NUMBER OF EXTENSION AGENTS As the major purpose of these payments of money to State is the employment of extension workers in counties and at the colleges, the following comparative statement is submitted showing agents employed: TABLE 4.-Comparison of number of extension field agents employed June 30, 1932, June 30, 1933, and Oct. 31, 1933 1 Increase in number of agents in counties is due to the cooperative arrangement with the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, covering administration of the commodity programs under the adjustment act. Number of counties in United States. Approximate number of counties now having one or more agents.. 3,076 2,550 ACTIVITIES UNDER VARIOUS APPROPRIATION ITEMS A discussion of the activities under the various appropriation items and tabulation of amounts involved under each, follows: Decrease, Budget 1935, compared with estimated obligations, 1934. WORK DONE UNDER THIS APPROPRIATION SMITH-LEVER $1, 580, 000 1, 580, 000 1 1, 580, 000 1 1, 580, 000 1, 185, 000 2 395, 000 These funds supplement the permanent annual appropriation provided under the Smith-Lever Act (May 8, 1914, Stat. 372-374, U.S.C., 114). Like the SmithLever funds, they are paid directly to the State colleges of agriculture as Federalaid for the promotion of extension work in agriculture and home economics. This appropriation is divided among the States and Hawaii in the proportion that the rural population of each bears to the total rural population of the States and Hawaii, and is available only when offset with funds from within the States. This item contains a provision that not more than $300,000 may be expended for purposes otner than salaries of extension agents in counties. As $300,000 is ! Direct payments to States and Territories for 1934 are subject to reduction of 25 percent from March 4 to June 30, 1934, inclusive, by Executive Orders Nos. 6166 and 6221. The net reductions for 1934 would be approximately 8 percent. 2 The decrease of $395.000 represents a reduction of 25 percent for direct payments to the States and Territories pursuant to Executive Orders Nos. 6166 and 6221. approximately 25 percent of the total appropriation, this means that approximately 75 percent of the funds must be expended for salaries of county extension agents. The State allotments are paid directly to a designated officer in the State and are disbursed in accordance with budgets and programs of work submitted by the State directors of extension and approved by the Secretary of Agriculture. Expenditures by the States from this and other cooperative extension appropriations are subject to an annual inspection by representatives of the department. Decrease, Budget 1935, compared with estimated obligations, WORK DONE UNDER THIS APPROPRIATION $1, 480, 000 1, 480, 000 11, 480, 000 1 1, 480, 000 1, 110, 000 2 370, 000 This appropriation is specifically authorized by the provisions of the CapperKetcham Act of May 22, 1928 (45 Stat., 711, 712). This act authorizes an appropriation of $980,000 to be divided at the rate of $20,000 to each State and to Hawaii, without requirement for State offset, and an additional $500,000 to be divided among the States and Hawaii on the basis of rural population. It provides that at least 80 percent of the funds appropriated under this authorization shall be expended for salaries of county extension agents and that the extension agents appointed under its provisions shall be men and women in fair and just proportions. Decrease, Budget 1935, compared with estimated obligations, 1934 33, 000 WORK DONE UNDER THIS APPROPRIATION This appropriation is authorized by the act approved February 23, 1929, entitled "An act to extend the benefits of the Hatch Act and the Smith-Lever Act to the Territory of Alaska" (U.S.C., supp. VI, title 7, sec. 386c). The extension work in agriculture and home economics is of a similar nature to that which is being conducted in the States, modifications being made to suit local conditions. Experiment stations have been maintained by the Federal Government in Alaska for many years, but extension work was not systematically begun among farmers until 1931. Direct payments to States and Territories for 1934 are subject to reduction of 25 percent from Mar. 4 t June 30, 1934, inclusive, by Executive Orders Nos. 6166 and 6221. The next reductions for 1934 would be approximately 8 percent. The decrease of $370,000 from Capper-Ketcham Funds for Extension Work represents a reduction of 25 percent for direct payments to the States and Territories pursuant to Executive Orders Nos. 6166 and 'The decrease of $3,000 from Alaska funds for extension work represents a reduction of 25 percent for direct payments to the States and Territories pursuant to Executive Orders Nos. 6166 and 6221. 6221. Appropriation: 1932. 1933. 