Page images

cases is not there. That is very important. Secondly, again, what constitutes

Senator FERGUSON. Are they enforced as well in Wisconsin as other criminal law is enforced? You say the will isn't there to enforce them. Are they enforced as well as other criminal laws?

Professor ZELLER. In Wisconsin, I would say the record of enforcement and the provisions of the statute are good. I think I would probably say Wisconsin ranks the highest in the country. Now, what is wrong in most States is that the will to enforce is not there, partially because the language of the law is not clear. It is very difficult to ask the Attorney General to stick his neck out and enforce a law about which there is a great deal of question, unlike what the Attorney General of the United States is doing. Of course, he feels there is enough in the law that can be enforced and that it might serve as a guide to the Congress.

Senator FERGUSON. But you say this law in Wisconsin which is the best law of them all is so indefinite.

Professor ZELLER. No; not Wisconsin. Excuse me. I am sorry I don't have a copy of the language of the Wisconsin law with me but I would say that the language in the Wisconsin law is about as clear as you will find in any of the States that do have lobbying laws. I might refer you to an analysis of the State lobbying laws which I prepared for the Council of State Governments in Chicago, and which will soon be published in their "Book of the States." Now the difficulty is this narrow concept of lobbying, as though it were just confined to the paid lobbyist and his employer had no responsibility under the act. I don't think the States realize it. Some of these State laws go back to 1890, the turn of the century. And in those days we didn't think in terms of mass channels for influencing public opinion in the enactment of legislation.

Senator FERGUSON. Do you think people ought to be able to appear before committees and testify without registration?

Professor ZELLER. They don't have to, sir, under the law.
Senator FERGUSON. Do you think they should ?

Professor ZELLER. No; because that is an open act. You see them. You can ask them questions—they are there. There is nothing to hide.

Senator FERGUSON. Even though they were paid, you don't contend if they appear before an open hearing or in a closed session, for that matter

Professor ZELLER. If that is all they do, they don't have to register, and I don't think they should.

Senator FERGUSON. The last part—you don't think that the lobbying law should cover that?

Professor ZELLER. That's right. As long as you see this man and know whom he represents, or if you are not sure whom he represents you ask him questions. There is a record of what he says. That person should not be required to register.

Senator FERGUSON. Take the average person who comes to a Senator's or Congressman's office saying, “Now, I represent the A-B-C people of Michigan,” or “New York," and they usually have a letterhead, and they say, “We have 400,000 members and we are down here to demand”—sometimes even to demand—“that you vote against this law" or "for this law," I don't think the Senator or the Congressman is usually in doubt as to who the representative is. They make that clear. Now, should they register?

Professor ZELLER. In my recommendations—I might add it is also a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Organization of Congress-is one requiring the committees to check on the claims made by certain parties as to whom they represent, because the tendency among some is to exaggerate the membership of their organizations. Some organizations have been found to have nothing more than a letterhead. Certainly when they appear before committees, while they don't have to register as paid lobbyists under the law, and I repeat, I think that is sound, you still have the representative in front of you and you can ask him the questions which I suggested in my recommendation earlier.

Senator FERGUSON. I suppose you have been asked questions about your appearing before the committee?

Professor ZELLER. I was invited to come here by Senator Aiken. And I understood I was asked to come because I have made a study of this particular legislation. Of course I am glad to make such contribution as I can.

Senator FERGUSON. Do you feel this particular section of the lobby law is not a good one?

Professor ŽELLER. Yes, I do. I think it represents, on the whole, a very poor drafting job and not worthy of the Congress of the United States. I think language should be used to convey meaning and not to confuse people.

Senator FERGUSON. Did you state what you thought the law ought to be?

Professor ZELLER. Yes, I did, sir.
Senator FERGUSON. Thank you.
Senator BRICKER (presiding). Is there anything further?
Thank you very much.

The committee will adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, at which time they will hear first Dr. Galloway and then Mr. Smith.

(Whereupon, at 3:15 p. m., the committee adjourned until 10 a. m., Wednesday, February 18, 1948.)


OF 1946




Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10:10 a. m. in the committee room, Senate Office Building, Senator Bricker presiding.

Present: Senators Aiken, Bricker (presiding), Ferguson, Hickenlooper, and Thye.

Also present: E. B. Van Horn, committee staff director.

Senator BRICKER. The committee will come to order. The members will be present in a little while.

The first witness this morning will be Dr. George B. Galloway, Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress. Dr. Galloway, do you have a prepared statement that you want to submit?

Dr. GALLOWAY. I have, Mr. Chairman.
Senator BRICKER. You may proceed, Dr. Galloway.


LEGISLATIVE ORGANIZATION, LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE SERVICE, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Dr. Galloway. Mr. Chairman, my name is George B. Galloway. I appear here today at the request of the committee. Formerly, as you know, I was staff director of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, and presently I am senior specialist in legislative organization at the Legislative Reference Service, from which I am on administrative furlough serving as staff director of the Subcommittee on Home Rule and Reorganization of the House Committee on the District of Columbia. Any recommendations, Mr. Chairman, I may submit here are made in my personal capacity and do not reflect the views of the Legislative Reference Service, which makes no recommendations on matters of public policy.

