language meant I couldn't tell them to save my life. All I could do would be to say "That is what they told me about this thing." Going back to the question I asked a few moments ago, I asked what language in section 1 was new language. I don't know whether anybody here knows, and that is no reflection on anyone to say they do not. I realize this is a very technical matter, it is a technical bill, and it was probably gotten up by the Solicitor's Office and people who are expert drafters. Mr. VARNEY. I think in essence they struck out the language following the purpose and substituted this other. Mr. ABERNETHY. You think all of this is new language, then? Mr. ABERNETHY. Incorporating the objectives? Mr. VARNEY. That is right. Mr. ABERNETHY. But it is all new language? Mr. VARNEY. I could not answer it "yes" or "no" because I am not a lawyer. Mr. ABERNETHY. But it doesn't help me. I am just assuming that what this bill actually does is to wipe out all of the other acts and this language is new language to bring them back into existence in a consolidated form. I doubt there are a dozen lines in this language which compares word for word with the other language. Mr. VARNEY. That is right. I am sure the Department can get from the Solicitor's Office a lineup showing exactly what is old language and what is new language. I am sure the Department could provide that. Mr. ABERNETHY. I think you will agree we certainly have to be very careful so as to be assured that we have not changed the distribution formula to the States. I would hate to see something pass and then somebody ask "What in the world did you change this for?" Mr. DIXON. This same step was taken with regard to the extension services, was it not? Mr. VARNEY. Yes. Mr. DIXON. It has worked out so beautifully that everyone is pleased with it. That is one thing in its favor. If this language is confusing in this bill, then you ought to go after the original language. Mr. ABERNETHY. I understood the administrative responsibility and the bookkeeping was difficult. That is what I understood. My understanding is that this is just to simplify bookkeeping, Mr. VARNEY. I think that is right, Mr. Chairman. I might say that I personally am very much concerned with the same question you are, that the proposed law should not change the allocation or the matching requirements, because I am director of an experiment station in a relatively small State which would be injured if such a thing did happen, so I have been very careful in working for the last 3 years to see that didn't creep in. Mr. ABERNETHY. That gives me courage because I cannot imagine any fo you fellows back in the experiment stations giving up anything, and I don't want you to do so. Mr. VARNEY. Not if we can help it. Mr. ABERNETHY. We generally get mail in the other direction; to increase. 67427-56- -5 Mr. KNOBLAUCH. We were concerned about which features of these acts were repealed and which were retained. We have prepared a summary of those sections which have been repealed. It is a two-page paper. Mr. ABERNETHY. Do you have it duplicated? Mr. KNOBLAUCH. I do not, but it can be done. Mr. ABERNETHY. It would be a good idea to insert that in the record at this point, and send us a copy of it in the next day or two. Mr. KNOBLAUCH. We would be glad to. Mr. ABERNETHY. Anything further? Mr. ANDRESEN. I would like you to refer to page 11. It reads as follows: The following listed sections or parts of sections of the Statutes at Large beretofore covering the provisions consolidated in this act are hereby repealed: Provided, however, That any rights or liabilities existing under such repealed sections or parts of sections shall not be affected by their repeal. I don't know as that is a very good way to legislate. I think you should write into a law what you are saving out of those sections rather than to infer you are saving something out of old existing laws. Otherwise reenact the sections you want to retain in existence and put it in the bill rather than to make a reference of that kind to it. Mr. THACKERY. Mr. Chairman, my impression is that the Senate, in passing the bill, did make that change. Mr. ABERNETHY. The Senate added this language? Mr. THACKERY. No, sir. The Senate modified that language, making it an outright repeal. Mr. DIXON. It is in my bill just as he read it. Mr. ANDRESEN. You have no way of interpreting just what that means. Any rights or liabilities existing under such repeal sections or parts of sections shall not be affected by their repeal. Mr. DIXON. It is to make doubly sure we do not disturb existing conditions. Mr. ABERNETHY. I think you raised a good point there, Mr. Andresen. It would be well to have the Solicitor to check that. They are saying that they have consolidated all these things. Since they have they want to repeal the old act. But in repealing the old act you want it understood you are not doing away with the program because you have brought it forward in the consolidated act. That certainly would not be the way to put it in there but that is what they say. Mr. KNOBLAUCH. Off the record. (Discussion held off the record.) Mr. ABERNETHY. Anything further, gentlemen? Mr. DIXON. Representative McIntire asked that a statement be inserted in the