Mr. LAWTON. That is right, or slightly over a month ago.

Mr. CURTIS. So you really haven't had an opportunity to study it in detail?

Mr. LAWTON. This particular plan?

Mr. CURTIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. LAWTON. I don't think there is too much detail to study in this particular plan.

Mr. CURTIS. One thing you might have studied is the various questions being asked here as to how much economy might be realized, if any, and the cost of it. That is one thing we are interested in getting. Obviously, you haven't made a study along that line; is that correct?

Mr. LAWTON. The question of major savings, major dollars, is due to the opportunity which this plan gives

Mr. CURTIS. Please answer my question. I appreciate those generalities, but I asked a specific question that you didn't devote any time to studying what the actual costs were or might be in this plan. Did you or didn't you? That is the question.

Mr. LAWTON. In this plan?

Mr. CURTIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. LAWTON. No.

Mr. CURTIS. Isn't it customary in the Bureau of the Budget to make estimates of differences of costs between one system and another system and particular reference to reorganization plans that affect different executive departments of the Bureau?

Mr. LAWTON. It is customary to make a study of the whole subject. This plan is a part and not the whole.

Mr. CURTIS. Well, even of the part.

Mr. LAWTON. It makes possible the organization, which the Secretary under his authority to reorganize under plan 26, desires to put into effect.

Mr. CURTIS. That ought to make it easier if it is just a part of it. In getting back to my question, which remains unanswered, isn't it customary for the Bureau of the Budget to make estimates of differences of costs between present operations and proposed new operations?

Mr. LAWTON. Where that is feasible, yes.

Mr. CURTIS. And was it feasible in this case or isn't it feasible in this case of reorganization in plan No. 1?

Mr. LAWTON. Plan No. 1 makes possible and more feasible the reorganization of the Bureau, which the Secretary is to accomplish under his authority in plan 26.

Mr. CURTIS. I understand that, sir. I am trying to ask pointed questions, so we can get along, and a general answer doesn't help me at all. I am asking about this particular plan, the number of employees it might employ and in comparison with the present system. Wouldn't that be a normal thing to have made an estimate of the different costs had you had the time?

Mr. LAWTON. It isn't a question so much of time. It is a question of how many of these employees, for example, would be in these different classification grades. That is a subject that the Civil Service will have to determine when they know what the responsibilities and duties are which will be assigned to these men.

1

Mr. CURTIS. Yes, but isn't it the custom or the function of the Bureau of the Budget to make estimates of that nature, in particular, so that the Congress will be advised? We would like to know what the Bureau of the Budget estimates might be on the differences of cost and also, I might add, on efficiency, because sometimes the cost might increase but the efficiency would take care of that. Has there been any estimates made on increase in efficiency under this present plan?

Mr. LAWTON. We believe that this plan will make possible a reorganization of the Bureau's operations, particularly in the field, which will permit consolidations of functions, will provide for a more direct line of responsibility and authority, and will result in improved revenue collection services and a more effective operation of the Bureau.

Mr. CURTIS. SO your answer is that you have made detailed studies of estimates not detailed studies, but a study and you have an estimate of the efficiencies that will result from this?

Mr. LAWTON. That is right.

Mr. CURTIS. Has that been a detailed study or has it been a general study along the lines you have just expressed?

Mr. LAWTON. We have had some of our personnel working with the Bureau of Internal Revenue over a period of 2 or 3 years. They have worked on a number of the things that have been done already, all of which are building up toward the reorganization in such things as the consolidation of the employment and other withholding records, the mechanization of the Bureau

Mr. CURTIS. Let's try to confine ourselves to this specific plan. If you have been studying it along with them, why wouldn't it be that much easier, even in this very limited period of time, to have enabled you to come up with some sort of estimate that we could go on? Mr. LAWTON. You limit it to this plan?

Mr. CURTIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. LAWTON. This plan is just a part of the whole.

Mr. CURTIS. I understand.

Mr. LAWTON. It makes possible the most effective reorganization by reason of removing the barriers that presently exist.

