Hoover Commission.

As was mentioned before, our chairman's bill and H. R. 3304, Mr. Hoffman's bill, both came out of the recommendations of the Hoover Commission and neither have been acted upon.

I wonder how many Hoover Commission reports have been passed by this Congress so far this year? How many bills based on the recommendations of the Hoover Commission has this Eighty-second Congress passed?

Mr. MCCORMICK. None of those 20 bills has been passed by this Congress so far.

Mr. BROWNSON. None of the 20 has been passed by the Congress this year?

Mr. McCORMICK. No.

Mr. BROWNSON. Do you have any idea how many of those bills have been brought before the proper committes for hearings?

Mr. MCCORMICK. I would say half a dozen in the Senate, and I don't believe any in the House.

Mr. BROWNSON. Is the bill, for instance, of Mrs. Church's proposing that a commission be set up to survey activities of the United States Government outside the continental limits of the United States-is that a result of the Hoover Commission recommendation?.

Mr. McCORMICK. Yes; I forgot that. That hasn't been subjected to full committee hearings, just subcommittee hearings and no action has been taken on it.

Mr. BROWNSON. That one, I think, is in Mr. Lanham's subcommittee Federal Relations with International Organizations

Mr. LANHAM. We will try to complete the hearings and get a report during this session.

The CHAIRMAN. We hope to have hearings upon all bills referred to this committee before this session ends.

Mr. BROWNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. That is very encouraging.

Mr. McCormick, on the last page you say:

Now is our finest chance for significant action on eliminating patronage and unethical practices in Federal jobs, while improving organization in the Treasury Department consistent with the Hoover Commission's recommendations.

Do you feel that the introduction of civil service will actually eliminate unethical practices?

Mr. MCCORMICK. Of course, you can't generalize too much, but I think as time goes on you will find that a bureau where there has been a long and strong tradition of good civil service tends to become, I would say, pretty much purer than Caesar's wife. There are many examples of bureaus that have been under civil service, where patronage has been out 20 and 30 years, like the Forest Service, magnificently administered and no question of politics.

It takes time. It may not happen immediately, but I think history shows us that when you do put a bureau of Government under civil service, in time it tends to become less subject to the whims of fate and less, shall we say, corruptible and negotiable.

Mr. BROWNSON. Are there not some recommendations of the Hoover Commission for the reorganization of the Civil Service Commission itself?

Mr. McCORMICK. Yes; there are a great many of them, and so far only the recommendations on recruitment have been put forward at this session in legislative form.

Because that was the most controversial matter we thought we would put that one in the first bill. That bill has passed the Senate and is now before the House. There will be other legislative proposals as soon as that bill is out of the way.

Mr. BROWNSON. Has that bill been heard in committee in the House yet?

Mr. MCCORMICK. Not in this session of the Congress. It just passed the Senate, I think, the last day of the session.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. To what committee has that been referred in the House?

Mr. McCORMICK. Post Office and Civil Service.

Mr. BROWNSON. My point in bringing that up is this. We are increasingly placing more and more confidence in civil-service type of administration in reorganizing agencies. I would like the record to show at this point that as we place increasing responsibility on civil service, I think it becomes increasingly necessary that we adopt at the very earliest date some form of reorganization of the Civil Service Commission in line with the Hoover Commission recommendations. If we are going to throw a heavier load on Civil Service, I think it is necessary that their activities be reorganized on a more effective basis. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Curtis.

Mr. CURTIS. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Meader.

Mr. MEADER. Mr. McCormick, were you present when Mr. Dunlap testified?

Mr. McCORMICK. No; I was not, sir.

Mr. MEADER. I think you say in your statement that you are not familiar with the details of the plan that is contemplated by the Commissioner if Reorganization Plan No. 1 is approved.

Mr. McCORMICK. I am familiar only to the extent that these proposals have been covered in newspaper reports and a few press releases from the Treasury, but not in the great detail in which your committee is familiar.

Mr. MEADER. My attention was drawn to the provision, which I regard as the only new structural provision-namely, the creation of 25 new district commissioners.

