Page images

Mr. PARKER. That is correct. Of course, in the last calendar year, for instance, from January to the 22d of June, when you passed the Revenue Act of 1936, we were almost exclusively engaged on that act, except for the current work that had to be done on the refunds.

That act was a difficult act, because it incorporated into the law the new undistributed-profits tax, which is a new departure in taxation in this country. In fact, it is new in almost every country in the world, although it had been tried out in a modified form in Norway.

But in respect to that tax, as soon as the returns come in, we will immediately have to begin to study the operation and effect of that act, and see what the actual problems arising on those returns are, and determine the undue hardships and other matters.


Mr. DockWEILER. You are asking under your estimate this year $29,000, which is $2,000 over the appropriation for last year of $27,000. Will you explain the necessity for that extra $2,000?

Mr. PARKER. In the first place, when that was put in, as near as we could compute it, we were facing a deficit this year of about $800. The final figures show now that there is just a possibility that we might go through the year with perhaps $100 left over. But, in my opinion, that is too close to the line, because you cannot tell about contingencies. Still it is perfectly possible that we may have a deficiency, say, for this year of three or four hundred dollars.

Next year I expect to be a big year in taxes. We used to be under the contingent fund, and we were not required to set an exact amount as a limitation on our expenditures. It is difficult to figure ahead just what the committee might wish to do. I think it is perfectly possible that the joint committee may have a number of sessions before the opening of the next session of Congress. One reason is these new taxes. They will wish to know about that subject. It may be that they will even wish to hold hearings. Of course, there is some expense attached to that; and I think we ought to have a few thousand dollars leeway, as our salary list is almost exactly equal to our old appropriation.

Mr. DockWEILER. Of course, when you ask this committee for $29,000 more, it means that you are making a similar request of the Senate, inasmuch as this is a joint committee, for $29,000, or a total of $58,000?

Mr. PARKER. That is correct.

Mr. DocKWEILER. Can you furnish the committee with a statement showing how the $58,000 is made up?

Mr. PARKER. I can. I have here our present pay roll, which amounts, on an annual basis, to $53,940.

We have the cost of tax services and the loose-leaf services, and so forth, which are rather expensive, but which are necessary in order to keep us constantly informed as to the rulings and decisions of the courts as well as of the Bureau. The cost of the tax services runs in the neighborhood of $600 a year.

Then we have stationery and miscellaneous expenses, which probably would run another $600 a year.

That amount, of course, is in excess of the appropriation for the fiscal year 1937. The items I have enumerated amount to $55,140.

The other $2,860 is, as I mentioned, a contingent item, whether it might be for another clerk on part time, or whether it might be for hearings. But it would give the chairman some leeway in conducting the work of the committee to the greatest advantage.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. Will you put that statement in the record, Mr. Parker?

Mr. PARKER. Yes, sir.
(The statement referred to is as follows:)

[blocks in formation]

Mr. DockWEILER. Do you anticipate that your work will be much heavier for the fiscal year 1938 than it has been this year?

Mr. PARKER. I do anticipate it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. I do not see how your committee could have been busier than it was during the days of the preparation of the Revenue Act in 1936 and 1935.

Mr. PARKER. That is true. But that work is necessarily confined to a comparatively few individuals. We have a few individuals and myself upon whose judgment and advice the committee more or less depends.

The problem that we are facing for this coming year is to collect a vast amount of data and statistics from the new returns and to get a vast amount of facts prior to the next session of Congress; and I expect that we will be very busy when Congress is not in session, on that work.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. Do you anticipate that because of the number of requests for changes in the Revenue Act of 1936 on account of the harsh provisions in it or, at least, such provisions as now turn out to be very harsh in the administration of it, that hearings will be held with a view to correcting some of those provisions?

Mr. PARKER. I think that that is possible. Of course, I have no authority on that point. I cannot say officially. The members of the committee have said nothing about it.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. I bope the committee does have some hearings, because I know of several instances where as to corporation income taxes the provisions of the 1936 law have caused a great deal of hardship on corporations that were in debt, who went in debt during this depression period. I think some of the provisions are almost unconscionable in the way that they are affecting those businesses.

Mr. PARKER. We have a vast amount of correspondence forwarded to us either directly or through Congressmen and Senators complaining of certain effects of the undistributed profit tax. Almost uniformly, Mr. Chairman, those are from small corporations.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. I don't believe we have any other questions that we wish to ask you. We appreciate your coming here.

Mr. PARKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.





Mr. DOCKWEILER. We will turn to page 61 of the proposed bill under the caption of “Office of Legislative Counsel.” We have with us Mr. Beaman and Mr. Wood. Mr. Beaman represents the House side and Mr. Wood represents the Senate side. Have you any statement that you wish to make, Mr. Beaman?

Mr. BEAMAN. No, sir. We have nothing to say unless we can give you some information. We just want to go along as we have.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. I notice that your estimate is the same as the appropriation made for 1937, namely $75,000. How many do you have employed in your office?

Mr. BEAMAN. I have myself, four lawyers, and two clerks. I think Mr. Wood has the same.

Mr. Wood. I have the same on the Senate side.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. Please submit to the Committee a list of the names of the members of your staff and their salaries.

