Mr. JUMP. I do not know. Mr. MacDonald will know about that, if it affects road funds. Mr. BUCHANAN. Will you ask him to find out what he can about that before he appears on his items, so that we may have some statement on it? I think the House will be interested to know. Mr. JUMP. Mr. MacDonald will be prepared to discuss that when the item comes before the committee. Mr. BUCHANAN. I have special reference to the amount that the Reconstruction Finance Corporation has advanced, to be taken out of the road fund in case those advances are not repaid. Mr. JUMP. I understand. Of course, the cities do not get any money from this fund. Mr. BUCHANAN. Yes; they do. Mr. JUMP. Not to amount to anything. Mr. BUCHANAN. In Texas each little town has a committee that meets and determines how much they will need. That is transmitted to the governor and the governor certifies that to the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation sends their agent down and it is distributed to those cities and charitable organizations throughout the State. Mr. JUMP. What I am referring to is that the cities do not get any of this Federal aid on roads. Mr. BUCHANAN. I am talking about the amount that is advanced for charities to the different cities. Mr. JUMP. I do not know anything about that. I have in mind that all Federal aid on roads is Federal aid to the States and not political subdivisions thereof. ANALYSIS OF EXPENDITURES Mr. BUCHANAN. Will you proceed with your general statement, Mr. Secretary? Mr. DUNLAP. Mr. Chairman, I have several statements here. which I believe will be of interest to the committee showing how the department spends the funds with which it is charged. I am submitting an analysis of expenditures of the Department of Agriculture during the last three fiscal years, 1931, 1932, and 1933. The figures We have the various sums itemfor 1933, of course, are estimated. ized; road funds, emergency relief loans, payments to States for Analysis of expenditures, Department of Agriculture [On basis of checks issued, as shown in Budget Statement No. 2] 1. Roads: Items Fiscal year (a) Regular funds Federal aid to States. Forest roads and trails. Total, regular road funds. 1 Statement No. 2 in Federal Budget for 1933. Analysis of expenditures, Department of Agriculture-Continued • Expenses of collection of loans made in previous years. Excess of prior-year checks paid in 1932 over current checks outstanding, including approximately $12,500,000 on account of roads. 31, 881, 341 31, 170, 752 30, 131, 667 27, 254, 000 65, 789, 615 65, 250, 643 59, 135, 341 311, 380, 193 305, 673, 873 314, 426, 800 +13, 301, 944 318,975, 817 314, 426, 800 DIVISION OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES FOR FISCAL YEAR, 1933 Mr. Chairman, there is something to which I would like especially to call the committee's attention. There has been considerable criticism of the department on account of the large total of its expenditures, running around $300,000,000 for the past three years and I would like to insert these figures to explain the real factors that enter into these large totals. During the current fiscal year, 1933, for example the percentage of our funds that has been spent on roads is more than 76 per cent of the entire total-4.86 per cent has been expended for payments in States for agricultural experiment stations and extension and cooperative forestry activities. The amount of that is $15,279,100. Fifteen hundredths of 1 per cent has been expended for collection of relief loans, which amounted to $470,000. Ten per cent has been expended on ordinary activities of the widest possible public interest, in amount, $31,881,341; 8.67 per cent has been expended on ordinary activities more directly related to agriculture, in amount $27,254,000. For the sake of greater clarity, I would like to insert this in the form of a statement for the record. (The statement referred to is as follows:) Classification of Department of Agriculture estimated expenditures, fiscal year 1933 Item Amount Per cent For roads. For payments to States for agricultural experiment stations, extension work, and cooperative forestry activities. For collection of relief loans.. Ordinary activities of widest possible public interest, including the weather service, REDUCTIONS IN APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1933 There is one other thing I would like to call to the committee's attention. I think the public generally is of the impression that our department did not receive a 10 per cent cut, as some of the other departments received last year. It is true that it did not get the flat 10 per cent cut by the Senate, that some of the other departments did at that time, but on the ordinary activities of the department alone, we received a cut of 14.35 per cent below 1932. Mr. BUCHANAN. That is, the McKellar amendments? Mr. DUNLAP. Yes; including everything. But if we take all of the appropriations made for the department, the reduction for 1933 was 38.36 per cent below 1932. I would like to leave this in the form of a statement for the record. I do not believe it is generally realized that the department itself, exclusive of payments to the States, spends only about $28,000,000 a year for activities directly related to agriculture, which is very different from the $300,000,000 total charged to us, but these statements will show that to be a fact. (The statement referred to is as follows:) Appropriations for 1933, compared with appropriations in 1932, by main group heads 6. Total, all purposes 1. 1 Exclusive of the following road items administered by the Department of Agriculture, contained in the emergency relief and construction act which was passed July 21, 1932, subsequent to the regular agricultural bill: Including the $132,000,000 emergency road funds, the grand total charged to the department for 1933 was increased from $185,883,236 to $317,883,236. DISTRIBUTION OF ESTIMATES, 1934 I believe that is all I have of a general statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JUMP. At this point I would like to insert in the record the usual summaries of the Budget estimate for 1934 compared with the appropriation for 1932 and 1933. (The statements follow:) Department of Agriculture-Statement of appropriations 1932 and 1933, and Budget Department of Agriculture-Statement of appropriations 1932 and 1933, and Budget 1932, for rent in District of Columbia. Includes $13,332 provided by second deficiency act, 1931, for Dutch elm disease. Includes $22,500 provided by second deficiency act, 1931. 4 Included in Interior Department appropriation act, 1932. 15, 1931, continued available until June 30, 1933. Not to exceed $500,000 of the repayments made during the fiscal year 1933 to the appropriations con- |