or otherwise dispose of these properties, and it therefore seeks removal of the restrictive conditions in its deeds.

Section 1 of H.R. 16065 authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to release from the "Public Use" requirement in the 1955 deeds to the specified properties.

Section 2 provides that the proceeds from a sale, lease, or other disposition of such lands be maintained by the university in a separate fund, and that the university would use the proceeds for the acquisition of lands or the development of improvement of any lands so acquired. I believe this is in accord with the purposes of the original conveyance to the university.

Section 3 deals with the question of mineral rights. The deeds in question, reserve to the United States, mineral rights, mining rights, and the rights to enter upon such land for the removing of such minerals. The provisions of H.R. 16065 were drafted by the general counsel for the Department of Agriculture following changes made last year by your committee during consideration of H.R. 11527, a bill introduced by Congressman Hathaway of Maine to deal with a situation nearly identical to the one which we consider today.

Section 3 further authorizes the release by the Secretary of the Interior of the Government's mineral rights. The bill authorizes the Secretary to release these rights for a nominal consideration, if he determines that the lands have no mineral value. Otherwise, the mineral interests are to be sold at their fair market value.

Section 4 authorizes the collection of "Administrative Costs" for application made under the provisions of section 3 and empowers the Secretary of the Interior to establish the amount of the nonrefundable deposit to accompany each such application.

Section 5 defines the term "Administrative Costs" as used in the

act.

Section 6 provides for the deposit with the Treasury of sums received under this act as miscellaneous receipts.

At this point, I ask permission to insert in the record a statement prepared by Dr. H. L. Self, professor-in-charge of outlying farms. May I also note that the statement has the concurrence of Dean Floyd Andre, who has the administrative responsibility for land and other assets assigned to the college of agriculture.

May I also submit for appropriate disposition by the committee, copies of the two pertinent deeds.

Mr. JONES. Without objection, the statement of Professor Self will be incorporated in the record following your and Mr. Kyl's presentations.

Do you think it necessary that the deeds be put into the record? Are they long?

Mr. SCHERLE. No, Mr. Chairman. What I would like to do is simply submit them.

Mr. JONES. I see. Without objection, we will accept them for the files of the committee but not to be made a part of the record.

(The copies of deeds referred to will be found in the files of the subcommittee.)

Mr. JONES. Are there any questions of either Mr. Scherle or Mr. Kyl?

Mr. KLEPPE. You made the statement here that this bill is almost or nearly identical with the one that we passed last year that Congressman Hathaway_introduced.

Mr. SCHERLE. Yes.

Mr. KLEPPE. What differences are there between that bill and this one, particularly?

Mr. SCHERLE. The difference is in section 2, dealing with disposition of proceeds. The Hathaway bill would originally have permitted use for improvement of lands of the university in addition to the acquisition of lands. Because the Senate was concerned with the breadth of this provision, that portion dealing with improvement was stricken. Mr. KLEPPE. That is a substantial difference, is it not?

Mr. SCHERLE. Pardon?

Mr. KLEPPE. Is that not a rather substantial difference?

Mr. SCHERLE. The difference is that our provision was more restrictive at the outset. Our section 2 would permit acquisition of lands to replace existing property and the improvement of lands so acquired. Mr. KLEPPE. Where were you reading from?

Mr. SCHERLE. Page 2 of our bill.

Mr. KLEPPE. What line?

Mr. SCHERLE. On H.R. 16065, subsection 1 of section 2. It is the 14th line, and states

That all the proceeds from the sale, lease, exchange, or disposition of such lands shall be used by the university for the acquisition of lands to be held for university purposes, or for the development or improvement of any lands so acquired.

So, really, the change is not necessarily great for the simple reason that if the land is sold in excess of the amount of money required to replace it, this should not prevent them from making additional improvement on such lands as are acquired.

Mr. KLEPPE. This is a matter of where this land was deeded to the University of Iowa which was then called Iowa State College and Mechanical Arts at that time-it was deeded to them in 1955-the Secretary conveyed these lands to the university in 1955. They had been used, of course, for the purposes stipulated under the terms of that transaction at that time, and the basis for H.R. 16065 is to release the university from the public use provision under which that deed was transferred at that time, together with the utilization of the funds acquired from the sale. They may be used for the development of other university property. This is about what it is?

