Mr. BUCHANAN. What is that provision of the economy act on that 12 per cent transfer between bureaus?

Mr. JUMP. The economy act provides that heads of the departments, with the approval of the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, during the fiscal year 1933 may transfer from one item to another not to exceed 12 per cent of the appropriations of the various bureaus and offices of a given department.

Mr. BUCHANAN. That authority expires in 1933?

Mr. JUMP. It applied to the fiscal year 1933 only, but, whether it is continued or not, our authority here is the same authority we have had for a great many years, and we will need to have it continued. It has been held that the authority in the agricultural bill was not revoked by the provision in the economy act. The economy act merely went a step further in that, if we need to transfer money from one bureau to another, we would have to secure the approval of the Director of the Bureau of the Budget.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Did you do anything under it?

Mr. JUMP. There have been no transfers in the Department of Agriculture under the econony act thus far.

WORK FOR OTHER DEPARTMENTS

Mr. BUCHANAN. What is the next?

Mr. JUMP. The next item, on page 427, continues, and changes the citation of the fiscal year, the authorization for the rendering of services to other departments which the Department of Agriculture is technically qualified to perform with reimbursement or transfer of funds from the activity served, to cover all expenses incurred. It is a highly essential provision that enables us to serve any branch of the Government needing such services.

CHICAGO WORLD'S FAIR CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION

There is one more item here, at page 453, appropriating $1,000,000 for the Chicago world's fair. This is omitted for 1934. It was carried in the 1933 agricultural bill as a Senate amendment last year, simply because at that time it appeared that the agricultural bill would be the first bill to pass the Congress and there was urgent need for making available, as promptly as possible, the money for the participation of the United States Government as a whole in the Century of Progress Exposition. It is not a Department of Agriculture appropriation. The money is not charged to the Department of Agriculture by the Treasury. It was not warranted to the Department of Agriculture and we have no connection with the expenditure of it except that portion which has been allotted for exhibits from the Department of Agriculture, which I believe is $84,000.

Mr. BUCHANAN. And which exhibits they are making?

Mr. JUMP. And which exhibits are now being constructed; yes, sir.

IMPOUNDING OF VACANCIES

Section 3 on page 453 is omitted because it was covered by the economy act.

CHINSEGUT HILL BIRD SANCTUARY

ARTICLE IN RE SECLUSION OF RAYMOND ROBINS

Mr. HART. Now, Mr. Chairman, I find an article on the Chinsegut Hill Bird Sanctuary that the Bureau of Plant Industry testified was turned over to them and they were using as a citrus experiment station, and here is a little story on it. That is where this celebrated gentleman, Raymond Robins, the prohibition man who disappeared, is now living and here is a little description of that farm:

A barbed-wire fence, private watchman, an Austrian countess and faithful servants keep the world away from Raymond Robins, but the most effective barrier between the mystery man of Brooksville and the public is Hasso.

Hasso is a Great Dane, and one of the biggest of that species of brute.
He doesn't like visitors.

A bespectacled daughter of the old Viennese nobility, Countess Lisa Von Borowsky, a rich young intellectual, roams the Robins estate in men's trousers and keeps a wary eye upon curious persons who view the surrounding country from the top of an old water tower, the highest spot in Florida.

Employees of the United States Department of Agriculture are on the vast estate, deeded a few months ago to the Government with the proviso that Colonel and Mrs. Robins could live there tax-free the balance of their lives.

Eventually Chinsegut Hill will be a bird sanctuary, but so far the Government has failed to stock the hilly woodlands with fowl.

The Robins's house is a huge frame structure, far more imposing than any photographs taken of it. It is a rambling white building, with spacious porches on all sides, set in an open space in the woods. It is approached by a private road blanketed with pine needles.

An old negro woman, Aunt Lizzie, is stationed at the entrance to the estate, and if any visitors should get unruly and demand admittance, she has plenty of workmen and Government employees at her beck and call.

To-day Colonel Robins remained in seclusion, receiving no visitors. Old timers of the town of Brooksville, 5 miles from the estate, recall that his father spent the last years of his life as a hermit in the Everglades.

The fact that Colonel Robins, posing as Reynolds Rogers, went to the North Carolina mountains to bury himself in the timbered hills, brought back memories of his father's isolation from society when the Colonel was a boy.

Now there is one of the uses that your citrus orchards are being put to.

