The CHAIRMAN. I thought that statement would be helpful to the committee, if you have such a statement. If you have it you may make it at the beginning. If you haven't it, you might place it in the record. Mr. WARBURTON. Yes. (The statement referred to is as follows:) Expenditures of extension funds, 1922-23. Estimated. as financial reports for Illinois and Louisiana not received to date. 274, 792. 27 574,874.93 33,044. 94 404, 762. 97 341, 376. 20 415, 543. 91 894, 052. 43 121, 837.89 134, 155. 65 511,562. 01 302, 888. 18 294, 681. 84 370, 865. 35 127, 148. 84 18,019, 974. 56 Mr. SMITH. The statement that you quote from, Mr. Aswell, is for the years 1923 and 1924, and was that 74 per cent of all extension moneys is spent for county work of various kinds, of which amount about 64.7 per cent is spent in the counties. That is for the year 1923. Mr. CLARKE. How much for county work? Mr. SMITH. Seventy-four per cent spent for county work. Mr. ASWELL. The statement says in the counties themselves, and you say it three times. Mr. SMITH. In the counties themselves? Mr. ASWELL. Yes. Mr. SMITH. That is all county agents. As we have it here it is 64.7 per cent. The CHAIRMAN. You mean the money appropriated by the Federal Government? Mr. SMITH. All moneys that go into extension work. A total of $18,878,000 goes into extension work, and of that amount $14,041,000 goes into county work. The CHAIRMAN. Is that the amount of the appropriation by the Federal Government spent in the counties? Mr. SMITH. From the Smith-Lever source there will go into the county work $2,491,636 during the year ending June 30 next The CHAIRMAN. What is the tot il appropriation? Mr. SMITH. I haven't that in my mind exactly. Mr. WARBURTON. $5,880,000, Smith-Lever. Originally it was $4,580,000, and there is a supplemental of $1,300,000, under the same terms, so it makes a total of $5,880,000. The CHAIRMAN. Two million of that was expended for county agents? Mr. WARBURTON. $3,780,000, practically. Mr. VOIGT. Mr. Chairman, can't we get the total amount appropriated for the current fiscal year for extension work? The CHAIRMAN. He is giving that now. Mr. WARBURTON. There is an additional appropriation under the head of farmers' cooperative demonstration work which is practically $1,300,000, making approximately $7,000,000. Mr. VOIGT. Without any trouble, can you give us the total amount of money appropriated for the current year for the extension or demonstration work? Mr. WARBURTON. You mean the Federal appropriation or from all sources? Mr. VOIGT. The Federal appropriation. Mr. WARBURTON. A little over $7,000,000. Mr. VOIGT. That is the total? Mr. WARBURTON. That is the total. The CHAIRMAN. The total is $18,000,000, and that includes appropriations made by the States and various organizations? Mr. WARBURTON. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. $7,000,000 of that is the Federal appropriation? Mr. WARBURTON. Yes. Mr. VOIGT. This bill applies only to Federal money? Mr. ASWELL. The total Federal appropriation for all extension work is a little under $7,000,000; practically $7,000,000. The amount of money expended this year-I have these figures from the Secretary of Agriculture, through request upon him, and the total amount expended at the headquarters-that is, at the colleges for specialists and supervision-is $7,000,000. That is in administering the bill carrying $18,000,000. In other words, the Federal Government appropriates $7,000,000 for this work and then it turns around and uses $7,000,000 in overhead. Here are the facts. The amount of money that goes into the counties-this is not exact in dollars and cents-but the amount of money that goes to the counties is about $719,000 from the $1,000,000 lump sum here, and $280,000 is expended here in Washington. Under the Federal Smith-Lever Act you spend nearly two million and a half in the counties, and that is offset by the State funds of $1,353,000 and other State funds of $425,000. The total of State and Federal appropriations going into the counties in round numbers is $5,000,000. The CHAIRMAN. $5,000,000 out of the $18,000,000? Mr. ASWELL. Yes. That is the State and Federal Governments together, $5,000,000 reaches the counties themselves and then the counties themselves raise six million six hundred and some odd thousand. The State and Federal Governments combined send the counties $5,000,000. The counties raise over $6,000,000. That is $11.000,000. Seven million dollars is spent in overhead expense. In other words, there is being spent in overhead expenses in the administration of this $18,000,000 exactly the sum of money that the Federal Government provided for the work. That is a record of facts. (The tables referred to by Mr. Aswell are as follows:) Total extension funds expended during fiscal year ended June 30, 1923, for administration, supervision, and subject-matter specialists and ratio per county extension agent. 