of very great importance and of great public interest. Yet only a few can get in.

Now the radio stations of the radio broadcasting companies more and more have tended to broadcast these things, and they have been widely received by the people. I remember our War Investigating Committee hearings, as the Senator from Maryland will recall, were on many days broadcast and there was a wide listening audience, too. I think more and more the broadcasting companies are trying to bring to the public as much as they reasonably can of the proceedings of Congress and its committees. But there again, all they can ever do, since they have their own problems, is to take a fragmentary part of it. They are the editors. They will take what a witness says and reduce it. They will cut out a part and retain a part, or they will put what they think is the question asked by the chairman or a member of the committee of the greatest interest and the response that they think will most appeal to the public. That is an editing job. I would prefer to let the public be its own editor by turning off and turning on, and the most feasible way to do it is to use the shortwave broadcast, and the expense, I believe, is minor. I am confident that with the technical progress which we have made in radio broadcasting and now in televising, that it is just a question of time before the American people are going to demand that they who cannot come to the galleries shall by the modern technique that we have be permitted to hear, and eventually to see, what the public's representatives say there.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Pepper.

Are there any further questions?

Senator PEPPER. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The last witness this morning is Lewis G. Hines, national legislative representative of the American Federation of Labor.

Mr. Hines, we are glad to hear your statement.

STATEMENT OF LEWIS G. HINES, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR

Mr. HINES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Lewis G. Hines. I represent the American Federation of Labor in a legislative capacity, and I am here today to recommend to this committee that an amendment to the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 be made. The reasons for the amendment are as follows:

In accordance with section 308, Public Law 601, known as the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, the representatives of the legislative committee of the American Federation of Labor have complied fully with the law. We have registered in the first instance in accordance with section 308, and likewise file with the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate in writing, under oath, quarterly reports setting forth our expenses for the quarter.

This would seem to give us a certain status as legislative representatives and I might say, Mr. Chairman, that what goes for us goes for practically all people in the same category as ourselves or, if you choose

to use the term "lobbyists"-that should be accorded certain consideration by the Congress of the United States.

I would respectfully urge your committee to consider an amendment to the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, providing that all those who register in accordance with sections 305 and 308 shall be given credentials, in the form of a card, upon the receipt of their financial statements to the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate, such a card or credential to enable them to attend in a preferential capacity any and all hearings before congressional committees.

Now, Mr. Chairman, at the present time, we receive an acknowledgment of our quarterly report in the form of a letter from both the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives. It would seem to me that if there were cards issued a different color for each quarter-which would simply require the filling in of the name of the person who filed the report, in lieu of a letter, that would be considerably easier for both branches of Congress, and less expensive.

Now it has been our experience, as Senator Pepper has just related here, that many times we go to these hearings and we find that we are unable to get in unless we go about it in a sort of shall I say-subtle manner. Now we do not want any preference over anybody other than the ordinary curiosity seeker. Some of the hearings have been built up. I have particular reference to the hearings in which Mr. Hughes appeared, Mr. Roosevelt, the hearings before the Un-American Activities Committee, where you simply just cannot get in. We are tremendously interested in some of those hearings and it is impossible for us to get in. Now I realize that they are crowded at times, but here is a big, long line of people who have no interest beyond that of curiosity. I think if we went to the door and presented our card, we should be given the first opportunity to go in when somebody came out-at least, we should be given a little bit of a preference.

Now the lobbyist, so-called, performs an important function in connection with congressional activities. Many times he supplies. information to Members of Congress concerning bills and his views are ofttimes sought by Members of Congress as to the effect of certain proposed legislation on their constituencies. I know many times we are called up and asked what our attitude is on bills, what our people think about certain types of legislation, and I might say that as far as the American Federation of Labor is concerned, we represent approximately 8 million people. That in itself should give us just a little preference over the ordinary, idle curiosity seeker who has come down just to see some moving-picture star or some celebrity.