Mr. BEAMAN. I would be glad to do that.
Mr. Wood. I will do that.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. You might also supply us with a break-down of the expenditure of the $75,000 for 1936. Mr. BEAMAN. Yes. I will be glad to do that.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. You might give a combination statement showing the persons employed in your office. Mr. BEAMAN. That will be very simple.

Mr. DocKWEILER. And their salaries following their names, which in effect would total the amount paid in 1936.

Mr. BEAMAN. Yes.

Salaries of members of the House Office of the legislative counsel

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Actual expenditures of House branch of the office of the Legislative Counsel for the

fiscal year 1936 Actual expenditures for salaries

$33, 925. 83 Actual miscellaneous expenditures (law books, stationery, and miscellaneous items)

374. 93

Total actual expenditures

34, 300. 76

Salaries of members of the Senate office of the legislative counsel
Name and position:

Henry G. Wood, legislative counsel.
Stephen E. Rice, assistant counsel.
Charles S. Murphy, assistant counsel.
John H. Simms, law assistant.
Leslie Gillis, Jr., law assistant
Earl Pryor, clerk..
Irving Gordon, assistant clerk.

Salary $7, 200 4, 200 3, 200 2, 400 2, 100 3,000 2, 300


24, 100

Actual expenditures of Senate branch of the office of the legislative counsel for the

fiscal year 1936 Actual expenditures for salaries.

$25, 641, 66 Actual miscellaneous expenditures (lawbooks, stationery, and miscellaneous items).

229. 29

25, 870. 95

Total actual expenditures.. Mr. SNYDER. How do the activities of your respective sides compare with a year ago? That is, how does 1936 compare with 1935? Is the activity greater?

Mr. BEAMAN. Oh, the activities are increasing all the time. There has never been any time when we were able to do the work that we were asked to do. There hasn't been time to do it for years.

Mr. SNYDER. What do you do, then?
Mr. BEAMAN. We just do the best that we can.

Mr. SNYDER. You mean that a certain proportion of the work goes undone?

Mr. BEAMAN. It might be done if we had more time to do it. There has been an increasing disposition on the part of you gentle

I don't mean this committee, but the Congress—to get their work done in a hurry. The result is that we have less time to do the work, and we have to do it faster.

Mr. Snyder. In your offices, I judge from your remarks that you have to work longer than from 9 to 4?

Mr. BEAMAN. We do, sir. We work nights, Sundays, and holidays. Mr. Wood. In fact, we don't have any set hours.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. Your first duty, however, is to the committees.
When they request your assistance in drafting bills, you have to help
them first?

Mr. BEAMAN. According to the law which created us, we are only
authorized to work for the committees. We have since the inception
of the office, with the full knowledge and consent of this subcommittee
and its predecessors and the full committee and the leadership of the
House generally, aided individual Members to the extent that it is
possible to do so without interfering with our committee work.

On the whole, we do a large amount of work for Members. The
smaller the job, the more chance we have of helping you.

Mr. DockWEILER. If, for instance, the chairman of a standing com-
mittee of the House asks you to aid one of the members of the com-
mittee in the preparation of a bill that he contemplates introducing,
you would aid him under those circumstances, would you not?

Mr. BEAMAN. Do you mean a bill to be introduced before that
Mr. DOCKWEILER. Well, suppose
Mr. BEAMAN. May I say it this way-
Mr. DocKWEILER. Yes.

Mr. BEAMAN. We are not, strictly speaking, working for the chair-
man of the committee. We are supposed to work for the committee
itself. But, of course, as you know, in most cases the chairman speaks
for the committee. So, when the chairman tells us to do something
for the committee, of course, we don't ask the committee to hold a
meeting and vote on a request. If he tells us to do something for the
committee, we do it.

If the chairman should ask us to do a job for a member of his com-
mittee to be introduced before some other committee, I don't know.
I don't believe that that question has ever come up. Strictly speaking
he would not have any preference over the request of the member
himself not backed up by the chairman.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. You have, in effect, answered my question.

Mr. SNYDER. How long has it been since your force has been en-
larged? You say that you have four lawyers.

Mr. BEAMAN. It has been a good many years.
Mr. SNYDER. Do you do twice as much work as you did 5 years ago?
Mr. BEAMAN. No, sir. We could not. It would be impossible.
Mr. SNYDER. You would have it to do if you could do it?

Mr. BEAMAN. Oh, yes. We certainly would. If we let it be
known that we were in shape to handle it, no doubt we would get
many more requests than we do. You see, people don't ask us,
because they know that we just cannot do it.

Mr. DockWEILER. Mr. Wood, would you like to make a statement?

Mr. Wood. I would just like to add that on the Senate side the
Senators all have assignments to various committees. Most of them
have a number of committees-four, five, six, or seven assignments.
Oftentimes they are interested in some bill as a subcommittee.

It is hard sometimes to break-down a job into a committee job or
an individual job, because of that situation. They are acting for the
committee in an individual capacity-perhaps as subchairman or
chairman of a subcommittee.

Mr. DOCKWEILER. That is, over on the Senate side practically
every Senator is a chairman of some committee or subcommittee?


« PreviousContinue »