by Executive order for refuge purposes. As an indication of the importance of this activity of the personnel, it may be reported that up to the present time 12 separate units of land or of land and water containing 249,756 acres have thus been set aside for refuge purposes. This now represents more than 65 per cent of all areas taken under jurisdiction, and there has been no cost involved except that for investigation and survey incident to selection. This work should be continued because of its importance to the conservation of migratory birds and of withdrawals of marginal public land from other forms of use. The personnel employed on this work have been engaged from 3 to 24 years on the examination, appraisal, survey, and title examination of lands. Their special knowledge of the many problems with which they deal is unique, and has been acquired through long years of specialization in the field of land acquisition. The accomplishments demonstrate that costs incident to land acquisition operations have been held at very low levels. The examination and appraisal of lands has cost $0.035 per acre; cadastral surveys to determine the contents of the tracts being acquired and to define their boundaries have been made at the rate of $0.345 per acre; purchase negotiations costs (but charged only against lands actually taken under contract) amount to less than $0.10 per acre; and the costs of all title examinations (but charged only against lands actually conveyed to the United States) have been only $0.15 per acre. Further curtailment of appropriations for the refuge program would seriously affect the present effective organization, and the early consequences as well as those in the long run would be harmful to the work that has been authorized under the migratory bird conservation act. It would also have a noticeable and unfavorable effect on the upper Mississippi River, the Malheur, the Cheyenne Bottoms, and the Bear River Refuges and other projects authorized by separate legislation. In preparing the estimates for this appropriation substantial reductions for the employment and expenses of personnel were made in anticipation of curtailed appropriations for the acquisition of lands for the fiscal year 1934. For the reasons stated above, I am of the opinion that no further reductions should be made at this time unless such action is absolutely necessary. If, however, no funds are appropriated for new purchases of land the following items under the project “Acquisition of land" can be dropped: Departmental salaries: Associate land valuation engineer 1 Senior photographer Total. 2 Field salaries: Junior forester 2. Total. Less 8% per cent furlough reduction.. Total.. Purchase of land 4. $3, 200 2, 300 5, 500 2,000 7,500 625 6,875 Decrease.. 97, 900 104, 775 Since the acquisition of the refuge proposed for California for which the item of $97,900 would be required is of such outstanding importance, both by reason of its value for the conservation of migratory birds on the Pacific coast flyway and because of the extremely low price for which it can now be obtained, I am strongly of the opinion that funds should be made available for its purchase, if practicable. It will be necessary, of course, to continue the following projects without reduction: Investigations of food resources of migratory bird refuge areas. Disease investigations- Maintenance of migratory bird conservation refuges.. Total Therefore, if no funds are appropriated for new purchases of land for the fiscal year 1934 under the migratory bird conservation act $89,525, including the $23,650 covered by the three projects listed above, will be required as the appropriation "Migratory bird conservation refuges," for refuge administration, necessary investigations, and to carry the personnel and to pay the expenses that must be incurred to finish the work remaining to be done on cases now in the process of acquisition. MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION COMMISSION Mr. BUCHANAN. You have a paragraph in the bill making the unexpended balances of the sums made available in the agricultural appropriation act for the fiscal year 1933 for the purposes of sections 12 and 18 of the act of February 18, 1929, continued available for the same purposes for the fiscal year 1934. That refers to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. WORK UNDER THIS APPROPRIATION The Migratory Bird Conservation Commission passes upon areas that are recommended for purchase or lease by the Secretary of Agriculture. Semiannual meetings are held for this purpose. The migratory bird conservation act authorizes an annual appropriation of $5,000 to cover the expenses of the commission. Mr. BUCHANAN. What is the membership of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission? Who are they? Mr. REDINGTON. The Secretaries of Agriculture, Interior, and Commerce, two Senators, and two Congressmen. Mr. BUCHANAN. You do not know what their expenditure is this year? Mr. REDINGTON. Well, it is comparatively small. One of our men acts as secretary. Mr. THOMPSON. $3,500 is available. Mr. BUCHANAN. In 1932, $1,500, and 1933, $2,500. Mr. THOMPSON. But a thousand goes over to 1934. Miss SMITH. $5,000 was appropriated in 1932, of which $1,500 was spent that