I shall divide my testimony into four parts, as follows:

1. Gains that have been achieved under the Legislative Reorganization Act.

2. Amendments of the act during the last session. 3. Nonenforcement of the act during the last session. 4. Proposals for further reforms in the organization of Congress. Mr. Chairman, my statement is presumably too long to present in full at this time. Several of the points I planned to cover were adequately covered yesterday by Senator La Follette and Congressman Monroney and, if it please the committee, I shall merely summarize the high lights of this statement and request that the full statement be inserted in the record.

Senator BRICKER. It may be ordered.

Dr. GALLOWAY. Under the head of “Gains achieved under the Legislative Reorganization Act,” many gains were achieved in the committee structure and operation of the Congress. The standing committee structure of both Houses has been streamlined and simplified. By integrating related areas of policy making, Senate standing committees have been reduced from 33 to 15; and House standing committees from 48 to 19. All minor, inactive committees have been abolished.

The number of select committees was reduced from 18 in 1946 to 11 in 1947. Of this number, 3 were Senate committees, 5 were House committees, and 3 were joint committees. These 11 select committees had a combined membership of 112 members. (See table 1.)

There was a net reduction of 31 in the number of congressional committees of all types-standing, special, joint and subcommittees-in 1947 compared with 1945. There were 47 fewer standing committees, 4 less special committees, 4 more joint committees, and 16 more standing subcommittees. Four Senate committees-Foreign Relations, Armed Services, Finance and Commerce--and five House committees-Banking and Currency, Commerce, Post Office and Civil Service, Rules, and Ways and Means—have no standing subcommittees at the present time. (See table 2.)

The jurisdiction of the standing committees in both Houses has been defined and clarified in their rules. As a result, there has been a noteworthy reduction in jurisdictional conflicts between committees over the reference of bills. Only eight jurisdictional questions arose in the Senate in the last session, of which six involved real dispute. Twelve House bills were re-referred by unanimous consent during the last session, but none of these apparently involved conflict between committees. Exhibits A and B give the detail on this point.

Out of 28 special investigations authorized by the Senate during 1947, 26 were conducted by standing committees of the Senate and only 2 by select committees-Small Business and National Defense. Table 3 shows the subjects that were investigated, the committees that made the investigations, and the amounts they were authorized to expend.

Out of 27 special investigations authorized by the House of Representatives during 1947, 23 were conducted by standing committees of the House and only 4 by select committees-Foreign Aid, Newsprint, Small Business, and Commodity Exchanges. Table 4 appended to the statement gives the detail on this point.

Party policy committees have been set up in the Senate to plan the legislative program, coordinate committee activity, and strengthen party responsibility. Although provided for in a separate act of the Seventy-ninth Congress, the creation of such policy committees was originally recommended by the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress and approved by the Senate in passing the legislative reorganization bill. Noteworthy progress has been achieved by these over-all policy committees in the upper Chamber in the performance of their important functions. The Senate Majority Policy Committee now has a professional staff of seven persons under the able direction of Mr. George H. E. Smith, its staff director, and three clerks. The Minority Policy Committee, of which Leslie L. Biffle is staff director, has a combined staff of nine persons.

I may say parenthetically, Mr. Chairman, that it is difficult for an outsider to evaluate the operation of the Majority Policy Committees in the Senate because, as you know, their proceedings are carried on in executive session. But Mr. Smith, who is to follow me on the stand and who is the staff director of the Majority Policy Committee of the Senate, will be able to give more authoritative testimony on this point.

Noteworthy gains have also been achieved in the staffing of the Congress: 91 Senators are being aided by administrative assistants; 5 Senators have not yet appointed such assistants—Barkley, Donnell, Langer, McKellar, and Wilson.

There has been 33% percent increase in the staff of the Office of Legislative Counsel. Each of the two offices now has a staff of six counselors and six law assistants and clerks.

During the latter half of 1947 the standing committees of the Senate had a combined professional staff of 43 persons, out of an authorized 60, and a combined clerical staff of 90 persons. One hundred and two additional investigators and assistants were being employed by Senate subcommittees pursuant to special investigations. Only 3 out of 15 Senate standing committees had their fully authorized complement of professional staff members. Nineteen professionals, twenty-three clerks, and eight others were employed by the Small Business and National Defense Select Committees of the Senate during the latter half of 1947. Altogether, 285 persons were assisting the committees of the Senate during the period under review. The gross annual salary of all Senate committee employees during 1947 aggregated about one and a half million dollars. (See table 5.)

During the latter half of 1947 the standing committees of the House of Representatives had a combined professional staff of 43 persons, out of an authorized 72, exclusive of the Committee on Appropriations, and a combined clerical staff of 116 persons. Eight of the nineteen standing committees of the House had their full complement of professional staff members at this time. Fifty-seven additional investigators and consultants were being employed by House committees pursuant to special investigations. Twenty-five professionals and nineteen clerks were employed by the House select committees on foreign aid, newsprint, and small business during the latter half of 1947. Altogether, 260 persons were assisting the committees of the House during the period under review. The gross annual salary of all House committee employees during 1947 aggregated a little more than a million dollars. (See table 6.)

As of December 1947, the Members and committees of Congress were being assisted by 15 new senior specialists in as many subjectmatter fields and by 8 research assistants in the advanced research section of the Legislative Reference Service. Five of these senior specialists had been detailed to the professional staffs of congressional committees and were serving them on a full-time basis. Two of them were serving as professional staff directors of their committees, but no uniform pattern of relationships between the Legislative Reference Service and congressional committees had yet developed.

« PreviousContinue »