1934. Additional cooperative agricultural extension work Estimated obligations, 1934. Decrease, Budget 1935, compared with estimated obligations, 1934. WORK UNDER THIS APPROPRIATION $1, 000, 000 1, 000, 000 1 1, 000, 000 1 1, 000, 000 750, 000 2 250, 000 This project provides for additional cooperative agricultural extension work, including employment of specialists in economics and marketing, to be allotted by the Secretary of Agriculture to the several States and the Territory of Hawaii in such amounts as he may deem necessary to accomplish such purposes. These funds supplement the permanent annual appropriation provided under the Smith-Lever Act (act of May 8, 1914), as well as those funds provided under the Capper-Ketcham Act (act of May 22, 1928). Like the Smith-Lever and Capper-Ketcham funds, they are paid direct to the State colleges of agriculture as Federal aid for extension work in agriculture and home economics. However, as already indicated, the payments of funds to the States, instead of being based upon the ratio that the rural population of each State bears to the total rural population of the States and Hawaii, are subject to determination by the Secretary of Agriculture as to the amount that he may deem necessary to accomplish the best results in each State. COOPERATIVE Appropriation: 1923. 1933 1934. AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION WORK (PERMANENT ANNUAL Estimated obligations, 1934. Budget estimate, 1935.. Decrease, Budget 1935, compared with estimated obligations, 1934. The reduction of $1,159,024 in the 1935 estimate of $3,507,072 25 percent curtailment below 1934 appropriation, pursuant 25 percent curtailment in automatic increase for Puerto Rico 3 SMITH $4, 606, 096 4,656, 096 $ 4,666, 096 3 4, 606, 096 3, 507, 072 1,099, 024 -1, 166, 524 +10, 000 -2, 500 -11159. 024 The difference between the reduction of $1,099,024, when the Budget estimate for 1935 is compared with estimated obligations for 1934, and the reduction of $1,159,024 when the Budget estimate for 1935 is compared with the appropriation for 1934, is due to the fact that the certification of payments to Puerto Rico, for which appropriations were made for 1933 and 1934 has been withheld for those years, the legislature and government of Puerto Rico having failed prior to July 1 of 1 Direct payments to States and Territories for 1934 are subject to reduction of 25 percent from Mar. 4 to June 30, 1934, inclusive, by Executive Orders Nos. 6166 and 6221. The net reductions for 1934 would be approximately 8 percent. The decrease of $250,000 represents a reduction of 25 percent for direct payments to the States and Territories pursuant to Executive Orders Nos. 6166 and 6221. 3 Direct payments to States and Territories for 1934 are subject to reduction of 25 percent as provided by Executive Order No. 6166 of June 10, 1933, but since the effective date of this reduction is deferred by Executive Order No.6221 of July 26, 1933, until 60 days after the convening of the second session of the Seventythird Congress, payments during the fiscal year 1934 will be on the basis of 100 percent for the period July 1 to March 4, and at the rate of 75 percent after that date. the fiscal years indicated to comply with the qualifying action required by section 1 of the Puerto Rico Station Act approved March 4, 1931. Puerto Rico having now qualified under the act certification for payment is contemplated for payments beginning with 1935. Under the provisions of section 6 of the SmithLever Act the action of the Secretary in withholding certification is subject to appeal by Puerto Rico to Congress at the first session thereof subsequent to such withholding. CHANGE IN LANGUAGE The following language has been inserted in the paragraph for the permanent annual appropriation to cover the automatic increase for Puerto Rico, as well as the reduction because of the Executive order of June 10, 1933: "$4,676,096, but pursuant to Executive Order No. 6166 of June 10, 1933, section 18 of which requires that payments for agricultural extension work be reduced 25 percent, this appropriation is reduced to $3,507,072." WORK UNDER THIS APPROPRIATION This is the permanent annual appropriation for cooperative extension work, provided in the Smith-Lever Act of May 8, 1914, as amended by the extension of this act to the Territory of Hawaii by the act of May 16, 1928, and to Puerto Rico by the act of March 4, 1931. Under the provisions of these acts, $10,000 is appropriated annually to each State, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico without requirement of State or Territorial offset. In addition the States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico share in the remainder of the annual appropriation in the ratio which the rural population of each bears to the total rural population of the United States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. This is the basic act under which cooperative extension work is conducted by the Department and the State colleges of agriculture. EXPLANATION OF ALLOTMENTS MADE UNDER THE VARIOUS ACTS Mr. SANDLIN. Will you please give us a general statement about this Extension Service, Mr. Warburton? Dr. WARBURTON. Mr. Chairman, the Extension Service has two classes of appropriations. The items on pages 