nothing to do, and we will be under obligation to take care of them. The program has been designed with an idea of employing people temporarily. Then, when the job is completed, there is no obligation for us to continue them. If we put them on a salary, they would say, "I gave up my business and came here in the Government service, and you must take care of me." We would have a surplus of people here with nothing to do. This plan is to pick up an arhcitect, let him do the work, and when that job is completed, there is no obligation on us to continue him any longer. It is understood that he is employed for this job, and nothing else.

Mr. WETMORE. Mr. Chairman, we have two methods of preparing these drawings. The original public building bill required that the plans and specifications be prepared in the Office of the Supervising Architect unless otherwise provided by law. Congress made the provision otherwise by providing an appropriation known as outside professional services, and under the authority of that act, the Secreary of the Treasury selects architects for these buildings and turns the whole matter over to those architects, outside the office, to prepare the plans and specifications. In the other cases, we handle the work in our own office. This act provides that this employment of outside architects may be had after the sites have been selected, but before title is vested in the Government.

Senator WALSH. It does not change the present arrangement?

Mr. WETMORE.. It does not change the present arrangement in any way, except this, that we can employ the architect sooner and get the plans out while the title is being examined.

Senator CONNALLY. In the case of these contracts for outside work, your office finally approves their plans and specifications, does it not? Mr. WETMORE. Yes.

Senator TRAMMELL. Under the present system, I do not know that it would seem advisable, but if it were advisable to have these plans prepared in the Supervising Architect's Office, and their force is insufficient, they have to go out and make contracts to employ outside architects, regardless of the fact that it might be advisable and advantageous to have them prepared in the architect's office. The question that arises with me is whether there should be some flexibility in their authority to employ in connection with their own office, in preparing these plans.

Senator WALSH. They have expanded their own office?

Senator TRAMMELL. No; in connection with their own office they are restricted absolutely to the civil service. In order to get an outside architect, it has to be a contractual affair. They are not to employ them unless they are under the civil service.

Senator MCMASTER. If this provision is enacted, they will not have to come under any contract.

Senator WALSH. They have had a very extensive examination under the civil service for arthitects and assistant architects, and a long list of persons have taken that examination and are waiting to be appointed. Am I not correct?

Assistant Secretary HEATH. That is correct.

Senator WALSH. The only thing that troubles me is whether there should not be a limit on the time for which this authority is given, in order that we may, at some time in the near future, get back to

the present normal condition of letting all the work be done in the Supervising Architect's Office.

Assistant Secretary HEATH. I rather feel, Senator, that that will be automatic.

Senator WALSH. It is difficult to do it automatically. If you have a point to which you must come back, you are more likely to do it. Mr. MARTIN. Could not that be controlled, Senator, by reducing the appropriation for outside professional services, from which appropriation outside architects are paid?

Senator WALSH. I presume it could be done that way.

Senator SWANSON. In addition to that, you might not complete some of these projects within the time limit. You might be in the midst of a contract, and find yourselves in an embarrassing situation. Senator TRAMMELL. I want to make an inquiry about this provision. In line 4 on page 2 it says, "to limit to such number of days as he deems proper the advertising for bids for sites for public buildings." What is the period of advertising required at the present time? Mr. WETMORE. Twenty days.

Senator TRAMMELL. You want to limit that?

Mr. WETMORE. Yes.

Senator TRAMMELL. I think that is a very objectionable provision in the bill, myself. I think if they are going to select a site in a town in my State, for example, they ought not to be allowed to ask for bids in less than 20 days, for the different sites. There is no use making that limitation less than 20 days.

Senator FEss. What is the idea of that?

Senator TRAMMELL. On a program that covers years and years, I do not think that is a wise provision.

Mr. WETMORE. The present law requires, in all cases where sites are to be acquired, that we shall advertise for a period of not less than 20 days; that the Secretary of the Treasury shall then send an agent to the community to examine and report upon all sites offered, or any others that he deems suitable. He is not limited, even under the law, to the sites that are offered in the 20-day period. On site matters, there is no competition, in the strict sense of the word. There can not be competition for the location of a site, unless, perhaps, it should be on the four corners of intersecting streets. The question of location is the real thing that comes in in the matter of the selection of a site. As a matter of fact, any site that is offered, at any time up to the point of final selection, is considered by the committee, and we have to wait for a period of 20 days before we can commence to operate under this law. Probably a 10-day period would be long enough in most cases, considering that the door is still open for sites to be offered clear up to the time of final selection.

