ORGANIZATION OF CONGRESS

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1965..

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE ORGANIZATION OF THE CONGRESS, Washington, D.C.

The joint committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in room S-228, the old Supreme Court Chamber, the Capitol, Senator A. S. Mike Monroney (cochairman of the joint committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Monroney, Sparkman, and Metcalf, and Representatives Madden (cochairman), Hechler, Griffin, and Hall.

Also present: W. DeVier Pierson, chief counsel; George Meader, associate counsel; Melvin W. Sneed, staff assistant; and Nicholas A. Masters, research consultant.

Cochairman MONRONEY. The Joint Committee on the Organization of the Congress will resume its hearings. We are honored to have the distinguished chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, Hon. Warren G. Magnuson, Democrat, from the State of Washington, as our first witness today, which will probably be the closing day of our testimony from Members of Congress.

I am happy to have you at the witness table, Mr. Chairman, and you may proceed in your own way.

STATEMENT OF HON. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Senator MAGNUSON. I appreciate this. I have a short statement, and because the proposal that I want to suggest to the committee is of some detail, I would like to read it if I may.

Cochairman MONRONEY. That is fine. We would appreciate that, and any elaboration that you might wish to give.

Senator MAGNUSON. Yes. First of all, Mr. Chairman, it gives me considerable pleasure to appear before this Joint Committee on Organization of the Congress. While my purpose here today is that of urging full support to a bill which I have introduced in several previous sessions of Congress, with many sponsors, I would like to first congratulate this fine committee for the task it has taken upon itself to accomplish. As our country and its society changes, its institutions must constantly examine themselves in order to ascertain whether they are continuing to fulfill their functions in the most expeditious manner. The U.S. Congress is such an institution. It is an institution for governing a great people and as the needs, habits, and customs of those people change, so should the modes of government. I have long felt the need for certain alterations in the established pattern by which

1.875

Congress operates. That is why I have long advocated S. 2501, a bill to provide for two distinct sessions of Congress each year, a calendar fiscal year, and certain changes in Federal accounting procedures.

It is appropriate for us to consider possible reforms in the legislative process at this time. We are nearing the completion of what has been called a very productive congressional session. Yet many of our accomplishments this year were in fact proposals that have been before us for several years and were in some cases long overdue. That this session of Congress saw their birth was due to several factors which I leave to the political writers and political scientists to ascertain, but it is quite clear that in most cases the period of gestation for most of the major accomplishments of this session was just too prolonged. Now that we have cleared away some of the most pressing and long-needed bills, it is time to consider how we can avoid these long delays in the future. We cannot just sit back and expect to have the same political factors present in the future as we have had this

year.

The need for a current evaluation of the present congressional operation can be seen when it is recalled that the last major reorganization of Congress was accomplished by the Congressional Reorganization Act of 1946. At that time the activities of Congress reflected a wartime budget and consequently the suggested reforms would not be based on the full experience of a peacetime Congress. Today a major share of our budget is headed for social programs and this means a different type of budgetary control and examination is needed by Congress now. It is with this in mind that my proposal is being put before your committee.

As this committee has indicated by its hearings on the Bureau of the Budget, no inquiry into congressional reorganization would be complete without consideration of the congressional role in our national fiscal policies. We have all come to realize the impact of Federal taxation and spending upon our national economy. How much we tax and how much we spend can directly arrest a recession or maintain a prosperity boom such as the one we are now enjoying. Thus, it not only becomes important, but also necessary, that Congress be in the best possible position to judge these national fiscal policies, to eliminate waste, and to provide for necessary spending on the most economic basis.

With an improved overview of national fiscal policies as an objective, I have again introduced the same bill as I had introduced in several previous sessions. It happens to be Senate bill 2501 this year. Under the present system, Congress must deal with such measures as aid to education and then an appropriation bill in the very same week. All of us have had this personal experience.

The distinguished cochairman of the committee and myself and I know the Congressmen here probably have had the same thing happen in the House, but not as much as in the Senate-have sat downstairs in the Appropriations Committee room and been discussing the appropriation for a program, while at the same time the Senate upstairs will be passing a legislative bill which may modify the program. This has happened on many occasions.

This situation makes it impossible for us to accomplish our tasks adequately. In addition, as a session nears its conclusion, Congress is pressured by the administrative departments to get "something passed" so that salaries and Government obligations can be met.

