products, fruits, and vegetables. We get high-quality products which spend less time moving to market and are packaged and handled in ways that maintain quality.

(b) More services and conveniences in the sense that we now get services such as processed foods in laborsaving packages, ready-mixes, frozen readyto-serve foods, concentrates and dehydrated foods, and heat-and-serve dishes. We get foods in season and out of season. We get foods in all sizes of containers and packages. We get foods that are in standardized portions.

INCREASES IN STATE STATION SALARIES

Now Mr. Chairman, you asked for a discussion of last year's increases with respect to their principal intent, which was for adjustment in the salary load carried under Federal grant funds and the portion of that carried under State funds. We will not have until September an account showing what has actually been accomplished. But relevant to your question is a table which we have prepared showing the increases in salaries at the agriculture experiment stations in the years 1959 through 1964 to date, and these indicate that from the period 1961-62 to 1963-64 salaries in the State experiment stations increased about 11 percent. So they have on the average at least made a comparable increase in salaries, and the funds provided by the Congress to keep the balance between the Federal portion of salaries and State portion of salaries is approximately appropriate as planned. Mr. WHITTEN. I am glad to have that table in the record. (The table referred to follows:)

Analysis of personal services paid from Federal-grant and non-Federal funds

2 Increased by $1,620,000, 72 percent of the $2,250,000 increase appropriated for salary adjustments. It is estimated that this amount is directly available for salary adjustments in the experiment stations, while 25 percent of the increase, the regional research portion, is only indirectly available, and 3 percent is reserved to CSRS for administration.

NOTE. Federal employees average increase, 6.2 percent effective Oct. 1, 1962 (Public Law 87-793); Federal employees average increase, 5.4 percent, effective Jan. 5, 1964 (Public Law 87-793).

Mr. WHITTEN. In that connection I have pointed out several times to various Members of Congress that we do not have within our power the fixing of salaries, and at most we can only indicate the purposes for which the funds are made available. Of course, it follows that, if the advice is not followed next year the situation might be a little different. But I am glad to see that they have paid some attention to it.

Dr. BYERLY. We are confident that at least that much is being used for this purpose on the whole, though obviously there will be variation from State to State.

Mr. WHITTEN. In this matter of salaries, you do have to keep a balance between Federal employees and those engaged in Federal

programs such as extension agents, even though they have other sources of pay. But there is some necessity to keep a somewhat comparable rate between those that are engaged in the same field where they all are identified, at least locally, as being Federal workers.

Dr. BYERLY. The point the chairman has made is very important from the standpoint of competition for manpower. Unless the State experiment stations can pay comparative salaries and do pay comparative salaries they are subject to having them siphoned off to other institutions that pay higher salaries. So the salary in the station is a protective device. Every experiment station has to have good men. Some of them cannot have poor men and others outstanding men. They all have to have good men, and salary is a necessary component.

USE OF TRAINING AUTHORITY

Mr. WHITTEN. One of the things we need to be sure of is that adequate attention is given to our agricultural employees and county agents, to keep them up to date with modern techniques. I have talked to Dr. Brady and others about this and I hope that more attention will be given to keeping current with regard to new developments and things of that sort.

Dr. BYERLY. We shall find what authority there is for training. We are encouraging their use of such authority as far as it is consistent with the law and the intent of the law. We shall encourage directors to devote a portion of their funds to retraining of personnel to facilitate their research even if they have to defer ongoing research.

Mr. WHITTEN. The basis for all research is to get it used, and you get it used depending on how current your agents are. And may I say for the record that I know many very fine agents who do a marvelous job. Frequently, some of them get so good that they are employed away from the Department.

Dr. KNOBLAUCH. May I supplement and leave this to your judgment as to whether this should be on the record. This presents a problem from the outstanding research leaders' standpoint, too. The large operator wishes to go and get firsthand information from the scientist, and he is thereby pulling his effort away from research. Mr. WHITTEN. I can appreciate that that would be a problem, too.