Mr. SCHERLE. That is correct. In the statement furnished by Dr. Self, the last paragraph, is self-explanatory.

Mr. KYLE. Could I respond to that?

Mr. KLEPPE. Yes.

Mr. KYL. The university does not contemplate abandoning the purposes for which these lands were acquired. These two tracts are many miles apart. They do not constitute a unit of sufficient size and value to carry on the experimentation which they feel is necessary. Therefore, the funds to be derived from this transaction would be utilized from purchasing a single tract which would be utilized for the same purpose, plus the development of that tract in any way that they deem necessary.

And if I might respond just one bit further: In carrying out the appropriation for experimentation on these lands, the university has spent a lot of money in contributions from taxes to provide the kind of improvement on the land which they make tests for future recommendations to the farmers in the areas who are engaged in similar operations, and the improvements on the land which are suggested in the bill are only which are, for instance, in the establishment of farm ponds for stock watering and perhaps a study of new means for watering stock or feeding with experimental grasses which might have a higher carrying capacity, or any of these practices with which you all are very familiar.

Mr. KLEPPE. I accept your explanation, Mr. Kyl, and I agree with it. I think this is exactly what it says.

The point that I am trying to make is that the legislation is asking for relief from the stipulation of public use that was originally covered under the deed that conveyed this land from the Secretary to the university back in 1955; is that correct?

Mr. SCHERLE. If I might answer your question: The legislation we are contemplating here this morning-in the Iowa Legislature we call this a legalizing act; in other words, it is nothing more than to grant permission to an agency or department to solve a problem or legalize an action that affects no other agency or department.

Mr. KLEPPE. That is what this covers here?

Mr. SCHERLE. This is right.

Mr. KYL. May I respond one bit further?

Mr. KLEPPE. Yes.

Mr. KYL. I think what the bill actually calls for is the transfer of this public use from these two tracts to a tract which would be purchased.

Mr. KLEPPE. I will accept that. I think your legislation covers that. Mr. KYL. That is right.

Mr. JONES. In other words, you mean that they do not contemplate selling either one of these two tracts?

Mr. SCHERLE. There is a possibility that one or the other, or both, might be sold to make an efficient unit for the continuation of a beefcow herd. The land in southern Iowa is not geared for crop production as much as it is for the raising or beef cattle. The units are 75 miles apart. They are too small as separate units to be efficient or as they would be if they were allowed to become a large unit. There is a possibility that one or the other would be sold and joined to the one that is left, or both could be sold so they could purchase a larger unit which would be much more efficient to continue the production and research of beef cattle as we all know it.

Mr. JONES. These are small tracts of land, you say. They do not seem very small to me. Of course, in Mr. Price's area they would be small. Mr. KLEPPE. In my area they would be, too.

Mr. JONES. In Iowa, if you have a 400-acre farm I think you would be pretty well off.

Mr. SCHERLE. If I may refer this question to Mr. Kyl because this is his district and he is very familiar with land use in that area.

Mr. JONES. What type of land is it?

Mr. KYL. When I first made my statement, I pointed out, Mr. Jones,

that this is not the deep rich relatively flat land which we usually think of in connection with Iowa's corn country.

My own county which is an adjoining county is 65 percent tree covered. It is more rolling. It is subject to siltation, to serious loss of soil. Conservation practices are essential. The soil is thin. It is particularly suited to grazing. As a matter of fact, my home county and the other next to it are among the four or five top sheep-producing counties in the United States annually-and have been for many years. It is a grazing country.

Now, you asked about the sizes of these pieces of land. Because of the carrying capacity of the land, we know that for a herd of 100 animal units, 100 cows, it cannot provide a decent living in this area-or in any other, as a matter of fact at this time. It is simply a matter of economics.

Mr. JONES. In other words, would it take more than 4 or 5 acres to carry one head?

Mr. KYL. Year-round, yes, sir, but the unit

Mr. KLEPPE. You are talking about 100 cows which make for a greater number of cattle.

