Highlights
-
Congress agreed on a $2.4 billion R&D
portfolio in FY 2006 for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),
a slight cut of $9 million or 0.4 percent that stands in sharp contrast
to a requested 15 percent cut because of hundreds of millions of dollars
in earmarks (see Table).
-
Congress rejects USDA’s proposals to slash formula funds in its extramural
research portfolio, and instead preserves a balance between formula
funds, competitive funds, and earmarks. The final Agriculture appropriations
bill keeps Hatch Act formula funding for land-grant colleges at $179
million, in contrast to a USDA proposal to eliminate half of this funding
and shift the funds to a new $75 million competitive grants program.
The National Research Initiative (NRI) of competitively awarded research
grants increases slightly to $183 million, well short of a $250 million
request. Earmarked special research grants, however, grow significantly
from $120 million to $128 million.
- USDA intramural R&D falls slightly to
$1.3 billion, primarily because of a drop in R&D facilities construction
funding. Congress agrees
to the request for $59
million in 2006 to complete the renovation of the National Centers for
Animal Health in Ames, Iowa, but also adds funds for earmarked research
grants and earmarked construction projects.
-
The final USDA budget keeps USDA R&D near record levels in 2006.
USDA R&D in FY 2006 Conference Appropriations
On
October 26, a House-Senate conference committee agreed on a final version
of the FY 2006 Agriculture appropriations bill (HR 2744), which funds
most of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The House gave final
approval on October 28, and the Senate is expected to do the same this
week. USDA’s Forest Service is funded in the Interior appropriations
bill (HR 2361), which has already been signed into law. In the final
Agriculture bill, USDA R&D improves dramatically from a proposed 15 percent cut
in the USDA budget request to a cut of only 0.4 percent for a total
of $2.4 billion (see Table). In a repeat
of past years, Congress adds back nearly $300 million in earmarked funds
that were deleted in the request, and also rejects a USDA proposal to
shift formula funds for land-grant institutions to competitive grants.
(For details of the President’s request for USDA R&D, please see
Chapter 11 of AAAS
Report XXX: R&D FY 2006 or
the March 3 USDA R&D Funding Update. For
details of FY 2006 House appropriations, see the June
7 R&D Funding Update. For details of Senate appropriations,
see the June 30 R&D Funding Update.)
Instead
of USDA’s proposed move to competitively awarded funds, Congress keeps
USDA’s external portfolio split between formula funds, earmarked funds,
and competitively awarded funds. USDA’s extramural research grants,
nearly entirely to colleges and universities, are administered by the
Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES).
Total CSREES R&D stays level at $648 million in FY 2006, a big improvement
from a proposed 20 percent cut. The difference is that USDA proposed
to eliminate $180 million in 2005 congressional earmarks and slash formula
funds, but Congress restores $167 million in earmarked projects and
keeps formula funding stable. Most of these earmarks are in the nearly
entirely earmarked Special Research Grants program, which USDA proposed
to cut from $120 million last year down to just $3 million in 2006,
but the final Agriculture bill provides $128 million for 202 projects,
all but 3 of which are for congressionally designated performers. The
remaining 48 earmarks are in other parts of the CSREES budget and total
$43 million.
Congress has rejected USDA’s
proposal to dramatically restructure formula funds for agricultural
R&D at land-grant institutions in 2006. Hatch Act formula funding
for agricultural R&D at land-grant colleges remains at $179 million
instead of the USDA proposal to cut it in half to $89 million in the
first year of a two-year phaseout. Congress also rejects similar proposed
cuts to other formula research grants (in “All Other CSREES R&D”
in the Table), at the same time rejecting
USDA’s proposed alternative to formula funds, a new $75 million competitive
research grants program just for land-grant institutions.
The
National Research Initiative (NRI) of competitively
awarded, extramural research grants receives $183 million, a modest
increase compared to the $250 million request. But there would be
a transfer of some competitive grants currently funded in Integrated
Grants to NRI, leaving actual program funding slightly below last year’s
level. USDA also proposed to make competitive grants more attractive
to potential applicants by repealing a longstanding limit on indirect
cost reimbursements for USDA grants, currently capped at 20 percent,
but the final Agriculture bill keeps the 20 percent limit in place.
Over
the years, CSREES has awarded its R&D funds through earmarks, formula
funds, and competitive grants roughly equally at about a third of the
portfolio each with formula funds in the lead, but the FY 2006 request
proposed to shake up this system by eliminating earmarks and phasing
out formula funds over two years. Although every USDA budget request
proposes to eliminate earmarks, this was the first time USDA had also
proposed to phase out formula funds. Reaction among the land-grant universities
receiving formula funds was largely negative. After much lobbying on
the merits of formula funding to sustain a geographically dispersed
and locally responsive nationwide agricultural research infrastructure,
Congress restores the traditional balance in FY 2006. But USDA may try
again in the FY 2007 budget request next February.
Most of USDA’s intramural
research is performed in the Agricultural Research Service (ARS). ARS
R&D falls 1.7 percent or $22 million to $1.3 billion, an improvement
over steep requested cuts because of millions of dollars in added earmarks.
The appropriation includes the $59 million request for the National
Centers for Animal Health in Ames, Iowa. Congress provided $122 million
for the Ames facility in the FY 2005 budget, and the FY 2006 appropriation
should be sufficient to finish the major renovation project. The renovated
National Centers for Animal Health will serve as the nation’s premier
animal research and diagnostic laboratory and will enhance the nation’s
ability to respond to attacks on the food supply as a biosafety level
3 (BSL-3) facility. Congress also provides $72 million in unrequested
construction funds for earmarked projects at ARS laboratories around
the country, roughly the same amount as last year. The drop in total
construction funding allows for a 3.0 percent boost to the intramural
ARS research budget to $1.1 billion, with much of the $139 million boost
over the request in the form of earmarked research projects at ARS laboratories.
