May I say, in my own State, my relations have been very cordial and I have no complaint whatsoever. But I do recognize that you have described some of the problems which we can see in the field. Dr. KNOBLAUCH. As Dr. Byerly said, the problem is not entirely resolved. But remarkable progress has been made in the last 2 to 3 years, and we look forward to greater progress as we move forward. Mr. WHITTEN. Thank you, Dr. Knoblauch. Now, we turn back to Dr. Byerly.

Mr. HORAN. Mr. Chairman ?

Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Horan.

TOBACCO RESEARCH

Mr. HORAN. I just noticed here, under the word "tobacco" yesterday as you know there was a bill up that was rejected by the Rules Committee for a program to look into something to offset the HEW report on the use of tobacco.

On page 11 of Dr. Byerly's statement he has this to say:

Not all the major commodity oriented research programs use regional research programs for concentration and coordination of research effort. Tobacco, for example, is among the first five commodities in terms of cash receipts in eight States. Cash receipts from tobacco in 1962 were $1.3 billion. The State agricultural experiment stations in 14 States supported 59 projects related to tobacco in 1963 for which they expended about $949,000. There is excellent cooperation in tobacco research between these States and USDA agencies. Research on tobacco, especially research to eliminate ingredients in cigarette smoke which may be detrimental to human health, will be initiated or accelerated in cooperation with medical schools or other health-related research agencies when appropriate.

I wonder if you could give us a concrete breakdown of how you would go about doing that, and where.

Dr. BYERLY. One State that is obviously interested in this, and I talked to the director, is Kentucky. Another State that has obvious interest in it is North Carolina. There may be others.

We have written to each of the States in which tobacco is a major commodity, asking them, pointing out the total research program as we detailed it here by project, and asking them what are your intentions with respect to this particular problem.

As Dr. Brady testified before the House Agriculture Committee, the problem is not yet defined. We do not know whether or not there is a substance in tobacco that is in itself harmful when burned, as against some other kind of material, or whether it is the process of burning that produces the harmful materials. This is a researchable area. Until we can tie it down and do more work on the burning of tobacco, and tie it down to something in tobacco, we can't answer this question. But it is a researchable area and we will do our best to persuade the States to increase and accelerate their work in this area and we think they will.

Mr. HORAN. How will you coordinate all this, through your review and so forth?

Dr. BYERLY. As far as we are concerned, CSRS is a part of the Department of Agriculture, and one of Dr. Brady's jobs is to see that we get along with one another and work together. There is no question but that USDA and CSRS and the experiment stations will in fact work together. Whether or not we shall convene a meet

ing of the representatives from these 14 States has not yet been determined. I want first to see what their response is, to see whether such a meeting would be fruitful in planning in this area.

Dr. KNOBLAUCH. Mr. Horan, Dr. Byerly, I should have pointed out previously that the CSRS technial staff reviews all Department of Agriculture line projects as well as State experiment station projects. We have an opportunity to review the proposals and make comments before work is started.

Mr. HORAN. The proposal that was, I think, before the Rules Committee involved the building of buildings to house this. Mr. Natcher, who is interested in this, has pointed out that might mean that they would get down to brass tacks in one-half, 2, or even as much as 3 years from now.

Dr. BYERLY. My opinion is that facilities would be useful but the timelag is perfectly obvious. In the meantime it is incumbent upon us not only in the expermient stations but in the Department to do what we can within existing facilities. This will not, I think, preclude a need for a facility. But I think there are a good many things that can be done before a facility is provided.

Mr. HORAN. If the facility already exists, can't they be pressed into duty?

Dr. BYERLY. I can only say in my opinion no one facility now exists, nor no collection of facilities that would collectively be adequate to the problem as it is visualized. But we can do more than we are now doing.

Dr. BRADY. May I state, Mr. Horan, that you may recall in the Agricultural Research Service hearings we pointed out that the inhouse scientists of the Department had been asked to evaluate their program and to see the nature of the work that should be done in the future.

At the same time that this request was made of the Agricultural Research Service, the same request was made of the Cooperative State Research Service, and the heads of those two agencies have been asked to be certain that in their planning, insofar as practicable, that they try to develop a single coordinated plan and not two completely separate ones that might be in competition.

As soon as Dr. Byerly does hear from the State stations in terms of what their initial plans are, it will be determined whether it is necessary for us all to sit down together. But we do not have any intention of, if we get the funds to do the job, sitting down and waiting until facilities are available because some work can be done and started immediately in cooperation with the States and other Federal agencies. Mr. HORAN. Have you seen the new facilities at Lexington, Ky.? Dr. BYERLY. Yes.

