Now, I hope the subcommittee will look at the last paragraph on the first page of Mr. Fletcher's statement in which he says:

Those who realize that it often takes 12 to 15 years to develop a new crop variety recognize that any reduction in farm research programs now will disrupt vital basic and applied research for many years. Unless funds are provided to strengthen present research, current programs cannot be maintained-they will actually be reduced.

Now, you have come here, Mr. Fletcher, suggesting that this Appropriation Subcommittee increase by one-tenth of 1 percent the agricultural budget for the purpose of what-to help about one-third of the gross agricultural production in America. Is that not a fact? Mr. FLETCHER. I think that is an understatement. I think that that is very conservative.

Mr. ANDERSEN. The research that you hope to see accentuated and not lost in the shuffle, because of the present trend toward utilization research, has to do with the major crops of the country with the exception of cotton and tobacco, perhaps.

Mr. FLETCHER. That is right.

Mr. ANDERSEN. I want to point out, Mr. Chairman, all through the years, in my opinion, the Department of Agriculture has been lax in pushing this research as it should in these crops. I will acknowledge it would be more for the Midwest, as far as agriculture is concerned, but here we have wheat, oats, barley, soybeans, flax, buckwheat, corn, rice, sorghum, and forage crops, and these gentlemen are before us today calling to our attention two emergency situations which exist at the present time.

One of them involves the serious rusts of grain crops. I know if we do not give sufficient funds for research in these various groups we are going to suffer, are we not, Mr. Fletcher, by not getting the proper job done in those Puerto Rican plots where you do have an opportunity to make studies of the various kinds of rust under controlled conditions each winter and perhaps do incalculable good for the agriculture of the future? Do you not feel that you are lacking the funds necessary to do a good job down there in Puerto Rico?

Mr. FLETCHER. There is no question about it, the results of this work, if it can be expanded slightly, would give the plant breeders all over the United States, information which would be of tremendous value in the years to come in the control of rusts.

Mr. ANDERSEN. You point out that your second emergency existing at this time has to do with the disease threatening the rice production. Mr. FLETCHER. Hoja blanca.

Mr. ANDERSEN. I was down in Cuba in early December, and I remember then they were very much concerned about the possible spread of that particular disease. I do not know how many millions it would cost the United States if that gets a good foothold in the southern part of the country.

Mr. FLETCHER. The annual crop is worth $225 million to $250 million in the 5 States involved.

Mr. ANDERSEN. It would be very easy to decimate by 10 percent the production in the United States just because of this 1 disease. That is putting it very mildly, is it not?

Mr. FLETCHER. That would be very conservative. We have the record of what has happened when hoja blanca got into the Ven

22911-58-pt. 5- 22

ezuelan and Cuban rice crops. Last year they lost 25 percent of the rice crop in Cuba because of this 1 disease. In one little area in Cuba which I visited last month, ricegrowing was severely curtailed by hoja blanca. Three years ago there were 16 growers of rice in the community I speak of; today there are 3. They grew 15,000 acres of rice 3 years ago; today they are growing less than 3,000 acres.

Mr. ANDERSEN. You state on page 2 of your statement:

All commercial oat varieties, breeding lines and readily usable sources of rust resistants are threatened by new races of both crown rust and stem rust.

The oat crop in America is normally about 1,250 million bushels, is it not?

Mr. FLETCHER. Approximately that.

Mr. ANDERSEN. It is really one of the largest crops, from a bushel standpoint, produced in America of any cereal?

Mr. FLETCHER. I believe it is second only to corn.

Mr. ANDERSEN. There is more weight to the corn, but in bushelage oats is one big crop in America.

Mr. FLETCHER. That is right.

Mr. ANDERSEN. And you say we do not have any variety of oats today that are resistant fully to the encroachment of rust.

Mr. FLETCHER. There is today no commercial variety of oats resistant to the new races now building up that were prevalent in certain areas of the South last year, and we have evidence right at the present time that these races are present and increasing in southern Texas. Mr. ANDERSEN. Now, taking flax as an example, I know, speaking about my own area of the country, we lost at least $5 million in my congressional district last year alone due to this so-called asters yellow disease in flax. Now you have hopes, perhaps, that we could through research discover a cure, or a lessening of that particular blight.