year and the balance reappropriated for 1933. Of the $3,500 available for 1933 it is estimated $2,500 will be expended, leaving $1,000 to be reappropriated for 1934. Mr. BUCHANAN. It is an allocation out of the other appropriation, an unexpended balance, whatever it is. CHEYENNE BOTTOMS MIGRATORY-BIRD REFUGE Mr. BUCHANAN. The next item is: The unexpended balances of the appropriation of $50,000 contained in the second deficiency act, fiscal year 1930, and of the appropriation of $200,000 contained in the agricultural appropriation act for the fiscal year 1932, shall remain available until June 30, 1934, for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the act entitled "An act authorizing the establishment of a migratory-bird refuge in the Cheyenne Bottoms, Barton County, Kansas," approved June 12, 1930 (U. S. C., Supp. V, title 16, secs. 691-691d), and for necessary expenses incident thereto, including the employment of persons and means in the District of Columbia and elsewhere. Mr. REDINGTON. I submit the following statement in substantiation of that item: Appropriation, 1932.. $200, 000 The unexpended balances of the appropriations for 1931 and 1932 were continued available for 1933 and are recommended continued available for 1934. CHANGE IN LANGUAGE It is necessary to continue the unexpended balances of the appropriations for the fiscal year 1931 and 1932 available for 1934 as complications have arisen in the negotiations for the purchase of refuge land which may not be cleared up during the present fiscal year. WORK UNDER THIS APPROPRIATION The establishment of the Cheyenne Bottoms migratory-bird refuge was provided for by act of Congress approved June 12, 1930, authorizing an appropriation of $250,000 to acquire 20,000 acres of land for a migratory-bird refuge in the Cheyenne Bottoms, Barton County, Kans. This sum has been appropriated. The area forms an important link in the chain of refuges to be established through out the United States. Mr. REDINGTON. Those lands must be acquired by condemnation, sir; and we are asking that there be a carry-over to permit us to meet the obligations after the condemnation proceedings have been finished. Mr. SANDLIN. Will it take the full amount of $200,000? Mr. REDINGTON. That is probable but we will not know definitely until the condemnation proceedings have been completed. PURCHASE OF AUTOMOBILES Mr. BUCHANAN. The next item is: Total, Bureau of Biological Survey, $1,513,137, of which amount not to exceed $299,700 may be expended for departmental personal services in the District of Columbia, and not to exceed $15,250 shall be available for the purchase of motor propelled passenger-carrying vehicles necessary in the conduct of field work outside the District of Columbia. Well, you have allocated in 1934, $15,250, for the purchase of automobiles. You had better put some explanation of that into the record. Mr. REDINGTON. I have it here if you wish to hear it, otherwise I can put it into the record. Several years ago it was administratively determined advisable to furnish Government cars to employees for Government work if official travel by automobile aggregated 12,000 or more miles per year and in certain cases where it was less than this. This policy has been extended to include cases also where reimbursement can not be made under decisions of the Comptroller General for considerable travel required of our employees if performed in their personally owned cars. If Government cars are not furnished employees for such work it will be necessary for them to hire cars at rates varying from 10 to 15 cents per mile. It has been found that the Government can operate cars far more cheaply than the employees due to Government discounts on repair parts, purchase of tires and tubes through the General Supply Committee, purchase of gasoline not subject to State tax, purchase of gasoline and oil under large contracts, and so forth. The average operating cost for light cars, exclusive of depreciation on car, has been found to be 2 cents or slightly less per mile. The Government can also purchase cars more cheaply than an individual as a discount is allowed from the list price and the bureau is participating in the department consolidated purchase plan which further materially decreases the price. The bureau purchases cars of the less expensive types, this year's prices ranging from $358 to $665 for coupes, coaches, and sedans of various makes. Mr. BUCHANAN. I notice you propose to get 26 new cars at a gross cost of $17,325. Of that amount you exchanged 12 passenger vehicles and 2 trucks. That is, 14 old cars you exchanged on that 26, as I understand it. Mr. REDINGTON. Yes, sir. Mr. BUCHANAN. I suppose this other figure, $2,075, is the estimated amount that they will allow you on the old cars in exchange for the new. Miss SMITH. That is it. Mr. SUMMERS. You spoke of operating for 2 cents a mile a while ago. Mr. HENDERSON. That does not include depreciation on automobiles. It includes only the operating expenses of gas, oil, tires, repairs, and so forth. Mr. SUMMERS. You are purchasing 12 new cars. Mr. REDDINGTON. Twelve additions. Mr. BUCHANAN. Why do you need the 12 additions? You have been getting along so far without them. Why do you need them? Mr. REDINGTON. It is to replace personally owned cars that are now being used, and which are costing us more money than Government owned cars could be operated for. Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Redington referred to 10 cents or 15 cents a mile for those fellows operating their own cars. Miss SMITH. That is the rate we would have to pay for hired cars, not the rate we pay our employees. Mr. JUMP. We are allowed to pay up to 7 cents per mile but pay not to exceed 5 cents in most cases. That again brings up the point about our inability to reimburse employees for use of their cars at their official stations. When the new uniform law for the hire of employee-owned automobiles Congress left out a provision that was very important, in fact vitally so, to a department like ours, that is, the authority, specifically and affirmatively, to reimburse employees for authorized use of their automobiles at their official stations. The comptroller has rendered a long list of decisions in which he has ruled under what circumstances reimbursement may or may not be had. We have had numerous cases where a man has incurred expense in good faith, for travel within a wide radius of his station and yet can not collect reimbursement. So in many cases, we can hire transportation, common carrier or otherwise, if common carrier not available, but can not reimburse employees for the use of their own cars. That has caused this whole auto transportation situation to have a complete turnover at the present time. Seven cents per mile is the highest we have paid employees in any case. We are not paying that as a general thing. We are usually paying 5 cents, that is the general level, with graduations below, and in a limited number of cases, above, where the circumstances require and justify. Mr. BUCHANAN. Is that correct, Mr. Jump, that you can hire a car from anybody and pay them whatever it costs to hire it, but if you let an employee use his own car you can not pay him nearly as much as the outside person you hire from? Mr. JUMP. That is true, generally, but the comptroller may at any time say, "Why did you hire this car? Why didn't you use a common carrier?" If we can show there was no common carrier available the hire of the car will be allowed as necessary for the business of the Government. I have had to do that myself and paid as high as 10 or 15 cents out in a part of Arizona where there was no common carrier, but if we should hire a private car to drive from here to Baltimore and charge a rate of 20 or 25 cents a mile the comptroller would have to know why we didn't use a common carrier, that is, bus, steam, or electric transportation. A good deal of this work in the West is done at places where there is no common carrier available, and if Government transportation is not available there we have a legal right to hire by livery. I wish to make it clear we could get cheaper transportation, all things considered, from the employee if the comptroller could allow it under the law. Mr. BUCHANAN. Have you all made any figures to show that the purchase of these cars would ultimately result in economy to the Government? If you have not you had better make them and put them into the record. Mr. HENDERSON. We have statistics on the cost of operating Government-owned cars. Mr. BUCHANAN. What I am talking about now is applying your statistics to the facts of your bureau, to the facts relating to these 26 cars, or these 12 additional cars. You exchanged your 14 cars for 14 other cars. That is easily understood, because they are old cars and their maintenance would cost much more than buying new cars and maintaining them. In the life of a car a time comes when it does not pay to run it, because its cost of up-keep and for repairs is too great. That is easily understood. But why you should have 12 additional cars is not so easily understood by Congress. Mr. SANDLIN. In other words, you want to show that if they did not have these additional cars what the cost would be. Mr. BUCHANAN. Yes. the cost of car hire. What it would cost for the new cars and Mr. JUMP. Here is the point I think we all should remember on the question of replacement. In this act you have a provision that we can not expend more than one-third of the replacement value of a car in any year for repairs and replacements, except of course, gas, oil, tires, and other running costs. We can not legally spend more than one-third of the replacement of cars annually, and that keeps the replacements on an economic turnover. Mr. BUCHANAN. Yes; if it is complied with. Mr. JUMP. It is complied with. We have to keep accounts on that basis. Miss SMITH. One-half of our 12 new cars are for game protectors that have not had cars before, but have been required to use their own cars. They have not been furnished Government cars before, but it has been determined that it would be more economical to furnish them. Mr. BUCHANAN. Yes; I want the facts upon which you reached that determination. Mr. REDINGTON. All right, sir. Of the additional 12 new passenger-carrying automobiles which the bureau desires to purchase in 1934 six are for United States game protectors engaged in the enforcement of the migratory bird treaty act and regulations. The patrolling of the territory assigned to them in |