All in all, the "lobbyist" is an important adjunct to congressional procedures and should be given proper recognition, especially in view of the fact that laws have been enacted and rules set up which recognize his part in congressional activities. In other words, they have said to us, "You are part of this general scheme of things, and as such, we are going to make you come down here and tell us whether you are registered, in the first instance, and secondly, report to us quarterly as to the amount of money that you expend." That is perfectly all right. I do not know what good purpose it serves, but it is all right with us. We are perfectly willing to do it. We have to write these reports four times a year. We have them sworn to and have to send them in. I think in view of that, we should at least be

given some recognition which would entitle us to get in to some of the hearings in which we are interested. And I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that this suggestion, I think, has some merit and would appreciate any consideration you give it.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hines, you have raised a different and an interesting point which has not been presented to the committee so far. I am sure that the Members of the Congress recognize the truth of your statement, because all of us at times have attempted to get interested persons into committee hearings, and you really have to know someone sometimes to get you in there. You have to know the right people, because, as you say, the committee room will be crowded with curiosity seekers.

Mr. HINES. Let's assume, Mr. Chairman, that I am called upon at some time to testify on some important piece of legislation, and the hearings are arousing a great deal of curiosity. I like to go to the hearings and hear what previous witnesses have said. I like to get the trend of the hearings ir order to familiarize myself with the possible questions that may be asked, and the whole picture; but if I go to the hearings and can't get in, then I am a little bit handicapped when I come before the committee to discuss the matter. After all, I think witnesses who come before committees have a certain function, and that is to contribute something to the matter before the committee in order that they can intelligently make decisions. It is not the policy of the American Federation of Labor to appear before committees for the purpose of arguing with the committee or for the purpose of trying to present a one-sided view of things. We like to offer suggestions and discuss matters with the committees in order to develop the best information possible in connection with the matter before it. I might say that at times we learn something from going to the hearings, too. The testimony might in some way help us formulate our opinions.

The CHAIRMAN. And sometimes you hear the other point of view. Mr. HINES. That has considerable merit; that is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions?

We thank you, Mr. Hines, for presenting your statement here this morning.

There are some insertions to be made in the record.

Certain committee chairmen were invited to testify during the course of these hearings who have found themselves unable to be with us due to the pressure of work, and without objection, we will insert in the record a short letter from Hon. Harold Knutson, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

(The letter referred to above is as follows:)

Hon. GEORGE D. AIKEN,

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., January 26, 1948.

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR AIKEN: This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of January 23, inviting me to appear before the Senate Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments on Tuesday, February 3, in connection with the evaluation of the Legislative Reorganization Act. My time has been so completely taken up with tax matters that I cannot say definitely whether I will be able to appear before your committee on Tuesday, February 3, but I will make every effort to do so. May I take this opportunity to say to you that the requirement in the Reorganization Act that the Committee on the Budget shall make its recommendations to

the two Houses of Congress not later than February 15 is much too early. It would be better if the filing of such report could be deferred for at least 2 weeks. As it now is any ceiling that is placed on the budget must of necessity be more or less of a guess and the matter is of too much importance for guessing. With kindest personal regards and best wishes, I am

Very sincerely,

HAROLD KNUTSON.

The CHAIRMAN. Also without objection, there will be inserted in the record a very good statement from Senator Alexander Wiley, chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

(The statement referred to above is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF SENATOR ALEXANDER WILEY, CHAIRMAN, SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, FOR TRANSMISSION TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ExPENDITURES IN THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE RECORD OF THE HEARING (FEBRUARY 25, 1948) WITH REFERENCE TO EVALUATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION ACT

As chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, I am happy to comply with the request of the chairman of the Senate Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, for comments and evaluations concerning the Legislative Reorganization Act.

I should like to make the following observations:

1. At the outset, I should like to say that I do not believe that a single session of a single Congress gives us an adequate and complete testing period on which to base any conclusive evaluation of the merits or demerits of the Legislative Reorganization Act.

2. It is evident that no amount of reorganization of the congressional committee staffs and reshuffling of committee membership and reassignment of committee membership will alter two basic factors:

(a) The number of bills introduced and consequently the volume of business to be handled is unaffected by the act (except in a limited degree by the Federal tort claims provisions).

(b) Since the number of Senators is fixed, the number of Senators available to consider a relatively fixed volume of business also remains unaffected, consequently, the most we can expect from the act is a more expeditious and thorough consideration of the bills—but not necessarily an increased capacity for considering more legislation.

3. The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 amends the standing rules of the Senate to establish 15 standing committees, 14 of which have a membership consisting of 13 Senators and one of which has a membership of 21 Senators. Each of these committees, with the exception of Appropriations Committee, is granted the same number of staff members and the same basic appropriation. This equality in the number of committee members and the extent of committee staff personnel is evidently predicated on a relatively even distribution of the number of bills and the general work load.

