In the event that such a commission were found essential by your committee, I should like very much to see it composed of representatives of both the legislative and executive branches, as was the Hoover Commission in part, so that those most affected by the commission's operations would have a feeling that their interest was represented and fully protected by membership on the commission. Through such representation, it might be possible to achieve the necessary coordination of the several executive and legislative committees and agencies concerned with efficiency and economy in the Federal service. Once again, and I know I am being repetitious, such a commission will be no better than the staff it appoints.

6. COST ESTIMATES IN COMMITTEE REPORTS

Today there is a rapidly growing interest in performance budgeting and a revision in the method of keeping the Government's books with increased emphasis on cost accounting. Bearing this in mind, I am inclined to doubt that the inclusion of cost estimates in committee reports is the place that will constitute the most effective use of such data.

I also realize that committee reports are so often, of necessity, written at the last moment and are necessarily brief and only highlight the findings of the committee. There are many times when the delay in preparing reports to include cost estimates would tend to prevent proper consideration of committee reports on the floor of both Houses of the Congress.

Certainly cost estimates would be valuable information to congressional committees at the time of deliberation on the spending projects. I feel that the emphasis should be placed on the need of securing better cost reports which would be available at the very outset of the hearings and which should be subjected to the most careful analysis by the technical and professional staffs of the committees. The use of such cost estimates in the committee reports would then be more or less incidental and follow as a matter of course.

Before completing this statement on the subject of cost estimating, I would like to suggest the possibility of the over-all application of a provision which appears in the Appropriation Act for fiscal 1951 and which controls the Atomic Energy Commission in its construction program wherever it appears that the cost of any project exceeds the budget estimate by 15 percent. Too many projects have been started because the Congress has had low initial estimates of costs, but once started it is practically impossible from an engineering or economic standpoint to terminate a project before completion.

Cost estimates have a definite place in congressional consideration of new projects and programs, and I should like to see this information considered of importance so that it would be obtained in sufficient time to be included in committee reports. And, as was proposed in my testimony on Senate bill 913, this might well be made a regular assignment of the Bureau of the Budget.

By way of conclusion, let me express once again my appreciation. for being permitted to testify before your committee today. If we are to obtain a greater degree of control over Federal finances, I feel certain it will eventuate because of the thoughtful and thoroughgoing study you are giving this most important matter. Organiza

tions like the Connecticut Public Expenditure Council are anxious and eager to cooperate with you in these endeavors. We will be glad to assist in any manner that we can and will support any measures you propose that will put Federal finances and financial administration on the soundest possible basis-something I regret to say does not now exist, else it would not be necessary to hold these hearings. Thank you, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Atkins. As I understand your statement, you definitely favor the first four recommendations that you have discussed: Joint budget committee, something along the lines of that proposed in S. 913.

Mr. ATKINS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And a single appropriation bill.

Mr. ATKINS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And the item veto; and then a record vote on appropriation bills and on all committee amendments.

Mr. ATKINS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. On Nos. 5 and 6 your recommendations are not specific. That is, a congressional commission on economy and efficiency. You suggest that it should be established and then you make certain recommendations with regard to its composition. Mr. ATKINS. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. And on cost estimates, you find that if they are desirable, they should be established so as to be available for consideration immediately upon the hearings being started.

Mr. ATKINS. I consider the cost estimates, Senator, very, very essential, and I think you should have them early. I also think they should be submitted to you after careful scrutiny by your own staff.

The CHAIRMAN. This question arises. I think the staff of this committee is probably competent because of their particular training and background to make cost estimates. But some other committees would probably not be adequately staffed. Their staff might have training and experience in different fields.

I think it is highly desirable. It is a question of setting up the machinery so as to make certain that the Congress gets that service. I think one of our great troubles in this continuously increasing cost of Government is not so much what laws we have passed, but the fact that we continue to pass more, which creates an obligation. The Appropriations Committee meets, a bill is taken up, and an item is considered, but no one knows what it is for. The executive department representatives immediately remind us, "Well, you passed the bill that authorized this service." The obligation was created. They come in and say, "We are ready to carry it out, but it is going to cost so much money." "And at the time the bill was passed no one gave any thought as to what it was going to cost.

I know sometimes the question is asked, "What is this going to cost?" But you usually get the opinion of the author of the bill, or the sponsor of the bill, and he says, "It is going to cost so much." But at the time of the Appropriations Committee meeting it costs five times as much. It is like an installment plan for life.

I think greater consideration must be given to what legislation is going to cost. We should consider the continuing obligations that the act will incur on the Federal Government, if it is enacted. I think

it would cause us to pause and be a little more careful in how we vote on creating new services and new functions if we had that cost estimate before us on a reliable basis, and could pretty well depend on it being reasonably accurate.

Senator Dworshak.

Senator DWORSHAK. I have just one question.

Mr. Atkins, does your organization maintain any active contacts with those who represent your State in the Congress?

Mr. ATKINS. Yes.

Senator DwORSHAK. Of course, you realize that is where the effective work is done. We can talk about theoretical approaches and the ideal way to effect economy, but after all, the roll calls are important and your statement indicates that you fully appreciate that fact. Mr. ATKINS. That is right, sir.

Senator DwORSHAK. You get economy when the Members of Congress favor economy because of their own inclinations or because of the pressure and the urging on the part of the people in the respective States and districts which they represent; you will get no economy before that time.

Mr. ATKINS. I think we both appreciate that.

Senator DwORSHAK. So I want to stress that it is nice to talk about what we should do and the size of the budgets and the tax bills and all that. But if you want economy, you and your organization certainly ought to see that your Representatives in the Senate and in the House reflect accurately what you think should be done in the way of legislation on appropriation bills.

Mr. ATKINS. We appreciate that fully, sir, and we try to express to them our views on public finance quite frequently.