1 Estimated, as financial reports for Illinois and Louisiana not received to date, Mar. 6, 1924. Total extension funds expended during fiscal year ended June 30, 1923, for administration and supervision, and ratio per county extension worker. Mr. CLARKE. As I understand it, 74 per cent of the Federal appropriation goes into the counties? Mr. ASWELL. That is inaccurate and I challenge that statement. Mr. WARBURTON. Seventy-four per cent of all extension money? Mr. ASWELL. I am speaking of the money expended in the counties. If you count the specialists that go out from the colleges and spends while and travel about the counties giving lectures, if you count that part of their salaries as covering county work, that is a different question. But my point is that the counties themselves raise over $6,000,000, the Federal Government and the States send in $5,000,000, making $11,000,000, and the Federal Government provides $7,000,000, and you spend all of that $7,000,000 in overhead. The CHAIRMAN. What does that overhead include? Mr. ASWELL. Subject matter, specialists, administration, supervision, and other things. You have 12 experts going out from Washington into the counties. There are 12 experts that go out of other bureaus here into the counties. The CHAIRMAN. Can you give us the total for administration? Mr. ASWELL. Yes. Specialists, $6,721,863.42. That is for supervision and specialists. The CHAIRMAN. Can you segregate that into what might be properly called overhead? Do you call that all overhead? Mr. ASWELL. That is overhead. Administration and supervision. The first amount is for specialists, administration, and supervision. Now, for administration and supervision it was $3,764,829.21. I got that from Secretary Wallace this morning. If you subtract that amount of administration and supervision from the total that I gave you a moment ago, the specialists represent about the same amount, just about $3,500,000 for one and $3,500,000 for the other. This also reveals the fact that of the number of county agents there are about 751 counties of the country that have no agents at all. My opinion is this $3,500,000 that is expended in overhead for all these men-I am in favor of some specialists of the right kindbut that $3,500,000 expended in overhead necessarily would send more than $1,000 additional into every county in the United States. Furthermore, we have 3,044 farm counties in the United States and $7,000,000 in supervision and specialists in those counties, $3,500,000 reduction in overhead, would take more than a thousand to every county in the United States additional. There are 2,300 counties having agents-751 counties have no agents of any kind-and that amounts to $1,522 overhead for each of the counties that have agents. In other words, while I am not giving the exact figures, there are in round numbers 2,300 counties that have agents and you spend $1,522 in each of the counties in overhead, in having people come in and lecture and for administration, etc. I think that is too much. There are 841 specialists from the colleges of the country, 425 administratives and supervisors from the colleges, and 12 specialists from Washington. Those 12 specialists going out from here cost over $12,000 a year. Mr. JOHNSON. How much? Mr. ASWELL. Over $42,000, a year-1,266 specialists and supervisors cost $7,000,000, or $5,525 apiece. Something was said about the salary of the specialist being charged to the county while he is in the county. I do not know how many days he spends in the county, but there is one specialist for three counties in the United States where there are agents. As a matter of fact, there is one for a little less than three counties. The CHAIRMAN. You say it averages a specialist for three counties? Mr. ASWELL. There is a specialist for less than three counties on the average, where they have agents. Mr. KETCHAM. What is your recommendation with reference to this matter? As I understand it there are some specialists you approve of? Mr. ASWELL. I mean this, and I do not mean to take the time of the witnesses either I think in every college in the United States there are some men in the faculty who are inspiring to the people of the State. I think it is a fine thing to send men of that type out to inspire the farmers. But this procedure has been abused in some of the States. It does not apply to all of the States, but when they |