Resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Mississippi, the State Senate concurring therein, That the representatives of this State in the United States Congress give thought and study to a plan for the distribution of surplus food commodities by the United States Department of Agriculture and allied agencies through retail grocers rather than through the county departments of public welfare and the county governments of the State of Mississippi. SECTION 32 FUNDS WITNESS HON. LEE METCALF, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA Mr. WHITTEN. Our next witness is our colleague from Montana, Mr. Metcalf. We will be glad to hear from you now, Mr. Metcalf. Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to speak for the Montana congressional delegation and the people we represent on behalf of major changes in the budget_requests for the Department of Agriculture during fiscal 1959. Senator Murray, Senator Mansfield, and Congressman LeRoy Anderson have gone over my statement today and have asked me to associate them with my remarks. I am appalled at the callous disregard of human suffering shown by this administration in failing to spend available section 32 funds for food for our needy. I am advised that $514.1 million in section 32 funds are available for use during this fiscal year, but that only about $150 millionor less than one-third of the amount available-will be spent. In the preceding 2 fiscal years, the Secretary has had available a total of more than $900 million in section 32 funds. He spent $361 million of it. In fiscal 1957, the Secretary spent $142.9 million of section 32 funds. That same year, the Department spent almost $90 million, or three-fifths of that amount, on feed for livestock in flood and drought disaster areas. This is not to criticize disaster-relief programs for livestock. It is to remind the administration that people are important, too. Mr. Chairman, as you know, we have 5 million unemployed in this country. The Pacific Northwest has been hit the hardest. As of the most recent report I have seen, the one of February 15 from the Department of Labor, Montana had the highest rate of unem ployment in the Nation. On that date, 14.2 percent of those covered by unemployment compensation were jobless. The situation is virtually the same in Idaho, Washington, and Oregon. Unemployment has continued until unemployment compensation benefits are running out for about 35,000 persons a week. Today it is estimated that 2 million of these unemployed are without any income whatever. These men and their families are destitute. They turn to local welfare agencies and find that the only food available for donation. is rice, process cheese, nonfat dry milk solids, butter, cornmeal, and wheat flour. At the same time, the Secretary of Agriculture has $360 million available to supplement their meager diet and help our depressed farmers. It is shocking that he does not propose to spend This callous disregard of human suffering is a far cry from a campaign promise, made by General Eisenhower at Lynn, Mass., on October 21, 1952, when he said that if there is any sign on the horizon of a recession or an economic collapse, the full power of Government will be instantly marshaled, instantly concentrated and localized to prevent that kind of catastrophe in this country. School-lunch people in the Agriculture Department tell me there was "very little section 32 activity" as far as their program was concerned this year. That program distributed some dried whole eggs, canned grapefruit sections, and converted some raw peanuts into peanut butter. I oppose requested cuts in Rural Electrification Administration and Farmers' Home Administration loan authorizations. Both should be increased instead of decreased, for credit programs are becoming more essential every day. The authorization for rural electrification and telephone loans, which totaled $239 million this year, would be cut $33 million, to $206 million next year. FHA authorizations for farm ownership and farm housing, farm operation (production and subsistence), and soil and water conservation would be cut $67.5 million, to $381 million from $448.5 million. You will recall that, in his budget message, President Eisenhower said he was recommending important revisions in our price support, conservation, and rural credit programs to place them on a sounder long-term basis with less reliance on the Federal Treasury. In the Department's justification of the proposed REA loan authorization cut, it was said that the reduction anticipates that legislation will be submitted to the Congress for its consideration which would make it possible for the borrowers to obtain funds from private sources through insurance of loans by the Federal Government, or by the subordination of prior liens. Of the total requested for REA, $150 million would go for electrification at a time when I am informed the need is for $325 million. The administration has taken an untenable position in support of legislation to send the successful REA program into the private money market for the funds it must have if it is to continue to meet the growing needs of its almost 5 million consumers. Adoption of the proposals would destroy REA, as General Manager Clyde Ellis, of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, has pointed out in an excellent analysis beginning on page 2846 of the March 3, 1958, issue of the Congressional Record. In addition to opposing the FHA loan authorization reduction, I also oppose the administration's request for authority to lump the funds together and shift them from one program to another as the Department sees fit. Under such an arrangement, the Secretary could shut off all funds to one particular program if he chose. To date, I have not been impressed by Secretary Benson's judgment on farm program. I note that the budget proposes an advance authorization of $125 million for the 1959 agricultural conservation program. This advance should be doubled. It is