to each of those individual research items. In the administration of these funds it has been necessary, because of the legal authorizations, to have each project supported only by a single fund.

This may be somewhat involved. If that is not clear I should like to try to explain it a little further to you.

Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?

Mr. ABERNETHY. Surely.

Mr. DIXON. This Miscellaneous Publication No. 515, I think, explains that, Dr. Knoblauch.

Mr. KNOBLAUCH. That is right.

Mr. DIXON. I should like for the members of the committee to hear it:

The Federal-grant funds are available only for investigations within the purposes outlined in the respective acts.

I

guess there are about 12 acts, if you take the amendments. Mr. KNOBLAUCH. That is right.

Mr. DIXON (continuing):

To assure compliance it is necessary that expenditures of funds under a respective act be accounted for as a separate units of expenditures accomplished by administration

and then skipping down—

Since the separate identity of the several Federal-grant funds and allotments from the Agricultural Marketing Act, section 204 (b) must be maintained in reporting expenditures and results, not more than one of these direct-grant funds should be used to support a supplement and allotment of Bankhead-Jones, section 9 (b) (3) funds.

In other words, they have to keep the separate identity of all these 12 acts.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DIXON. Yes.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Is that carried out in actual practice in the administration of the act?

Mr. KNOBLAUCH. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Andresen, yes, sir; in the development of plans, programs, and supporting projects for each of these funds each year each experimental station is required to submit a budget program for the Hatch Act fund, the Adams Act fund, the Purnell Act fund, and the Bankhead-Jones Act funds for section 5 and section 9, because of authorizations in the specific items of appropriation. That is why we wish to support the consolidation, because we will eliminate the tremendous amount of preplanning and later recordkeeping of detail under each of these separate accounts under each of these separate funds.

Mr. DIXON. In answer further to his question, our colleges are audited, are they not, to see that they do abide by the law as far as possible?

Mr. KNOBLAUCH. That is correct.

Mr. ANDRESEN. I want to know how you apply this. You say in the planning stage you have to do this, but would you be specific and tie your planning in to the particular appropriation? Mr. KNOBLAUCH. That is right.

Mr. ANDRESEN. How does it come to your men who do the research under a particular appropriation? Are they discharged when they have completed using up the money?

Mr. KNOBLAUCH. If I might just trace briefly the origin of the research proposal and then its becoming a part of the program, I think that will answer your question.

An individual research worker or research leader develops a project which is reviewed by the experiment station director to determine its appropriateness and contribution to the agriculture of the State, and then it is up to the director's discretion whether it shall be supported, if he has Adams Act funds, Hatch Act funds, Purnell Act funds, Bankhead-Jones Act funds, et cetera. The individual research worker frequently does not know the source of the funds under which he is working. That is the administrative responsibility in the planning of the programs, wherever the funds are available to do the particular job that is presented.

Mr. ANDRESEN. But in handling your bookkeeping then, whether the doctor or someone else doing the investigation knows about it, you have to line up your funds on the books so that so much of these funds have been assigned for a particular study which is being done by a particular official.

Mr. KNOBLAUCH. That is correct. Each experiment station director annually submits to the Department of Agriculture for review and approval a program of work which consists of the complete listing of projects and the individuals doing the work by funds. In other words, he submits a program for the Hatch Act funds, the Adams Act funds, the Purnell Act funds, the Bankhead-Jones Act funds, both sections 5 and 9. Under this proposed consolidation we would only submit the one program. We would not have a $15,000 program under the Adams Act, a $15,000 program under the Hatch Act, and a $60,000 program under the Purnell Act, and whatever the allotments are under section 5 and section 9 of Bankhead-Jones. You would have a total program for the station, where you could see it in one review in a total program.

So far as the Department of Agriculture is concerned, we are getting close to these auditing and review features that administratively do require considerable detailed examination. If we could have this all brought together in one program, it would be a much more efficient operation.

Mr. ANDRESEN. You put all of the funds into one basket, then?
Mr. KNOBLAUCH. That is what is proposed.

Mr. ANDRESEN. So that in that respect you depart from the original purpose of, let us say, the Hatch Act, which was passed 68 years ago. That just passes out of the picture, but the purposes of the Hatch Act are retained?

Mr. KNOBLAUCH. That is correct.

Mr. ANDRESEN. And the funds are retained and go into this basket? Mr. KNOBLAUCH. That is correct. The features of the Hatch Actwhich is the simple charter that recognized the need and the responsibility of the Department and the State in conducting agricultural research-are an important retained feature of the new legislation.

