billion, and in 1946 it was $269 billion. A large part of that debt resulted from the war; isn't that correct?

Representative PELLY. Right; I fully agree.

Cochairman MADDEN. I don't know whether you have any statistics on it, but it is my recollection-and I may be wrong that our gross national product about that time was around $225 billion. Representative PELLY. Well, I would think that you are correct. And I would say that certainly there is a relationship between the gross national product and the national debt.

I am not here arguing against debt. I am showing, I think, by this tabulation rather that the relationship between income and outgo over the period of years has been out of balance, and that certainly during a great many of these years we were trying to balance the budget.

Cochairman MADDEN. I read in the papers the complaints about our national debt increasing. But you never hear them say anything about our gross national product, our economy, compared to 20

years ago.

Representative PELLY. Well, the buying power of the dollar has changed so very much that you cannot compare a billion dollars back in 1920 with a billion dollars today.

Cochairman MADDEN. That is right. But our gross national product today-Secretary Dillon, when he resigned from the Treasury, in his farewell message, predicted that at the end of 1965 our gross national product might be $665 billion. That was his prediction. Twenty years ago our gross national product was approximately $225 billion-I have not the exact figures.

There is a difference of about $450 billion in our economy between then and today; $450 billion increase in our gross national product in 20 years when, as compared to 1945 or 1946, our national debt was $258 billion, and today it is $317 billion.

Representative PELLY. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the bigger it gets, the more difficult it is to control, and that while

Cochairman MADDEN. That is true. I am not suggesting that we should not make every effort to keep the debt down. What I am saying is this: When you read in these magazines and newspapers about expenditures of money, they are often misleading. They never tell the American public that our gross national economy has increased $450 billion, while our national debt has increased only $70 billion.

I think the public should be presented the complete picture. Do you agree?

Representative PELLY. Well, it would be a wonderful thing if we ould have the increase in the gross national product without the accompanying increase of the national debt, and an annual interest charge of $11 billion.

Cochairman MADDEN. If some of these newspapers would come out and call the public's attention to that, they would be much better informed and not so greatly disturbed.

Representative HECHLER. Mr. Chairman I wonder if the staff ould put into the record a table which indicates for comparable years the rise in gross national product, the per capita debt, and thirdly, the national debt in relation to private debt and State and local debt.

Cochairman MADDEN. It is so ordered. (The tables referred to are as follows:)

GNP, gross public debt, and per capita national debt, 1930-65
[Billions except percentages and per capita data]

Cochairman MADDEN. Congressman Hechler, do you have any questions?

Representative HECHLER. I want to commend Congressman Pelly for the very thorough historical research that has gone into this presentation. I think it is a magnificent statement of the case against back-door spending. I believe the material that has been compiled here will be extremely useful to the committee.

There have been a number of suggestions before this committee that I want to get your reaction to.

One is that appropriations be on a biennial basis rather than an annual basis. I want to get your reaction to that.

Representative PELLY. Well, I think that the problem of the Appropriations Committee would be best commented on by its chairman. I am not on that committee. But I do think that in our State, in my State of Washington, we often now find a great deal of proponents for making it on an annual basis. So I think it points up this. Whether we do it on an annual or over a period of 2 years, it is going to be difficult at any time. With civilization creeping up on us to the extent that our Government is getting of necessity so involved and big, it is just a very difficult thing to keep these appropriations under control.

I am not necessarily speaking against back-door spending. I am speaking for control over appropriations and expenditures. And when you reversed it in your statement, I would rather you would have stated it positively, and not have put me in the position of being a negative witness.

Representative HECHLER. A second suggestion has been that Congress have split sessions perhaps the first portion devoted entirely to appropriations, with a recess, and the second part to legislation.

Representative PELLY. Well, I have discussed this with my senior Senator, Senator Magnuson, who has appropriations responsibilities in the Senate, and I know that he is a proponent of some such change, or at least maybe having Congress meet in the fall to have its hearings on appropriations, and perhaps a split session in that respect. I certainly think there can be improvements. And that is probably one of the ways in which we could do it.

Representative HECHLER. A third suggestion brought before this committee by several Members has been to establish a Joint Committee on the Budget.

Representative PELLY. In general, I favor that. I have thought it might be advisable for both bodies to have a joint staff to consider the level of spending.

Representative HECHLER. What do you think of giving by constitutional amendment the item veto to the President, on items in an appropriations bill?

Representative PELLY. I am glad you asked that question, because one time I introduced a bill, and I thought it would be a wonderful thing, because it would certainly give the Chief Executive an opportunity to economize and to eliminate spending where he felt it was not needed.

