Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
CSetting and Acting Upon Buciget Prionties Research priorities within each of the six proposed major program areas should be identified by the re- search community and communicated annually to both the executive and the legislative branches of the federal government. As national needs change, so too will priorities, at least in some major program areas. For example, the President's fiscal year (FY) 1990 budget request highlights the need for a water quality initiative, which could include as a component re- search within the natural resources and the environ- ment program area. In response to a decision to offer grants on water quality, the research community, organized through a program advisory committee, would need to articulate the areas of research most essential to establishing an improved science base for water quality protection. Proposals would then be sought in response to a program announcement de- scrib~ng high-pnonty water quality research needs. CURRENT PRIORITY-SE11ING MECHANISMS The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) re- ceives guidance annually or periodically from numer- ous organizations and committees. They include two important entities established by the U.S. Congress in Title XIV of the Food and Agricultural Act of 1977: the Joint Council for Food and Agricultural Sciences aCFAS) and the National Agricultural Research and Extension Users Advisory Board (UAB). They also include several committees organized by the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC). In addition, the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) uses a number of internal and external mechanisms in setting priorities, and other private and public organizations also make their views 139 known. Figure C. 1 presents the channels of dialogue that play a role in setting USDA's research and devel- opment (R&D) priorities. The purpose of JCFAS is to foster coordination of the agricultural research, extension, and teaching ac- tivities of the federal government, the states, colleges and universities, and other public and private institu- tions. In the 1980s, the JCFAS has played an impor- tant role in fostering dialogue and coordination across federal research agencies. It has also become a key forum for debate and consensus building on signifi- cant issues involving the agricultural and food sci- ences. Each year JCFAS issues a report on agricul- tural research priorities and accomplishments, includ- ing recommendations for future budgets. (See Appen- dix D for a listing of JCFAS priorities.) The UAB, which is composed principally of farm- ers and ranchers, state government officials, academic ~ - . scientists, extension specialists, ant representatives of private organizations, is charged by the U.S. Con- gress with providing comments and recommenda- tions on the President's annual budges proposal. The UAB's review cycle begins in January, when the President's budget is made public, and entails a series of meetings at which the budget is reviewed and a report is developed. Each year the UAB's report is issued in April. This allows time for the congressional appropriations committees to weigh the recommenda- tions before taking action on the President's budget. Subcommittees of the appropriations committees typically do this in June or July. (The recommenda- tions of the UAB appear in Appendix D.) The academic committees organized by NASULGC include the following: · ESCOP: The Experiment Station Committee on Policy conducts an annual budget review and priority
140 Performers Regional Planning Groups - Joint Council National Committees Regional Councils National Planning Groups - Secretary of Agriculture INVESTING IN RESEARCH Users Public County, State and Federal Governments and Agencies - - Universities Federal Agencies Industry Institutes ~ Users Advisory - - - - Users Advisory Board - \ ] Private Producers Processors Consumers Marketers U.S. Congress FIGURE C.1 Channels of dialogue that play a role in setting USDA's R&D pnoniies. SOURCE: Adapted from Miller, L A. 1988. Continuing the Momentum: History, Growth, and Future Challenges. Washington, D.C.: Joint Council for Food and Agncultural Sciences, U.S. Department of Agncultwe. setting exercise that produces reports to both USDA and the U.S. Congress. An ad hoc budget review subcommittee is set up each year and carries out one of the most comprehensive and authoritative analyses of the Cooperative State Research Service' s (CSRS ' s) budget as it relates to federal and state agricultural research needs. ESCOP also has played a leadership role in several special projects, including the 1982- 1984 biotechnology initiative that resulted in a $20 million biotechnology program area in the 1985 competitive grants program. · ECOP: The Extension Committee on Policy is analogous to ESCOP in composition