my earnest hope you will find it possible for even more money to be allocated to them for fiscal 1959 than they have had in the past. The folks in Fort Smith who are doing this job are operating on a shoe string. They have had some help from the University of Arkansas, and are providing additional necessary funds from their own pockets. I wish to thank you gentlemen again for all you have done for this marketing news service in previous years. You have been very considerate. Whatever recommendation you can make to help these people in the coming year will be appreciated. AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM I would also like to take this opportunity to make a statement in behalf of funds for the agricultural conservation program. A number of farmers in my district have told me this is one of the most valuable programs to help small farmers of any administered by the Department of Agriculture. In the years to come it may be just as important to our people in the cities, because it is based on the idea of conserving our soil and water resources. It is my understanding the Budget request for fiscal 1959 is only one-half of what has been appropriated in each of the last several years. In my opinion the Congress should continue to provide adequate support for this conservation program. It is my sincere plea that you gentlemen seriously consider the merits of this great program, and if you think more funds should be provided than the budget has requested, then recommend a greater figure. Thank you. Mr. WHITTEN. Thank you. It is always a pleasure to hear from you. I have received statements from various Members of Congress and others who have requested that they be made a part of the record. Without objection, they will be inserted into the record at this point. (The requests and statements are as follows:) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, UNITED STATES, Hon. JAMIE L. WHITTEN, House Appropriations Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR JAMIE: Herewith is a proposal and a statement of justification for the establishment of a regional Agricultural Engineering Laboratory at North Carolina State College for studies in pesticide control. This proposal addresses itself directly to research for the protection of the health of all our citizens and to pesticide engineering developments that could mean savings into millions of dollars for our farmers. I should greatly appreciate your bringing this proposal before your subcommittee, for serious consideration of an appropriation of funds to get this work under way. Please make this proposal and the supporting material a part of the printed record of your hearings, so that it may be studied by all Members of the House. With every good wish, I am, Sincerely yours, HAROLD D. COOLEY, Chairman. Hon. HAROLD D. COOLEY, NORTH CAROLINA State COLLEGE, RALEIGH, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. COOLEY: The use of greater and more powerful chemicals to control insects and plant diseases has increased the residue problem on farm crops, seriously increasing the health hazard to humans and animals. In addition, the inefficient methods of application of these pesticides are costing farmers large sums of money. The need is to develop more efficient means of applying these pesticides as well as the development of new application principles for the use of selective fungus or virus diseases capable of destroying insects but not harmful to humans or animals. Because of the climate and the specialized nature of many of the crops raised in the East and Southeast, control of insects and plant diseases has always been of primary importance to the farmer. For example, in the application of over 2 million pounds of insecticides and fungicides on tobacco and over 25 million pounds of dust on cotton in North Carolina alone, in 1954 less than one-fifth was of any value to the farmer because of the inefficient methods of application. These inefficient application methods cost the farmers $1,800,000 for cotton alone. Recent studies in engineering have opened up new methods by which the efficiency of dusting and spraying might be improved, electrostatic precipitation being one of these methods. Other recent biological studies have indicated new means of control of insects through selective fungus or virus diseases. Means must be developed for applying these new materials. It is therefore proposed that a regional agricultural engineering laboratory for studies in pesticide control be established at North Carolina State College for studies on deposition efficiency of pesticides, since North Carolina is unique in growing almost all of the crops grown throughout the eastern seaboard. This laboratory would be set up in the environmentally controlled research facilities of the new Agricultural Engineering Building. Studies of this nature carried out cooperatively with the entomology and plant pathology departments would certainly make a meaningful contribution to agriculture. Very truly yours, N. W. WELDON, Research Assistant Professor. THE NEED FOR A REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY FOR STUDIES IN PESTICIDE CONTROL The rising technology of agriculture with the resulting efficiency and intensification of production has caused the problems of pest control, both plant and animal, to be increasingly acute. Despite the development of more powerful and effective pesticides, the primary method of application of these materials through spraying or dusting remains quite inefficient. According to estimates, only 10 to 20 percent of the material applied as dust by commercial equipment is deposited on the plant surfaces in such a manner as to be effective. The hard methods of shaking a sack of dust over the plant or cranking a knapsack duster, both commonly used on tobacco farms, would be even less efficient. Little is known of the efficiency of deposition of sprays or fogs on both animals and plants. In addition, the effectiveness of most insecticides is