Mr. NATCHER. Dr. Byerly, have you seen the facilities?

Dr. BYERLY. I have been in Kentucky and I have seen at least some of them, Mr. Natcher.

Mr. NATCHER. How long ago was that, Dr. Byerly?

Dr. BYERLY. That is what I am trying to remember, when I was last in Kentucky. It has been more than a year.

Mr. NATCHER. Will you look at this picture? This is the research facility, a $4.5 million facility. That building was dedicated on December 5, 1963. You can also see the hothouse. Here is the medical research facility, near this parking facility. This is about a $10 million project. You may have seen the medical research building.

Dr. BYERLY. Yes, sir.

Mr. NATCHER. I doubt if you have seen the new agricultural research_building and tobacco laboratory.

Dr. BYERLY. No; I have not. I have seen a portion of the other. Mr. NATCHER. Your statement a few minutes ago that there were no facilities in existence now that were capable of handling this program can be debated.

Dr. BYERLY. Mr. Natcher, I don't remember my statement quite as you have stated it. I said I didn't think there was one facility now in existence that was equal to all of the problem as it was foreseeable. Mr. NATCHER. Thank you, Mr. Horan.

Mr. HORAN. It looks to me like this is a good field to do a bangup job in. A good share of that, I assume, Mr. Natcher, is predicated on income from tobacco sales, isn't it?

Mr. NATCHER. You are correct.

Mr. HORAN. That is all.

That is going on right now, your contact?

Dr. BYERLY. Oh, yes. Yes, this is currently underway.

Dr. BRADY. May I comment that just this last week I had some discussions with the dean of the College of Agriculture at Kentucky relative to the possible contributions that might be made in his State in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. So you can see that we have made contacts there, and we want to include what might be done there as part of this total effort.

Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Natcher may be too modest. Quite candidly, last year we provided up to $25 million of section 32 funds to increase the domestic use of basic commodities. None of it is appropriated unless Congress does it each year to increase the domestic use of basic commodities.

With a medical center at this point, with a $4.5 million new laboratory at this point, and with a cooperative program in existence, this is a readymade situation.

Mr. NATCHER. Mr. Chairman, I wish you would leave it in. I want to say on the record that I certainly agree with you. Mr. WHITTEN. You might proceed, Dr. Byerly.

FEDERAL FUNDS AT THE STATE STATIONS

Dr. BYERLY. Let's proceed to the addendum to my statement, which has reference to the response to the House Appropriations Committee request. I will offer for the record the addendum and the exhibits.

Mr. Chairman, in offering it, I do not wish to presume that you will wish to include in the record all of these documents or not. That, sir, is obviously up to you.

Mr. WHITTEN. I will let you use your judgment.

Dr. BYERLY. Then I will offer it for the record and read the initial page. [Reading:]

The committee requests that full information showing amounts of such grants and contracts to the State experiment stations and the purposes of the research be presented each year in as much detail as possible as a part of the supporting material for the regular annual Federal appropriations.

The substantial and apparently increasing amount of project grant funds, currently about $20 million, available to research workers in the State agricultural experiment stations is yielding excellent returns in research achievement to the benefit of agriculture as well as to the

research programs of the State agricultural experiment stations and of the several Federal granting agencies.

We have reviewed the nature and location of such research through correspondence and conference with station directors and research investigators by review of information published by the granting agencies and through the Agricultural Board of the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council.

It is our conclusion that (1) project grant funds are used for research relevant to the missions of the respective granting agenciesand the report contains an excerpt of their missions and principally for basic research; and (2) that the availability of such funds does not reduce the need for funds for research on problems confronting agriculture.

The complementary use of funds from Hatch, non-Federal, and project grant sources in building an effective program of research designed to contribute to the solution of urgent problems of mutual concern to Agriculture and other agencies is illustrated by the following example from the New Jersey station.

Unless you wish me to, I will not read that statement. It is an excellent one but I will not read it.

Mr. WHITTEN. We will read it later.

Dr. BYERLY. The second attachment, the breakdown by disciplines, may be a matter of some interest and you may wish to refer to it. (The addendum and exhibits referred to follow :)

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH SERVICE

AN ADDENDUM TO THE STATEMENT OF THEODORE C. BYERLY, ADMINISTRATOR (Response to the following House Appropriation Committee request (p. 17 of H. Rept. No. 355))

"The committee requests that full information showing amounts of such grants and contracts to the State experiment stations and the purposes of the research be presented each year in as much detail as possible as a part of the supporting material for the regular annual Federal appropriations."