The CHAIRMAN. They are not elected alone by the Expenditure Council, are they?

Mr. ATKINS. No, sir. It would be nice if we had the final say sometimes, but we do not, as you know.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for

Mr. ATKINS. Thank you, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Morse.

your statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE MORSE, A UNITED STATES SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

Senator MORSE. Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief. I want to thank the committee for this opportunity to make a very brief statement on this matter.

The CHAIRMAN. We have a broad scope of inquiry here.

Senator MORSE. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. While we set aside certain dates for certain subjects, still we want anyone to feel free to discuss any phase of our subject matter.

Senattor MORSE. I have three or four matters I want to discuss very briefly, and then I have to return to the Armed Services Committee for further examination of General Wedemeyer.

The first subject I want to consider is my bill, S. 561, which might be called my "Caesar's Wife" bill.

The CHAIRMAN. S. 561. Senator, will you submit a copy of it for the record?

Senator MORSE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. We are trying to make a thorough record here, and will have these bills printed in the record.

Senator MORSE. Yes. I will submit the copy which I have before me, using this copy as a basis of my discussion, and then turn it over to the reporter.

(The bill referred to is as follows:)

[S. 561, 82d Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To require certain members of the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of the Government to file statements relating to amount and sources of income, and dealings in securities and commodities

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That every Member of the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States, including the Delegates from Alaska and Hawaii and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, and every judge of a court of the United States, and every officer or employee of the Government, who receives a salary at the rate of $9,000 per annum or more shall, not later than thirty days following the date of enactment of this Act, and on the 2d day of January of each year thereafter, file with the official or officials specified in section 2 a report containing a full and complete statement of—

(1) the amount and sources of all income received by him during the preceding year, including all fees, salaries, royalties, income from trusts or estates and dividends received or credited to his account, and, if such income is derived from a law firm or partnership, the names of the clients of such firm or partnership from whom fees were received; and

(2) all dealings in securities or commodities by him, or by any person acting on his behalf or pursuant to his direction, during the preceding year. SEC. 2. The reports required to be filed by the first section of this Act shall be filed (1) by Members and employees of the Senate with the Secretary of the Senate; (2) by Members and employees of the House of Representatives with the Clerk of the House of Representatives; (3) by judges of courts of the United States and officers and employees in the executive branch of the Government with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives. SEC. 3. As used in this Act

(a) The term "person" includes an individual, partnership, trust, estate, association, corporation, or society.

(b) The term "security" means security as defined in section 2 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (U. S. C., title 15, sec. 77b).

(c) The term "commodity" means commodity as defined in section 2 of the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended (U. S. C., title 7, sec. 2).

(d) The term "dealings in securities or commodities" means any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, disposition, or other transaction involving any security or commodity.

(e) The term "court of the United States" shall include both legislative and constitutional courts.

Senator MORSE. Members of this committee have heard me on the floor of the Senate, I am sure, from time to time in the past several years discuss this bill, because I have introduced it now at each session of Congress since the year 1947, I believe. It is a bill, briefly, in which I provide that every Member of the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States, including the Delegates from Alaska and Hawaii and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico and every judge of a court in the United States and every officer or employee of the Government who receives a salary at the rate of $9,000 per annum or more shall, not later than 30 days following the date of enactment of this act, and the 2d day of January of each year thereafter, file with the official or officials specified in section 2 a report containing a full and complete statement of (1) the amount and sources of all income received by him during the preceding year, in

cluding all fees, salaries, royalties, income from trusts or estates and dividends received or credited to his account, and, if such income is derived from a law firm or partnership, the names of the clients of such firm or partnership from whom fees were received; and (2) all dealings in securities or commodities by him, or by any person acting on his behalf or pursuant to his direction, during the preceding year.

In other words, gentlemen, what I seek to accomplish by this bill is that we have on file as a matter of public record a full and complete disclosure of the amounts and sources of income of all public officials in the three branches of Goverment who receive an income from the Government of $9,000 or more a year. I am not particularly set on the $9,000 figure. It seems to me that is a detail. If it should be judged that the figure should be somewhat higher than that, I would not be disposed to insist on the $9,000 figure.

Now, what is the motivation behind the bill? It comes from a view of mine that, when men and women enter the field of public service, they might just as well face the reality that they have entered a glass house and that they are going to be subject to scrutiny and inspection. I think it is much better to have a full disclosure of the sources and amounts of one's income when he is in public service as a matter of public record than to have our system of government and our public servants whittled away at by smear campaigns, smear attacks, and vicious rumors about what and who influenced their position on various issues because of economic considerations.

The CHAIRMAN. May I inquire, Senator, how much further you would go in this personal report of each official than his income-tax return would reveal? Would you go further than that?

Senator MORSE. My bill requires that he report all the sources and all the amounts of his income, and that it be a public document.

The CHAIRMAN. I am wondering, would you accomplish the same purpose by simply requiring the income-tax return to be made a public document? I am just trying to determine if you would go further than what the income-tax return would disclose.

Senator MORSE. I think your proposal would be exceedingly helpful, but I would like to point out that the language of my bill goes a little further than the technical requirements of the income-tax forms.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what I wanted to get you to emphasize. Senator MORSE. The technical requirements of the present incometax forms permit of a concealment in various ways of sources, but not of amounts. At least, you would reveal the amount. But I want to have it mandatory upon the public servant to make clear the sources in black and white.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what I thought was the difference.
Senator MORSE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you could require them to make their income-tax return a public document, but you would also require them to identify the sources of the income.

Senator MORSE. Yes. Now, in regard to my viewpoint about this, I want to make very clear to this committee that I do not hold to the view that men of wealth should not hold positions in public service. I think some of the finest public servants we have are