science) who have been looking into agricultural earmarks that don't appear on the USDA budget. According to Mike Quear in the committee's investigations unit, those "slush funds are always hidden in the budget. These are taken out of authorized programs, and sent by congressmen to the universities of their choice. It creates a new elite, those who have access to politicians." The funds are almost always requested by the colleges themselves, he adds. But the House science committee, under the direction of outgoing chairman George E. Brown, Jr. (D-Calif.), has been scrutinizing and cracking down on pork-barrel funding for some time, congressional staffers report. Brown's office has successfully stopped much of the pork-barrel funding in such agencies as the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency, the staffers contend. Some researchers, however, are glad to see curtailment of this form of support. "Formula funding seems to be making way for pork-barrel funding based on politics, and that's a shame," observes Luther Tweeten, an agriculture economist at Ohio State University. "The beauty of allocating monies to the state through formula funding is that we know where the problems are. We are at the grass roots and talk to farmers every day." The newest form of funding for agricultural research is also in trouble, scientists complain. The National Research Initiative (NRI), lobbied for and backed by universities, industry, the White House Office of Management and Budget, and the National Research Council, was approved by Congress in 1989. The initiative was to have allocated $500 million yearly in competitive research grants--much like those awarded by the National Institutes of Health or the National Science Foundation. But starting in 1990, Congress cut the proposal by 80 percent, funding only about $100 million. And although it was to have been an inviolate source of peer- reviewed research--the only one at USDA--the NRI has not been protected from political maneuvering, observers note. Last year, Congress used $5 million of the money to fund special applied research proj-ects outside of the scope of the NRI, and there have also been congressional attempts to change the make-up of approved research areas, says Clark, who helped design the initiative. Another example of political tinkering with the NRI occurred this summer, when former Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy-- who resigned effective last month amid allegations of improper personal spending--froze payment of 800 approved NRI awards to put pressure on Congress to move the bill that reorganized the agency. The funds were released before the bill passed last October, causing only minor inconveniences. But "the idea that Espy could hold onto awards for political gain was amazing, irritating," declares Burt Polasky, administrative officer for Kansas State University's agricultural experiment station. "It was the first time I know of that research funds were held hostage in the USDA." Although backers of the NRI may complain about low funding--a National Research Council report on NRI progress, due out shortly, is expected to ask for more monies--"they got more than anyone in ag," notes O'Connor in the House agriculture committee. "Re-searchers may be hurting, but not as much as farmers are." The reorganization of USDA will consolidate 14 agencies, close 1,100 field offices (approximately one-third of the total offices), and reduce staff by up to 11,000 from 110,000 currently, according to USDA spokeswoman Martha Cashion. However, she says, it will have little effect on land-grant colleges. Additionally, the bill consolidates the extension program and research program into one, administered by the undersecretary for research, education, and economics, a position currently filled by an acting administrator. What may result from these budget woes is a dramatic change in direction for the land-grant colleges. Flat USDA funding and falling contributions from the states have caused these colleges to seek monies from a variety of new sources, including other federal agencies and industry. That has meant, some observers worry, bending research goals toward the entity that can fund them, and moving away from traditional "pure research" missions. "Universities competing for research funds have gone where the money is," says Clark. "Colleges of veterinary medicine now seek NIH funds to look at molecular biology, directed at human medicine. Areas related to natural resources are going after EPA funds. And there has been a broad change in the philosophy about not working with industry. "We used to think you would get captured by it, and the industry would wag the tail of the university. But now we have gotten to the point that it's almost necessary to have an industry partner if the product of your research will be taken to the marketplace." "With less reliance on federal funds for general research, and more need to win competitive grants and industry funds, we have lost control of our research agenda, to a certain extent," laments Ronnie Coffman, associate dean for research at Cornell's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. "We have to do what we can find funding for, and I don't see things getting any better for me and my faculty." "The next few years are likely to be very difficult for us, and I think we are in relatively good shape compared to some other land-grant colleges," North Carolina State dean Bateman points out. Of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences' $150 million budget, one-half comes from state funding; one- fifth from the federal government, including USDA; and the rest from county governments, foundation grants, and contracts. The college also receives about $1 million to $2 million annually in special grants. Since 1990, Bateman has cut $9 million from his budget and eliminated 70 faculty positions, down now to 430. "I and my colleagues spent a lot of time competing for grants, and working with state government," he says. "But we've had a complete turnover in the legislature, and the people now holding key positions have made it their mandate to cut taxes. It will mean leaner budgets for public institutions." Cornell's Coffman agrees. New York's new Republican governor, George Pataki, has promised a 25 percent tax cut, he notes. Because state funding makes up half of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences' budget, he reasons, "this certainly is a cause for concern. State universities will not be immune." Renee Twombly is a freelance science writer based in Durham, N.C.

Agriculture Research Funding May Wither Under Republican 'Contract With America'

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of