Senator WALSH. In other words, the 20-day period is the "closingout" period. Before that, the sites are proposed, inspection is made, and the department is fully informed about them, and then you make an announcement for the bids within 20 days.

Mr. WETMORE. No, Senator; not quite that. They have 20 days in which to submit their offers to the department, but that does not close the door, because they could submit an offer up to the time we make the final inspection.

Senator WALSH. And the inspections are made after the 20 days? Mr. WETMORE. Yes.

37628-31-2

Senator TRAMMELL. If that limitation is eliminated entirely, it only means 20 days, does it not? If they did not give any notice at all for bids, it would only mean 20 days.

Senator CONNALLY. They would have to advertise it for some period. The language is "to limit to such number of days as he deems proper." He would have to advertise it one day, anyway.

Senator TRAMMELL. What advantage would that be?

Senator CONnally. I do not know that it would be much advantage.

Senator TRAMMELL. It would be a perfect farce to advertise bids for one day, or one week, in the average place. Nobody would know anything about it. It seems to me 20 days is a short enough period for advertising for sites.

Senator FESS. If there is nothing further from the architects on this, I would like to take up the next bill, which is S. 5757, which is also a bill to permit of expediting the public building program, by amending the act of May 25, 1926.

(The bill is as follows:)

[S. 5757, Seventy-first Congress, third session]

A BILL To amend an act entitled "An act to provide for the construction of certain public buildings, and for other purposes," approved May 25, 1926 (45 Stat. 630), and acts amendatory thereof Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the act entitled “An act to provide for the construction of certain public buildings, and for other purposes," approved May 25, 1926 (45 Stat. 630), and acts amendatory thereof, are hereby amended to provide that for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of said acts and to permit of expediting the public-building program thereby authorized, the amounts heretofore authorized to be appropriated for public-building projects outside the District of Columbia are extended $100,000,000: Provided, That under this authorization and from appropriations (exclusive of appropriations made for remodeling and enlarging public buildings) heretofore made or herein authorized for the acquisition of sites for or the construction, enlarging, remodeling, or extension of public buildings under the control of the Treasury Department not more than $65,000,000 in the aggregate shall be expended annually, of which sum not more than $15,000,000 may be expended on projects in the District of Columbia (except that any part of the balance of such sum of $65,000,000 remaining unexpended at the end of any fiscal year may be expended in any subsequent fiscal year without reference to this limitation, beginning with the fiscal year 1928).

SEC. 2. That the provision contained in the act of May 25, 1926, as amended by the act of February 24, 1928, limiting the amount that may be expended annually in any one of the States, Territories, or possessions of the United States to $10,000,000, be, and the same is hereby, repealed.

SEC. 3. That in the case of any projects authorized under the provisions of the public building act approved May 25, 1926, hereinbefore mentioned and the several acts amendatory thereof, when the bid of the lowest responsible bidder received in response to public advertisement exceeds the amount available under the estimated limit of cost fixed by Congress, the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to enter into contracts for the construction of such buildings in an amount not exceeding 10 per centum in excess of such estimated limit of cost: Provided, That in the exercise of this discretion the Secretary of the Treasury shall not incur obligations in excess of the amounts heretofore or herein authorized for appropriations.

Assistant Secretary HEATH. I have a statement here covering that. The increase of $100,000,000 for new construction outside the District of Columbia under the public building program represents the approximate amount required to meet the public building needs of the country as a result of surveys completed during the year 1930.

Since 1928, the year of the last previous survey, a considerable number of Federal buildings have become congested due to parcel post demands and increase in court business. The Post Office Department is also desirous of providing Federal space for large postal units which are now in expensively leased quarters. These large postal units had not been contemplated under any previous survey. The estimated total requirement for this class of needs is $130,000,000, and involves approximately 225 projects at places where Federal buildings are now located.

There are approximately 585 places not now provided with Federal buildings where the postal receipts are above $20,000 or where sites are owned, and for which funds have not yet been allocated under the public building program. To provide buildings at these places will require approximately $60,000,000. The above two classes, therefore, would require a gross authorization of $190,000,000, which would be offset in part by sale proceeds, estimated at $12,000,000, and balances accruing after completion of contracts to the extent of about $15,000,000, which would make a net additional authorization for projects not yet allocated of $163,000,000.

