AURICULTUllAL APPUOlMtlATlON BlLl^ 1024. 5 



luiii^iii^ tlif total for tin- li.Mul yi-ur H'J.'i up t«).S'»0.'J:jJM7.» for tlmt purt 

 of the work of tlu' (U'juutiiu'iit ordinurily pr<i\i«l«Ml for in tliis way. 

 At llui vtMV oulst't I \v(nil<l like to invite tlu' attention <»f tlu* coni- 

 niittoe to the fart tluit the t'stiniates for 1!>24, us uppnived hy the liu- 

 reaii of the Hnd^ret, cany a total of $:i<>.(Kll.r>i;j for tlie items to 

 which the re;ridar a;:i icidtiiial act has previously hem fonlined. 

 This is the fi<;ure coniparahh' to the Jr^Wl.U'JiMT^i tarrii'd for \US.\ und 

 to which 1 referreil u moment up), and therefore the estinuites f«»r 

 the (K'partnient proper contemphite jt net i'e(hiction of $h;>7, .'>«»(( over 

 the ap{)ropriati<tns a\aihilile thi.s year for tlie same purposes. There 

 are lUcreases proooseil winch total ^l..")01.()40, and increases amounting 

 to $G()i,()b(), to whicii I will refer lati-r, and in this way the $Hy7..'»G0 

 net reduction is arrived at. I have undeitaken to explain thi~ in 

 detail for the reason that in the estinmtes f«>r 1S)'J4 as submitted these 

 tiirures are not computed, and since thev are reallv of the utmost im- 

 portance in any consideration of the api)ro|)riations for the re^rular 

 work of the <Iepartment. it (Hcurred to me that the committee would 

 dt'sire to ha\e ihi'in he fore it at the outset. As you have undoubt- 

 edly observed, the total H^iure of the estimates is clianjrt'd entirely 

 over previous years, and this, of course, is due to a new departure, 

 namely, the inclusion in the lejrular estimates of the recommenda- 

 tions for the actual appropriations, pursuant to e.\istin<i aiitli'n i/ti. 

 tions, for Federal aid and forest road construct it)n. 



^^'ith this preliminary explanation I will proceed to a brief discus- 

 sion of the Bud;_fet as a wh<de.containin<j:. as I ha\e indicate(l. not only 

 the funds actuallv expended by the department i)Ut the lar^e Fed- 

 eral funds administered by the department as well, as distiniruished 

 from those which it actually uses. 



The estimates as approved by the Bureau of (lie Hud^et. contem- 

 ]>lates, as tlie committee has seen, the appropriation of ^iSl.'jrjl.ril.'i 

 for all j)urposes. This is an apparent increase of $18,830,577 over 

 tlie total of $02,412,030 shown in the estimates as the appropriations 

 to date for the same purposi^s durin<r the fiscal year 1923. But for 

 the purpose of i)ractical consideration it is a decrease of S31,H)0.423, 

 for the reason that while the $r)0,000,000 appropriation authorized 

 Dv the Post Office a])propriation act for 1923 to be appropriated for 

 Fe<Ieral aid to the States in lii<:hway construction durinii the fiscal 

 vear 1U23 has not vet actuallv been made, the lanmiaw of the an- 

 thorization is such as to empower the Secretary of Ajrriculture to 

 make apportionments amon^ the States and to enter into contractual 

 obliirations on that basis. It would seem, therefore, that the $50.- 

 OOO.tKR) must be re«rarded in the same li^ht as an actual appropria- 

 tion in reckoninfj the funds for 1923. This would brin^ the total for 

 1023 up to $112,412,030, which compared with the totalof the present 

 estimates. SSl.251.()l.">. indicates the decrease of $:M, 100,423 to wliich 

 1 have referred. 



It seems important that this be taken into acconnt, because the 

 compilations which have been made of the actual appropriations for 

 this year necessarily place the amount at $02.412.O3«'>. and the esti- 

 mat«.'s for next year at $!sl,251.013. The $()2,412,(>30 li<rure, of coui*se. 

 IS techniially correct, but the $50,000,000 authorization for Fed- 

 eral aid should be taken into account with it, since, pursuant to the 

 language of the authorization, the apportionments have been made 