Mr. CURTIS. I appreciate that, sir, and I do not want to interrupt, but I would like you to confine yourself to any question that has to do with the savings of this particular plan. I understand all these these other things, too, but I am trying to go step by step, so we can get somewhere. I want to be corrected, if I am wrong, but it seems to me you haven't had time to study it and you have not made the study of the difference in costs of what the new and old systems are and the efficiencies.

Mr. LAWTON. Still confining it to this plan?

Mr. CURTIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. Lawton, I will go on to the next question, which is a question which Mr. Riehlman asked, and I didn't hear any answer to it. As I understand it-I may be misquoting him, but I want to know myself he wanted to know in this reorganization of the entire Treasury Department plan, which was part of H. R. 5174 introduced by Mr. Hoffman in June 15, 1949, did your Bureau make a study of that particular plan?

Mr. LAWTON. I couldn't answer that. I would have to look and see whether we had or not. There were a number of those plans introduced under different bill numbers.

Mr. CURTIS. This was a bill to reorganize the entire Treasury Department along the lines-I might add-of the Hoover Commission recommendations. So, I think you would be familiar with it. Mr. LAWTON. I cannot remember all of those bills. We report on many thousand bills a year. I don't remember each one specifically by number.

Mr. CURTIS. I appreciate that, but this is a specific subject of the reorganization of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, which is one of the parts of the Treasury, and you are here to testify on it, and there was a bill introduced back in June 15, 1949, which sought to do these very things and also to reorganize other phases of the Treasury Department to do an entire job. Did you make any study of that particular plan? That is a simple question.

Mr. LAWTON. To be just as specific in the answer to it, I don't know until I check the records. If you want a specific answer, I will have to see specifically whether we made such a report.

Mr. CURTIS. Did you ever make an estimate of the costs involved in changing over to Čollector of Customs and coordinating it with the Bureau of Internal Revenue along the lines that the Hoover Commission recommended?

Mr. LAWTON. No; we have not.

Mr. CURTIS. That has never been done.

I am getting around to a very general question which I asked the Secretary of the Treasury. Certain of the public and some of the press and certainly Members of the Congress-myself included-are becoming convinced that this was a plan that was hurriedly gotten together and brought before the Congress due to the scandals that came out in the Bureau of Internal Revenue, and it was not a wellthought-out plan and has not been well thought out or studied, although it has been presented to us. Your testimony leaves me more convinced than ever that that is actually the fact. I wonder if you would comment on that?

Mr. LAWTON. Certainly.

I would assume that you are again confining yourself to this specific plan.

Mr. CURTIS. To this specific plan.

Mr. LAWTON. Which removes the collectors of internal revenue from their present method of appointment, abolishes those offices and provides for the appointment of the principal collecting officials in the field under civil service.

Mr. CURTIS. It also includes the appointment of an Assistant General Counsel and the Office of Inspector, I believe.

Mr. LAWTON. It includes the appointment of an Assistant General Counsel.

Mr. CURTIS. Doesn't it also have the appointment of an Inspector? Mr. LAWTON. I don't believe you will find that in the plan. It provides for three Assistant Commissioners.

Mr. CURTIS. I am referring to the chart that the Secretary of the Treasury presented to us Friday when, I believe, he testified. Yes, an Assistant Commissioner of Inspection. Isn't that a new function created by this proposed plan?

Mr. LAWTON. The function is not created by the plan. Three positions of Assistant Commissioners under civil service are in the plan. The question of the distribution of those functions is a matter of the total reorganization, and that is the reason I say it is very hard to differentiate this plan from the total reorganization program that the Secretary and the Commissioner had.

Mr. CURTIS. The point you are making is this: that this chartare you familiar with this chart?

Mr. LAWTON. Yes.

Mr. CURTIS. The chart that the Secretary of the Treasury furnished us is his over-all plan and this plan No. 1 is simply a plan that implements the possibility of that; is that correct?

Mr. LAWTON. It makes feasible this complete reorganization of the Bureau.

Mr. CURTIS. I understand that.

