JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE ORGANIZATION OF THE CONGRESS SENATE HOUSE JACK BROOKS, Texas A. S. MIKE MONRONEY, Oklahoma, Cochairman RAY J. MADDEN, Indiana, Cochairman KEN HECHLER, West Virginia W. DEVIER PIERSON, Chief Counsel NICHOLAS A. MASTERS, Research Consultant II CONTENTS Dr. Joseph C. Pray, Department of Government, University of Don Spagnolo, national executive director, AMVETS. "A Joint Committee on National Security Strategy," a compilation prepared at the request of Senator Boggs, of Delaware, by the Legislative Reference Service.. Speech by Senator Boggs, of Delaware, introducing Senate Joint Resolution 177, 87th Congress, 2d session, March 27, 1962___ Earlier proposals similar to Senate Joint Resolution 177. Excerpt from S. 2177, introduced on May 13, 1946___ House Joint Resolution 521, 81st Congress, 2d session_... House Joint Resolution 181, 83d Congress, 1st session_.. Senate Concurrent Resolution 63, 85th Congress, 2d session_ Senate Joint Resolution 83, 86th Congress, 1st session.___ House Concurrent Resolution 112, 86th Congress, 1st session_ Senate Joint Resolution 177, 87th Congress, 2d session___ House Joint Resolution 685, 87th Congress, 2d session. - Congressional proposals for a Joint Committee on National Se- curity Strategy and related proposals (table).... 1318 1324 The role of Congress in determination of foreign policy.... ORGANIZATION OF CONGRESS TUESDAY, AUGUST 3, 1965 CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE ORGANIZATION OF THE CONGRESS, Washington, D.C. The joint committee met, pursuant to recess, at 9:45 a.m., in room AE-1, the Capitol, Senator A. S. Mike Monroney (cochairman of the joint committee) presiding. Present: Senators Monroney, Metcalf, Case, and Boggs, and Representatives Madden (cochairman), Griffin, and Hall. Also present: W. DeVier Pierson, chief counsel; George Meader, associate counsel; and Melvin W. Sneed, staff assistant. Cochairman MONRONEY. The Joint Committee on the Organization of the Congress will be in session. Today we start with Dr. Joseph C. Pray, professor of government, University of Oklahoma. Dr. Pray graduated with a B.A. from Michigan State Normal College in 1931, an M.A. from the University of Michigan in 1935, and a Ph.D. from Harvard in 1938. He has been a teacher of government, political science, at the University of Oklahoma since 1938 except for the 3 years spent in the U.S.Navy. His speciality is in the field of political parties, legislation, and administrative law. He is author of "Post-Appropriation Budgetary Control in Oklahoma," 1946; with George J. Mauer, "New Perspectives of Legislative Apportionment in Oklahoma," 1962; and with others, "Oklahoma Votes," 1964. We are delighted to have you give your time to come up here. We know how busy your schedule is. We do wish you would proceed in your own way. Dr. PRAY. Thank you very much, Senator Monroney. I am very honored to have the privilege of making a statement here. I have a prepared statement which is fairly concise but I would like to develop this statement and maybe summarize in some cases in the interests of speeding this up. Cochairman MONRONEY. You may proceed in your own way. We will be happy to have you read your statement, and we have only two other witnesses scheduled for today. STATEMENT OF DR. JOSEPH C. PRAY, DEPARTMENT OF Dr. PRAY. The legislature is the social institution of first priority in the development and maintenance of democratic institutions, and its effective operation should be the first and continuing concern of all, especially in these times of the increasing complexity of public problems. This is true although it often appears that those who assume periodically the self-evaluation role, like this committee, undertake a thankless task. This work does not seem to have the urgency of other important though transient problems of public policy. In Congress, we have inherited an institution that has a great momentum, wherein there is resistance to adjustments. Not too many alternatives are available within the outer limits of the problem and many imponderables abound. For these reasons, I am grateful that the committee is undertaking this important task with such insight and energy. To have a more effective Congress requires focusing attention on the fundamental problem of the creation of a consensus by majority vote in circumstances where the public is so large, intricately organized, and varied in its views and interests. Representative Thomas B. Curtis of this committee, in his opening statement (pt. 1, p. 9, of these hearings) felicitously described the pluralism of American society in relation to legislation when he said: Legislating or determining policy involves thought, study, imagination, judgment, and sympathetic understanding of the aspirations, the needs, and the desires of 190 million free individual Americans. The chief problem of Congress continues to be organization for creation of agreement out of conflicting interests. The presence of individual and provincial problems and resulting conflicts will take care of itself. Congress need not bother itself with this matter, except with a concern that certain groups may not be able, for various reasons, to make their relative interests felt on the congressional level as much as a general equity would require. Individual and provincial interests should not and cannot be disregarded. The problem is to organize for a national policy regarding individual or provincial problems, and to organize in such a way that the public has as broad an understanding and control of policymaking as is possible in the meaning of democratic-representative institutions. The problems of the coordination of diverse information and interests by Congress falls under two headings: political party machinery within the congressional parties; and the institutional machinery of Congress. Regarding the adjustment of political party machinery of the congressional parties, I belong generally to the Galloway-La FolletteMonroney-Proxmire-Clark-Bolling school of thought. I appreciate that I haven't the permission to either group these people or to associate myself with them. Senator CASE. You have permission to use the name of a Republican once in a while. Representative HALL. We understand why you would use the name of Monroney. Dr. PRAY. I certainly would like to add Senator Case to the list. Mr. La Follette was a good Republican. Senator CASE. There are people who disagree on both counts. Representative HALL. "Was," I said. |