Mr. KYL. An animal unit, being a cow and a calf produced each year. If we use the figures from the Universities of Iowa, Illinois, Nebraska, we find that most economists now figure it costs them $70 to $80 a year to maintain a cow in a breeding herd. If we sell calves at 400 pounds, which is a pretty good average figure for an early sale, at 25 cents a pound, which is an average figure for the last many years, we have $100 produced and $80 expended. And you can see that if this is the operation, it would take 100 to 150 cows to provide a minimum income for the individual who has the investment in the land.

Mr. JONES. One other question: What would you think would be the use to which this land would be put by the new purchaser?

Mr. SCHERLE. Perhaps to maintain a smaller herd of cattle, or perhaps, a dairy.

Mr. Kyl and I both have beef cattle. He has a herd of Black Angus and I have a herd of shorthorn beef cows. So, we are very cognizant of what it takes for this type of an operation.

In his general area, it takes 4 or 5 acres to maintain a cow and a calf, and in my part of country we can get by with 1 acre. So, you can see the productivity of better land. This is primarily grazing land. All the university asks for is that they be allowed to sell one parcel or both parcels of land which are 75 miles apart, and combine this with additional land, to make for an efficient operation.

Mr. JONES. Thank you.

Mr. Price wants to ask a question.

Mr. PRICE. You know, this is my profession, too.

We all know about cow numbers, how many acres it takes per head to run an efficient unit. To me this is talking about another subject. We are not talking about running an efficient unit in your area; we are talking about a gift to a school. I can see that in order to run a more efficient operation that the land, of course, should be put together.

A question comes to my mind. I see it happening in agricultural schools. The population on the farms is going down and there is a

shift from some agricultural objective in our agricultural schools to some other unrelated objective, such as engineering and things of this nature, a shift away from research and experimentation in our agriculture areas.

If the school has another area in mind or another piece of land, an adjoining property, to one of the parcels, I would certainly be for it, but if they want to sell this property and put this money in, say, the bank until such time as they can shift it into some other area. I just

cannot be for that.

Mr. SCHERLE. No; it is not the idea or the intent to do that, because, as I mentioned in my statement this morning, the sale of this land is covered in section 2 which provides that the proceeds from the sale, lease, or other disposition of such lands shall be maintained by the university in a separate fund, and that the university will use the proceeds for the acquisition of lands or for the development or improvement of any land so acquired.

Mr. PRICE. Do they have another plot adjoining one of these parcels in mind now?

Mr. SCHERLE. I do not believe they have at the present time. This will require legislation that will allow them to sell one or the other before they purchase. However, a great deal of research and technology has come out of Iowa State College in the past years because of which we have all been better farmers-by reason thereof, and they will be able to buy additional land, and they will improve it to the extent that we all will be, I believe, benefited by the research which will be carried out on the land.

Mr. PRICE. I am just exploring this subject.

Mr. SCHERLE. I realize that; we appreciate your interest.

Mr. KYL. Might I respond to that?

Mr. PRICE. Yes.

Mr. KYL. As indicated previously, they are not trying to abrogate any public responsibility, insofar as the use of the land for public purposes are concerned. They are simply seeking to transfer that responsibility to another area from which they can carry on the kind of experimentation which will be meaningful. If these two tracts were together in one unit now instead of being 75 miles apart, they would have such a unit. They do not have it at this time.

Mr. SCHERLE. If they did, we would not be here.

Mr. PRICE. You know, sometimes a bird in hand is worth two in the bush. I would hate to see this, in the hope that sometime in the future they would hope to buy land adjoining.

Mr. SCHERLE. No; let me give you this assurance, since Mr. Kyl and I are both in the beef production business. I can guarantee you that if this piece of legislation is adopted, that the college will adhere to the reasons for this bill.

Mr. PRICE. Do you think that with this number of acres they will be able to grow sufficient food?

Mr. SCHERLE. I am sure that they can do a much better job.

You see, right now, the way it is being handled, they have one part of the herd over here and a part of a herd over here (indicating), and this land is only used for grazing purposes. We know that the most efficient operation is under one roof. All we are asking is that these farms which are 75 miles apart be allowed to be put together.