42, 44, 45, and 46 of the Committee Print and, also, the permanent annual appropriation on page 57, are allotted to the States for the support of cooperative extension work in agriculture and home economics. They are allotted to the States on the bases set out in the various items, paid semiannually to the States in lump-sum allotments, and disbursed by the States under the supervision of the directors of the State agricultural extension services, located in the State colleges of agriculture. The second class of appropriations includes the items on pages 47 to 56, inclusive, which are direct appropriations to the Department of Agriculture for various extension activities. Discussing first the appropriations from which allotments are made to the States, Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico, the basic appropriation is the one provided under the Smith-Lever Act, which is on page 57 of the estimates. The appropriation originally was $4,580,000 which has since been increased by the act extending its provisions to Hawaii and Puerto Rico, so that the total for this year carried in the act is $4,676,096. Of that appropriation, $10,000 is allotted to each State, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, totaling $500,000, without off-set requirements. The remainder of the appropriation, except $60,000, is allotted to the States and Hawaii in the proportion that the rural population of each bears to the total rural population of the United States and Hawaii. The sum of $60,000 is allotted to Puerto Rico. under the provisions of the act of March 4, 1931. That act provides for an annual increase in the allotment to Puerto Rico until Puerto Rico receives the amount to which it would be entitled on the basis of rural population, which if I recall correctly, will not be reached until 1945. The item on page 42 has been carried in the Agricultural appropriation acts for many years, supplementary to the Smith-Lever Act funds. The total appropriation for the current year is $1,580,000, all of which is allotted to the States and Hawaii on the rural population basis. I am discussing all of those items together, because so far as we are concerned, and so far as the States are concerned, they are considered as one appropriation or one allotment, and a more logical presentation can be made if they are discussed together rather than taking each one up separately, and because it is in the combined whole that we are interested. The item on page 44 applies to the Capper-Ketcham Act, of May 22, 1926. Under this Act, an allotment of $20,000 is made to each State and Hawaii, without off-set requirements, and an additional lump-sum appropriation of $500,000 is provided, which is allotted to the States and Hawaii on the rural population basis. The item on page 45, the appropriation for which for the current year is $12,000, is authorized under the act of February 23, 1929, extending the provisions of the Smith-Lever Act to Alaska, but with the provision that instead of the appropriation becoming automatically available, the appropriation is subject to the annual recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture and the action of Congress. Ten thousand dollars of that amount is without offset, and an additional $2,000 is with the offset requirement. If Alaska received its full appropriation on the basis of rural population, it would get something like $13,500 instead of $12,000. It never has had the fuil amount which is authorized in the act. The item on page 46 has been carried in the appropriation acts for several years in the amount of $1,000,000. That is for additional cooperative extension work, particularly for the employment of specialists in economics and marketing. That differs from the other acts in that, instead of being allotted on the basis of rural population, or on a fixed base determined by Congress, the Secretary is given authority to make the allotments. Mr. HART. The difference is that the appropriation is not carried in the organic act. Dr. WARBURTON. No, sir; the item is not specifically authorized. The item as carried for several years required a matching by the States of the allotments made to the States, but that provision was stricken out on the floor of the House last winter, so that the allotments to the States do not now require matching. The Executive order of June 10, 1933 provides for a reduction, or, rather, in the exact language of the order, an abolition of extension work by 25 percent, the practical effect of which, of course, is to provide for a reduction in the appropriation of 25 percent. That affects all of the items which we have just discussed, including the continuing appropriation under the Smith-Lever Act. There is still some question as to whether this 25 percent reduction should be applied equally to the offset and the non-offset portions, or whether these non-offset portions, that is, the $10,000 to each State under the Smith-Lever Act and the $20,000 under the CapperKetcham Act, are in a somewhat different category from the offset |