2. The present cloture rule in the Senate requiring a two-thirds vote to invoke should be amended to permit the limitation of debate by a "constitutional" majority-a majority of the entire Senate membership, as opposed to a simple majority of those present and voting.

3. A further study should be made of the various alternatives to the congressional "seniority system."

In conclusion, let me say that it is a healthy situation that this committee is making a thorough review of the Reorganization Act and that there is such widespread interest toward the end of improving the instrumentalities of government. Careful scrutiny and constructive criticism can do much toward improving our governmental machinery. A Congress or Government can never be better than the sum total of the individual capacities of its public servants; but it can be much worse without proper organization.

The most difficult part of turning onto a new road is to get out of the old rut. The Congress is now on the new road. I am confident that further experience and further improvements will speed the progress in the right direction.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator La Follette, the Chair for one believes you have made an excellent contribution to the study of this problem which the committee is making. I feel sure that the members of the committee may have some questions they desire to ask you and, if they do not ask you the questions, I have two or three questions myself that I shall ask a little later.

Mr. LA FOLLETTE. If I have the answers, I shall be happy to give them.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Ferguson.

Senator FERGUSON. I just echo what the chairman said about your work in the past and your current interest in this great problem that we have, that of passing legislation. I personally feel that the act, as you have stated, has been beneficial. You had stated that there was some contention that appropriation committees have been delaved by this act.

Mr. LA FOLLETTE. Yes, sir.

Senator FERGUSON. Would you be specific as to how they claimed that there was delay? I happen to be a member of the Appropriations Committee, and I saw no interference by the act.

Mr. LA FOLLETTE. Well, Senator, I was referring to comments which appeared in the newspapers and I think in editorials certainly, some of the columnists took it up. Because the appropriations were behind schedule, and without offering any proof, they laid it to the Reorganization Act. I think the contention failed to take into consideration, first of all, that it was the meeting of a new Congress, that it was being organized under a change in party majority, that inevitably time is consumed in the process of organizing a Congress, and also I think they failed utterly to take into consideration the fact that a real effort was made by the appropriations committees and the Members of both Houses to reduce expenditures. That, of course, requires a more thorough examination of the executive budget than in times such as we have just gone through during the war when of necessity much consideration could not be given to the attempt to save money. We were in a situation where we had to appropriate it to win the war. I think that some people outside the Congress

have blamed the delay in appropriations on reorganization unjustifiably. I, as a private citizen looking in from the outside for the first time in a long time, could not see any evidence that the Reorganization Act was in anywise responsible for the fact that the appropriation bills were behind schedule in the first session of the Eightieth Congress. Senator FERGUSON. I said, being a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I saw little evidence that this legislation had in any way interfered. In fact, I think it aided because, after all, open hearings were very beneficial. For the first time, at least for many years, they had open hearings. And I also found-I think this is true that, as you say, the fact that the committee was critical of appropriations took longer than when, for instance, the executive and the majority are of the same party. There was a different feeling in Congress.

Mr. LA FOLLETTE. Right.

Senator FERGUSON. Has there ever been a 48-48 division in the Senate?

Mr. LA FOLLETTE. I think not, Senator.

Senator FERGUSON. But at the present time there is no rule or method of handling the situation?

Mr. LA FOLLETTE. No, sir. The act of 1946 does not deal with that problem in case it arises.

Senator FERGUSON. That could, then, create a very embarrassing situation if there happened to be a division of 48-48.

Mr. LA FOLLETTE. Yes. I stated that I had not given sufficient study to that problem. In reviewing the act somewhat critically in preparation for my appearance before this committee, that situation. came to my mind. I thought I would throw it out as one problem that might be considered by this committee. I do not know that the suggestion which I made more or less offhand, Senator, is the right one but I did not want to raise the problem and then not have at least something to offer as a solution for it.

