Page images

would be at their own pleasure, but if they desired to come in on the Senate body and its deliberations during the session, all they would have to do would be to tune in on the proper station and then they would have the regular procedure. That broadcast of Senate proceedings would be available to any radio station that desired to make its regular connections with the Senate Chamber. In that way, you would not have your Federal Government venturing into a certain function under a different wave length from other radio stations in the United States.

Senator PEPPER. Senator, my bill cortemplates both systems. Now you recall that I said it contemplates that radio and television stations would be authorized to broadcast proceedings unless either body or the individual committee ordered otherwise, and that the Architect of the Capitol shall set up arrangements to record all discussion and debate in both Houses of the Congress and committee hearings which are to be made available to broadcasting stations who might wish to use them. Obviously, they would have to select the part that they were going to broadcast. They have limited time. They might take 15 minutes or they might take 30 minutes or they might even take an hour. You would hardly expect them to carry more than an hour. Well, obviously, they may have to do just what the commentator has to do now and what the paper has to do now crowd into 15 minutes or 10 minutes a summary or just a brief excerpt of what occurred, which, of course, is just a fragmentary part of the whole, or in the case of the press, to crowd the proceedings of a whole day into a column or two in the paper, or at best a few columns.

Now my bill contemplates both methods, first the broadcasting and recording and the making available at cost copies of those recordings to the radio stations, and letting them use whatever they wish to use; that is their business. But the other would be the Government, and the Government would not be doing this commercially. The Government would only be broadcasting the way the Congressional Record, you might say, records and to a degree "broadcasts” actually what goes on in there for good or bad.

The Government would broadcast at an annual expense, it is estimated, of about $800,000. I don't know how much the Record costs the Government at the present time, and there would be an original cost of about $2,000,000 to build the facilities. It would not interfere with our commercial-broadcasting arrangement or the normal standard broadcasting. It would simply supplement what they do by putting the whole proceedings on this short-wave radio, so that if any citizen of this country or anybody else within the range of that broadcast wanted to turn on and hear what is being said in the Senate on a day when something is of interest to him or her, or when he wants to see what they are doing in the House, why, he should have the privilege to do so.

Now let's take our committee hearings. A little while ago, we had up the Marshall plan. Well, obviously that is of great importancegreat importance to the American people. Every hearing room is generally crowded with spectators trying to get in to hear General Marshall or to hear a man of note and authority who has come to talk about these vital issues. We have all seen our committee rooms just stacked and jammed with people trying to get in to hear a matter

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.



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 tbe 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 legislative representatives—and I might say, Mr. Chairman, that goes for us goes + practics lly ail people in the same category as c res or, if you r?

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:)



Washington, D. C., January 26, 1948. Hon. GEORGE D. AIKEN,

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:)



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).

(6) 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.


« PreviousContinue »