AC.RICULTIIUK .U'IMIOIMIIATION BILU 1"2<. 877 



Mr. Anderson. L«*t mo awk y«»u tlu» (|Ucstioii that I aMkrnl Mr. 

 .IiMuj) a whilo tt^o. which question did not ^o into tho roronl, but 



wliich, {)<>rlui|)s, will clarifv the sittintion. Thr f]' I wnnt 



to ask is tliis: Sunjujsc thcro is aiitlu»ri/.('<l to ho oxpoip " '"""' 'WK) 



for the noxt Hscal your, and you H()portion that to thi- hv 



croatinp un ohli^atioii on tlio Tro»wurv for its payinonf. and supponp 

 we appropriate .$.'i( ).(»()( ).()()() as hoin^ tho sum whirh will h. Jlv 



witiulrawij from tin* Troasiirv as a ronso<nionco of those ohi.^... . ,ns: 

 now, must that $.'{().()()().()()() ho apportioned in tho same ratio nn tho 

 original $ti').(M)().(HH) was apportioned, or ran that $:i() .()()() .000 be 

 dra\\n upon in the proportion in which the States have aetually (h)no 

 then" work i 



Mr. M-vrDoNAU). Well, I would jud«,'e that un<ier our present pro- 

 eoduro wo would only pay out in i)roportion. 



Mr. .\m)KI{so\. There is this distinction hetwoen what you have 

 boon doinj; horot<ifore and what you are doin^ now: Heretofore you 

 have had tho actual money appropriated. 



Mr. MacDonaM). Yes, sir. 



Mr. .Vndf.k.son. Consequently, there was no distinction between 

 the appropriation and the authorization, but it was all (ino thinj». 

 If you did not spend it in one year, vou could take it up in the noxt. 

 Now. we have made a chanj^e in that situation somewhat. an<l wo 

 have made an authorization upon which you can create oblijiations. 

 The (juestion which arises seems to be perfectly simple. If you take 

 the mimey out of the Treasury in the ratio in which you have made 

 the allotments to the States, then you are ojoing to have a certain 

 amount of money in the Treasury that lies there obli«;atetl until it 

 is expended. In the other ca.se. you have States that will have money 

 coming to them that you will not be able to pay, although it was 

 all()tted to them under the authorization, because you have not the 

 cash. The (luestion is whether this $.30,000,000 can be allotted as 

 a fund out of which you can pay obligations that arise this year, 

 without respect to the allotments created under that authorization. 

 If you can, it will take much less money than would be reciuirod the 

 other way. 



Mr. MacDoxald. My own judgment is that that is the wa}* it shouhl 

 be handled, and I know of notiiing that would prevent your putting 

 language into the law that would allow that procedure. 



Mr. Brcii.vN'AN. How about the law on the books now or tho 

 regulations of the department? Can vou not do that now? Suppose 

 we gave you .S^O.OOO.OOO in the way tlie bill reads, and suppose some 

 .States enter into contracts and c<)mplete them, while some other 

 States do not. Could you not take all of this money an<l pay the 

 obligations of States that did cimiplete their contracts, leaving tho 

 others that did not complete them obligated under the balance of tiie 

 $0.5,000.000 '. Does the law provide that the cash aporopriation shall 

 be allotted in accordance witii tho original allotment of the 

 $60,000,000 i 



Mr. MacDonald. I think thai ii would he rather heller u> make it 

 clear in the law, if possible. 



Mr. Bi'CHAXAX. This is not a legislative committee. 



Mr. MacDoxald. I think the Secretary should have authority 

 within his discretion to so use tho appropriation. 



Mr. Andkusox. It seems to me that it gets down to a fairly simple 

 proposition. We have authorized $65,000,000, and we must pay 