and function. Each year it carries out an in-depth review of the Cooperative Extension Service's budget and offers recommendations to both USDA and the U.S. Con- gress. RICOP: The Resident Instruction Committee on Policy addresses issues related to funding and policy that affect higher education. It has been a strong advocate of the higher education fellowship program that CSRS initiated in 1985. It has analyzed trends in the enrollments within, and the degrees awarded by, colleges of agriculture. These studies have helped focus the U.S. Congress on the need for an expanded federal commitment to higher education fellowships in the agricultural and food sciences. In developing its budget requests, USDA generally follows to some degree the budget recommendations offered by ESCOP, ECOP, and RICOP. Requests from these organizations are balanced fast with other priorities within USDA and then with priorities across the federal government during the Office of Manage- ment and Budget's review of USDA's budget request. Later in the process, the U.S. Congress also evaluates
APPENDIX C the science and technology priorities and funding needs identified by these organizations. It should be noted that during the debates within ESCOP and its special biotechnology task force, the issue of which funding mechanisms to use in distrib- uting a hoped for increase in funds was much dis- cussed and initially divisive. Some argued for reliance on either an existing formula or a new one, others favored special grants, and a third group argued for competitive grants. The question was resolved in favor of competitive grants, setting the stage for a major expansion in the size of the competitive grants program between 1984 and 1985. Within USDA, ARS undertook a major internal review of priorities in the 1980s. The review resulted in a detailed 5-year plan. In addition, members of the ARS national program staffperiodically review ongo- ing research, often calling upon scientists outside the agency for help. (See Appendix D for details.) ARS receives guidance from several advisory councils and ad hoc committees set up for that pur- pose, including several under the auspices of the NationalResearch Council's (NRC's) Board on Agri- culture. Recent and current ARS-sponsored projects within the NRC include the following: · The Plant Gene Expression Center (PGEC) Advisory Council's guidance to the ARS-University of CalifomiaPGEC. The PGEC Advisory Council, in place since 1986, focuses on the scientific direction and quality of ongoing work at the ARS-University of California PGEC. · The Committee on Peer Review Procedures' assessment of the peer review procedures used within ARS. The committee's report, Improving Research Through Peer Review, was released in July 1987 (National Research Council, 1987b). · Reports issued by two beefing panels: Report of the Briefing Panel on Agricultural Research ~a- tional Research Council, 1983a) and Report of the Research Briefing Panel on Biotechnology in Agri- culture (National Research Council, l985b). · An ongoing multifaceted program global in scope on the collection, assessment, preservation, and use of plant, animal, fish, and forest genetic resources. Several reports released in 1990 will summarize the findings and recommendations of this project. A number of other private organizations often produce reports and recommendations on agricultural research needs. A principal way for these groups to 141 advance their budgetary recommendations is to testify before agricultural appropriations subcommittees. The congressional Office of Technology Assess- ment is periodically charged with issuing reports on food and agricultural science priorities, and it has done significant work in the area of agricultural research, land use, and biotechnology. Many other publicly chartered organizations are active in reviewing ongo- ing scientific programs or are concerned about spe- cif~c issues, occasionally issuing analyses of agricul- tural and food science priorities. In response to basic shifts in the challenges con- fronting USDA and the agricultural community, major pronoun areas might change somewhat over the years. Priorities within each major program area could be expected to change more frequently. