That committee, made up of research people, first tries to consider what are the problems of the whole region in terms of soils and fertilizers and related work. In working out a program, we try to see what programs are of interest only to particular States. Those programs are assigned right away to those States.

Then we will come to an area of work that is of concern maybe to 2 or 3 States, or maybe to all States in the region. If you can do the work by having a portion of it done in Idaho, a portion in Washington, and a portion in Oregon and can come out with these total results, this, again, will usually be a State job that they will do.

But frequently you will find there is some underlying problem that will apply to all of the States, and in terms of the most effective use of the money, that had better be done in one place for the whole area. That is the kind of job the Federal Bureau comes into, and generally in that case there is cooperation both in funds and personnel with the States working with us on that program.

I am very aware of the fact that with a project showing up such as the use of fertilizers on corn, let us say, in Iowa, and another in Ohio, and another in Minnesota, it would appear there was duplication; but the soil is different and the climatic conditions are different. You must make the application on the soils of the particular area in which you are concerned.

Many people in many States, with the help and cooperation of the Department, may be studying something that appears to be a very closely related piece of work. We do very definitely attempt to eliminate all unnecessary duplication, but when you get right down to it, in Iowa they have 12 different regions where you have to have 12 different hybrids. When you move to another State you have another situation. You have to have different fertilizer methods.

So, in terms of getting this research information adopted over the country, you must have applications in specific areas. The Federal Government comes in whenever we are working on a problem of regional and national interest, and where it seems feasible and advisable for the work to be done centrally for a region rather than each State doing it independently.

COORDINATION OF WORK ON MECHANIZATION

In the other illustration that you gave on mechanization of farming operations, under the Agricultural Marketing Act the mechanization we do there is after the produce leaves the farm, trying to mechanize the off-farm handling. The Bureau of Plant Industry does have studies on mechanization. We are attempting to work in cooperation with the States and to utilize the Federal effort in work that has regional interest over, say, the Southeastern part of the United States, or in the Great Plains, or wherever there is regional interest cutting across the States, and where we feel that through cooperation we can save expense.

Mr. ANDERSEN. My questions are asked not in the spirit of criticism. whatsoever. But I do think this subcommittee should go into this matter each year, so as to prevent the wastage of money where possible. After all, such wastage would impair the good name of your organization.

CENTRAL PROJECT OFFICE

Dr. SHAW. I think one of the most effective means of preventing duplication is the Central Project Office I mentioned, where we have a copy of every project that is going on.

Mr. ANDERSEN. Tell us about the setup of that particular Central Project Office.

Dr. SHAW. We have in this central project file all the projects of the Department and of the States. About 12,000 projects, Federal and State, are cataloged by agency and by subject matter. Say we have in the file a heading that says "Forage crops," and under that we will have "Breeding on forage crops." We have all the projects on breeding together so that anybody can inspect them.

I have today eight research coordinators who are analyzing these things all the time, and when there is any apparent problem, we look into it. We look into it immediately.

The file is shown in this picture. It is a file that we can get at quickly. We keep that on a day-to-day basis, and each month we send out a published list to our own people and to the State experiment stations of every new project started and every project discontinued during the month, so that we not only keep our Department informed, but we keep every State informed. If anyone conceives any duplication, he will be writing to us.

This is a list of new and discontinued projects for January 1953 in the Department. This information goes to all the administrative people in the Department and all the administrative people in the State experiment stations so that we can keep current on the projects. We have our project file current daily.

FOLLOWUP PROCEDURE

Mr. ANDERSEN. Mr. Horan, do you have a question?

Mr. HORAN. Yes. Dr. Shaw, I would like to have you tell me what procedures you go through in order to justify a project, and also what procedures you follow to check on that project, and what procedures you have to terminate a project.

Dr. SHAW. Mr. Horan, I have previously described procedures for justifying a project. With your permission, I will confine this discussion to the followup and termination of projects. When a new project is approved it is approved for a definite time, say 1, 2 or, 3 years. No project is approved for more than 5 years. If any work is carried on beyond the original termination date, it must first be reviewed, and I must be satisfied that an extension is advisable. Any project that has been conducted for 5 years must be rewritten. It is subjected then to exactly the same procedure as is used in starting new work.

RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMODITY COMMITTEE

Mr. WHITTEN. I recognize, Dr. Shaw, having gone through this for a period of years, some of the problems confronting you. One of the things that I take some pride in is that as the chairman for some time, we on the committee changed the operation of the research. activities of the Department of Agriculture.

When we took over, the appropriation was in three categories: We had the Research and Marketing Act, we had regular research, and we had the Secretary's special research fund. Only the portion of that under the Research and Marketing Act of 1946 provided for review by the commodity committees. It was quite a powerful position for the members of this subcommittee to be in, because it gave them considerable control over individual products.

In our effort to see that this money went to places that it should and that the efforts were directed to the problems that should be solved, this committee directed that all of these funds be lumped together, and all research activities of the Department be subject to the review of the commodity committees instead of only those under the Research and Marketing Act.

Thus, any research in the Department of Agriculture is subject to the study and recommendations of the commodity committees, with the people in private business on the committee presenting the problem with recommendations to you folks and vice versa. I have been pleased to see the way that has worked.

What percentage of the things that the advisory committee people, people in the trade, ask you to do, are you able to do, and what percentage of such requests do you have to turn down? Your best estimate on that would be sufficient.

Dr. SHAW. In terms of the review that they made last year, after they had gone over all the work, suggesting possible terminations and changes, they recommended enough new work to require a total of $31 million more than what we have.

Mr. WHITTEN. So you do have, then, people in the business throughout the country wanting to do $31 million more work than you have the money with which to do it.

Dr. SHAW. Yes.

Mr. WHITTEN. So that provides incentive on the part of the folks in the business to try to make certain that the work actually done will bring results.

And do you not think that is about as good a whiplash as any group could have? Naturally it is going to make you move on from that which has already been answered, or that which should be abandoned, into some new field where there is a great need.

Dr. SHAW. I am sure that the greatest guaranty that the work we are doing is deemed most important is the fact that there are so many problems that need to be attacked. Therefore, we strive to not spend any money unless it is on something that is highly important.

Mr. WHITTEN. And the folks who have the problems, and who know the problems, are on the commodity committee and are familiar with what is being done all the time.

Dr. SHAW. They are.

AREAS NEEDING INCREASED RESEARCH

Mr. WHITTEN. I would like to ask you to point out in the record, if you care to, the places in research where increased activity may be more needed than elsewhere. I would not expect you to do that offhand, probably you would want to prepare some statement for the record.

Mr. HORAN. May I ask a question right there, Mr. Whitten?

Mr. WHITTEN. Certainly.

Mr. HORAN. To point out my interest in bringing this research. close to the farmer, where the farmer might feel some interest in it. Dr. SHAW. You would like to have me put a statement concerning that in the record?

Mr. HORAN. Yes. I do not want to discolor Mr. Whitten's request. Mr. WHITTEN. Not at all.

Mr. ANDERSEN. Without objection that will be included in the record at this point.

(The information requested follows:)

THE PLACES IN RESEARCH WHERE INCREASED ACTIVITY MAY BE NEEDED MORE THAN ELSEWHERE

It is difficult to single out particular areas of research that are more in need of strengthening than others. We make a concerted effort to maintain a balanced program within whatever funds are available to us. Actually, most agricultural research will have to be strengthened if the Nation's needs for agricultural products and services are to be satisfied in the years ahead. In my opinion, the increases in the fiscal year 1954 budget for research provide for expanding the No. 1 priority items. In developing the budget within the funds allowed, I selected these items on the basis of their urgency. If additional areas of research could be expanded I would place emphasis on the following items:

(1) Diseases and insects affecting both plants and animals. Wheat smut in the Northwest and vesicular exanthema disease of hogs are examples of the problems.

(2) Plant, animal, and human nutrition. Basic physiological studies of nutrient uses and requirements are needed.

