페이지 이미지

thing that worked the year before. Apparently we ran the cycle and it just did not work. Now, I have visited research work, I have talked to scientists, I have spent weeks here listening to them, and it is my judgment that it does not take a whale of a lot of money. For experimental purposes it does not take a whole lot of chemicals nor a whole lot of .# weevils to determine what will kill a boll weevil. We are already trained and experienced in the sprays and other means of applying whatever it is we use. Research continues in that field. Would you not agree that if this were your business and you had the job you would not put a whole lot of more people on the job to get it done, you would figure that you could get a better job with fewer people and the right people with more intense application to the job; would you not? Mr. CokER. Mr. 8. I certainly recognize the problem that you fellows have and I deeply sympathize with you. H. I would like to point out that if in my own business we had a problem such as this that was causing us an average annual loss of 13% percent of our revenue, despite our present efforts to prevent it, I would either change the business, I believe, or put enough real research money on the problem to solve it. We have been }. around with this boll weevil matter for 60 years. The Federal Government, if my figures are correct, has invested only $4,100,000 on a problem that is conservatively costing the South $4 billion or more. I am not saying that a better job might not have been done, but I am saying that from the standpoint of future cotton production in our part of the country, and I am sure the same thing applies to yours, we very urgently need somebody to help us find a solution to this problem. Mr. WHITTEN. I could not be in more thorough agreement in any way in the world, but if you and your organization, the National Cotton Council, for 1 year gave up any idea of requesting a single dollar for this Department, but took your own money you now spend in the promotion of these things—I do not mean you as an individual, but the groups—and just used that money going over what they are already doing and seeing why in the world it is we are not getting results, I believe you would be contributing toward far greater results than you would when the Department says “We will do it if we can get the money.” That is just about what we are up against. Mr. YoUNG. Mr. Whitten, let me respond to that in this way. I appreciate the fact that this is something which needs a lot of attention and a lot of work. The Cotton Council recommended very strongly when the Research and Marketing Act was passed that they set up these committees. We worked with the Department of Agriculture to get top people from industry on the committees. These committees meet twice a year for 2 full days and they go over these particular research expenditures, project by project. They are good, substantial businessmen and farmers. You would expect that they would weed out certain things which they have. Let me go one step further. Dr. Leonard Smith, here, on our staff, is a consultant to the Southern Regional Research Laboratory. He and other members of our staff go down once or twice a year and spend several days going over their [. and recommending to them what should be worked on. He could take a minute to tell you about that. (Off the record.)

Mr. CokeR. Congressman Whitten, of course I have followed this boll-weevil work fairly closely, not as closely as I should, but I am familiar with the work of the State experiment station which is only 20 miles from Hartsville. In my opinion, with the modest funds which they have they have done an outstanding job. They developed the method of surface trash study whereby they could go into the woods around the cottonfield during the winter and actually pick up surface trash, sift it, put it on a heated table and count the boll weevils to get some indication of the winter carryover and probable emergence. They have worked with us on the serious resistance probJem which we have. The insects on our own farms there were poisoned 20 times in a certain period, and at the end of that time we had just as many boll weevils as we started out with. There was nothing wrong with the insecticide. The insects had just developed resistance to it. Now they are beginning to make some progress. At the station in Texas they have found a means to rear weevils on artificial mediums. This is a new development that they have worked out. They have also found that they can develop systemic poisons. I presume you gentlemen know what they are. The cottonseed is treated and the poison goes up into the plant where some of the sucking insects are killed by it, but not yet does it affect the boll weevil. They think possibly if they could get a little stronger poison, and ...” lasted longer, they might have an answer to the boll weevil roblem. p I do not know any other approach to this thing, frankly. My reason for coming up here is that I was, I suppose, largely responsible for the Cotton Council’s passing this resolution. I wrote it myself. I was responsible for the Farm Bureau in South Carolina passing the resolution because I have come to the deliberate conclusion that if the farmers of the South, and particularly in the old belt and certain parts of the Midsouth, cannot get some relief from this insect problem, cotton may be on the way out then. I hate to sound that pessimistic, but certainly it will be a tremendous boost to cotton production if weevil damage can be controlled. At the Farm Bureau's annual meeting last December we had a meeting of the cotton committee, of which I serve as chairman in South Carolina. I asked the farmers there, who represent some of the best cotton farmers in South Carolina, this question: “If you had a choice today of taking 10 cents a pound less for your cotton and having the definite assurance that you would have no boll-weevil o in 1958. or producing cotton under the boll-weevil threat and having the same price as you do today, which would you take?” They all said they would take no boll weevil and 10 cents a pound less for their cotton. That is just an indication of the seriousness of this problem. I served and you probably recall I appeared before your committee once as a member of the National Advisory Agricultural Committee under the Research and Marketing Act. I have followed research in the Department as well as I can during that time. I know the people who are doing this work. The man at the head of this boll-weevil work was stationed at Florence whom I have called on many times. Mr. K. P. Ewing, who recently retired as head of the Cotton Insect Division, did a distinguished job in Texas in boll-weevil work. So I cannot help but feel that while all this money might not be profitably

