"SEC. 2. To carry into effect the above provisions for extending to Porto Rico the benefits of the act of March 2, 1887, and supplementary Acts in the order and amounts designated by these Acts, the following sums are hereby authorized to be appropriated in addition to the amounts appropriated to the Department of Agriculture for use in Porto Rico: $15,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1933; $20,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1934; $25,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1935; $30,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1936; $35,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1937; $40,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1938; $45,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1939; $50,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1940; $60,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1941; $70,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1942; $80,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1943; and $90,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1944, and thereafter a sum equal to that provided for each State and Territory for agricultural experiment stations established under the act of March 2, 1987.

"SEC. 3. The permanent annual appropriation provided for in section 3 of said Act of May 8, 1914, and of acts supplementary thereto are hereby authorized to be increased by an amount necessary to carry out the provisions of this act, but without diminishing or increasing the amount of which any State or the Territory of Hawaii is entitled under the provisions of said Act of May 8, 1914, and of Acts supplementary thereto; Provided, That for the fiscal year 1933 the total amount available to the Territory of Porto Rico under the terms of the Act of May 8, 1914, shall be $50,000, this amount to be increased by $10,000 annually, or such part thereof as may be necessary, until the total to which Porto Rico is entitled under the provisions of this act is reached. Participation in other Federal appropriations for cooperative extension work, including those authorized by the Act of May 22, 1928, shall be at such time and in such amounts as shall be estimated by the Secretary of Agriculture and appropriated by the Congress." To date no work has been done and no expenditures made under the Puerto Rico Station Act. Section 1 of the act contemplates certain action by the Legislature of Puerto Rico and by the insular government. This action was not completed before July 1, 1933, and the Secretary of Agriculture therefore withheld his certification of the appropriation for 1934, in accordance with provisions of the Adams and Purnell Acts (sec. 4 of each act) which require that the Secretary of Agriculture must certify to the Secretary of the Treasury on or before July 1 as to each State or Territory which is entitled to receive its share of the annual appropriations for agricultural experiment stations. Under this provision of the Adams and Purnell Acts, the action of the Secretary of Agriculture in withholding the 1934 payment is subject to appeal by the Government of Puerto Rico to the Congress, and if the Congress does not at its next (present) session direct the payment of the sum so withheld, the money will revert to the Treasury. Since July 1, 1933, the Legislature and Government of Puerto Rico have taken action in compliance with the provisions of section 1 of the Puerto Rico Station Act (quoted above), so that the Secretary of Agriculture can certify the funds for 1935 if the appropriation is made in accordance with the terms and authority of the act of March 4, 1931.

FUNCTIONS AND ACTIVITIES

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Jardine, the committee would be glad if you would give us a brief general statement of the activities of the Office of Experiment Stations.

Mr. JARDINE. The main function of the Office of Experiment Stations is to represent the Department in the administration of the Federal payments to the State agricultural experiment stationssuch as the experiment station at Ames, Iowa, at Columbia, Mo., and so on, there being one in each State, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. The secondary function is to administer departmental experiment stations in the insular possessions. There is now 1 in Puerto Rico and 1 in Hawaii.

REDUCTION IN ESTIMATE FOR 1935 UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER OF

JUNE 10, 1933

As to our appropriations, we have three items. One is for payments to States and Territories on behalf of the State experiment stations; another one is for the support of the insular stations; and the third item is for the administrative expenses in administering the other two units.

The total 1934 appropriation was $4,607,961. The estimates for 1935 are $3,493,102-a reduction of $1,114,859. Of this reduction, you will notice that the first five items are concerned with the payments to the States and Territories for experiment stations.

The payments to the States and Territories on behalf of the experiment stations, you will notice, come under the Hatch Act, the Adams Act, the Purnell Act, the Hawaii Station Act, the Alaska Station Act, and the Puerto Rico Station Act. The reductions in the 1935 estimates are 25 percent on account of the Executive order issued June 10, 1933 as modified by the Executive order of July 26, 1933.

Mr. SINCLAIR. Is that the order about which we are getting letters from our experiment stations?

Mr. JARDINE. I suspect so.

Mr. HART. The appropriations provided here are created under the acts, are they not; we have nothing to do with them?

Mr. JARDINE. They are authorized by the acts.

