costs the Government about 5.5 cents per ton for each ton involved in all of these shipping transactions. Does that $74,500,000 include the $500,000 for alteration purposes?

General WHEELER. No, sir.

Mr. SCRIVNER. That is in addition?

General WHEELER. That is in addition.

Mr. SCRIVNER. So that, to get the true picture, we want to add that $500,000 to this $74,500,000?

General WHEELER. Yes, sir.

Mr. SCRIVNER. Which would make the cost a little bit more than 5.5 cents, although not appreciably more, all of which leads up to the suggestion and the question raised yesterday of why it might not be feasible and proper to levy some sort of a rate against these shipments to offset the cost to the taxpayer. Of course, that is not within your province.

General WHEELER. No, sir.

Mr. SCRIVNER. And must come from legislation.

General WHEELER. Yes, sir.

EMPLOYMENT OF CONSULTANTS

Mr. ENGEL. Now suppose you discuss the changes in language, General.

General WHEELER. The first change in language is on page 311. The change there is to give consultants $100 a day maximum, and there are several Government agencies that pay that rate now, and we think, in view of the character of the consultants we employ and the type of consulting service they perform, that that is a proper rate. That is the standard rate for prominent and well-known consultants throughout the engineering profession. It is permitted in the Panama Canal organization by law, and it is the rate the private firms pay. Moreover, it covers the amount the consultant must pay for his own office fees, his own staff, and all the work that he actually performs in a professional way in connection with the contract. Mr. ENGEL. That is at his own expense?

General WHEELER. That is at his own expense. Normally we do not employ a consultant for more than 30 days a year for this type of service. Such service would be intermittent. So it makes what we consider is a fair rate.

Mr. ENGEL. Is that the consulting service you use when you go into an area and build a dam? You then consult the local engineers on the ground who have experience in that area?

General WHEELER. Yes, sir; for instance, the place you visited out there, Garrison Dam, there are some very important engineering considerations involved in that, and we had a meeting with Mr. Justin and Mr. Harza, two of the best engineers in the country in their line, and we have used them in a number of places, and they get $100 a dav.

Mr. CASE. For the $100 a day, do you get them to accept responsibility for the sufficiency of the foundations and the design?

General WHEELER. No, sir; the ultimate responsibility is ours so we like to hire the best consultants in the country and take advantage of their training and experience in addition to our own engineering knowledge and ability.

Mr. CASE. Is this legislation in an appropriation bill?

General WHEELER. No, sir; we do not so consider it, because the law that Congress provided limits the rate to be paid consultants to the Classification Act rates unless other rates are specifically provided in the appropriation or by other law. So that, in order for us to have a definite amount of $100, it would have to be included in the Appropriation Act.

Mr. CASE. You construe that as creating authority for an appropriation measure to set the amount?

General WHEELER. Yes, sir.

Mr. CASE. The limitation which General Crawford mentioned a moment ago (off the record) was in the appropriation bill last year, was it?

Colonel FERINGA. Of the Seventy-ninth Congress.

Mr. CASE. What was that limitation?

Mr. LACROIX. The limitation was at no specific rate. It was at whatever rate was determined to be required for the service.

Colonel FERINGA. The basic law which gives us authority to employ consultants was the River and Harbor Act approved July 3, 1930. That specified no rate or no limitation on how much we could pay a consultant. Hence, we have been proceeding on that and have set a maximum rate of $100 per day based upon what the American Society of Civil Engineers said was the acceptable rate.

Section 15 of Public Law 600, passed in the Seventy-ninth Congress, limits the rates to be paid consultants, and the Comptroller raised the question, or at least our people felt, there was need of clearing up the question whether that limitation applied to our authority in section 15 of Public Law 600. The Bureau of the Budget feels the question will be straightened out, so that nobody can question our accounts, by putting in here that the maximum rate should be $100 a day.

Mr. CASE. There is no question the language in the appropriation bill, which says this money shall be available for the payment of consultants or individuals not in excess of $100 a day, would create authority for you to pay it, and that would clear you so far as the Comptroller General is concerned; but what I want to know is whether or not putting that in here constitutes legislation from the parliamentary standpoint, or whether we will be in the position, if we carry that language, that somebody could get up on the floor and make a point of order against it.

General WHEELER. I would think a point of order could not be raised, because section 15 of Public Law 600 specifically states that the rates paid to consultants shall be in accordance with the Classification Act unless other rates are specifically provided for in the appropriation law or other law. It reads "in the appropriation or other law."

Mr. CASE. Of course, if the question were raised, the parliamentarian would have to pass on it; but I think we ought to have that in the record, and he can rule on that if we carry it.

General WHEELER. Yes, sir.

Mr. SCRIVNER. How much have you been paying consultants in the meantime?

Colonel FERINGA. The maximum we pay is $100 a day. We pay anywhere from $35 to $100-varying rates.

Mr. SCRIVNER. How many times have you had any of these consultants refuse to aid the Army engineers because you would not pay them $100 a day?

General WHEELER. I do not think we have had any of those refuse, however, the top-flight consultants we need on the difficult problems now get $100 per day, and over, working for private business and they have indicated unequivocably that they will not work for less than $100 a day.

Mr. SCRIVNER. Do you anticipate they might do so?

General WHEELER. No, sir; we do not. We want to be able to pay a maximum rate of $100 when such a rate is justified. It is the rate in the engineering profession for top consultants.

Mr. SCRIVNER. That is true, but when you talk about in the engineering profession in outside activities not connected with the Government, of course, all of those costs can be passed on to whomever is having the work done. But the only place you can pass the cost on so far as governmental work is concerned is to the taxpayer. I am far more concerned about the burden of the expense we are undergoing now than I am about many of these consultants.