used, a substantial increase in these funds would be of immeasurable benefit in the cotton South.

Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Coker, may I say I certainly do not want you to misunderstand my attitude.

Mr. COKER. I don't misunderstand it.

Mr. WHITTEN. Everything you have said illustrates the need and the value of getting rid of the boll weevil in the Southeastern States compared to the price. If you did not have all this cost and assurance of a crop, I know myself what it would mean.

Going further, though, have you gone far enough now? Have you broken down in your own mind what it is they need to do now which which because of limited manpower they cannot do? Have you any projects ?

Mr. COKER. Yes, sir. Do you know Mr. K.P.Ewing?

Mr. WHITTEN. I would not say that I do not know him, but I know him well by reputation.

Mr. COKER. Recently, last August, he retired as head of the Cotton Insect Division of the Bureau of Entomology, after having been in Texas in the same work for a number of years. He and I agree that there is no possible way to spend $1 million, and hire men and get the work started profitably. But he does feel, and I agree, that if we had 2 research laboratories, well-equipped laboratories for research on this problem, perhaps 1'in the Southeast and 1 in the Midsouth, the appropriation could be used to get them in operation and then they could begin to look for men and equipment and start working on this thing. As you know we already have a laboratory in Texas devoted to work on the pink-boll worm but we need these additional facilities.

Mr. WHITTEN. What do they have at the places where they do this work now? Is it strictly a field activity!

Mr. COKER. Mainly field activities. They have cage tests and things of that kind. I am thinking in terms of basic research to take some new approach to this problem; to study the thing from every angle and see if we can develop some new approach as they did on the screw worm.

Mr. WHITTEN. We have the cotton-research laboratory at Stonewall, for instance. Every time we turn around we want another laboratory. When we have something like Stonewall, I cannot see that there would be any reason why the facilities there with some enlargement would not suffice; something of that sort. It strikes me this would not require an army of people to accomplish. In fact, I have seen so much work in the Department which I felt if they had fewer people who did not get in each other's way, really we would get better results. Under Mr. Benson, you know, we have added 17,000 employees in 5 years.

Mr. COKER. Sir, I certainly respect your views.
Mr. WHITTEN. I am just defending myself a little bit.
Mr. COKER. I understand.
Mr. WHITTEN. I am also sincere when I point this out.

Mr. COKER. In 1 year the Department spent $12 million to kill grasshoppers, and the grasshoppers in the entire history of the country have not done as much damage as the boll weevil does in 1 year. I believe that can be supported.