The
other major USDA R&D agency is the Forest Service; the final FY
2006 appropriation for its R&D, already signed into law, is $329
million, up 4.7 percent or $15 million from last year. Although the
primary focus of its R&D portfolio is forestry and ecosystems research,
in recent years the Forest Service has emphasized its fire science and
wildfire management research portfolio as well. Most of this research
is performed in intramural laboratories, although there is also an extramural
fire science grants program that receives $23 million in 2006.
The
final Agriculture appropriations bill contains several legislative provisions
affecting USDA research, but leaves out a Senate-approved provision
that could have curtailed animal research and other research. In addition
to the provision keeping a USDA cap on indirect costs at 20 percent,
the bill also continues to block the availability of mandatory research
funds in the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS)
but allows 22 percent of NRI funds to go to IFAFS-like projects. A Senate-approved
provision designed to restrict colleges, universities and research institutions
from purchasing laboratory animals from some suppliers failed to make
it into the final bill; scientific organizations (including AAAS) and
research universities had opposed the provision because it would have
cut off all USDA funds from institutions running afoul of the provision,
even for research programs in unrelated areas.
Impacts of the USDA R&D Portfolio
Figure 1. (click on the image for PDF)
The slightly declining FY 2006 USDA R&D
portfolio keeps the department’s R&D funding near record highs in
inflation-adjusted dollars (see Figure 1). USDA R&D has been
at historical highs this decade. Since hitting a recent low in FY 1996,
the funding trend has been generally upward, first because the federal
budget surplus made more discretionary funds available to congressional
appropriators, then in FY 2000 and FY 2001 from the release of mandatory
competitive research funds, and since FY 2002 because heightened concern
about agricultural terrorism and the security of USDA laboratories resulted
in millions for security upgrades and other homeland security-related
investments. But with homeland security-related construction needs waning
at locations such as Ames, the FY 2006 budget brings USDA R&D down
from record levels.
Although
NRI hits a new high in 2006, the history of competitive agricultural
research grants has been mixed in recent years as Congress and USDA
have blocked mandatory competitive programs, directed the bulk of recent
increases to facilities rather than research, siphoned off NRI dollars
to fund earmarks, and repeatedly fallen short of the original vision
of NRI as a $500 million-a-year program. Late last year, there was a
push to create a National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA)
employing an extramural, peer-reviewed basic research model for agricultural
research like the National Institutes of Health (NIH); advocates hoped
that a NIFA existing as a semi-independent agency within USDA would
offer a higher profile for basic agricultural research and perhaps higher
dollars. The NIFA proposal did not make it into the FY 2006 budget request
or final budget, and the request for a $250 million NRI failed to gain
traction in Congress.
Figure 2. (click on the image for PDF)
USDA
is the sixth-largest supporter of R&D in the federal government, and its
support is especially important for key disciplines. USDA is responsible for just
5 percent of all research support in the broad area of the life sciences, but
dominates funding for two disciplines within life sciences, agricultural
sciences and environmental biology. USDA funds more than 90 percent of all
federal support for the agricultural sciences, with the remainder supported by
the Agency for International Development (for international agriculture
R&D) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (for
aquaculture and other marine-related R&D). USDA is also an important
supporter of chemistry and biology, and represents a majority of federal
support for economics through the Economic Research Service (ERS).
Recent
increases in USDA R&D have boosted USDA support of research (see
Figure 2), with most of the increases going to the life sciences. USDA
support of other disciplines has declined steadily over the years and
will likely decline even further when the FY 2005 and 2006 budgets are
distributed.
Figure 3. (click on the image for PDF)
USDA’s R&D portfolio is the most evenly
distributed geographically among federal R&D funding agencies. 73
percent of USDA’s R&D goes to its own laboratories in a nationwide network
of agricultural experiment stations located in all 50 states. Another 25
percent of the portfolio goes to colleges and universities, again to all 50
states because of the nationwide network of land-grant colleges and minority
serving institutions that often receive USDA funds through formula
distributions and geographically dispersed R&D earmarks. The top 10 state
recipients of USDA R&D funds account for less than half the USDA total (see
Figure 3), in contrast to the overall federal R&D portfolio in which just 7
states receive the majority of federal R&D.
The
Senate is expected to give final approval to the Agriculture bill this
week, and President Bush is expected to sign the bill into law shortly.
The Agriculture bill will then join the Interior/Environment bill as
only the fourth FY 2006 appropriations bill to be signed into law. Although
that would normally mark the end of the appropriations process for USDA,
Congress looks increasingly likely to enact rescissions or across-the-board
cuts within the next few weeks to help offset billions of dollars in
emergency funding for hurricane disaster relief, avian flu response,
and heating assistance. These rescissions or cuts could be contained
in later appropriations bills and could affect all appropriations, even
those already signed into law. The most likely scenario is an across-the-board
cut of 2 percent or so, which would turn a flat USDA R&D budget
into a declining one.
-
October 31, 2005
(This analysis is one of a series of AAAS R&D Funding
Updates on FY 2006 congressional appropriations. The complete series
of AAAS R&D Funding Updates, including continually updated analyses
of R&D in FY 2006 appropriations, is available on the AAAS
R&D Web Site (http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd) in the "FY
2006 R&D" or the "What's New"
sections.)
AAAS R&D Budget and Policy Program
1200 New York Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 326-6607; -6600
AAAS R&D
Web site: www.aaas.org/spp/rd