They seem to be the regional supervisors of the deputy district commissioners, which correspond to our present collectors.

I asked Mr. Dunlap yesterday why the number 25 was selected, having in mind that most of the regional set-ups of Federal agencies are of a far lesser number than 25. Have you given any thought to that particular phase of this plan?

Mr. MCCORMICK. Yes; we have. As I say, we have not studied the charts, but as it has been explained in various newspaper stories and press releases from the Treasury and so on, the idea is to take the part of the administrative paper work from Washington and push it down to the district level, and part from the State offices and push it up.

It seems to us that in a mass paper-work operation it can always be operated more efficiently on what you would call the medium area of decentralization, which would be to have large enough regional offices so that you can have volume paper work methods, such as having IBM machines, and so on, and which might not be practical

in Richmond alone; whereas, it would be practicable for a three-State area, say.

I believe the figure they have set of two-and-a-half-what was it— something like two-and-a-half billion dollars worth of collectionsThe CHAIRMAN. Two-and-a-half million returns.

Mr. McCORMICK. That would probably come out, I would think, to $22 billion or $31⁄2 billion on an average in the office, and with such a tremendous paper-work operation, it would seem like a reasonable level at which to have it centralized. If you had the whole sixty billion coming in here, it would be hopeless, for example.

Mr. MEADER. You haven't considered any alternative number of district commissioners? For instance, it appeared in the Paget report-a management firm that made a report in 1949 or some such time it was recommended that there be six regions.

As I recall, the judicial districts are something like nine. Other agencies, such as OPS and regulatory bodies are split up in regions of around 10, something of that order. I am just wondering whether any thought had been given by your organization to the new intermediary phase of this Bureau of Internal Revenue reorganization.

Mr. MCCORMICK. No, I really can't comment on that. We have always thought pretty much when we are recommending districting of from 12 to 15 for the United States.

Mr. MEADER. Was there anything in the Hoover Commission work to your knowledge that had any bearing upon the appropriate number of these regional offices?

Mr. MCCORMICK. I don't believe so, though there may be. In reading the report, I don't remember having seen it.

Mr. MEADER. Now, turning to civil service again, I believe you were present this morning when Mr. Ramspeck testified, were you not? Mr. MCCORMICK. Yes, sir.

Mr. MEADER. And do you recall his statement in answer to my question that there was no more reason in this plan why the appointing authority, whoever the appointing authority is, clearing through the political committees than there is with respect to the Post Office, which you describe as not being under Civil Service. Did you hear that testimony?

Mr. MCCORMICK. I am not quite sure I have your question there, Mr. Meader.

Mr. MEADER. Well, I asked Mr. Ramspeck whether there was anything that would insure that the district commissioners and deputy district commissioners of the Bureau of Internal Revenue would be appointed on a sheer merit basis rather than to require endorsement of a political committee.

His answer, as I understood it, was that there was nothing that would insure that political considerations would not be involved in the appointment. Were you present when that testimony was given this morning?

Mr. MCCORMICK. Yes; I was.

Mr. MEADER. Do you agree with him?

Mr. MCCORMICK. I think he can answer that question better than I can. I should think the Civil Service Commission would require that there would not be, and I think they have adequate authority to require it.

Again I would think if the committee is worried on that score, they should put that into the report as the intent of the Congress in approving the plan.

Mr. MEADER. That would be merely advisory, would it not, Mr. McCormick, under the set-up for approving reorganization plans? Congress cannot amend or interpret, as I understand it, any plan presented by the President. We have to take it as it is or else reject it. It is our only course. Isn't that correct?

Mr. MCCORMICK. That is your only course, but I certainly would feel it perfectly appropriate to report views to the Treasury on this thing.

Mr. MEADER. Well, if your feeling that the civil service in the post office is really so ineffective as you describe it by saying that they are political appointees, and if Mr. Ramspeck is correct that the same procedure can be followed with respect to the Internal Revenue Department as is now followed with respect to the Post Office Department, aren't we more or less kidding the public by saying you are putting those positions on a merit basis?