22911-58-pt, 5—--30

Mr. WHITTEN. I come from your area. I would hate to find out we were wrong in it. But if we had the grasshopper people before us, I suspect they would have some big figures, too. Mr. CoRER. They spend $12 million in 1 }. and we have spent $4 million in 62 years. I just feel that we have not really seriously tackled the problem. . Mr. WHITTEN. Could I say this in defense of the grasshopper work. Some years ago they were spending $12 million or $15 million on grasshoppers. They did not come io. my committee. But one year they had me to pinch hit on the Subcommittee on Supplemental Appropriations. The Department held that one back to go before the supplemental each year, and they, not being acquainted with the background, gave them $12 million or $15 million. So I promptly got into the act and found out: What are the States doing? How do you coordinate this effort? What are you doing? The answers were unsatisfactory. I got them to keep it out of that bill and made them come before this committee. We had it investigated, and some of the things we found that were going on were terrible. This was some years ago. By way of illustration, they had airplanes, one which would do twice as much work with half the money. So . let it go and kept a plane which cost a whole lot more and did muc less satisfactory work. The rates they were paying school kids for that work was unbelievable. This was a completely 100 percent federally controlled program, so everybody wanted it. We got into the act, and I think you will find the program is costing us about $1 million or $1,500,000 annually. We have it now where the rancher puts up some and the States put up some. May I say that end of this is not the money we are saving for the Federal Government. They are doing 10 times as good a job of handling grasshoppers. I o want you to know that we do dig in, trying to bring about results. I hope this committee can do something on this boll weevil problem which you mention. I recognize its seriousness, but I have been here long enough to recognize that more money of itself, without projects already spelled out and without knowing that, frequently is just a means of getting a little additinoal money just to have a little more ease. The easier they get the money, the less pinch there is on them to show results. Mr. CokER. Let me add just one thing, Congressman. Some of the people in the Department knew that I was going to testify on this matter, but the idea did not originate with anybody in the Department. Mr. WHITTEN. I hold Dr. Shaw and the whole Department in the . esteem, but it is a big thing and the problems I point out are natural. Mr. CokER. The other point I did want to make is that I believe that the National Cotton Council is doing the best job of riding herd on Federal projects affecting cotton as any group that I know of. Mr. WHITTEN. I would think so. I am arguing with my friends. The National Cotton Council has done a great job. There have been a few times that I wanted them to underwrite some opinion I wanted, and we ran into the seven division business the way I wanted to reorganize it. Whenever the Cotton Council comes up here and says, “They are not doing any good in this thing. We have gone over it

and they are going to put these folks over here,” or says “These folks have been down here i5 years working on this. We have gone over the results of their program and, Jamie, they are good people but they are under civil service and are taking it easy”—whenever that time comes I will think they are doing an even better job than they are now. I do not recall any such instances as that.

Dr. SMITH. Congressman, we have not done that before this committee, but we have certainly done it in the Department. At least we have done it with respect to some laboratories.

Mr. WHITTEN. This is a mighty good place to do it, because we write reports and directives to the Department.

Dr. SMITH. That is true. It has not been necessary, in our estimation, in the Southern Regional Laboratory.

Mr. Young. May we submit a list of some of those things we have asked be stopped and which have been stopped in connection with the consultant work?

Mr. WHITTEN. I would welcome it, because we have a high opinion of your organization. might relieve us a little bit if we knew these things were going on. I have been greatly disappointed at not having any reports from these advisory committees as to where we were making wasted efforts. All we get from them up here is—I am not saying what the Department may get-up here what we get when the meeting is over is a resolution on how much more money it will take to do certain things.

Mr. COKER. I think you have a really good point there.

Mr. Young. We are in total sympathy with what you are talking about.

Mr. Young. Our people in both the utilization field under Dr. Smith and in the production and marketing field spend a lot of time with the people who work on these projects and at the stations where the work is actually done. That does not mean that it will be perfect. It won't ever be perfect. You are not asking for that and we don't expect it, either.

Mr. WHITTEN. We need some help from some source to help us. We are busy up here and do not have a chance to check it.

Mr. Young. Let me make two other points. You asked Mr. Coker for some specific projects on the boll weevil. He asked that we get the council's boll weevil specialist up here today but he could not get up from Memphis.

Mr. COKER. He is Dr. Johnson of the Cotton Council, who was formerly the head of the department at

Mr. Young. I don't recall his job at the moment.
Mr. SMITH. Texas A. and M.
Mr. COKER. Head of the department at Texas A. and M.

Mr. Young. We can get him by phone, I am sure in time to meet the deadline of this hearing, to get some of the specific projects which would be required on the boll weevil and submit them to you for inclusion in the record. (The information, not having been submitted in time for inclusion in this hearing, upon receipt will be retained in the files of the committee.)

One further point on the overall situation. You know that the agricultural committee is working like the dickens to try to find some solution to the cotton situation. They had a hearing this morning. You introduced a bill to which you have given a lot of thought and

« 이전계속 »