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACTIONS Congressional action on annual executive branch budget proposals for USDA's competitive grants program, from FY 1980 through FY 1989, appears in Table C.1, which present the President's budget re- quest, the funds voted by the appropriations bills of the House and Senate, and the conference agreement between the two houses of the U.S. Congress. The percentages given below the dollar amounts show the percent increase or (decrease) from the President's budget request. SPECIFICITY OF PROGRAM GUIDANCE BY THE U.S. CONGRESS THROUGH THE APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS The level of funds appropriated to different ac- counts, agencies, and programs reflects overall fiscal priorities. I he U.S. Constitution vests responsibility for such decisions with the U.S. Congress, working in partnership with the executive branch. The nature and degree of congressional involvement in providing guidance, restrictions, and earmarks within agency and program budgets varies a great deal across the government. Even within an agency like USDA, the extent and variability of congressional guidance of- fered in different areas of the budget are revealing. Examples from the PY 1989 budget process are pre- sented. The conference report covering the USDA FY 1989 budget covers just over seven pages in the September 18, 1988, Congressional Record (U.S. Congress, 1988), and includes detailed instructions and guidance on how funds are to be used within each program:
142 INVESTING IN RESEARCH TABLE C.1 Congressional Action on the Proposed Budget for USDA's Competitive Research Grants Program, FY 1980-FY 1989 (in thousands of dollars) Funding in: 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 President's budget proposal$30,000 $25,000 $22,880 $22,880 $21,500 $50,000 $46,000 $42,425 $44,500 $54,500 House action 00 10,000 10,000 10,000 32,193 34,000 32,840 28,368 29,428 Percent change 100100 Senate action 25,00025,000 Percent 565653352623 19,50018,00021,50050,00046,50041,651 3646 44,50041,842 change170 15 21 0 0 1 2 0 23 Conference agreement15,500616,000 Percent change4846 16,32017,000 17,000 46,000 42,312 40,651 2926 21 8 8 4 5 42,372 39,716 27 aBudget submitted in March 1982 was $26,000,000 but was amended to $22,880,000 in September. bExcludes FY 1980 rescission under P.L 96-304 of $400,000 for plant science and $100,000 for human nutrition. CAppropnaiions Act funding for competitive research grants was $44,233,000 but was reduced to $42,312,000 because of Gramm-Rudman- Hollings. SOURCE: Adapted from data provided by the Office of Budget, Planning, and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Agnculture, Washington, D.C., 1989. · The $21 billion appropriated for nutrition pro- grams is accompanied by less than a page of amend- ments and instructions in the conference report. In addition to establishing funding levels for specific programs, like food stamps, language calls for only two specific projects: -$5.2 million to develop a system for inde- pendent verification of school food service claims, of which half is to be used for training state and local food service officials in new procedures for meal counting and claim procedures. A $50,000 earmark is provided to continue a study by the Mississippi School Food Service Institute. A farmer's market coupon demonstration proj- ect is agreed upon, specifying that $2 million may be used for this project. · The $8.8 billion appropriated to the Commodity Credit Corporation to cover reimbursement for net realized losses will go toward expenditures for com- modityprice and farm income support payments. This appropriation is made with 18 lines of text. No explanatory notes or instructions are offered regard ing the use of these funds (authorizing legislation establishes program rules and payment levels). · Science and education agencies received appro- pnations of $ 1.3 billion, about 1.8 percent of USDA's total $69.97 billion budget. Nearly three pages of detailed instructions, amendments, and earmarks accompany this section of the seven-page USDA budget conference report The U.S. Congress shifted spending priorities most dramatically in the ARS budget, including several cuts in the research account and several earmarked increases in the buildings and facilities account. Specifically: There were 30 distinct changes made in the ARS research budget, ranging from a less than $ 100,000 change to a $2 million cut of new funding sought to increase water quality research. A total of $28.35 million was appropriated for 31 building and feasibility studies. The Presi dent's budget requested $11 million for just one building project. (This project involved establish ment of a new seed storage laboratory at Fort Collins, Colorado. The need and design of this
APPENDIX C facility has been studied by the Board on Agricul- ture [National Research Council, 1988cl.) The geographic location of the additional 30 projects correlates closely with the states represented by members on the agricultural appropriations sub- committees. Total changes of $26 million in the proposed ARS research budget, representing about 4.6 per 143 cent of total research activity; $17.35 million of additional funding appropriated for buildings and facilities, representing another 3 percent of total agency resources. (The funds needed to equip and staff the new research facilities established in the FY 1989 budget will pose a difficult challenge for agency administrators in future years.)