temporary. The efficiency of pesticide application is of considerable economic importance. For example, in the case of plants a 1954 survey covering 40 counties in North Carolina indicated that approximately 2,450,000 pounds of insecticide were used on 430,241 acres of tobacco in the field with another 445,000 pounds being used in plant beds. At 20 percent efficiency, 2,316,000 pounds of this material were of no value to the farmer. During the same year 25 million pounds of insecticides were used on cotton in North Carolina, of which probably 20 million pounds were of no value, costing the farmers $1,800,000 (at 9 cents per pound). When we consider that approximately 1,250 million pounds of agricultural dusts are used by American farmers each year, it would appear that any increase in efficiency would be of considerable economic importance. Engineering studies to date indicate that there are four major physical forces aiding or hindering deposition of dusts or spray particles. These are electrical forces, which act to attract or repel charged particles; inertia forces, which act 22911-58-pt. 5-5 to remove particles from a diverted air stream; gravitational forces, which tend to precipitate the particles from the air suspension; and thermal forces, which tend to aid or hinder deposition. Theoretical analysis as well as experimental results indicate that for many pesticides the control probability can be maintained at reduced dosages (resulting in reduced residues) by decreasing pesticide particle size. This knowledge, however, cannot be utilized with present equipment because the principles upon which they function—that is, inertia and friction charging-result in a decrease in deposition with decreased particle size. On the other hand, experimental results with charging the particles with ionized electrical field have increased deposition by a 4 to 1 ratio independently of particle size within the size limits of today's dust. In addition, thermal forces are relatively unexplored yet hold considerable promise for the small particle sizes. All of these forces in combination with varying particles in the form of dust, spray and fog offer considerable promise. Research is needed, however, to explore deeply these opportunities and to develop therefrom more effective principles for farm use. Recently entomologists have opened a new area of insect control in the application of pathogens (virus, bacterial, and fungus diseases) to control insect pests. The possibilities of this method of control through the introduction of selective diseases to control insects without harming either plant or animal life challenge the imagination. Yet we know little of means for depositing the spores of these viruses, bacteria, and fungi most effectively. Considerable attention has been focused on the effects of insecticide and fungicide residues on humans and animals consuming the crops. It is recognized that in many cases the amount of residue on plants is in excess of the allow ances generally established by the Pure Food and Drug regulations. In the absence of efficient means for applying chemicals, farmers are using greater quantities of both approved and unapproved chemicals to get control. His produce with the residues can find markets through uncontrolled channels. We must increase the efficiency in the use of these insecticides or face potential trouble. The use of selective pathogens may be a solution to this problem. For example, Bacillus thuringensis has been tested for 2 years against hornworms and results indicate that it is more effective than any chemical insecticide, has no effect on the plant, and is harmless to men. In addition to the problem of deposition efficiency, many additional problems of importance remain unsolved. Improved metering devices are needed as well as improved dust and spray applicators. Since few farmers in the East today can economically justify the use of commercial high clearance equipment. efforts need to be devoted to the development of efficient sprayers and dusters which they could afford. The potential use of pathogens in insect control requires the development of production and handling techniques and equipment for these studies as there is no present source other than small-scale laboratory production. Thus it is seen that the control of insects and plant diseases is a problem with which farmers and others must contend to an increasing degree. The longterm problem of insecticide residues in the soil and on the crop and its effect on humans along with the outlandish costs of present methods prohibit the simple expedient of using greater amounts of increasingly powerful materials to achieve control. Instead, means must be found by which the precision of application of dusts and sprays can be increased and the application of pathogens explored. OPPORTUNITIES OFFERED BY NORTH CAROLINA 1. Almost all of the major crops of eastern United States, such as corn. cotton, tobacco, peanuts, small grains, and vegetable crops are produced in the State, as well as orchard crops. Tobacco has 6 insect pests and at least 9 fungus diseases. Cotton has at least 5 major insect pests and corn has at least 8 insect pests. Small grains have 3 major insect pests and 7 fungus diseases. 2. The length of the growing season amplifies the problem in allowing time for a greater number of generations of insects to be produced in one season. 3. Funds have been appropriated recently for the completion of a new Agricultural Engineering Building. A laboratory for fundamental research is to be incorporated therein. It is envisioned that such a laboratory will have precise control over the environmental factors and over a range at least equal to those experienced in nature. Environmental factors are among the variables significantly affecting deposition and control. Further, such a laboratory will be of sufficient dimensions to accommodate the growing plant. Such facilities are pertinent to the development of new knowledge in pesticide application for |