Mr. FLETCHER. There is little reason to doubt that through adequate research the scientists would be able to develop resistant varieties to this flax disease. At the present moment there are none. We do not know whether the yellow aster disease, caused by a virus and spread by a leaf hopper, will occur next year, or whether last year's sudden outbreak was the result of a peak in the population of the insect vector or not. But adequate research will help us to solve that problem more quickly than presents funds permit.

Mr. ANDERSEN. In other words, we are discussing first the oat crop here, which should bring to the farmer about $1.5 billion gross each year, if not $2 billion. And you are asking for a little increment, a little increase in research, to try to develop through breeding in the future some oats which will have improved quality and can withstand the encroachment of rust and other diseases; is that not a fact?

Mr. FLETCHER. We need to have basic research on the facts about rust as well as about the genetic characteristics of the world collection of oats so we will be able to solve a problem quickly when it happens and not wait 6, 8, or 10 years after these epidemics and infestations of diseases and insects occur. Plant public health is of vital importance to the whole economy. The farmers losses are heaviest, while waiting for the development of control measures but handlers, processors, and the general public also lose millions of dollars in handling

charges, labor, markets, and quality. The latter also affects human and animal health.

Mr. ANDERSEN. You cannot turn on and off this spigot of research in these fields just because of the fact that temporarily we have a surplus in production. Four or five years from now we might be crying for more production of these cereal grains. Will you not agree with me it is impossible to shut off research now without paying a heavy bill in the future for so doing?

Mr. FLETCHER. That is exactly right. I think that Mr. Horan would back me up in saying that the smut problem in his area has been one that has been reoccurring over the years. It is a job that is never done. New races of smut come out on new varieties of grains and it is a constant battle to just keep ahead of this destructive disease. Mr. HORAN. Right.

Mr. ANDERSEN. As I understand it, you are requesting for additional research in these cereals and pasture and forage crops a total of $1,560,000, and you hope that consideration will be given by the Congress to such an increase?

Mr. FLETCHER. That is correct.

Mr. ANDERSEN. I want to point out that the sum requested for total crop research in the budget this year is $12,481,200, and consequently, Mr. Fletcher, what you are proposing here constitutes an increase of approximately 15 percent in the budget, taking the whole category as one.

Mr. FLETCHER. That is correct.

Mr. ANDERSEN. Would you not say that even the destruction in 1 year through a bad rust epidemic which might possibly take 20 percent of the oat crop of the Midwest-and that could be done in one rust epidemic-in turn would mean a loss to agriculture and our farmers in the amount of $200 million and would you not say it would be rather shortsightedness on the part of the people of America if they would begrudge a little additional money at this time for such work?

Mr. FLETCHER. The value of the work suggested here, the expansion of this work, would be distributed all over the United States to all of the crops involved-the North, West, East, and South, so that in value of the total crop that we propose to help with research, it is of tremendous importance to the entire economy of the country. You are correct in saying that the losses from any 1 disease in 1 year would pay many years of research even if the present research budget. were increased tenfold.

Mr. ANDERSEN. If we lost 20 percent of the $1 billion oat crop, that would be $200 million. That much money would probably pay 200 years to come in research relative to rust alone, even if the Congress were very liberal.

Now take rice, for example. With the big hoja blanca disease knocking right next door to us down in Cuba, we could easily lose $25 million in our rice production in 1 year if that disease gets a foothold in the Southern States.

Mr. FLETCHER. A quarter of the value of our present rice crop would be $50 million.

Mr. ANDERSEN. We could lose $25 million to $50 million. I like to be conservative.

Mr. FLETCHER. Yes.

Mr. ANDERSEN. And you people are asking for an increase only of one-tenth of 1 percent of the entire agricultural budget this year to help our farmers directly affected; farmers who are involved in onethird of the gross production of crops in America.

Mr. FLETCHER. It seems like a small investment when you consider the stake involved.

Mr. WHITTEN. Along that line-and I agree with the urgent need here we are spending about $12 million in crop research. Now, I have been on this committee a long time, and we have given funds every year for this rust problem. We have had projects going to control rust. We have had breeding going on trying to get ahead of it.

