"(B) estimates of the amounts to be transferred between such appropriations;

"(C) estimates of the net amount to be expended in such fiscal year from each appropriation referred to in clause (A);

"(D) estimates of the net amount to be expended in such fiscal year from the balances of prior appropriations;

"(E) the totals of the amounts referred to in clauses (C) and (D); and

"(F) estimates of the total amount which will be available for expenditure subsequent to the close of such fiscal year from the appropriations referred to in clause (A).

The committee reports acompanying each deficiency and supplemental appropriation bill containing appropriations available for obligation or expenditure during such fiscal year, and each appropriation recission bill, and any conference report on any such bill, shall include appropriate cumulative revisions of such tabulations.

"(4) The committee reports accompanying each consolidated general appropriation bill, and any conference report thereon, shall show in tabular form, for information purposes, for each wholly owned Government corporation or other agency of the Government which is authorized to receive and expend receipts without covering such receipts into the Treasury of the United States and which uses a checking account maintained with the Treasurer of the United States for that purpose (A) the estimated expenditures (other than retirement of borrowing) to be made out of such checking account for the fiscal year, (B) the estimated receipts (other than borrowing) to be deposited in such checking account for such fiscal year, and (C) the difference between (A) and (B).

"(5) The provisions of paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) shall not be applicable to appropriations of trust funds or to transactions involving public-debt retirement. "(6) No general appropriation bill shall be received or considered in either House unless the bill and the report accompanying it conform with this rule. "(7) The Appropriations Committees of the two Houses may hold hearings simultaneously on each general appropriation bill or may hold joint hearings thereon.

"(d) The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized when requested by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate or by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives to transmit to said chairman, as soon as possible, a current estimate of the over-all Federal receipts for the ensuing fiscal year."

APPENDIX B

UNITED STATES BUREAU OF EFFICIENCY

For almost two decades, starting in 1916, the Congress experimented with an independent agency set up to search out economies of operation of the Federal agencies, to prepare necessary changes in substantive legislation to bring about such economies, and to recommend reductions in proposed appropriations.

Since these efforts are similar to the duties assigned to the proposed staff to serve the new Joint Committee on the Budget, under S. 913 the two following statements are presented covering briefly the activities of the United States Bureau of Efficiency, which was abolished in 1933, when its work was absorbed in the Division of Administrative Management in the Bureau of the Budget.

The first statement is taken from the important textbook, The National Budget System, published by W. F. Willoughby in 1927. The second statement constitutes the sympathetic views of the Chief of the Bureau of Efficiency, when a bill was under consideration in Congress in 1932 providing for the abolition of the agency.

EXCERPT FROM THE NATIONAL BUDGET SYSTEM, BY W. F. WILLOUGHBY, 1927 (PP. 226-230)

"Abolition of the Bureau of Efficiency and the transfer of its duties to the Bureau of the Budget.-The legislative history of the Bureau of Efficiency is as follows. The Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Appropriation Act for 1913 directed the Civil Service Commission to establish a system of efficiency ratings

for the classified service in the executive departments in the District of Columbia. An appropriation to put this direction into effect was supplied by the appropriation act for the next year, which also directed the Civil Service Commission to investigate and report to the President with its recommendations on the administrative needs of the service relating to personnel in the executive departments in the District of Columbia. Accordingly, the Civil Service Commission established a Division of Efficiency and began the work. The Appropriation Act for 1916 carried an appropriation for the Division of Efficiency, thereby giving it legislative recognition, and enlarged its duties so as to include the investigation of 'duplication of statistical and other work and methods of business in the various branches of the Government service.'9 In 1916 Congress removed the Division of Efficiency from under the Civil Service Commission and erected it into an independent establishment under the name of Bureau of Efficiency. This action was taken by the insertion of an item in the Urgency Deficiency Act for 1916.10 There is thus no general organic act defining its status and duties. For the most part, if not entirely, the duties as set forth by law are to be found in successive appropriation acts and take the form for the most part of directing it to undertake specific investigations into specified questions of administrative organization and procedure. In addition to complying with these directions, the Bureau on its own initiative or at the request of the several departments, has made numerous studies of administrative problems and submitted recommendations having in view the improvement of administrative organization and procedure.

