The result of not supplying the money would be that we would (1) not permit a company to enter into the business involving interstate shipment, or wouldn't allow him to put on a second shift, as the case may be.

At the present time, we have requests for 130 meat inspectors that we have not been able to provide. This is what is involved in the supplemental that we are requesting.

While some of the other programs are not mandatory as is meat inspection, we must be able to meet the increasing needs. Our inspection and quarantine work at ports of entry is vital in our effort to keep out diseases and pests, otherwise we have a much bigger job later to control the spread should any become introduced into the country. We are taking the protective measures we think are necessary both in the interests of the country and actually in the interest of spending lesser amounts of money in the end. On the research increases that we are requesting, they are not mandatory, but the problems are becoming more and more acute as in the pesticide area, as we have discussed in the previous days here. With newer techniques, scientists are able to find residues down to parts per billion. We have got to find methods wherever possible that will allow us to put food on the market with no residue. This mean the development of better methods, using both biological and chemical controls.

You remember the one chart that Dr. Rodenhiser showed vesterday, where we had both an attractant and an insecticide on cardboard squares. If we can develop this technique widely, it would mean getting no insecticide on the fruit. You draw the insect to the baited trap. While these programs are not mandatory, in my opinion, they are very necessary and I think they are going to accrue benefits to every person in the country.

Mr. ADDABBO. Now several new programs were mentioned, or expansion of these programs have been mentioned in various testimony we have received so far.

Is there a necessity, as far as the continuation of these programs or is there one program, because of lesser priorities, that can be cut out and that money utilized for one of the new programs that has been discussed?

Dr. SHAW. We examined all our programs thoroughly all the time in terms of making modifications. In research we are always discontinuing projects and going on to other work using the same funds. In my opinion, the work we are now conducting is of higher priority than work we have in the increases.

Mr. ADDABBO. If you do not have the increased markets right here in the United States, city markets, and greater facilities and transportation, a lot of your work which helps in the production of the raw material, the agricultural product would go to nothing, is that true?

Dr. SHAW. The movement of the goods from the farm and through the system eventually to the consumers is certainly a necessary part connected with the whole of agriculture.

Mr. ADDABBO. So that actually as a component part of your research, the marketing research on facilities and transportation almost comes as a direct corollary?

Dr. SHAW. I think that this work is important. I didn't participate in the budget decisions that were made on this item. All of us

are under very tight budget restrictions. We had to--all of us-list the things in our program that were of lowest priority.

Mr. ADDABBO. In your budget you have $11,801,000 increase over 1964, but still the Secretary has seen fit to cut out an item, I think, of approximately $800,000 covering facilities in transportation research, which directly affects the marketing end in the cities.

No further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Horan.

COOPERATION WITH STATE INSPECTION SERVICES

Mr. HORAN. Are you getting along with Federal-State cooperation, with States such as California?

Dr. CLARKSON. A joint committee of the Department and the State departments of agriculture has been working to outline the policies under which we would work on all of our Federal-State cooperative projects.

Regarding meat inspection, we have had some inquiries from Director Dwyer of Washington, and also from the director of agriculture in Wyoming, asking us to outline for them the procedures whereby they might qualify for cooperative activity in meat inspection.

We have worked out the requirements, and are now putting them in the form of regulations, before we sit down to discuss with the State officials the ways and means of implementing the cooperative work. In this way, we will both be considering the same requirements as we move from one point to another.

We think this can be done with quite a number of the plants in Washington, Oregon, California, and several other States. This would not be done on the basis of blanketing in all of the meat inspection activities of a State. They must necessarily look to all of the operations within their State, some of which meet the Federal requirements and some don't.

Following an overall agreement, we would then look to the qualifications of the individual plant and the individual inspector. If they qualified, we would bring them under the general system and give them the right to use the Federal mark of inspection in order that their products could be shipped interstate. The only cost to the Federal Government would be to extend our supervisory inspectors to cover the additional plants. The State inspector and the State administration of the inspectors would remain under State control.

Mr. HORAN. In some other types of foodstuffs, there are in existence and have been for years, Federal-State systems of inspection that have worked very well.

Dr. CLARKSON. We have quite a number of them in the Department. They are voluntary inspections systems where there was no compulsion of law to carry it out in any specific way. However, we are under very stringent compulsion of the Federal Meat Inspection Act, which covers any products that may move in interstate commerce. When the new legislation was passed a year ago, authorizing the Secretary to broaden his cooperation with the States, the House Committee on Agriculture again reiterated the necessity for complying stringently with the requirements of the Federal meat inspection law and regulations.