The question arises in my mind-why the extra money? Every time you get a new strain of rust you do not have to have additional money when you already have money dealing with rust. I am strictly for getting the job done, but I do wonder because-and I am not criticizing you every time you go to the Department somebody says. "You get us some more money and we will do it." At least, that is the way it looks sitting on this side of the table. With a $12 million appropriation certainly they should explore every possibility of shifting emphasis before adding to it under the present conditions.

Now, have you given any attention to what they are already doing and where they are doing it? In other words, if this committee were to write in our report for them to give attention to this problem, do you not think it could be done within the $12 million?

Mr. FLETCHER. My facts come from the field and from my visiting the experimental stations, and 80 percent of the money that you people have provided since 1950 has gone into the field. I know of research work that is being done on the field level, which to me is most important, not the administration expenditures in Washington. From time to time Congress has voted, and properly so, increases in grade, automatic raises for scientific personnel, without increased appropriations to take care of these increases, which Congress has ordered, and the increased cost of operations today, research at the laboratory and field level is slipping backward. The above costs must now come out of operational funds and this means less actual research. Reexamination of projects and shifting of funds within A. R. S. helpsit must be done but it is not the complete answer to our present researh needs. I know of dozens of cases of line projects that have less than 1,500 to do all of the work of hiring technical assistance, labor and buying supplies. In some cases the man only has his salary plus hardly enough to get away from his desk. It certainly is inefficient use of scientific brain power to require highly trained scientists to spend their time with routine housekeeping and hand labor which could and should be done by technicians and low-cost labor.

Mr. WHITTEN. Do you mean $12 million in field crops is not adequate to do the job?

Mr. FLETCHER. The money allocated to crop production research on the crops I have mentioned is not adequate to answer the questions agriculture needs answered today. I am only talking about certain of the most important food feed and oil crops where we feel there are soft spots which need strengthening.

Mr. WHITTEN. How long has work in the very things you are talking about been going on, except for these two new diseases?

Mr. FLETCHER. For varying periods, in some cases, 50 years probably.

Mr. WHITTEN. The point is that you do have people doing work along that line now?

Mr. FLETCHER. Indeed, yes.

Mr. WHITTEN. Do they move from one type research to another? Mr. FLETCHER. I am sure 5 to 10 percent of the line projects, as you described them, are being checked off and changed every year.

Mr. WHITTEN. What year was it that we substantially increased this field coverage? Was it last year?

Mr. FLETCHER. It was not last year.

Mr. ANDERSEN. The year before.

Mr. FLETCHER. Two years ago. We came up last year with the needs, as we saw them, and said, "We, in the face of the economy wave, are not asking for any additional funds this year." And you will remember that the Department of Agriculture, as such-with two small exceptions-has not, put a cent into their budget askings for production research on these crops since 1951. And yet these crops are the main food and feed crops of the country.

Mr. WHITTEN. How much work are the State experiment stations doing in that field?

Mr. FLETCHER. On the average they are doing an amount at least equal to that which the Federal Government does.

Mr. WHITTEN. That would be $24 million, then, that is being spent. I can understand this is a problem, but $24 million is a lot of money. You should be able to do a lot of work with that amount in a lot of places.

Mr. ANDERSEN. Mr. Chairman, when you refer to $24 million, that has reference to all research with reference to all cereals. Rust prevention is just a part of it.

Mr. WHITTEN. It could be done with $24 million and a directive from this committee to the Department.

Mr. ANDERSEN. Mr. Chairman, I doubt whether just a directive to the Department to take away from some other research and throw more here would do the job.

Mr. WHITTEN. We would not direct them to take away from any specific thing.

Mr. ANDERSEN. That is what it would amount to.

Mr. WHITTEN. If I had $24 million, I think I could find places where we had finished the job and could move over. If every time something new comes up you give them additional money, it just keeps piling up.

A lot of people judge research by how much money you put into it rather than the results. Unfortunately, it looks to me like in the press, on the floor of Congress, and elsewhere we judge research by how much money is spent rather than results. You cannot have research without money, but every time a new wrinkle comes up it is used as a basis for requesting additional funds. If we gave extra money each time we wanted something new done, we would get very few results in comparison with the cost.