"It is unnecessary to consider the value of these investigations and recommendations by the Bureau of Efficiency. The significant fact is that the function of this service represents a complete duplication of that of the Bureau of the Budget. The latter, in the discharge of its general duties of determining the recommendations that it should make to the President in respect to the grant of funds to the administrative services is compelled to, and does in fact, make detailed inquiries into the manner in which these services are organized and conduct their business. Furthermore, the Budget and Accounting Act provides that the Bureau acting on behalf of the President shall make studies of the entire organization and business procedure of the several departments and establishments, and on the basis of such studies, recommend action having for its purpose to secure greater economy and efficiency in the dispatch of public business. The section [209] relative to this matter reads as follows:

""The Bureau, when directed by the President, shall make a detailed study of the departments and establishments for the purpose of enabling the President to determine what changes (with a view of securing greater economy and efficiency in the conduct of the public service) should be made in (1) the existing organization, activities, and methods of business of such departments or establishments; (2) the appropriations therefor; (3) the assignment of particular activities to particular services; or (4) the regrouping of services. The results of such study shall be embodied in a report or reports to the President, who may transmit to Congress such report or reports or any part thereof with his recommendations on the matters covered thereby.'

"The appropriation for the Bureau of Efficiency for 1927 is $210,350, in addition to which the Bureau is provided with quarters, heat, light, etc. On the other hand, there is general agreement that the Bureau of the Budget is understaffed, particularly in respect to men in the upper grades. If the Bureau of Efficiency were abolished and but half of its appropriations were transferred to the Bureau of the Budget, that service, through the employment of additional experts in the several fields of public administration, with a compensation adequate to attract the best talent, and other help could do more effective work than is now done by the two organizations working independently. Even were this not so, the concentration of responsibility and the simplification of the administrative organization as a whole that would result would alone justify the merging of the two services.

"Mr. Byrns, who was a member of the special committee on the budget that framed the Budget Act, and is ranking Democratic member of the present Committee on Appropriations, has put the case for this action excellently in remarks made by him in the House of Representatives. When the item for the Bureau

of Efficiency was reached in the debate on the appropriation bill for the independent establishments for 1924, he said: "1

"Mr. Chairman, I am frank to say to the committee that if I thought it would carry I would offer an amendment to strike out the paragraph and eliminate this entire appropriation. I say that for this reason: Without discounting any good that this Bureau of Efficiency has accomplished in the past, I feel that the work performed by the Bureau is, if not duplication, a work that should be and can be done by other bureaus. This Bureau was established, I think, in 1912 or 1913. At the time it was established, there was no bureau or activity of the Government which was devotinge its time and attention to the quesion of efficiency and economy in the various departments. Since that time we have passed the budget law. The Director of the Budget, a gentleman of very great ability, and who has a very earnest desire to serve the Government, has under his control appropriations amounting, if I mistake not, to $190,000; and when you add to that the salaries paid to other employees in the departments who are detailed to the Bureau of the Budget, this bureau is costing the Government, if I remember correctly, something like $300,000 per year, and he has salaried officials getting five and six thousand dollars a year, one of whom is stationed in each one of the various departments, and for what purpose? For the purpose of keeping in touch with the Department and ascertaining and informing the Director of the Bureau of the Budget and the President as to just what is being done, what employees can be eliminated, and when activities can be coordinated and combined so as to save the Government money and enable him, as Director of the Budget, to make recommendations of economy to the President of the United States. Under these circumstances why have a Bureau of Efficiency performing, as I say, largely the very same duties that are being performed by this very efficient Director of the Bureau of the Budget with his very large staff?'

"Mr. Wood, who was in charge of the bill, while opposing the abolition of the Bureau of Efficiency, endorsed Mr. Byrns' position that there was a strong argument in favor of merging the two organizations."