Congress has authorized to date for projects outside the District of Columbia under section 5 of the act approved May 25, 1926, as amended, a total of $315,000,000, plus proceeds from sale of old Federal buildings. To date specific authorizations have been secured to the extent of $271,206,176.04. The additional amount necessary to complete projects already allocated is approximately $56,000,000, which amount, when added to the $271,000,000 already authorized, will show a deficit of $12,000,000 under the present authorization of $315,000,000. This deficit of $12,000,000, however, is offset by estimated sale proceeds for allocated projects totaling $54,000,000, and estimated balances figured at 7 per cent, or $21,000,000, giving a total credit of $75,000,000. The net credit of $63,000,000, when applied to the $163,000,000 additional amount required for projects not yet allocated, shows that $100,000,000 is the approximate additional amount required to meet the needs as of January, 1931. In explanation of the additional amount required to complete the program of places already allocated in Document 613, Seventieth Congress, second session, it may be stated that increased demands for space, changes in the character of projects, especially in large cities, together with the desire of the department to have liberal limits of cost in order that contracts may be let without supplementary changes in drawings, will account for the increase of $56,000,000 in limits of cost. This amount will be offset by approximately $7,000,000 additional sales due to changes in character of project, and $21,000,000 in balances accruing after completion of projects. The net additional sum required to complete Document 613 appears to be $37,000,000, and nearly all of this amount is due to increased limits of cost in connection with space demands and changes in the character of 21 large projects.

It is necessary that this additional authorization contemplated in S. 5757 and H. R. 16297 be authorized in order that the public building program may proceed without delay. Under the public building act, the $315,000,000 program outside the District of Columbia would require 10 years to complete, from 1928 to 1938. The analysis showing the status of the work on January 15, 1931, respecting the $271,000,000 already authorized indicates that the present program of

$315,000,000 will be practically completed by 1933, and that unless an increased authorization is obtained the department will be limited in the submission of new estimates to $44,000,000, except such additional amounts as may be released from the sale of Federal buildings and balances from completed projects. It must be realized, however, that these frozen assets will not materialize for several years and to depend upon this source will seriously jeopardize the continuation of the accelerated program now in force.

Senator SWANSON. This bill does not change the present method of distribution of the fund at all.

Assistant Secretary HEATH. Not at all, except that is provides increased limits for annual expenditures.

Senator MCMASTER. This is Senate bill 5757?

Assistant Secretary HEATH. Yes.

Senator MCMASTER. You state that it does not change the method of expenditures. Section 2 provides:

That the provision contained in the act of May 25, 1926, as amended by the act of February 24, 1928, limiting the amount that may be expended annually in any one of the States, Territories or possessions of the United States to $10,000,000 be, and the same is hereby, repealed.

It takes the lid off. That is the only difference.

Assistant Secretary HEATH. The reason for that, Senator, is that in a few places, especially in New York and two or three of the larger States, where we are going to have a great many projects, because of an enormous increase in population, occur within a year or so, we will reach the point, if this program gets under way as it is going now, where we will spend more than $10,000,000 in any one State during the year, and rather than be embarrassed by having a lot of projects under way and having to stop or violate the law, it was deemed advisable to introduce this provision.

Senator SWANSON. What amendment did we make to the law about a year ago limiting the amount?

Mr. WETMORE. The amount was increased from $5,000,000 to $10,000,000 that might be expended annually in any one State in one

year.

Senator MCMASTER. Now they are taking the limit off, and proposing that there be no limit.

Senator WALSH. Do you not think, in States like New York, where there are many large communities where the postal receipts are large, that there ought to be more projects?

Senator MCMASTER. I can see the feasibility of it, but I can also see that it may all drift into one or two of those States.

Senator SWANSON. This bill was passed to prevent that condition. This bill which passed the House allowed the Supervising Architect's Office of the Treasury to spend all the money in one State if he wished. Then we put a limitation on it that this money shall be divided according to postal receipts. It was based on that. Then we had a limit of $5,000,000 to any one State in one year. Last year we increased that to $10,000,000 to take care of the big cities. This would simply get rid of it, and, as the Senator said, they could take the entire appropriation and spend it in Boston, Chicago, St. Louis, San Francisco, and the big cities.

Mr. WETMORE. Senator, the situation has changed very materially since that first amendment was made. The total expenditure that