Senator FERGUSON. Isn't this what would happen at the present time, that your committees in the Senate being of a permanent nature, you would be unable to change the committees and they would probably carry on just the same as they are today, and if you had a president pro tem and had a 48-48 vote you probably couldn't change presidents pro tem, you would merely carry on as you had in the past? Mr. LA FOLLETTE. I would say if that situation occurred you could have a nasty snarl which might delay the legislative process a long time. I am not sure that even an amendment of the 1946 act would cure it but I would like to see the Congress consider it as a theoretical question when there would not be so much at stake rather than have it come up some time when all of the realities of the situation would be so obvious as to make a dispassionate consideration of the problem more difficult.

Senator FERGUSON. Have you given any more study to the question of seniority rule?

Mr. LA FOLLETTE. Well, Senator, I have wrestled with

Senator FERGUSON. What would be the solution of that, in your opinion?

Mr. LA FOLLETTE. Senator, I have no solution for the seniority problem. We wrestled with the problem in the committee, and it is

my view, as I stated in my opening statement, that in many respects the seniority system is criticised out of proportion to the actual facts of the situation if you are familiar with them in working in the legislative branch of the Government.

In the first place, the seniority system, like any existing system, never gets credit for the good chairmen that are selected under it. It is only those situations when a less qualified chairman comes to power under the seniority system that are usually noticed.

Secondly, I think anyone would concede that seniority is a factor which should be taken into consideration in the selection of committee chairmen under any system, because obviously, other things being equal, experience in the legislative body does give qualification to the individual which is not enjoyed by a newcomer to the Congress.

The committee had a great many suggestions made to it-I refer to the joint committee of which I had the honor to be chairman--but frankly, Senator, I have never seen a solution which I thought was better than the disease. Let me say that I am not opposed to a change if something can be found that ought to be considered. So I don't want to get in the position of being a defender of the seniority system. For instance, suppose you give the selection to the majority caucus. The people who usually advocate this are the people who, first of all, are arguing for party responsibility, and they say that in order to get, party responsibility, the party ought to have the right to select the chairman and to pick the best man, so that the party puts its best foot forward, et cetera.

But suppose you started out and let the majority conference pick these chairmen by vote, even if it is a secret vote. That would not seem to be a good way to get party harmony, because I can imagine that after those selections were made, there would be a considerable amount of blood on the floor which might stay there a long time.

It has been suggested that you could let the committee on committees make these selections. Well, I can see that if they made these selections, you would do the same thing. You would tend to tear the majority apart in a fight over the question of who should be selected as chairman.

Still another suggestion that has been made, so far as the House is concerned, is to let the leadership do it or to go back to the situation where the Speaker virtually has control of it. Personally, I don't think that would be a good solution. It creates a tremendous amount of power on the part of one man in that body. While I have never served with the House, and speak with the proper amount of deference and humility, so far as their activities are concerned, I would personally, as a private citizen, hate to see the House go back to the position where the Speaker became the czar of the House again. So I don't have a solution for it, Senator.

I think it should be studied further, because seniority obviously should not be the sole criterion. We all, I think, would recognize, even those of us who had a considerable amount of seniority, that it should not be the sole criterion, but I have yet to find a better solution for it. As far as I am personally concerned and now I am not speaking for the other members that served on the joint committee with me, because some of them felt very keenly and were more convinced that other methods were better-I say that it is a problem that I think should be further considered.

I have not yet come up in my own mind with a solution of the problem which I consider better than the existing system.

Senator FERGUSON. Senator La Follette, we have now been under the reorganization bill for thirteen and a half months. Do you think it has had a sufficient test actually to warrant making radical changes at the present time?

Mr. LA FOLLETTE. No, Senator. I would say, generally speaking, it has not. I think, however, that it is a very wise, fine, and encouraging thing for this committee to evaluate the 1946 act. I think we are rapidly going to have enough experience. I think that there are certain things which we lost by the way, and there are other things which this committee may have had presented to it or that may occur to the members of the committee who have had long experience in the legislative process that might be considered now. But as far as any fundamental alteration of the act, I would say that probably we had better await at least the completion of two full sessions before any major changes are considered.

Senator FERGUSON. You haven't heard any real sentiment that it should be abandoned and go back to the old process?