record at this point. Mr. ABERNETHY. Without objection that may be done. (The statement referred to is as follows:) Hon. CLIFFORD G. McINTIRE, UNIVERSITY OF MAINE, House of Representatives, Washington, D, C. DEAR CLIFF: This is to tell you of the interest of the University of Maine in the enactment of H. R. 5562, "A bill to consolidate the Hatch Act of 1887 and all other supplementary laws providing Federal grants to the State experiment stations." This bill has been introduced by the Honorable Henry A. Dixon, of Utah. This legislation, if passed, will simplify the accounting and budgeting of Federal funds for the agricultural experiment station. At present, separate accounts and budgets must be kept for the funds provided by each of the following: Hatch Act of 1887, Adams Act of 1906, Purnell Act of 1926, Bankhead-Jones Act of 1935, and Bankhead-Jones Act, amended, of 1946. H. R. 5562 will combine all' 5 grants into 1 combined fund. This not only will reduce administrative costs but will give greater flexibility in the efficient use of Federal grant funds to meet new problems and needs that develop in agriculture. The bill has been endorsed by the experiment station directors and the Association of Land-Grant Colleges and Universities. We hope that the bill may have your support. Sincerely yours, ARTHUR A. HAUCK, President, Mr. ABERNETHY. At this point we will insert in the record, without objection, statements from the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Grange, President Hauck, of the University of Maine, and from the National Cotton Council, which advised me they wish to file a statement for the record. (The statements referred to above are as follows:) AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, Re H. R. 5562, H. R. 6851. Hon. HAROLD E. COOLEY, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN COOLEY: The American Farm Bureau Federation recommends that your committee favorably report the subject matter of these bills for passage by the Congress. The objective of consolidating into 1 law the 12 laws or sections of laws which provide the authorization for Federal funds for the support of the agricultural experiment stations in the States, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, is desirable for several reasons: 1. For the many citizens who are interested in research work carried on by the experiment stations, the consolidation of authority place all of the law in a single statute. 2. Slight differences in wording of the several laws will be eliminated, resulting in a more uniform understanding. 3. Administration of funds should be simplified for both Federal and State agencies. 4. Stabilization of allotments of funds against shifting due to changes in rural and farm population. 5. The consolidation of these laws parallels the action taken by the Congress in 1953 in consolidating numerous laws authorizing funds for the cooperative extension work. We respectfully request these views be made known to your committee and be made a part of the hearing record. Very truly yours, HUGH F. HALL, Legislative Assistant, Hon. HAROLD D. COOLEY, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, THE NATIONAL GRANGE, Washington 6, D. C., July 8, 1955, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN COOLEY: The National Grange supports the purposes of H. R. 5562 and H. R. 6851, and transmits this statement with the hope that it may be made a matter of record. These bills would consolidate and simplify, beneficially, the existing authorizations and accounting of Federal-grant funds now being appropriated annually for agricultural research at State agricultural experiment stations. More specifically, the bills would consolidate 5 Federal-grant authorizations into 1. These are: 1. The Hatch Act of 1887, authorizing $15,000 annually to each State agricultural experiment station; 2. The Adams Act of 1906, similarly authorizing $15,000 annually to each such station; 3. The Purnell Act of 1926, authorizing $60,000 annually to each such station; 4. The Bankhead-Jones Act of 1935, authorizing a total of $2,600,000 annually for distribution to the States, on the basis of relative farm population, for agricultural research at such stations; and 5. The 1946 amendment to the Bankhead-Jones Act, authorizing an additional $16,800,000 annually. The proposed consolidation would preserve the total amount of funds now being provided under the five authorizations specified, and would not reduce the amount available to any one station. Further, we are pleased to note that the open-end feature of the amendment to the Bankhead-Jones Act is preserved in the consolidating bills. We are also pleased to endorse the proposed lifting of certain restrictions which currently apply to the use of some of these Federal-grant funds. In this connection, we are particularly pleased to see that the prohibition against use of Adams Act funds for the printing and distribution of research results would be abolished. Much agricultural research has little value unless and until it is made conveniently available to farmers for practical application. In fact, one of the most persistent criticisms of agricultural research work generally has been that results, once obtained, are buried