At the present time out of a total number of 3,171 bills which have either originated in the Senate or been referred to the Senate by the House, 992 bills and resolutions have been referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. In addition to this, the committee has received 100 nominations up to the present time.

It is true that a substantial portion of the legislative referrals to the Committee on the Judiciary have been private bills but it is equally true that the consideration of these private bills in many cases necessitates as much time and preparation in this consideration as public laws.

It is equally true that many of these private bills establish a pattern of public policy-a kind of legislative common law if that were possible-which ultimately may emerge as public law.

All of this is presented not by way of unduly stressing any work load which may come to the Committee on the Judiciary because I would not want to be guilty of comparing that work load to the work load of any other committee since I realize that numbers of bills are not necessarily a true index of the amount of work pending before any committee. Some committees with a relatively small work load may have pending before them bills of an extremely consequential nature calling for protracted and involved hearings.

72138-48-17

It does seem fair, however, to point out that when one committee receives approximately one-third of the bills there exists, at least partially, some kind of jurisdictional maladjustment.

4. It is contemplated that the number of so-called private claims bills coming to Congress will undoubtedly be reduced materially by the operation of the Federal Tort Claims Act. We do not yet have conclusive evidence as to the extent to which these Private Tort Claims bills will be reduced, but we may perhaps safely conclude that in the normal course of events, the operation of the act will reduce the number of bills in this category.

It is possible that at some future date, if the number of so-called claims bills sent to the Senate is not materially reduced, it might be necessary to study the possibility of either transferring a larger jurisdiction to the courts or of establishing a separate claims committee in the Senate.

5. As an immediate step to reduce the number of private claims bills and to eliminate wasted time spent in considering bills which have no chance of passage, it is recommended that your committee consider the possibility of preparing for Senate adoption such rules as would preclude the introduction of private claims bills in certain categories.

The staff of the Committee on the Judiciary some time ago transmitted to the staff of this committee a copy of the rules which have been adopted by the Claims Subcommittee of the House Judiciary. These rules preclude the introduction of bills which have been the subject of Presidential veto (unless substantial new evidence has been introduced) and preclude the introduction of bills which have been the subject of previous adverse committee reports (unless new evidence is introduced) and preclude the introduction of bills relating to an event which occurred over a specified number of years ago. The defect in having these rules adopted at the committee level, however, is that as a practical matter the committee is then subjected to appeals from proponents of bills falling into these categories. The adoption of a set of rules of this character by the Senate itself, would actually bar the introduction of bills of this nature and would be much more desirable. It also would tend to decrease the number of claims bills particularly those which are unlikely to pass in any event.

6. I understand it is presently contemplated that your committee will have created in its jurisdiction an investigational subcommittee to handle matters of investigation for all of the standing committees. This move is in accord with with the recommendation previously made by me and I should like to observe that this appears to be a business-like step since most of the standing committees, including the Judiciary Committee, are unequipped to conduct investigations. I merely wish to add for the record at this point that it should be contemplated that this new subcommittee of yours would also undertake such investigations as may be necessitated in the cases of contested nominations. In the Judiciary Committee we have a large volume of nominations and occasionally it appears desirable to make some investigation but because of our lack of investigative personnel, our committee finds it very difficult to make such an investigation. Your new group should be empowered to act for the standing committees with respect to nomination investigations as well as legislative investigations. Of the 13 categories assigned to the Committee on the Judiciary under the terms of Public Law 601, I should like to suggest the possibility of transferring jurisdiction to some committee with a smaller jurisdiction of item No. 8, "Holidays and celebrations."

7. As a purely mechanical problem the Committee on the Judiciary has experienced the same difficulty which I understand almost all of the standing committees have experienced, namely, a great conflict in a number of other meetings scheduled for our membership. The Judiciary Committee meets on a regularly assigned, regularly announced day but apparently that does not preclude other meetings being conducted at the same time and invariably this has the effect of decreasing our attendance. I feel that with a reduced membership it is absolutely imperative that there be no conflicting meetings and I am sure that this is true of every standing committee.

I strongly urge your committee to prepare a Senate rule which would require that all scheduling of meetings be cleared with one central office which probably should be the Office of the Secretary of the Senate whose duty it would then be to withhold permission from any meetings which would be scheduled at a conflicting time. I believe that in the absence of such a rule, we will continue to encounter the confusion which has consistently resulted in the first session of the Eightieth Congress from the conflicting scheduling of meetings.