Mr. LA FOLLETTE. No, Senator; I haven't. I think the people that were against it are still against it, and I have very little hope that time or experience will convince them that it was right. But so far as the people who supported the act or those who have come to the Senate recently and with whom I have had contact, with a few exceptions, they have said to me and perhaps they don't speak too frankly to me; they know it was in part my baby-but they have indicated that they felt the act, on the whole, was a great improvement, that as the gears of the new machinery became worn in, it was proving to be a more efficient mechanism. However, I want to say I would be the first to urge the Congress to evaluate it continuously and to make such changes as experience indicates are important.

Senator FERGUSON. At this time, do you see any particular thing in the act that you think should have immediate attention now?

Mr. LA FOLLETTE. Well, Senator, as I said before, I think that some of the things which were fairly well considered by the joint committee and by the legislative committees, by the Congress itself, might be given consideration at this time.

Senator FERGUSON. They were things that were not really put into the act?

Mr. LA FOLLETTE. They were things which the act lost in going through the tollgate of the legislative process.

Senator FERGUSON. I mean things that are in the act now. Do. you know of any specific things that you think ought to have attention now and be altered and, if altered, in what way?

Mr. LA FOLLETTE. Senator, I can't say, except that I did express in my opening statement the hope that careful consideration will be given to the congressional budget problem, that it not be abandoned, and I hope that it would be given early consideration as to ways and means to strengthen it and to improve it.

Senator FERGUSON. And one thing would be to cut down the membership?

Mr. LA FOLLETTE. I have thrown that out as one suggestion. If you provided for a smaller number of members on the committees from the various constituent committees, you would have a more workable

group. Also, you might fix the responsibility for a continuous staff study which is essential to the effective operation of this plan.

Senator FERGUSON. Is the date, in your opinion, too early?

Mr. LA FOLLETTE. Well, it had already been necessary, as I noted, to move up the date of the Economic Report; and I think, as I suggested, that serious consideration should be given to the possibility of consolidating some of the appropriation bills, because I feel that that would give more time for the action on the budget.

Senator FERGUSON, There is a bill in Congress at the present time, in the Senate, to have one appropriation bill. If that bill passed, then it would be possible to put the date sometime before the consideration of the omnibus bill.

Mr. LA FOLLETTE. Right.

Senator FERGUSON. Do you think it should be prior to the consideration of appropriations?

Mr. LA FOLLETTE. Even if you don't go the whole hog and have one bill, if you could consolidate some of the bills it would improve the situation and the workability of the congressional budget, in my opinion. I think it is a matter of knowledge to all Senators that there has been a tendency for more and more appropriation bills to be considered by the Congress. The Congress is dealing with too many appropriation bills, and I think any move in the direction of consolidating them would help to make the congressional budget proposal more workable.

Senator HOEY. I wish to share in the statement made by the chairman with regard to the very fine contribution Senator La Follette made. I think the act may need some changes, but I believe it is going to be effective.

Mr. LA FOLLETTE. Thank you, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator La Follette, during the discussion on the method of selecting committee chairmen, when your committee wrote in section 133 (a), requiring each standing committee to hold executive meetings at least once a month and as often as four times a month, it was thought that that was probably intended to protect the committees against unfair acts of the chairmen who might be tempted to sit upon a necessary bill, contrary to the wishes of the other members of the committee, or to perform any other act of unfairness.

Mr. LA FOLLETTE. That is correct. There was considerable testimoney on that point, which you will find in the hearings of the joint committee, especially from Members of the House, where the discharge of a bill is a much more cumbersome process. In the Senate, any one Senator can move to discharge a committee under the rules, and this tends to lessen the tendency or temptation of a chairman to bottle up legislation with which he may not personally be in sympathy. Frankly, that was made a part of the bill in order to meet the criticism that a recalcitrant chairman could, if he wished, frustrate the desire of the supporters and authors of a particular piece of legislation to get committee consideration and a report thereon.

The CHAIRMAN. How far do you think a committee could go under this law in taking a matter like that into their own hands?

Mr. LA FOLLETTE. Senator, I have always felt that a committee could go a long way if it just took the bit in its teeth. I have never believed that a chairman really could frustrate the will of a majority of his committee if the committee was determined; but I can recall