Mr. JUMP. I recall having been told that the residence was reserved, under the conditions of donation, for the use of Colonel and Mrs. Robins during the period of their life-time; but I have not understood and do not believe now, even from that article, there is any interference with the conduct of the experimental work which, as I understand, is set up under a cooperative agreement with the Florida State Experiment Station. That sounds to me to be merely an interesting article written in an interesting way by a reporter.

Mr. HART. You say there is nothing in that article to indicate there was an interference with the Federal administration?

Mr. JUMP. It infers that such is the case but I do not believe the department people in charge there would permit it.

Mr. HART. Personally I think the outfit will be a great deal of expense to the Government and will be of very little value. If they want to find out about citrus fruit down there in Florida, there is plenty of citrus fruit they can keep track of.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Of course with the purchase of that farm, this committee has nothing to do, because it was donated and accepted by the Government-we accepted the donation. As a matter of fact, all of these sanctuaries for birds, fowl, or any wild game sanctuary

breeding grounds at the expense of the taxpayers, set up in the interest of keeping wild life and game birds so that people will have something to hunt and to eat, and this is going to be an expense to the Government; there is no question about that. If we had not accepted this, this expense would not have been created. The question before this committee is only as to an appropriation for the grapefruit orchard-whether it is better to rent it out, or to keep it there and see whether an experimental station is necessary. In the facts submitted to this committee as to the experiment station, the testimony has not shown the necessity for it altogether, yet.

Mr. JUMP. You must bear in mind there is also one of those demonstrations and experiments in behalf of beef cattle production in tickfreed areas. This, as I understand it, is a step toward meeting the need for work of that kind in Florida which has been brought to our attention and to the attention of this committee for the past two or three years.

Mr. BUCHANAN. I understand, by animal husbandry, but there is no appropriation provided for it.

Mr. JUMP. Yes, sir; Mr. Sheets, in his list of stations he submitted in the record the other day, sets up for this work $20,000 for 1933, and $15,000 for 1934, out of existing appropriations.

Mr. BUCHANAN. That is not for this grapefruit business, is it?

Mr. JUMP. No; it is for beef cattle. The grapefruit business is primarily oranges, I think, the tangerine type of orange, and the allotment is only $7,500, as I recall it, to cover both citrus and forage crops. The cattle allotment, I think, is $5,000 or $10,000 for this year and $20,000 for next year. But it does not call for an increase in the appropriation. It is being done by a readjustment of the projects and reducing other expenditures so as to handle this work.

MONDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1932.

PASSENGER-CARRYING VEHICLES

STATEMENT OF A. McC. ASHLEY, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Mr. BUCHANAN. Your last item is:

Within the limitations specified under the several headings the lump-sum appropriations herein made for the Department of Agriculture shall be available for the purchase of motor-propelled and horse-drawn passenger-carrying vehicles necessary in the conduct of the field work of the Department of Agriculture outside the District of Columbia: Provided, That such vehicles shall be used only for official service outside the District of Columbia, but this shall not prevent the continued use for official service of motor trucks in the District of Columbia: Provided further, That the limitation on expenditures for purchase of passengercarrying vehicles in the field service shall be interchangeable between the various bureaus and offices of the department, to such extent as the exigencies of the service may require: Provided further, That appropriations contained in this act shall be available for the maintenance, operation, and repair of motor-propelled and horse-drawn passenger-carrying vehicles: Provided further, That the Secretary of Agriculture may exchange motor-propelled and horse-drawn vehicles, tractors, road equipment, and boats, and parts, accessories, tires, or equipment thereof, in whole or in part payment for vehicles, tractors, road equipment, or boats, or parts, accessories, tires, or equipment of such vehicles, tractors, road equipment, or boats purchased by him.

149139-32-61

Mr. JUMP. The following statement is presented for the record:

To permit of more direct and at the same time more convenient consideration of the authorization for the purchase of passenger-carrying vehicles, the aggregate authorization heretofore carried in the bill for the department as a whole has been omitted, and in lieu thereof specific authorizations have been inserted in the text pertaining to the several bureaus requiring purchase of such vehicles during the fiscal year 1934. Under this form of presentation, the Appropriations Committee will be enabled to consider this phase of contemplated expenditure in direct connection with the work and general estimates of each bureau when the bureau head appears before the committee and explains the primary objectives, in connection with which vehicles are required.

The special language heretofore carried in the lump sum item to cover procurements of the Bureau of Public Roads and the Forest Service, in connection with road construction, also is omitted, since these items now appear under the two bureaus involved.

The total estimates of all bureaus, as set forth in the individual limitations pertaining thereto for 1934, is $217,440, a decrease of $32,560 from the total authorization of $250,000 for 1933.

