have worked out extremely well. We had, I think, six more last fall out of the 1954 class, and they are all doing very well, indeed. They have enthusiasm. We have tried to pick the high standing men who are intelligent and interested in the work and are very anxious to show their mettle.

Speaking for myself, I think it has worked very well.

PROSPECT OF UNOBLIGATED BALANCE

Senator KILGORE. This year your Division was allowed $1,407,800. Will that all be obligated this year, or do you anticipate some savings from it?

Of couse, I am not disparaging the idea of savings.

Mr. TADLOCK. Mr. Chairman, we are hard pressed now and there will be no savings this year. In more normal years, we will have a leftover but in the Tax Division, 90 percent of our expenditures are for personal services and there is no area left in which to effect savings. Mr. Andretta asked for a survey of each division recently. The Tax Division will be right on the edge, and may have to cut out some of the things we planned in the last month of the fiscal year. We have less than we had last year, and are still closing more cases and catching up on the volume.

PERSONNEL TURNOVER IN TAX DIVISION

Senator KILGORE. What is your turnover in the Tax Division in personnel?

Mr. TADLOCK. It has been very high in the last 2 years. In lawyers, the turnover was about 35 percent in the last 2 years, on an annual basis, but normally the turnover in the tax division is lower than the average in the Government. It runs around 3 or 4 percent per month.

RULE AGAINST PRIVATE PRACTICE

Senator DIRKSEN. In that connection, refresh me on the rule with respect to the rights they have when they work on cases in the Department and then get out into private practice. The rule applies only to the cases, as I recall, on which they work in the Department at the time. Those they cannot touch for a period of 2 years if they are retained as private counsel?

Mr. ANDRETTA. There are two laws. One is that they cannot prosecute any claims against the Government for 2 years after they go out. Senator DIRKSEN. That is a general prohibition?

Mr. ANDRETTA. Yes. The other is they cannot handle for 2 years anything that was pending in the agency when they were there.

Senator DIRKSEN. So that actually if a youngster came in there and worked for a while and decided to go into private practice, he could not actually touch a claim against the Government for 2 years? Mr. ANDRETTA. That is right.

Senator DIRKSEN. Does that have a claim on your turnover? I am thinking back to a number who have retired from the Government on rather responsible levels and they came to see me, and I scolded a little, and they said, "The longer you wait the more difficult the situation becomes, because under the 2-year rule you are virtually clocked out

from using whatever experience you may have gotten in Government." Does that have something to do with your professional turnover?

Mr. HOLLAND. I have always supposed it might have, but it has not been expressed to us.

EFFECT OF RULE ON RECRUITMENT

Mr. ANDRETTA. It affects recruitment. It is difficult for somebody to give up a private practice and know that he has to give this up with the idea that when he goes back again he is estopped for 2 years.

FUNCTION OF TAX DIVISION

Senator KILGORE. Your big job is that you are the legal authority that backs up Internal Revenue; is that correct?

Mr. HOLLAND. That is correct.

Senator KILGORE. Which collects the taxes which they figure are due; is that right?

Mr. HOLLAND. That is correct.

Senator KILGORE. So if we expect to collect and equalize internal revenue fairly among the people we have to give a staff to the enforcement division in the tax end; is that right?

Mr. HOLLAND. I think that is a correct statement, Mr. Chairman. Senator KILGORE. Just the same as we have to get enough collectors and officers out in Internal Revenue. The same thing applies to the Justice Department, who have to handle it when the other fellows fall down and they have to step in.

Mr. HOLLAND. That is correct. Of course, as the volume of tax collections goes up, as the tax rates go up, it increases the burden.

Senator KILGORE. The burden on the Tax Division increases commensurately.

Mr. HOLLAND. That is correct.

Senator KILGORE. And if you remove the Department of Justice Tax Division, then you must either substitute a Tax Division within Internal Revenue where it does fit or just let that go out of the window; is that right?

Mr. HOLLAND. Right.

PERCENTAGE OF CASE INCREASES SINCE PEARL HARBOR

Senator DIRKSEN. Mr. Holland, I think it would be interesting if you carried that table back to 1941. That is about the time of Pearl Harbor. It would be very interesting to spell out the percentages of increase in cases that come in year after year as a sum indicia of the growth of Government functions. It just seems to me that we remain rather oblivious to the fact that as the country grows, obligations grow, functions grow.

Senator KILGORE. And problems grow.

Senator DIRKSEN. Problems grow and the affairs of Government grow.

Mr. TADLOCK. Would you want that for the record?
Senator DIRKSEN. Yes.

Mr. TADLOCK. We will submit that.
(The information referred to follows:)

It will be noted that we were hopeful of making a real reduction in the backlog if the full amount was forthcoming. On the other hand, operating under the House allotment we will be able to do only about what we estimate we will do this year. By exerting all possible effort we will get approximately 4,600 closings in the current year. This is about the limit we can reach with our

present resources.

WORKLOAD DATA

Senator KILGORE. Does that complete your statement on this question?

Mr. HOLLAND. Yes.