Mr. MCCORMICK. I don't think so, sir, because in the case of the post office the final veto before a man can take a post rests in the Senate confirmation. If the local party group disapproves a postmaster, even one of the three, I forgot to mention this, and the Senators from the State refuse to confirm him, the job stays open and has to stay open.

In this case there would be no Senate confirmation, so it would be perfectly possible for Civil Service to insist upon a straight merit basis, which is not possible in the case of the postmasters because of the Senate confirmation.

Mr. MEADER. That does give the Congress a little more control, I suppose, over the appointment, but do you mean that is the basis. for politics injecting itself into the appointment of people in the post office, Senate confirmation?

Mr. McCORMICK. I think so; yes. That is the basis.

Mr. MEADER. You think there would be less likelihood for it to occur in the Bureau of Internal Revenue because the Senate would have no power of approval?

Mr. MCCORMICK. They would be straight civil service appointments, and the fellow who came out second best would have the right of appeal within the agency, at least, if he didn't get the job.

Mr. MEADER. Has your committee made any recommendations to avoid this political influence on appointments in the civil service? Mr. McCORMICK. Yes, we have both in the general management bill, mentioned in the hearing-it would take minor officials and make them subject to appointment only by the department heads. Our personnel bill has this wording in it, which is taken from the Tennessee Valley Authority statute:

No person in the public service is for that reason under any obligation to contribute to any political fund or render any political service.

This is section 11 of S. 1135, H. R. 3311, and H. R. 3687.

Then it goes on to say at the bottom of the thing that—

Any officer or employee of any executive agency who is found by the head of the agency to have violated this section shall be removed from office by the head of such agency.

Then there are various wordings:

In preventing the use of official authority to influence or coerce, the use of political or other qualification tests other than merit—

and so on.

We have it in a bill, and it has worked very well in the case of the Tennessee Valley Authority and several State governments, which would make it illegal to use political coercion.

Mr. MEADER. This is proposed as an amendment to the civil service law?

Mr. McCORMICK. In the personnel bill; yes.

Mr. MEADER. I am concerned about this matter of savings. I appreciate that the officials in the executive branch of the Government don't want to make statements to a committee of Congress which might come back home to roost when they are asking for appropriations, but isn't there some way, some kind of estimate that could be made as to what might result in the way of savings in manhours and dollars from a reorganization of this type?

Mr. MCCORMICK. There should be; yes; but we can't do it, and you can't do it. It has to be done by the manager, the guy who manages the shop. He is the only one who can do it.

Mr. MEADER. The Hoover Commission didn't hesitate to make estimates as to what might result in the way of economies.

Mr. McCORMICK. The task forces. The Hoover Commission itself made very few specific predictions of savings, but each task force made an estimate of what could be saved in the various departments.

Mr. MEADER. In any of your study of this matter, have you seen any figures as estimates of what might be saved as a result of this plan?

Mr. MCCORMICK. Not from this plan. I have the over-all estimates that were prepared by the task force on the Treasury report. I don't believe I brought them with me. They were made in letter form.

Mr. MEADER. That is if the Hoover plan had been adopted?

Mr. McCORMICK. The entire plan for the Treasury. As I recall, it was 20 or 30 million dollars.

Mr. CURTIS. Annual?

Mr. McCORMICK. Annual, yes.

Mr. MEADER. Could you supply that figure?

Mr. MCCORMICK. I will give you a full statement on that, Mr. Meader.

Mr. MEADER. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bonner.

Mr. BONNER. Mr. McCormick, there has been a great deal said about appointing from civil-service registers. Somebody has to have the responsibility of making a selection. The condition now is that the appointing officer can take one of three on the register.

Mr. MCCORMICK. That is right, sir.

Mr. BONNER. Would you be in favor of abolishing that condition? Mr. MCCORMICK. We are in favor of increasing the number. We think three is not enough.

Mr. BONNER. Then that would give him more scope to pick out efficiency in the eligibles?

Mr. McCORMICK. Yes.