in files and libraries rather than made available in usable form to farmers and stockmen. Perhaps the most important benefit that would follow enactment of the proposed legislation would be economy. Under the existing authorizations and procedures, each State agricultural experiment station must maintain a separate accounting system for the funds available under each authorizing act. The proposed consolidation would permit stations to maintain a single set of records for all Federal-grant funds available for agricultural research and thereby bring about an appreciable reduction in bookkeeping costs. In summary, our view is that the proposed legislation improves, simplifies, and reduces the cost of managing and using Federal-grant funds for agricultural research, and should, accordingly, be acted on favorably. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. COOLEY: This is to tell you of the interest of the University of Maine in the enactment of H. R. 5562, a bill to consolidate the Hatch Act of 1887 and all other supplementary laws providing Federal grants to the State experiment stations. This bill has been introduced by the Honorable Henry A. Dixon, of Utah. This legislation, if passed, will simplify the accounting and budgeting of Federal funds for the agricultural experiment station. At present, separate accounts and budgets must be kept for the funds provided by each of the following: Hatch Act of 1887; Adams Act of 1906; Purnell Act of 1926; BankheadJones Act of 1935; and Bankhead-Jones Act amended of 1946. H. R. 5562 will combine all 5 grants into 1 combined fund. This not only will reduce administrative costs but will give greater flexibility in the efficient use of Federal grant funds to meet new problems and needs that develop in agriculture. The bill has been endorsed by the experiment station directors and the Association of Land-Grant Colleges and Universities. We hope that the bill may have your support. Sincerely yours, ARTHUR A. HAUCK, President. NATIONAL COTTON COUNCIL OF AMERICA, Hon. THOMAS G. ABERNETHY, Chairman, Subcommittee on Research and Extension, House Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. ABERNETHY: The National Cotton Council of America strongly favors the provisions of H. R. 5562, which is before your committee at the present time. The main purpose of H. R. 5562 is to consolidate the various authorizations under which appropriations are made for the conduct of agricultural research in the State agricultural experiment stations. This would materially reduce the amount of paperwork, and administrative details required of the USDA and the State experiment stations in keeping records and making reports to the executive branch of the Government and to the Congress. The same information that is now furnished in a number of reports will be available to the executive branch and the Congress in one consolidated report which should make it of more value to the Congress and conserve the time of the interested congressional committee as well as the time of research workers in the various branches of the Agricultural Research Service. The Cotton Council believes that the elimination of unnecessary paperwork is a laudable objective for every segment of the Government and it is certainly vitally necessary in the agricultural research program in view of the crying need for an expanded program. The bill would not change the character, type, or scope of any research program now authorized under the various authorization acts dating from the Hatch Act of 1887. It seems highly possible that we should get slightly more research for each dollar spent by virtue of the fact that some of the time now spent on paperwork by research scientists will be saved for work on the primary task that these workers are trained for. It is our understanding that H. R. 5562 is identical to S. 1759, which has already passed the Senate. We earnestly hope, therefore, that every possible consideration will be given to H. R. 5562 and that final action on this matter may be completed prior to adjournment of this session of Congress. Sincerely, J. BANKS YOUNG, Washington Representative. Mr. ABERNETHY. Do you have some statements, Mr. Dixon? Mr. DIXON. From 35 college presidents. I should like permission to summarize them and make a short statement. Mr. ABERNETHY. Without objection, that may be done. STATEMENT OF HON. H. A. DIXON, A REPRESENTATIVÉ IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH Mr. DIXON. The bill which I have introduced, H. R. 5562, has the full endorsement of the Appropriations Committees of both the House and the Senate, the Association of Land-Grant Colleges and the Department of Agriculture. I have in my files letters of endorsements from the following presidents of land-grant colleges: Edward D. Eddy, Jr., University of New Hampshire Lloyd Morey, University of Illinois J. W. Branson, New Mexico A. & M. Ralph B. Draughton, Alabama Polytechnic Institute Richard A. Harville, University of Arizona Carey H. Bostian, North Carolina State Carl R. Woodward, University of Rhode Island E. B. Fred, University of Wisconsin A. L. Strand, Oregon State J. L. Morrill, University of Minnesota C. Clement French, Washington State Oliver S. Willham, Oklahoma State |