Mr. HART. They are authorized by the acts, but they are not obligatory?

Mr. JARDINE. They are reviewed annually

Mr. HART. Some of these appropriations are carried in the basic act, with which we have nothing to do, like the Smith-Lever Act? Mr. JARDINE. No, sir. Congress has reviewed these appropriations annually. As to one act, there might be some question as to the wording, but the assumption has been that they are reviewed annually by Congress.

Mr. THURSTON. Can you take these specific items and briefly explain what the Hatch Act, the Adams Act, the Purnell Act, and so forth, mean, as you reach them?

Mr. JARDINE. Yes, sir. May I just finish the total reductions? Mr. THURSTON. Yes.

Mr. JARDINE. The reduction under all of these acts, because of the 25 percent, totals $1,090,000.

Mr. CANNON. How was that allocated, Dr. Jardine, to the various States?

Mr. JARDINE. I will explain when I answer Mr. Thurston's question.

You will find explanations of these acts in the statement submitted on work done under this appropriation in the justification sheets. I will just run through the statement hurriedly. It gives briefly the purpose of each act.

EXPLANATION OF ACTS MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR SUPPORT OF EXPERIMENT STATIONS

I will begin with the Hatch Act that was passed by Congress in 1887.

Mr. CANNON. That was the act initiating this work?

Mr. JARDINE. That was the act initiating this work. It developed because the agricultural colleges originating under the Morrill Act of 1862 found that they were confronted with unsolved problems constantly, and all they could do in teaching was to perpetuate the old situation, and the Hatch Act was to supplement the teaching by research to solve the problems.

That act provided for $15,000 to each State for the support of an agricultural experiment station which was to be a department of the agricultural college. There is no requirement on the part of the State to match this appropriation. There is an obligation on the part of the State to furnish the physical plant facilities and to conform to certain provisions of the acts as to the use of the funds. But, as stated in the excerpt, the purpose was to―

aid in acquiring and diffusing among the people of the United States useful and practical information on subjects connected with agriculture, and to promote scientific investigation and experiment respecting the principles and applications of agricultural science.

Later in the act it makes provision "to conduct original researches or verify experiments" and for "such other researches or experiments bearing directly on the agricultural industry of the United States as may in each case be deemed advisable, having due regard to the varying conditions and needs of the respective States and Territories." In other words, it is Federal participation, so that it will represent the United States, but in administering we take account of the particular needs in each State when the director of the State experiment station submits a project.

The Adams Act of 1906 was supplemental to the Hatch Act, and provided an additional $15,000 for each State, without matching. A change in the wording required that this additional fund should be used for the more fundamental investigations. What I mean by that is this: Mr. Cannon spoke of abortion in his herd. The fundamental work back of that would be the kind of work that the Adams fund should be used for; not merely trials in the field, but the fundamental research that we felt must be carried on perhaps continuously. You cannot solve the problem in a month or so; you do not know when you are going to solve it.

Then, in 1925, the Purnell Act was passed. I might say that when the Purnell Act was passed there was rather a stock-taking to see what the States had done in behalf of these stations. I do not remember the exact figures then, but I can say that for a number of years, until last year, the States had voluntarily, without any requirement of matching, supported the stations to the extent of approximately $3 of State funds to each $1 of Federal funds, considering the State funds from all sources.

Mr. THURSTON. For pure experimentation and research?

Mr. JARDINE. Yes; for the operation of the experiment station. It is rather difficult to draw the line at pure experimentation and research, because the original charter read, "to aid in acquiring and diffusing." When a new finding is made, there is always an overlapping, and some work that has to be done through trials and tests which are not pure research before results are generally applicable in practice.

Mr. THURSTON. Do you require each of these stations to submit reports annually to show how they have expended this money?

Mr. JARDINE. Yes, sir. I will explain that in just a moment. The Purnell Act was passed in 1925. That provided an additional $60,000 for each State; so that the total distribution and allocation is $90,000 to each of the States.

Mr. CANNON. Regardless of area or population?

Mr. JARDINE. Regardless of area or population. That is based on the theory that research does not confine itself within State lines, especially fundamental research.

Mr. CANNON. Does that mean that the $90,000 is actually used within the borders of the State to which it is allocated?

Mr. JARDINE. Yes, sir.