So, there are some aspects of this Federal-State cooperation that are more difficult to work out than with the voluntary programs.

Mr. HORAN. I notice in the State of California, which by far has the most number of plants under Federal inspection, 185, they also have applications for 42 additional, while the State of New York has 114 plants, and 30 applications for additional Federal inspection; and, of course, Illinois 157 plants, having inspection now, and application for 25 more and so on-of course, this is merely an indication, Mr. Chairman, the direction in which this particular item is trending and I think puts a little accent on the questioning you made regarding the possibility of administratively, at least, putting all of our socalled meat inspection under one overall administrative head.

Because if you employ the Federal-State method here, in order to attempt to get more meat inspection at least shock to the taxpayer's dollar, you would necessarily have to have more supervision over any State or municipality, I suppose, there are such?

Dr. CLARKSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. HORAN. Inspections that would come up to snuff. And you are working in that direction?

Dr. CLARKSON. Yes, sir; with this firm request from the State of Washington, we are trying to work out the procedures. Once we get that done, it will be easier with other States.

Mr. HORAN. Mr. Chairman, the reason I ask these questions, in view of the great way that this has spread out, due, of course, to our roads and suburbia and a lot of other things, I am going to commend Dr. Clarkson and you, Dr. Shaw, and the Department, and you, Dr. Brady, and the Department for taking seriously this matter of utilization of all available facilities that could give us adequate and dependable meat inspection.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WHITTEN. Thank you, Dr. Clarkson. I hope you will take care to be sure that those things that we may have touched on only lightly are fully covered, because this matter of protecting our country and our food supply from disease and pestilence is of increasing importance.

How to best meet the demand is always a problem. The more thoroughly you prepare the record for us, and the more factual information we have, the better prepared we are to support this program. I wish to thank you.

SPECIAL FOREIGN CURRENCY PROGRAM

You

Mr. WHITTEN. Dr. Hilbert, we are glad to have you with us. are dealing with the work that is done under Public Law 480 funds. Those funds are funds that we have generated in foreign countries which are to remain there and be spent there. It is a case of seeing that those funds, which we can't withdraw to this country, are used to best advantage in the country in which they are situated. With that background, you can probably show that you get more for your money than any other program. After all, we couldn't use the money unless you or someone like you did use it. You may proceed.

Dr. HILBERT. The estimates and related material on foreign currency programs are on pages 122 through 136.

Mr. WHITTEN. We should like to have those in the record at this point.

(The pages referred to follow :)

STATUS OF PROGRAM

In fiscal year 1958, the Department initiated a research program abroad utilizing foreign currencies from the sale of surplus agricultural commodities under title I of Public Law 480. Originally confined to market development research authorized by section 104 (a) of Public Law 480, the program was subsequently expanded to include agricultural and forestry research, including translation of scientific publications, under section 104 (k) of the law. It now involves work in the following general areas:

1. Farm research, including crops research and plant science, entomology, animal husbandry, livestock diseases and parasites, soil and water conservation, and agricultural engineering.

2. Utilization research, including the development of new or improved methods of utilizing agricultural materials.

3. Marketing research, including studies of food and fiber preference of foreign consumers, improvement of quality and acceptability of U.S. agricultural products in foreign markets, and improvement in handling and storage of agricultural products.

4. Forestry research, including research on development of better forest products and development of information of value for the protection of forests in the United States.

5. Agricultural economics research, including farm and market economics research and foreign trade analysis.

6. Human nutrition research, including food composition, experimental nutrition, human metabolism, and food quality research.

Dollar-financed research in these areas is conducted by the Agricultural Research Service, the Agricultural Marketing Service, the Forest Service, and the Economic Research Service in their respective areas of functional and subject matter responsibilities. Research under this program is designed to complement and not to duplicate or displace the dollar-financed research activities of these agencies.

Within the Department, primary responsibility for administration of this program is assigned to the Agricultural Research Service. The activities are coordinated with operations in the Forest Service, Agricultural Marketing Service, and Economic Research Service through a Policy and Program Development Board consisting of members of these Services and the Foreign Agricultural Service. This Board develops broad policies for operations of the program and coordinates the activities of the various department agencies in carrying out research financed by foreign currencies. Initial arrangements for the research in foreign countries are made through the Department of State and the agricultural attachés of the Foreign Agricultural Service of the Department. Prior to executing any research agreement with a foreign institution, the Department also consults with the agricultural attachés and heads of missions to insure that the proposed projects would be consonant with the foreign policy of the United States.