That is why I asked the question how many times has anyone refused to help you merely because you did not pay him $100 a day. General WHEELER. I do not know of any refusals. but as I just stated I am sure that the top-flight consultants we need would not consider anything less than $100 per day.

Mr. SCRIVNER. Then why should not you wait until that time comes?

Colonel FERINGA. Because we have been paying some of them at the rate of $100 a day, based on the authority of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1930. This question has just been raised during the past summer. We have been paying our consultants at the rate of $35 to $100 a day.

Mr. LACROIX. That same language is in there to the effect you cannot pay in excess of the established Classification Act.

Mr. SCRIVNER. Then you face this situation, that if the Engineering Department is permitted to exceed the rate established by general law (Public Law 600, I think you said), then you are setting a precedent that every Department of the Government will soon want to follow, and they will set up as the basis for their argument that, while the public law said $50, you are letting the Engineers spend $100 a day. And that will be true as to doctors, lawyers, scientists, and everybody else, and the first thing you know you are doubling the cost of your consultant service.

That is one reason why I cannot look very kindly at establishing a precedent which overturns the consultant rate as fixed by general law; because the first thing you know you are going to have doubled that all the way through the Government service.

Mr. KERR. What is the limitation in the general law-$100?

Colonel FERINGA. The basic law which gives us authority to employ consultants has no limitation at all.

Mr. KERR. Did any subsequent law undertake to limit that basic law?

General WHEELER. They limited it to the rates in the Classification Act, unless the Appropriation Act stated specifically the rates that were to be paid. And under that law, we were recommending to the Congress that they authorize a maximum of $100 a day.

Mr. TIBBOTT. How much are you spending each year for consultants?

General WHEELER. It is not very much. I can get those figures exactly, for the record, and put them in.

Mr. TIBBOTT. Just a general estimate?

Colonel FERINGA. It would be in the neighborhood of $5,000 for the whole year, but it may be $10,000.

General WHEELER. It is comparatively small. When we have an important question like the Congressman mentioned, a foundation condition that years ago it was believed no dam could be constructed on that foundation, but today we believe it can, that new conclusion is based on the advance in engineering technologies and knowledge. In such a case, we think when we employ these top-notchers, which you can count on the fingers of your hand-the great ones in the country that they are worthy of the rate of pay that the profession recognizes for top-notchers.

Mr. CASE. In the light of Mr. Tibbott's question as to the total amount involved here, would there be any objection on the part of the Chief of Engineers to placing a maximum limitation on the total amount of money that might be so used for the employment of experts? General WHEELER. No, sir; that is all right. However, our 1947 program was smaller than our 1948 program and our 1949 program will be still larger.

Mr. CASE. Will you give us for the record later some estimate showing how much you have used this past year or what would be a workable limitation in the over-all amount?

General WHEELER. We will do that.

The pay of consultants employed directly out of the Office of the Chief of Engineers in Washington for the fiscal year 1947 was $3,333.75. The employment of consultants employed throughout all the districts and divisions, in 1947, is shown in the following tabulation:

River and harbor and flood control recapitulation of employment of consultants by days and rate-Fiscal year 1947

The estimated amount needed for consultant services in the fiscal year 1949, based on a budget of $547,060,000 for construction, is $150,000 or less than onetenth of 1 percent.

Mr. ENGEL. What is the next change?

PURCHASE OF AUTOMOBILES

General WHEELER. The second one is the number of vehicles. Of the 1,934 passenger-carrying vehicles now utilized for civil-works

activities, more than two-thirds are over 5 years old. These vehicles, including survey and laboratory trucks, must be systematically replaced when they reach a condition that they can no be longer economically repaired.

Of the 500 authorization requested for fiscal 1949, it is estimated 356 vehicles will be procured for the replacement of worn-out equipment, and the remainder of 144 will be required for the additional work program.

Mr. ENGEL. Do you trade these cars in?

General WHEELER. We trade them in under the authority of the law. We get the trade-in value.

Mr. ENGEL. What is the next item?

PURCHASE OF AIRCRAFT

General WHEELER. The third is the purchase of seven aircraft. That was approved the last time for 12. We have not actually acquired any yet, but we would like to keep it in there for seven.

Mr. ENGEL. What will they cost?

General WHEELER. We are starting in with the purchase of only one. We have made an arrangement to buy an old one from the War Assets Administration in which we are going to install new engines. It will cost us around $14,000.

Mr. ENGEL. What type of plane?

General WHEELER. A C-47, DC-3. One of those planes new costs around $100,000.

Mr. CASE. Are you not able to supply all of your needs from surplus property?

General WHEELER. I think so. At this time we are purchasing one airplane only from the War Assets Administration and propose to rehabilitate it at a very great saving over the cost of new equipment. This airplane will be a sort of guinea pig to determine if it will fill the need for our inspection service and other requirements in covering the long distances which frequently separate our projects. If it turns out to be economical we would possibly acquire planes for the southwestern division, which runs from Louisiana clear across to Arizona; probably also for the Missouri River division, and possibly the South Atlantic division, which includes Puerto Rico and Panama, and the Northwest Pacific division, which includes Alaska, a total of about four. That appears to us now as a proper plan.

Mr. CASE. If you are only going to get four why do you need authority to purchase seven?

General WHEELER. We had initially planned to have seven, one for each large division. We now think it might go down to four, but we would like to retain authority for seven, since we are giving further study to the needs.

ATTENDANCE AT CONVENTIONS

Mr. ENGEL. What is the next one?

General WHEELER. The last one is regarding expenses for attendance at meetings when authorized by the Chief of Engineers.

The present law prohibits us from paying the traveling expenses of attendance at meetings unless such expenses are specifically provided for in the appropriation bill. We feel it would be helpful to