On this proposed reorganization of the Secretary of the Treasury, has your Bureau made any estimates of economies or of costs of this particular proposed reorganization as opposed to the present reorganization?

Mr. LAWTON. No specific estimate; no, sir.

Mr. CURTIS. And would that apply to-I am directing now your attention to efficiencies, since I have already mentioned economieshave you made any detailed studies of the efficiencies?

Mr. LAWTON. I wouldn't say a detailed study; no, sir. We have made a general study, and this is in line, very definitely, with most standards of good organization where you get a direct line of responsibility and authority, where it is a consolidation of the authority and responsibility over a number of functions in the field that are now diversified. We believe this will give better service to the taxpayer and better service to the Government.

Mr. CURTIS. In other words, your answer really is that you generally look at it and it looks good, but you have not made a detailed study. Am I correct?

Mr. LAWTON. That is right. Because primarily this function is one that rests in the Secretary of the Treasury-this function of making such organizational changes.

Mr. CURTIS. Now, Mr. Lawton, in your prepared statement you referred to a recent congressional report, as it is stated in here, and under Mr. Hoffman's question we find it is a congressional report of March 9, 1948. I personally do not regard that as too recent, but I am going to ask this question and, if that is true-and apparently you are quoting it here, and I will assume you are endorsing it—why has it taken 4 years to come before the Congress with a reorganization plan that accomplishes that?

Mr. LAWTON. I don't know the answer to that question.

Mr. CURTIS. Then one other thing: Is it not true that some of these plans for proposed reorganization actually originate in the Bureau of the Budget from your suggestions to the executive departments? Mr. LAWTON. Some do. Largely they originate in the departments.

Mr. CURTIS. Would it be a fair statement to say that many of them come as the result of a sort of coordination; that is, in performing your function in the Bureau of the Budget and dealing with a particular department, you might suggest changes, and an interchange of ideas would be the cause of a proposed reorganization?

Mr. LAWTON. That is right. We have gone over the Hoover Commission recommendations, and have discussed a great many of them with the departments. We have requested the departments to propose to us reorganization plans or reorganization proposals. We have reviewed those. And the bulk of the reorganization—that is, the specific reorganization plans have usually emanated in the departments and we have reviewed them. In some cases where apparently they were on the right track in line with studies of the Hoover Commission, we did not attempt to duplicate those studies. Mr. CURTIS. But essentially you have, in the Bureau of the Budget, been quite deeply concerned and involved in these reorganization plans?

Mr. LAWTON. That is right.

Mr. CURTIS. It is a fair question, it seems to me, to ask you why since these recommendations were so good back in March 1948, 4 years have elapsed and nothing has been done about it. You say you do not know the answer, but I am now asking again, in view of the fact that the Bureau of the Budget is directly concerned with these reorganization plans.

Mr. LAWTON. The bulk of the attention in the Internal Revenue in that period has been on procedural and internal improvements in the methods and operations.

As these plans were developed and put into effect it became apparent that one of the major requirements for completely sound organization was to permit the operation of the Secretary's authority which was granted to him under the Reorganization Plan of 1950, to permit him to exercise that authority to the full; that this plan 1 of 1952 furnishes the climate in which he can so operate. The Secretary has had this authority since the approval of the 1950 reorganization plan.

Mr. CURTIS. Of course, I was just directing my question to the Bureau of the Budget as to why the Bureau of the Budget had done nothing in instigating or encouraging something to be done in the past 4 years.

I have one final question, and this may be outside the realm of the Bureau of the Budget.

When I interrogated the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Snyder, he had previously stated that if this plan were adopted the 25 collectors would all have to take civil-service examinations; and, of course, the present collectors would be permitted to take the civil-service examination. So, I asked him whether, as Secretary of the Treasury, he would recommend that those examinations be thrown wide open so that any citizen who thought he might be qualified for one of these 25 positions could take the examination.

I would like to ask you, sir, as head of the Bureau of the Budget, whether you would have a similar recommendation that the examinations should be open to all citizens.

Mr. LAWTON. I certainly believe in open competitive examinations;

yes.