Great care is exercised to make certain that research projects undertaken benefit American agriculture and do not develop undesirable competition for agricultural products abroad. Careful attention is given to the type of institution conducting research under this program to make certain it has the facilities, equipment, and personnel to carry out sound and productive research. Because of these high standards some 40 percent of the proposals received from foreign institutions have been rejected by the Department; final determination has not yet been made on acceptance or rejection of an additional 34 percent. The remaining 26 percent have been accepted and agreements have been executed or are awaiting execution.

To the maximum extent possible, the costs of administering the program are paid from foreign currencies. Foreign travel and other costs of Department officials abroad and all possible expenses of the regional offices, including salary costs of foreign nationals, are paid from foreign currencies. U.S. dollar costs of administering the program consist primarily of expenses in Washington, D.C., and salaries of U.S. citizens employed in two foreign offices maintained to administer the program, one in Rome, Italy, and the other in New Delhi, India. Part of the salaries of U.S. citizens employed in the foreign offices is, with their consent, paid in foreign currency. Dollar savings from this procedure amounted to $24,970 in 1963 and will amount to about $31,000 in 1964 and $31,300 in 1965. Direct administrative costs are as follows:

Through June 30, 1963, a total of 419 research agreements had been executed with foreign research institutions. In fiscal year 1963, 103 agreements were executed. Agreements vary in total amount for the life of the project (averaging 4 to 5 years) from under $12,000 to about over $250,000. Examples of research progress under these agreements, only a few of which have yet been completed, with country and U.S. dollar equivalent (at June 30, 1963, exchange rates) for each agreement, follow:

Farm research

1. Diagnostic test for African swine fever.-African swine fever, a highly contagious disease of swine with a very high mortality rate, has spread in recent years to Spain and Portugal. It is of special concern because of its resemblance to hog cholera with which it may be confused.

Excellent progress is being made in Spain in developing a test for the diagnosis of African swine fever. In rather extensive field trials, all samples found to be positive for the disease, using the new test method, were also demonstrated to be positive when the samples were fully examined by existing methods. All of the samples showing negative reactions were shown to be free of the virus. These results indicate that the test will be most useful in making a rapid diagnosis for the presence of this disease (Spain $97,794).

2. Nature of plant resistance to nematodes.-Basic studies in Poland are uncovering differences in potato plants resistant and susceptible to the golden nematode, a serious pest of potatoes and tomatoes. It was observed that cells in the roots of susceptible plants tend to divide when invaded by the nematode larvae. This is not true with resistant plants. It was also observed that the oxygen consumption was lower and the respiratory quotient higher in susceptible plants than in resistant ones. These results are helpful in understanding the nature of resistance to nematodes (Poland $21,792).

3. Influence of environment on genetic shifts in forage crop varieties.The United States has an opportunity to produce forage-crop seed of foreign varieties for export. In order to develop this opportunity, it is necessary to ascertain the effect of natural photoperiod and temperature interactions on the maintenance of genetic stability in forage-crop varieties. Studies of this nature are underway in Finland, on long daylengths and relatively low daily temperatures; and in Israel, on short daylengths and high daily temperatures. In another study of the influence of environment on genetic shifts, no significant changes have developed in Finnish Tammisto red clover after one, two, and three generations of production in North America (Finland $77,569 and Israel $67,697).

4. Natural enemies of sugarcane borers.-The sugarcane borer is one of the worst insect enemies of sugarcane, corn, and sorghum along the gulf coast and in Florida, where it produces several generations a year. Studies of several species of sugarcane borers in widely scattered areas of India resulted in the discovery of a number of parasites of the borers. Five species of parasites have been shipped to Canal Point, Fla., for evaluation under U.S. environmental conditions. All of these parasites show promise of being useful in the biological control of sugarcane borers (India $57,096).

5. Acarine disease of honey bees.-This disease, caused by parasitic mites, does not exist in the United States but is a constant threat to our beekeeping industry. A project in Italy has demonstrated that the mites infest the minute branches of the tracheae, and the sacs of the thorax and the head. These findings indicate that it may be necessary to administer substances orally for the elimination of mite infestations from bee colonies (Italy $58,696).