(3) Soils and irrigation. Water will set the ceiling on crop yields. We need to develop methods of soil and watershed management to increase the efficiency of water use in both humid and arid regions.

(4) Farm mechanization. Labor-saving devices for farm operations are of critical importance to farmers.

(5) Food and feed preservation. We can bring greater stability to agriculture if we can develop methods of converting perishables into acceptable products that may be stored.

(6) New and improved uses of agricultural products. Agricultural markets are getting away from us because we are not developing and improving our products as fast as competitive products are being developed and improved.

(7) Marketing. Additional studies are needed to cope with current problems arising as the result of declining foreign markets, accumulating or impending surpluses, and falling prices for agricultural products.

(8) Survey of soil and forest resources. An accurate knowledge of our resources is required for efficient management.

Mr. ANDERSEN. Mr. Hunter.

MERIT OF SOME RESEARCH PROJECTS QUESTIONED

Mr. HUNTER. With reference to agricultural research, I think with the passing of time there have developed a number of frills-I think we can all agree on that-and these frills cannot all be declared useless, but I personally question the value of many of them at a time when we are faced with a tremendous national debt and a multi-billiondollar deficit during the next fiscal year, as well as the current one. I have thumbed through this magazine on agricultural research for January-February 1953, which has been furnished us this morning, and note an item here entitled "Saving on Cotton." The first paragraph reads:

The new cotton-opening and cotton-fluffing machine developed by the Bureau of Agricultural and Industrial Chemistry is proving its merit. Textile mills have installed at least 13 of the openers, which make cotton clean easier and spin better.

FARM HOUSING RESEARCH

I would not think of questioning the value of research that will develop a machine of that type. But I turn to pages 8 and 9, a two-page spread entitled "The Farmer Grows a House," and we find a picture with the statement underneath, "Dining area is set off with 2-by-4 trellis that keeps room light and airy."

And then another picture with the statement "Kitchen includes laundry area (at left, not shown). One counter section is built for seated work," and so forth.

Frankly, you can read such material month after month in House Beautiful, American Home, Better Homes and Gardens, Sunset, and other similar magazines. that do not cost more than 50 cents. As a matter of fact, practically all of them are available at public libraries, and there is hardly a building contractor in the United States who will not furnish on request pictures of this type, as well as floor plans. I think this is something that private enterprise is taking care of adequately and can be done without benefit of Government assist

ance.

I would like to know just how much money is being spent annually on a project of this type.

Mr. HORAN. Could I say just a word there, Mr. Hunter?

Mr. HUNTER. Yes, of course.

Mr. HORAN. This is the type of project that probably should have a beginning, middle, and an end. Along with Mr. Hunter's question of Dr. Shaw, you recall that some 3 or 4 years ago we required the Bureau of Agricultural Engineering to develop a type of low-cost expandable house, and in that regard I think they have done a pretty good job. Presumably, it was a project that should be through, should it not?

Dr. SHAW. You will also remember, in connection with what you are just saying, that we needed some housing for dairy milkers out at the Research Center, and after discussing the matter with this committee it was decided that we ought to kill two birds with one stone. While we were putting up the smaller houses for dairy milkers, we ought to try to develop plans that we could then make available to farmers for building their own.

So, in this project, while we were building the house for dairy milkers, we brought in the agricultural engineers of the Bureau of Plant Industry, and some folks from the Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home Economics, too, to try to decide on the type of house that could be built easily by a farmer and that would incorporate some of the more desirable features. Those houses are coming to a close; yes. Mr. HUNTER. These plans are shown week after week in such magazines as House Beautiful and Better Homes and Gardens, indicating that you can get as much living space as they can here out of so many square feet of building space, and the idea of combining a living room and a dining room, of combining a den with a bathroom, such as indicated in these pictures, I again say is something you can see every week printed in newspapers and magazines. And, frankly, I just cannot see the value of it. Apparently it originated with instructions from the committee that something should be done to find an expandable house for farmers, but every Saturday afternoon you can