Mr. CANNON. Or does it mean that the total amount of $90,000 for the State is used in the Department here in connection with the work of the State?

Mr. JARDINE. No; the money is warranted direct to the treasurer of the State agricultural experiment station.

Mr. CANNON. And expended under the State direction?

Mr. JARDINE. It is expended under the State direction, except for this: The acts require that the Secretary of Agriculture shall be responsible for the administration of the acts; that on or before the 1st day of July of each year he shall ascertain and certify as to whether the State has conformed to the provisions of the respective acts and shall certify as to the amount of the authorization or appropriation that each State is entitled to.

We do that in this way: Under the Hatch Act we do not require preliminary project statements. Under the Adams Act and the Purnell Act, which are confined very largely to research, the director of an experiment station in a State will submit an annual program showing the problems on which he is going to work. He may have a project dealing with abortion. He will estimate the amount of money for that. He will explain his plans rather carefully. He will tell us which man is going to be the leader, how he is going to proceed, and so on. That comes into our office for review and approval before the State initiates expenditures.

The purpose of that is partly to carry out the intent and purpose of the law, but in larger part to fulfill the broader functions of agriculture in the United States and to coordinate from State to State and with the Department.

Mr. THURSTON. To prevent duplication?

Mr. JARDINE. To prevent duplication. In the Agricultural Appropriation Act each year, in the section making appropriations for the Office of Experiment Stations, there is the following provision:

The Secretary of Agriculture shall coordinate the work of the Department of Agriculture with that of the State agricultural colleges and experiment stations in the lines authorized in said acts.

Part of the reason for having those projects come in in advance is for us to give to the individual State the advantage of knowing what Maine or Florida or Minnesota or Iowa or any other State is doing along the same line. We negotiate back and forth to formulate a coordinated program. Also, we immediately get in touch with people in the Department. The result is that today nearly 1,000 of our major investigations are under cooperative study by the States and the Department. In some cases there are as many as 20 States

cooperating with the Department in a single investigation, to avoid duplication, such as building up excessive herds, and to allocate the work so that it complements rather than duplicates.

COORDINATION OF WORK

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Jardine, do you not find that climatic conditions and soil conditions, which vary in the different States, would justify duplication of these experiments in different areas?

Mr. JARDINE. I have been asked that question a number of times this year. I recently made the statement, yes, we have parallel investigations-for example, in livestock feeding and in field cultural work with plants. They seem to be duplications, but they are not, for the simple reason that duplication means identical, and you rarely can make the local conditions identical.

Mr. CANNON. I should think that stock-feeding problems and dairy problems, for instance, as between Michigan and Missouri, or as between Mississippi and Oregon, would be vastly different, although you would have to have the same equipment and perhaps follow the same routine in experiments.

Mr. JARDINE. I am pleased to have you bring that out, for the reason that that is sometimes misunderstood. What we do is get investigators to consider the common problem and, where they can, supplement each other's work so that they will be checking the results. The thing that we are constantly striving for is to check the result before it is given to millions of farmers.

Mr. SINCLAIR. In theory you do not duplicate, however; you aim to have separate investigations going on in various places?

Mr. JARDINE. Yes, sir. When a problem comes in, as it goes to specialists, the instructions are, "We will duplicate if that is necessary to solve the problem, but we want to know why we are duplicating."

Mr. JUMP. The objective is to prevent unnecessary duplication. Mr. JARDINE. We want no unnecessary duplication.

Mr. THURSTON. In other words, in Louisiana you might feed cattle cane or sorghum, and in California raisins?

Mr. JARDINE. Not only that, but we have the variables in Louisiana that you do not have. There are several hundred variables, you might say, in working out the feeding problems of livestock in the United States.

Mr. CANNON. And the variation in temperature alone would be an item?

Mr. JARDINE. Yes, sir.

Mr. HART. These investigations, for which this money is used, are carried on in connection with the land grant colleges, are they not? Mr. JARDINE. That is right. They must, under the law, be under the agricultural college. The funds are allocated there.

We follow one step further in order to help in this coordination. Every year a representative of my office visits each of the experiment stations. He discusses each project that is paid for out of these funds with the individual worker, and after he has done that he examines all the vouchers. In other words, our authorization is broad to carry