The substantial and apparently increasing amount of project grant funds, currently about $20 million, available to research workers in the State agriculture experiment stations are yielding excellent returns in research achievement to the benefit of agriculture as well as to the research programs of the State agricultural experiment stations and of the several Federal granting agencies. We have reviewed the nature and location of such research through correspondence and conference with station directors and research investigators by review of information published by the granting agencies and through the Agricultural Board of the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council.

It is our conclusion that (1) project grant funds are used for research relevant to the missions of the respective granting agencies, and principally for basic research; and (2) that the availability of such funds does not reduce the need for funds for research on problems confronting agriculture.

The complementary use of funds from Hatch, non-Federal and project grant sources in building an effective program of research designed to contribute to the solution of urgent problems of mutual concern to Agriculture and other agencies is illustrated by the following example from the New Jersey station.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE GRANT PROJECT ES-0001601: FATE OF PESTICIDES, AND RELATED STATE AND USDA SUPPORTED RESEARCH IN THE NEW JERSEY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

The New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station is the major publicly sup ported research organization in New Jersey. It therefore must be mindful of the research needs of this, the Nation's most urbanized State, in not only agricul tural production and utilization but also, and by legislative mandate, in resource conservation and environmental science. Recognition of this level of research obligation is reflected in there being in the college of agriculture and agricultural

experiment station a department of environmental science and, an additional organization, a bureau of conservation and environmental science. The community of interest shared by researchers involves many factors but few, if any, are more important than pesticides. The pesticide research and service program in the college currently involves five departments and a bureau. A brief description of the current program in these units is presented along with an explanation of the complementary nature of U.S. Public Health Service grant ES-0016-01: Fate of Pesticides, which will be activated March 1, 1964. Entomology and economic zoology

Research in this department is directed toward measures that will give more efficient control of noxious pests and protect beneficial organisms such as pollinators, parasites, predators, scavengers, etc. This work is being carried out in many ways. Department and industrial agencies are cooperating in the laboratory to find newer and safer chemicals for use. When a new chemical is found it is tested extensively in the laboratory and under field conditions to determine its merit as a pesticide, and coincidentally residue studies are conducted in cooperation with the department of agricultural chemistry and industrial agencies. In these field studies with insecticides, determinations are also made on their effect on other organisms in aquatic, air, and land environments. In this connection, the freedom to carry on experiments in the field with new materials has been an important factor in the successful development of adequate control measures. Simultaneously, basic toxicological and physiological research is being carried on which has as its ultimate goal the elucidation of the ways in which chemicals kill insects. Finally, studies of other means of insect control are being conducted in the physical and biological areas, for the most successful insect control practices are the result of the integration of chemical measures with physical and biological measures.

The above program consists of 34 research projects, 11 of which are supported in part from Hatch funds and 2 of which are supported in part from grants from the USPHS. Recent findings by insect physiologists in the department that a strain of insects was susceptible to tumor formation led to the submission of project proposals to the American Cancer Society and the U.S. Public Health Service for the support of more detailed investigations. These proposals were funded. With the development of the interdisciplinary proposal on "Fate of Pesticides," the insect physiologists saw an opportunity to further expand these investigations into tumor formation by determining the effects of continuous sublethal dosages, particularly with reference to site of action and physiological mechanisms involved. This work under ES-00016-01 not only complements research findings under State- and Hatch-supported projects but also findings under American Cancer Society and USPHS grant supported research.

Plant biology

The advent of chemicals that are effective in the control of important diseases of food crops was an important factor in the formation of the department of plant pathology in 1911. Up to 1949, most of the research on chemicals for plant disease control was concerned with the effectiveness of chemicals in the control of the disease without injury to the plant. New compounds introduced in the post-World War II period possessed toxicological characteristics which necessitated not only data on effective disease control but also on the disappearance rate of the chemical and chemical residues remaining in or on plants at harvest. Thus residue studies became a routine part of the evaluation of potential fungicides, viricides, and bacteriacides for use in plant disease control. In recommending the use of pesticide chemicals, the department of plant biology, soil and crops, entomology and food science consider the safety of the user of the chemical, and the protection of food commodities from impaired odors and flavors and, most important, from harmful residues.

Soils and crops

In 1947, promise of control of economically important weeds through the use of chemicals led to the establishment of a cooperative professional position and program in the department of soils and crops. The importance of herbicide residues was immediately recognized and within a decade all chemical studies included consideration of the residue problem. Currently, all new and promising herbicidal chemicals are evaluated for residues. Analytical work is performed within the college with the cooperation of the department of agricultural chemistry; approximately half the analyses are performed by cooperating industrial laboratories.