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. I support the request of 8 consumer, farm, public health, business, and labor organizations for an increase of almost $2 million, to $19.2 million from the $17.3 million requested for operation of the meatinspection program, in the interests of the consumers and livestock producers alike. In closing, if we had the kind of a farm program that you, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Marshall), and I have been trying to force the administration to adopt, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now--one of rising food prices in the grocery store while producers prices have fallen by one-fourth in the past years, and appropriations for the farm program have increased by almost 1,000 percent. 5 Mr. WHITTEN. Thank you very much for your statement. The committee is always glad to hear from you on these matters. SORGHUM SIRUP RESEARCH FUND WITNESS HON. ROBERT L. F. SIKES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA Mr. WHITTEN. We will hear next from our colleague, Bob Sikes, who is also a member of the Appropriations Committee. Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, a recommendation has been made to eliminate the small item of $55,000 in the sorghum sirup research fund. From a financial standpoint this is a minor item, but from the standpoint of the industry and the areas affected, it is an important one. With this small sum, research in the sorghum and sugarcane field has helped to produce superior grades of sorghum and sugarcane for the American farmer and a higher grade product for the American people. I can see no justification for the proposal to eliminate this activity. The job is not complete. It should be continued. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to point out a few facts that I have obtained from conversations with officials in the Department of Agriculture concerning this recommended cut. Frankly, I am amazed that anyone with even the slightest knowledge of agriculture and its present day problems would recommend that this reduction be made. For one thing, there is no surplus in sirup or sugarcane. This is a statement that cannot be made of many other farm products. In fact, the Department of Agriculture has stated that the supply is below the demand. Sugarcane, from which our sorghum sirup is produced, is one of the few crops that is not subsidized by the Government or controlled by the Government. Sugarcane makes excellent forage for livestock. And, even the best of statisticians cannot overlook the importance of this forage to a small farmer's existence. Sugarcane is subject to diseases, and even though the crop is small and grown chiefly by small farmers, the sugarcane industry was near complete ruin several years ago; however, the small research stations of the Federal Government produced a new variety that revitalized the industry. I am fully aware that sugarcane and sorghum do not affect a large number of farmers. But, it is one of the crops that is left on the open market for the little farmer. It is a cash crop that enables the farmer to get some cash return in the fall with which to pay taxes, buy clothing for his family, and to have some of the necessities of life. Just what will be the results if we allow the $55,000 reduction? All research work on sweet sorghum will be discontinued. The experiments now underway will be lost because there will be no money to continue them. Until recently sugarcane and sorghum were apparently destined to become losing propositions because of diseases. By the wise use of small appropriations for research they are now on a cash basis providing a limited profit for the small farmer. I want to go on record as saying, as a result of the information I have obtained from officials in the Department of Agriculture, that the results of the sorghum research program is much more valuable than the sum total of money and manpower that has been put into it. Out of this appropriation our Government has: 1. Developed new varieties of cane with high yielding abilities and high sugar contents. 2. Developed varieties that produce high quality and large quantities of syrup. (These varieties also produce greater amounts of high quality forage for livestock.) 3. Obtained the services of 3 professional men, 4 subprofessional men, and entered into active cooperative research work in 7 Southeastern States. We should not allow our cane and syrup industry to return to its days of no return because of disappearing varieties, numerous diseases, and no profits. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the privilege of appearing here today in defense of the few small cane growers and sorghum producers. Before I leave, however, I ask that the great progress we have made with this small annual appropriation be continued for this very meritorious program. Mr. WHITTEN. We appreciate your statement and these matters will have the committee's attention. MARKETING NEWS SERVICE WITNESS HON. J. W. TRIMBLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS Mr. WHITTEN. We will now hear from our friend and colleague, Congressman Trimble of Arkansas, who has been before the committee many times on agricultural matters. Mr. TRIMBLE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a pleasure to be permitted to make this statement in behalf of the people in the livestock marketing area served by Fort Smith, Ark. You gentlemen have been very kind in approving funds to help provide a marketing news service in this part of the country. The service has proved to be of great value. The people there are grateful for what you have done. 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 21⁄2 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 |