FORESTRY RESEARCH

We would be glad to have the report on the McIntire-Stennis program at this point. Senator Stennis, as you know, is from my State, and he is doing a fine job for agriculture, forestry included, in my State.

Dr. KAUFERT. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am happy to sketch briefly the statement which is filed with you, hitting some of the highlights only.

Mr. WHITTEN. You might wish to follow it. It is not too long. It might be a little easier for you. Also, please provide a biographical sketch for the record.

(The biographical sketch follows:)

BLOGRAPHICAL STATEMENT OF DIRECTOR FRANK H. KAUFERT

Assistant Administrator, Cooperative Forestry Research, CSRS (since September 1963).

Professor of forestry and director of School of Forestry (since 1945), Institute of Agriculture, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minn.

B.A., University of Minnesota, 1928; exchange fellow Halle, Germany, 1930; M.S., University of Minnesota, 1930; Ph. D., University of Minnesota (forestry and plant pathology), 1935; field assistant, U.S. Forest Service, 1929, 1931; instructor of forestry, University of Minnesota, 1932-37; technologist, division pest control research experiment station, E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 193740; associate professor, forestry, University of Minnesota, 1940-42; technologist, Forest Products Laboratory, U.S. Forest Service, 1942-45. Civilian with USAF, U.S. Navy, 1944.

Director, Society American Foresters research project, 1953; fellow, Society American Foresters; Forest Products Research Society (president, 1957-58); associate, Wood Preserver's Association; chairman of Society of American Foresters Committee on Accreditation, 1959-64; president, Forest History Society.

Dr. KAUFERT. The 1964 Agricultural Appropriation Act signed by the President on December 30, 1963, made available $1 million for initiation of the McIntire-Stennis cooperative forestry research program. Immediately following passage of the enabling McIntireStennis Act of October 10, 1962, the Secretary of Agriculture assigned administration of this new forestry research program to the Cooperative State Research Service. The program is to be administered on a coequal basis with the long established Hatch program of agricultural research considerably smaller, as you recognize, $1 million, but on a coequal basis.

There has been excellent cooperation by the State and participation in appointment of official State and institutional personnel, in providing necessary fiscal information, in development of research project proposals, and in providing for their review by institutional project review committees.

NEW RESEARCH PROJECTS

Of the 61 State institutions certified to participate under this act, 48 have already completed and submitted project proposals for sup port under the program. These proposals have been or are being evaluated by CSRS subject-matter specialists and research on approved projects is already underway at several institutions. As of February 25, 1964, a total of 168 research project proposals had been received by CSRS, and many of these have already been approved, sent back to the stations, or they are notified that we can move ahead with research. We estimate that research is moving ahead on about a third of it to date. So that is a rather rapid move forward.

The research projects submitted cover the entire field of forestry research, some excellent projects in the area of utilization, some in the area of recreation, and many in the more conventional research areas of production, genetics, physiology, and so forth.

Many excellent proposals, enlisting the contributions of highly qualified scientists, have been received. Proposals which could be improved by subject-matter specialists' comment are returned with suggestions for revision, and provision is made for prompt initiation thereafter. Projects being approved are well spread over the subjectmatter range defined in the McIntire-Stennis Act, including several in the area of outdoor recreation. A very substantial number will seek much needed basic or fundamental information.

TRAINING ADDITIONAL SCIENTISTS

One of the objectives of this legislation is to provide for the training of the larger number of forest and forest-related research person

nel needed in the future to conduct the fundamental and applied research basic to the further development and utilization of our natural resources. Many of the projects approved involve the work of research assistants, who will thus receive excellent research training under competent staff and project leaders. In turn these assistants will provide forestry school staff with critically needed research assistance. The fact that this program will have two products, the production of urgently needed research and the training of more forest scientists, makes it especially valuable.

There are, in most of the institutions certified for participation under this act, many added needs for providing staff members with research assistance and qualified young men who could benefit from such opportunity.

