486 AGRICULTURAL APPROPRIATION BILL, 1924. j 



Louisiana, as you recall, had three parishes under noncotton zones 

 for two years, that is, in the southwestern part of the State, and 

 there has been no reappearance of the pink bollworm in those parishes d 



during that time. Tne discovery of the insect at Shreveport was the ' 



only other point in Louisiana. We investigated other points under i 



suspicion, but without finding any infestation. No reappearance of J 

 the worm has been found in the Shreveport district for two years; | 



in other words, we have had two years in Louisiana without the pink | 



bollworm, and for 1923 the formerly invaded districts will be under J 



regulation only. '-^ 



Texas, as already noted, has been free from the pink bollworm 

 with the exception of one speciment last year, now for two years. 

 But this applies only to the eastern area. There is a western area, i 



which is entn-ely separate, in which the attempt to eradicate the pest 

 has been postponed, not necessarily abandoned, but postponed for ') 



reasons I will mention later. The outlook is now most encouraging ',. 



where work is being done, both as to the main portion of Texas ana ' 



as to Louisiana. The danger comes just at this time when the work 

 seems to be approaching completion, namely, to have it undei-stood 

 that the cost will be fully as great now as before, because it is essen- 

 tial to keep up the same amount of inspection for one or two years 

 more. To materially reduce or to relinciuish inspection work because 

 success seems in sight would mean the loss of tlie opportunity to 

 eradicate this pest. I do not think I need to enlarge on that because 

 you can see it as plainly as I can present it. 



This appropriation is for 1924. which means the crop year after 

 the next, and we do not know what we will have to exjjend but we 

 have every reason to believe we will have»to maintain inspection, 

 and this is the chief item of cost, even if there are no new outbreaks, 

 in the most thoroughgoing manner for at least that period. There- | 



force, we are asking for the same amount we had last year, less the 

 amount that has been transferred. We look upon that appropriation, 

 as I have said before, as an insurance fund, and I do not use that 

 term in its ordinary signification, but as a fund to be used if needed 

 and we believe it probably will be needed. We have turned back 

 into the Treasury, in former years, ver}' condideral)le sums, where 

 the money was not needed ; in other words, we only use what is needed. 



You understand, I think, the arrangement which is made in this 

 appropriation for the cooperation of the States with the Federal 

 Government as to reimbursement to farmers in noncotton zones. 

 The amount of such reimbursements this year is not very great. 



Mr. Anderson. Is that now permanent law ? 



Doctor Marlatt. It is in the language of the appropriation act. 

 You will find that at the l)ottom of page 333, "of wliich sum not to 

 exceed $200,000 may be available for reimbursement," etc. 



The nature of the reimljui-sement is specilied in Senate joint reso- 

 lution No. 72, approved August 9, 1921, and 1 think perhaps that is 

 continuing legislation. 



Doctor Ball. It is as it apj)lies to the pink bollworm, but it would 

 not be available for any other insect. 



Doctor Maulatt. Oh, no; and as it is tied up with this appro])ria- 

 tion, if this appropriation should lapse I suj)pose that resolution 

 would be functionless. 



Mr. Andkrson. What is the difreicnce helwcen llu- approj^riation 

 carried on page 331 and the appropriation cariied on page .333 < 