New language is included to provide for interchangeability of the bureau authorizations. Under former authorizations allotments for the several bureaus were left to the head of the department, a flexible procedure which will be lost under the new forms of presentation unless the new language shown is inserted. It is highly important that provision be made to continue this interchangeability feature, for without it the department will not be able to meet emergency or other unforeseen needs arising from time to time. Such an arrangement will continue to provide for meeting emergencies without the delay and added routine procedure involved in requesting additional legislation. Experience has shown that on many occasions it would have been impossible, without this interchangeability feature, to meet the sudden requirements of the service, especially during the periods when Congress was not in session or when there was no bill pending in which such routine operating authority could be secured promptly.

The restriction in connection with administrative work of the Bureau of Public Roads in the District of Columbia is omitted from the general item since it has been included in the automobile language submitted under the Bureau of Public Roads.

In connection with the general authorization for the maintenance, operation, and repair of vehicles, the restriction on expenditures for that purpose has been omitted, since a general provision covering this point applicable to all departments is submitted in the Budget estimates under the heading of the Treasury Department. General language is submitted, similarly, under the Treasury-Post Office estimates, superseding the proviso restricting purchase of any passenger vehicle to a cost not in excess of $750, except as to 10 per cent of the expenditures for this purpose, and defining the term "official use" which also is omitted from the estimates covering the Department of Agriculture.

REDUCTION IN ESTIMATE FOR 1934

Mr. Ashley is here in case you want additional information, but taking up the changes of language one by one, the first change consists of bracketing for omission the total limitation on the purchase of passenger-carrying vehicles, and substituting for that limitation the words within the limitations specified under the several headings of the lump-sum appropriations herein made for the Department of Agriculture," and so forth. You will recall, as we have been going through the bill, that each bureau chief has presented the justification for the limitation which has been applied to his specific bureau in place of the general limitation heretofore carried. That was done in order that this committee might take up these automobile authorizations as each bureau was before it and while the subject matter of that bureau was fresh in the minds of the committee. I may say for information there that the total of the amounts asked for under

your

the several bureaus constitutes a reduction of $32,560 below the authorization carried in the 1933 bill.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Less than what amount?

Mr. JUMP. Less than the $200,000 for the general work of the department, plus the $50,000 for vehicles under the Federal highway act, and item appearing elsewhere in the Budget.

Mr. A SHLEY. The total difference is $32,560.

Mr. JUMP. $32,560 reduction for 1934 in the total amount asked to be authorized for the purchase of passenger-carrying vehicles. Mr. BUCHANAN. Under the appropriation for 1933.

Mr. JUMP. Under the amount carried, in this provision which is now before you, in the 1933 appropriation bill. It is an authorization rather than an appropriation.

Mr. ASHLEY. It is a total reduction from $250,000 to $217,440.

AUTOMOBILES FOR BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS AND FOREST SERVICE

Mr. JUMP. The second change in language is the proposed omission of the provision referring to the purchase of automobiles for the Bureau of Public Roads and the Forest Service in connection with road work. It is omitted here because it has been inserted in the language of both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Public Roads.

PURCHASE OF AUTOMOBILES FOR FIELD SERVICES

The next change is new language asked for, as follows:

Provided further, That the limitation on expenditures for purchase of passenger-carrying vehicles in the field service shall be interchangeable between the various bureaus and offices of the department, to such extent as the exigencies of the service may require.

That is put in not to give us any additional authority, but to continue the authority we have always had in the lump sum authorization, whereby, in the event emergencies arose during the year, requiring the acquisition of passenger-carrying vehicles in one bureau we were enabled to go to another bureau and say,

Here; an emergency has arisen in such and such a bureau; we will have to reduce your allotment by $100 or $200, or $500, in order to help to meet it. Mr. BUCHANAN. The 10 per cent interchange provision is between bureaus?

Mr. JUMP. Yes, but that applies to appropriations; and here we are not dealing with appropriations, but merely with authority for an interchange of allotments. That 10 per cent never did apply to allotments under this lum-sum authorization, which we have made to the various bureaus, and modified in accordance with their needs and, as emergencies arose during the year, we have revised the allotments to take care of the emergency requirements as they arose. Mr. Ashley will perhaps go to four or five bureaus and negotiate reductions in their original allotments to take care of the emergency. But we shall be unable to do that in the future under the split-up that has occurred, without this change of language. I do not think an interchange would occur very often, but, when we need it, we need it badly, especially at times when it would be impossible to come up here and get specific legislation to cover it, which would also involve quite a legislative expense for an inconsequential operating detail.