I should like to introduce into the record a revision of page 82 of the justification which shows the estimates for work pending, received, handled, closed, on an estimated basis for the year 1956 in two columns, one of which reflects the situation if the actual amount of the appropriation originally requested for the Tax Division is provided and the other of which reflects the work situation on the basis of the action taken by the House.

(The information referred to follows:)

It will be noted that we were hopeful of making a real reduction in the backlog if the full amount was forthcoming. On the other hand, operating under the House allotment, we will be able to do only about what we estimate we will do this year. By exerting all possible effort we will get approximately 4,600 closings in the current year. This is about the limit we can reach with our present

resources.

CRIMINAL DIVISION

STATEMENT OF WARREN OLNEY III, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL; J. C. AIRHART, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT; AND S. A. ANDRETTA, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

HOUSE REDUCTION OF ALLOTMENT

Senator KILGORE. Who is your next witness?

Mr. ANDRETTA. This is the Criminal Division, Mr. Olney.

Mr. OLNEY. Mr. Chairman, the request for the funds for the Criminal Division for the fiscal year 1956 totaled $1,458,500, which was an increase over the 1955 allotment of $94,400, which in the terms in which this committee is accustomed to dealing is not a large amount, but it is an amount which is of real importance to the Criminal Division, and we think it has a direct relation to whether or not we can do our job effectively.

Senator KILGORE. The House cut was $69,400?
Mr. OLNEY. That is right.

EFFECT OF HOUSE CUT

Senator KILGORE. Does that cut you down in a number of places? Mr. OLNEY. Yes; it does. The money was to go for personnel and the need for the personnel is simply due to conditions over which we have no control. It is a result of a rising crime rate and an increasing population and increasing complexity with problems with which we have to deal. The figures that we had were the best that we could give for what we felt we needed in order to do the job.

TOTAL POSITIONS REQUESTED

Senator KILGORE. You asked for 217 positions. You got 197, which is the same as the current year. That does not take into account the growth of population, the speed of automobiles, power, and all that sort of thing, is that right?

Mr. OLNEY. That is correct.

Senator KILGORE. This $69,400 would give you how many positions? Mr. AIRHART. It would actually give us, Senator, about 15 positions. Senator KILGORE. That would be 5 less than what you had estimated, is that right?

Mr. AIRHART. We had estimated on 20 positions and from the funds allowed by the House we could get 4 or 5. From the $69,000 we would expect another 15.

DISTRIBUTION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL

Senator KILGORE. Where are you going to use this additional personnel? What section are you going to put them in?

Mr. OLNEY. Some of them would go into Appeals and Research Section. I think that would be two. One of them would go into

the Civil Rights Section. Eight of them would go in the General Crimes Section.

Senator KILGORE. Would I persuade you to change your word "civil" rights to "constitutional" rights? I got the judiciary to change that word, and I found it is paying dividends. Civil rights is purely constitutional rights of a human being, is not that right?

Mr. OLNEY. Of course, they all stem from the Constitution, but the statutes that we have to enforce are acts of Congress.

Senator KILGORE. I know. Do not you think it would be advisable to change it to constitutional rights? All people should have their constitutional rights.

Mr. OLNEY. I do not know what you gain by changing it.

Senator KILGORE. Except you keep certain States from opposing everything you try to do.

Mr. OLNEY. If it would have that effect, it would certainly be well worthwhile. If it even tended to have that effect.

Senator KILGORE. I know this much: When we changed it on the Judiciary Committee, the Subcommittee on Civil Rights, and switched the name to Constitutional Rights, we immediately had support from segments that formerly opposed us, because the whole picture is not a question of just civil rights of certain groups. It is constitutional rights of all people.

Mr. OLNEY. That is basic all right.
Senator KILGORE. That is right.

Go ahead.

Mr. OLNEY. Eight of these additional people would go into the General Crimes Section, and four would go into the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section. The reason for the eight in the General Crimes Section is partly the general increase in crimes of all categories, but in addition to that the necessity of adding to our staff because of drains put on us by FHA investigations. We have had enough of those in volume that we have had to set up a separate unit in order to handle them.

Senator KILGORE. That is the failure to pay off their loans?

Mr. OLNEY. No. Most of those have been these home improvement

cases.

Senator KILGORE. That is what I mean. They are not meeting their payments.

Mr. OLNEY. False statement cases, most of them are. They are not the windfall cases. Those have not been much of a drain on us. They have on the Civil Division.

Senator KILGORE. I am not talking about windfall. I am talking about people who step into that thing and do not meet their payments and you have to sue.

Mr. OLNEY. That has not been a problem for us because the Civil Division brings those suits, but there have been a great many of these cases where people have been cheated and defrauded by out-and-out swindlers who induced them to put their signatures on papers that were false in effect. It ends up with the Government holding the bag on those papers because, as you say, the people do not and will not meet the obligation in which they have been cheated. We have had to prosecute a very large number and process even more, of course, cases of that sort, and the personnel to do it had to come out of the General Crimes Section. That is where we need them.