LETTER OF HERBERT G. BROWN, CHIEF OF THE BUREAU OF EFFICIENCY, REPORTING ON A BILL (H. R. 8388) TO ABOLISH THE BUREAU OF EFFICIENCY (FEBRUARY 3, 1932)

NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE WORK OF THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF EFFICIENCY

"Prior to the fiscal year 1910 no establishment of the Federal Government was charged with the duty of studying the methods of business in the various Government establishments with a view to effecting improvements. Notwithstanding the fact that in many cases substantially the same problems confronted the different establishments, each was left to develop its own methods of handling the work. The methods in vogue were usually adopted at the suggestion of the person in immediate charge of the work. In a few cases officials of an establishment were assigned to serve as a special board for that purpose. They were required to carry on their own administrative duties while studying business methods and the adaptability of new and improved office machinery and equipment to the problems assigned to them.

"Obviously, under this plan, different branches of the Government adopted decidedly different methods to meet substantially similar problems. These unsatisfactory results were attributable largely, if not almost entirely, to the absence of an organization that could devote its entire time and energy to the development of the best and most economical methods.

"In 1910 the Commission on Economy and Efficiency was created by President Taft to operate as an independent establishment under his direction. The purpose of this Commission was to inquire into the methods of transacting the public business, with a view to inaugurating new or changing old methods to obtain greater economy and efficiency. This Commission continued until the close of the fiscal year 1913, when Congress failed to grant an appropriation for the fiscal year 1914. It followed the policy of making general surveys of all the executive establishments and the substance of its printed reports related, for the most part, to discussions of general principles. As this plan did not concentrate upon accomplishments, Congress could not be persuaded to continue the expense.

11 Congressional Record, February 20, 1923.

84329-51-12

"However, many of the leaders in Congress who had long legislative experience and were thoroughly familiar with the variety and magnitude of the matters administered by the various establishments of the executive branch, believed that the proper way to effect improvements was through an organization that would specialize in this work with a view to presenting constructive recommendations of such a practical nature that their final adoption by the various administrative heads would follow as a matter of course.

"To test the practicability of this plan, Congress, in 1913, created the Division of Efficiency of the Civil Service Commission. From the beginning the work done by the Division of Efficiency fulfilled the expectations of the leaders of Congress, and, measured in the terms of the saving to the Government resulting from its work, the Division more than justified its cost.

"The only defect in the original plan was demonstrated quickly during the first few years. The members of the Civil Service Commission were not themselves qualified in the specialized field of the work of the Division. The Commission devoted nearly all of its time and attention to what it conceived to be its paramount duty-namely, the enforcement of the Civil Service Act and rules. The Division was thus handicapped in planning its work and the policies of the Commission made it difficult to draft and present its reports to advantage.

"This defect was remedied by the act of February 28, 1916, which made the Division of Efficiency an independent establishment, to be known as the Bureau of Efficiency.

"One of the first assignments of the Division of Efficiency was the duty of establishing a system of efficiency ratings for the classified service in the District of Columbia, in accordance with the provisions of the act of August 23, 1912. This law required that such a uniform system should become effective only with the approval of the President. From 1914 to 1920 the problems preceding and incident to our participation in the World War were of such great importance that the Bureau's efforts to interest the various establishments in a standard efficiency rating system were unsuccessful. The President's approval of a standard system obviously could not be obtained unless the administrative establishments first considered the system and expressed their views. Also, the great expansion of the Government activities during the latter part of this period brought so many demands upon the staff of the Bureau, both from Congress and the heads of the establishments whose work was essential to the successful prosecution of the war, that it was necessary for the Bureau to abandon temporarily its efforts to obtain the approval of a standard efficiency rating system. However, the President's approval of a standard system was given by Executive Order 3567 of October 23, 1921.

"Since the installation of this system the Bureau's duty in the matter has been to assist the various establishments in the District of Columbia in following the prescribed procedure and in considering the need for improvements. Under the Classification Act of 1923 any improvements or modifications in the system must be approved by the Personnel Classification Board before they become effective.

"The act of February 20, 1929 (45 Stat. 1233) requires the Bureau of Efficiency to certify annually to the Bureau of the Budget a statement of the amount of the estimated savings that were effected as a result of surveys and recommendations made by the Bureau in cooperation with the bureau or office involved. The reports which have been submitted in compliance with this law are as follows (pp. 1 and 2)."