Mr. DIXON. Would you please give us some specific illustrations to show how the rigidity of these 12 various acts hamstring the director of the experiment station, so that when there is a crisis or malady in livestock or poultry, such as we often have, he cannot go out to give the farmers relief?

Mr. KNOBLAUCH. I should like to illustrate by the problems that have been presented by several experiment station directors, particularly under section 5 of the Bankhead-Jones fund, which has attained-it has not attained its maximum authorizations, but there have been no increases during the past several years. Several of the directors have reported need for increased emphasis on particular problems that were started under section 5 of the Bankhead-Jones Act. If they had authority to use these new increased funds that the Congress is providing under section 9, if they could put them on support of the section 5 activities, they would go ahead and be able to meet that need. Now, what is required? If they are to meet it with section 5 funds, some other line of research must be closed.

Mr. DIXON. Regardless of the need for that research?

Mr. KNOBLAUCH. That is right. If he is to support it with the increases under that fund, then he must decide whether the new work is more urgent than what is currently going on. He has no opportunity to increase under Bankhead-Jones section 5, because there are no increases.

Now, that is not true under section 9, because the Congress has provided increases in the past several years and there is flexibility in that fund to meet these conditions.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Do you have a statement showing what each act specifies, that we are consolidating here into one bill?

Mr. KNOBLAUCH. There is the summary, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Andresen, of the Calendar 568, the Senate report, a very good analysis of each of the provisions of these acts.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. ANDRESEN. I am not so familiar with all of these acts, although I have been voting for amendments to them for a long time. I think it would be a good idea for the Department to prepare for the committee and for the record a statement showing the purpose and the authorization of each act, for just what is covered in the act. I think that could be condensed in not too much language, to show what is being done under each act.

Mr. KNOBLAUCH. This was an attempt at it, but it does not get into the authorizations.

Mr. ABERNETHY. The note at the bottom of the page is what you mean?

Mr. KNOBLAUCH. Yes. We have, Mr. Chairman, as a part of the administrative rules and regulations under which the Department administers these funds, a bulletin prepared here that gets into these provisions. It would be a very easy matter for us to provide a short abstract of each of these acts for inclusion in the record.

Mr. ANDRESEN. I would like to have that, Mr. Chairman, included in the record.

Mr. ABERNETHY. How lengthy is that? Is that the whole bulletin? Mr. KNOBLAUCH. That is one of the problems we would hope to accomplish by consolidation. It does cover from page 27 to page 44. Mr. ANDRESEN. Can you not cut it down?

Mr. ABERNETHY. Could you not summarize the specific objectives of each act in a page or two?

Mr. KNOBLAUCH. Yes, sir.

Mr. ABERNETHY. So that that might be inserted, and not encumber the record with the entire document. Would that be satisfactory? Mr. ANDRESEN. That would be satisfactory to me, but we have to explain this bill if there are questions along that line.

Mr. KNOBLAUCH. I would be happy to do it, sir. It can be done within 3 or 4 pages.

Mr. ABERNETHY. I should like to ask a question along the line Mr. Andresen raised. The Hatch Act, I presume, authorizes certain specific work; is that right?

Mr. KNOBLAUCH. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Mr. ABERNETHY. And an appropriation of $765,000 for such work. Now, does the Adams Act authorize other work of a specific character, different from that of the Hatch Act?

Mr. KNOBLAUCH. If I might, Mr. Chairman, just review the acts

Mr. ABERNETHY. Can you just answer that first "Yes" or "No" and then explain?

Mr. KNOBLAUCH. Yes.

Mr. ABERNETHY. It does. Let me go a little further. Does the Purnell Act authorize work of another character in the experiment stations?

Mr. KNOBLAUCH. Yes.

Mr. ABERNETHY. And title I, section 5, of the Bankhead-Jones Act I presume authorizes another type of work to be carried on in the experiment stations.

Mr. KNOBLAUCH. Each is an enlargement.

Mr. ABERNETHY. And the same would apply to title I, section 9, of the Bankhead-Jones Act as amended by the 1946 Agricultural Research and Marketing Act?

Mr. KNOBLAUCH. That is right.

Mr. ABERNETHY. For each of those there was a specific authorization set forth in the act.

This table which you have presented to us will be inserted in the record at this point.

(The table is as follows:)

Provisions of the Federal-grant acts for agricultural research

4

Limited to 5 percent

Do.

for land and buildings.