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. So 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? one. General WHEELER. We are starting in with the purchase of only 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 have our engineers attend technical conferences and other professional meetings, where the attendance will be beneficial to the individuals in discussing and exchanging information regarding engineering matters. Mr. ENGEL. That was on page 311. What about page 312? The present accounting methods require that all allotments will include the date of the appropriation as well as the amount, so that any funds unexpended on that portion of the project continue in that appropriation account. The proposed wording would enable us to keep funds for any one project lumped together in lieu of accounting for small amounts, and still remain under each separate approved account. We have this authority already in the flood-control program, and it is for accounting purposes that we are asking for this. Mr. CASE. Would not this make it possible, if the Congress should pass an authorization act subsequent to this appropriation act, but prior to any other appropriation, would not this make it possible to apply the new authorized project money which we have appropriated but which has not been submitted in justifications? Mr. LACROIX. Yes; it would make it possible, but under our practice we never start work on a project until we get the approval from the Appropriation Committees of Congress to go ahead with the construction. Mr. CASE. I can readily see the economy and administrative sense in having one set of books for funds for a given project, regardless of whether funds come out of a general appropriation, but it seems to me it ought to be clearly understood that if Congress appropriates for flood control, general, or rivers and harbors, that the money could not be applied to some other project or allocated to some other project without first being taken up and justified and passed upon the committee of the Congress. General WHEELER. No. We would not use any such funds for that purpose. Mr. ENGEL. Or to initiate a project. General WHEELER. We would not use any funds for initiating a project that we did not present to this committee. Mr. CASE. That is, to the Appropriations Committee. General WHEELER. The Appropriations Committee and receive an appropriation for it. Mr. ENGEL. Does that conclude the language changes? BREAK-DOWN OF RIVER AND HARBOR SIX-YEAR AUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM Mr. ENGEL. Before we start working on flood control, General Wheeler, will you insert in the record at this point your presently proposed 6-year program for construction of all active river and harbor projects, broken down by States? General WHEELER. Yes, sir. (The program requested follows:) |