On the other hand, as I have become more versed and experienced in politics, and I see the power that it would give the Chief Executive to call over some members of the legislative branch and say, "I am going to knock out your project and veto it unless you vote a certain way." I don't want to give that power to any President, Republican or Democrat. And I don't say that in any way against the present incumbent in the White House. I think it is a danger that we should never expose ourselves to. It is done in my State of Washington, and the Governor has that item-veto power. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

་

But I have come to the final conclusion that I would vote agains it if there were any such proposition before the House.

Representative HECHLER. In your testimony you referred-perhaps somewhat nostalgically-to the time prior to 1865 when the taxing and appropriating powers were concentrated in one committee. How do you feel about returning to that system in order to enable us to know that the taxing and appropriating powers are drawn in better balance?

Representative PELLY. I don't believe with the workload it would be possible. I think we have two of the most able chairmen in the history of this country today-Mr. Mills and Mr. Mahon in the House and I know we have very competent people in the Senate, too. But I don't believe that they could ever divide the work of the committee in any way to bring those two important functions under one jurisdiction.

Representative HECHLER. Is there any recommendation you would have within Congress itself so that the left hand would know better what the right hand is doing on revenue and appropriations?

Representative PELLY. Well, I think now we look to the executive branch to make certain proposals and keep the expenditures within certain limitations.

I would like to see a close liaison in the legislative branch between the two committees rather than look to the executive branch, and thus certainly retain the legislative functions under the Constitution in Congress and thereby keep the branches separate, coequal.

I would suggest you ask Mr. Mills and Mr. Mahon, and they probably would tell you that they put their heads together as it is now. Representative HECHLER. Just one final minor point. I notice on page 6 of your testimony, the same page on which you detail the gross public debt between 1920 and 1931, you attribute the reduction here in the debt primarily to congressional control and fiscal responsibility. Historians would attribute it more to the policies

Representative PELLY. Of the Republican administration?
Representative HECHLER. Yes.

Representative PELLY. Well, I think there that you really must attribute it to the fact that in the first enthusiasm for the single-committee system there was an intense desire to use this new means of arriving at a balance between outgo and income from the Treasury standpoint.

Representative HECHLER. As a historian, I disagree. I think it is due to demobilization and

Representative PELLY. Whether you are a historian or whether you are a layman, like myself we can always read into history anything we want. And I can only say during that period obviously they didn't have the great depression which caused the 1931 deficit that was the beginning of the depression. I think we cannot expect not to have occasional deficits. But I may say that, as a result of that fact, it only points up the need for greater control year by year over all expenditures by the legislative branch. When you think of the fact that the tax foundation has found that maybe the Congress over a period of years has only had control over about one-third of the spending, you can see that there is some need for some reform along the lines that I am suggesting.

Representative HECHLER. Thank you. This is very helpful testimony. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Cochairman MADDEN. Thank you very much, Congressman Pelly. Your testimony was a very valuable contribution to the work of this committee.

Representative PELLY. Thank you.

Cochairman MADDEN. Our next witness will be Congressman Glenn Davis, of the State of Wisconsin.

Now, Congressman Davis, you have your statement here. You may proceed with your statement or interpret your statement or read it in total-or if you care to have your statement printed in the record as is, it shall be done, and you can read the same-whatever way you want to do.

(The prepared statement of Congressman Davis is as follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE GLENN R. DAVIS, OF WISCONSIN

This opportunity to appear before this committee is an appreciated privilege. Before I ever came to Congress, I was impressed by the educational and improvement values of the original Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress which provided the background for the La Follette-Monroney Act. This very favorable impression together with a personal feeling of the need for correcting some existing inadequacies caused me to introduce House Concurrent Resolution 112, a companion to the resolution establishing this committee.

The stature of the membership of this committee generates confidence that this second Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress will provide worthwhile and practical suggestions for making this great legislative body in which we all take such pride a more effective instrument for meeting the legislative and investigative needs of this and future years.

As most of you know, I served in the House for a decade prior to 1957, and there has been a lapse of 8 years between that service and my current service in the House. This interrupted service may not assure any greater validity to my suggestions, but sometimes we are better able to note deteriorations in a person's apparent health or appearance after having been separated from him for some period of time.

In my opinion, Congress has been weakened during the period of my absence in two major respects:

1. There has been substantial proliferation of committees and subcommittees.

2. Congress has lost its grip on the control of the purse.

I believe Senator Monroney will bear out my impression that one of the purposes of the La Follette-Monroney Act was to reduce the number and somewhat equalize the burdens among the standing committees of the House. Since 1947 committees have been enlarged, subcommittees have been greatly increased, and dual committee membership has become much more common. I ask permission to insert at this point a statement relative to dual committee assignments, the number of subcommittees, and the size of the various House committees, which I believe will be helpful to this committee in its deliberations.

Eighty-five Congressmen have two or more committee assignments, excluding assignment to Committees on House Administration, District of Columbia, UnAmerican Activities, joint committees, and small business as a second assignment.

47-814-65-pt. 10--9