DISTRIBUTION OF 1964 APPROPRIATION

Grants to the States are made on a matching basis. In States having more than one eligible institution, participating institutions and the proportional amount of funds allocated to each have been determined by a designee named by the State's Governor.

Amounts allotted to the States for fiscal 1964 are governed by a distribution formula which has been developed by the Secretary of Agriculture in consultation with the seven-member Cooperative Forestry Research Advisory Board, as provided in the McIntire-Stennis Act. The board is constituted of elected forestry school executives from six regions plus a member at large, and is under the chairmanship of Dr. R. H. Westveld, director of the School of Forestry of the University of Missouri. Fifty-nine of the sixty-one certified institutions will receive allotments in fiscal 1964.

Allotments of Federal funds to the States for fiscal 1964 vary according to several factors, as given below:

1. Nine hundred and fifty thousand dollars is distributed to the 50 States and Puerto Rico for support of projects approved by the Cooperative State Research Service in amounts determined by one uniform and three variable formula factors, as shown below:

(a) Equal allotment to the States and Puerto Rico of $10,000considered the minimum needed when matched by non-Federal funds, to initiate or support the additional research envisioned by the legislation.

(b) Distribution of the balance by a ranking of the States into 10 categories according to each of 3 factors:

(1) Forty percent on the basis of non-Federal commercial forest land (data supplied by U.S. Forest Service).

(2) Forty percent on the basis of timber cut annually from growing stock (data supplied by U.S. Forest Service).

(3) Twenty percent on the basis of non-Federal funds invested in forestry research by the certified institutions.

2. A reserve fund of $50,000 is established for funding projects, mostly of a basic nature, which are selected by a panel of five research scientists drawn from nonparticipating forestry schools, forest industry, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Cooperative State Research Service. Twelve to fifteen projects will be selected for funding from a total of twenty-six submitted.

COOPERATIVE ARRANGEMENTS

The McIntire-Stennis program is being developed in close coordination with the Research Division of the U.S. Forest Service. One of the requirements in the process of developing individual McIntireStennis research projects has been discussion with local research personnel of the U.S. Forest Service, in the interest of avoiding wasteful duplication and of promoting coordination. This procedure has been faithfully followed, and not infrequently Forest Service and other agency research staff members have been members of local project review committees. Research proposals in the area of recreation are being coordinated with representatives of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Department of the Interior.

The Advisory Committee specified in the act is in process of establishment by the Secretary of Agriculture. The Committee of 14 members will give equal representation to the forest industries and to Federal-State agencies. Forest industry members proposed are representative of the various segments of the industry and well distributed nationally. The seven members from Federal and State agencies represent State foresters, State agricultural experiment stations, State forestry research, State game-fish-park groups, the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, and the Bureau of Land Management.

Cooperation with the independent Commission on Forestry at landgrant and other State institutions has been very helpful in developing this program. This group has been recently expanded to include representatives of all of the 61 institutions certified under the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Research Act.

RECEPTION OF THE PROGRAM

This new program is being enthusiastically received and supported by the participating institutions, States, forest industries, conservation organizations, and cooperating Federal agencies.

Some of this enthusiastic reception stems from the fact that the initiation of this act will help increase and develop the basic and applied research productivity of the forestry schools and forestryrelated departments of State institutions. The funds being made available will help provide assistance to staff and thus increase their research productivity. The training of an increased number of forestry scientists through this program will benefit the entire natural

resources area.

The focusing of attention on forestry research in forestry schools by the McIntire-Stennis Act has resulted in a decided improvement in quality of research project proposals. A similar improvement in quality of research produced is expected as the program develops.

The certified institutions have available a large number of excellent research proposals for future funding under this program. They look forward to the development of these projects and to the training of a larger number of graduate students through McIntire-Stennis and added State funds that it is hoped will become available.

In conclusion let me just say as far as the research is concerned I have been quite close to this, coming from a station in Minnesota, and I think the reception has been remarkable from the standpoint of enthusiasm on the part of the institutions themselves that you might ex