(Inserted here were 15 printed pages of savings achieved, studies and recommendations.)

SERVICE TO CONGRESS

"At the time the Bureau of Efficiency was created in 1916 the leaders in Congress realized the need for some independent establishment that would be available to assist Congress by ascertaining essential facts and presenting suggestions for consideration in connection with pending or proposed legislation. These leaders felt that to be of real value this establishment should have no regular administrative duties. Experience had shown that when important administrative work was combined with highly specialized work of this kind the administrative work gradually was given more and more attention, with the result that it so completely absorbed the time and attention of the officers in charge that the work incident to studies of organization, methods, and procedure was greatly neglected. Should such an organization be burdened with administrative duties

it would not be free to make surveys and present impartial recommendations because of its administrative interests.

"The Bureau of Efficiency was created as an independent establishment to serve this need of Congress. The experience since its organization shows that it has been used in this way and that those who have succeeded the leaders in Congress since 1916 have adhered to this viewpoint of their predecessors. In other words, the Bureau of Efficiency serves the various establishments of the executive branch of the Government and also renders this special service to Congress and its various committees and Members.

"The work performed by the Bureau of Efficiency does not duplicate that of any other Government establishment. It is the only branch of the Government that makes intensive studies of the organization and the methods of business with a view to the development of constructive suggestions for improvements that will result either in doing the work better or eliminating unnecessary efforts, or both. Usually the adoption of these constructive recommendations results in improved practices and in reductions in the cost to the Government, which, in the aggregate, are most substantial." (Feb. 3, 1932, pp. 17-18.)

APPENDIX C

BACKGROUND OF CONTROVERSY OVER POWER TO ORIGINATE APPROPRIATION BILLS

Just before the conclusion of the hearings on S. 913, Mr. Fred A. Schuckman raised a question as to the propriety of the practice of requiring that both revenue and appropriation bills may originate only in the House of Representatives. A brief collection of material is therefore assembled in this appendix.

The Constitution of the United States reads: "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills * * *" (sec. 7 of art. I).

Down through the years the Senate has accepted a broad interpretation of this section, which excludes it not only from the initiation of revenue, but of appropriation bills as well. Sharp controversy has, however, arisen from time to time. To reflect the differences, the following material first reprints sections 1500, and 1501 from Hind's Precedents of the House of Representatives.

This material is followed by a reprint of a very scarce brief pamphlet (S. Doc. No. 872, dated July 15, 1912) in which former United States Senator John Sharp Williams discusses "the constitutional power of the House of Representatives to originate supply bills."

EXCERPTS FROM HINDS' PRECEDENTS OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RELATIVE TO SENATE POWER TO INITIATE APPROPRIATION BILLS (1907, VOL. II, pp. 971-4) "SECTION 1500. Discussion by a committe of the House of the constitutional right of the Senate to originate bills appropriating money from the Treasury.— On March 11, 1880, the bill (S. 1157) entitled 'An act authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase additional lots of ground adjoining the new building for the Bureau of Engraving and Printing' was reported from the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds. A question having arisen as to the clause of the bill making an appropriation, it was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to inquire into the right of the Senate under the Constitution to originate bills making appropriations of money belonging to the Treasury of the United States.

"On February 2, 1881, Mr. J. Proctor Knott, of Kentucky, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted a report (No. 147) recommending the adoption of this resolution:

"Resolved, That the Senate had the constitutional power to originate the bill referred, and that the power to originate bills appropriating money from the Treasury of the United States is not exclusive in the House of Representatives.' "The Minority of the committee, Messrs. Hurd, House, Ryon, Lapham, and Williams, filed dissenting views, recommending these resolutions:

"Resolved, That the seventh section of article 1 of the Constitution, which provides that "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives," confers exclusive power upon the House to originate bills appropriating money from the Public Treasury.

"Resolved, That the Senate bill which has been referred to this committee be returned to the Senate of the United States with a copy of these resolutions.'