Mine is a threefold bill which will (1) provide for a regular annual fiscal session to be separate from the session on all legislative matters; (2) establish the calendar year as Government's fiscal year; and (3) provide Federal accounting procedures which would insure a businesslike appraisal of the Government's fiscal position in the light of the President's annual budget.

I might say there that I know of no parliamentary body anywhere, state or national, other than the U.S. Congress, that does not divide their sessions into a legislative session and a fiscal session. All of your State legislatures they may not actually adjourn-but they will have a cutoff date for legislation, and then they will proceed to discuss the fiscal policies of the State.

In the fiscal session" of Congress, beginning annually on the second Monday of November and extending until December 31, committees other than Appropriations in either House might still meet, hold hearings, or conduct studies and investigations of matters under their respective jurisdictions, but ordinarily, the only measures which would be introduced, reported upon at that time, or enacted would be money bills.

On the other hand, the present regular session of Congress beginning on January 3, and any special sessions, would ordinarily be confined to consideration of all other, nonfiscal measures. These would be known as legislative sessions.

Treaties, nominations, or other measures whose consideration during a fiscal session is requested by the President as being in the national interest would provide certain necessary exceptions to the division of congressional business between legislative and fiscal sessions. Also action might be taken on required deficiency appropriations during the legislative session.

I view inauguration of "fiscal sessions" the logical and most practical solution to the ever-increasing problem of thorough and timely action by Congress on appropriation bills. I need not mention to members of this committee, particularly those of us who are members of Appropriations Committees, how many times we have gone month after month over the July 1 technical deadline on appropriation bills. I remember one independent office appropriation bill, of which I am the subcommittee chairman in the Senate your distinguished cochairman is a member with me-where the bill was finally passed and signed in December, between Christmas and New Year's.

We in Congress are as responsible as the executive branch to the Nation for the wise and prudent disposition of public funds.

Sandwiching work on money bills into ordinary legislative business makes it almost impossible to meet that national responsibility. By contrast, the "fiscal session" plan will permit Congress periodically to devote its entire energies to these important matters without the pressure, haste, and confusion which has become too often associated with the consideration of money measures.

Title I of the bill sets up the "fiscal session" and establishes the difference between this and the "legislative session."

The proposed plan would mean that we would have all of our very important fiscal problems in one package. We would know what Congress had already authorized for the coming fiscal year, and we would thus be able to ascertain whether additional appropriations or taxes

were necessary. Thus, the whole problem of fiscal policy would be in better perspective, not only for us in Congress but also for the President and the people of the country. This is in contrast to our present practice of, what I like to suggest, appropriating often in the dark.

Members of executive departments could study the activities of Congress during its legislative session and tailor the budget accordingly. The Budget Bureau's problem of anticipating the cost of possible new legislation and of rushing supplemental estimates to Ĉongress in late spring or early summer to cover such legislation would be eliminated.

I can remember, and I know members of this committee can, when we used to have our regular appropriations bills and one supplemental. Now we seem to appropriate around the calendar two, three, four, five supplementals and a deficiency. It goes on all the time. This would be eliminated.

The period between the legislative and fiscal session would provide an intervening time in which Members of Congress can return to their home States and report to constituents. It would be a time that the full effect of the just completed legislative session could be discussed and the constituent's feelings about the upcoming fiscal session could be ascertained. This intervening period would be during the summer and early fall, a time much more adaptable to communicating with the people than our present system. It is the time of year when the weather permits many outdoor gatherings and traveling. And I suspect that all of us appreciate that it is even a better time to campaign, for those of us that are in office.

The existence of divided sessions of Congress can also have a direct effect on the health and well-being of the Members of Congress. There are many cases where long and tedious sessions of Congress such as the one we are now experiencing have undermined the health of many fine men. My proposal should establish a definite intervening time that can be used by the Congressmen to get away from the pressure of Congress. The present situation where one does not know just when adjournment will come is exhausting, both physically and sometimes mentally.

Title II of the bill amends title 5, section 256, of the United States Code, and other related statutes, to establish the calendar year as the Government's fiscal year-thus putting the Federal accounting cycle in step with universal business practices. The bill provides the first calendar year will be 1967, commencing immediately after the first fiscal session, in November and December of 1966. Appropriations only for the period July 1-December 31, 1966, would be made during the session of Congress beginning January 3, 1966.

Now I can appreciate that this might cause some trouble in the beginning, but once you arrive at this cycle, it would go along very smoothly.

This provision allows the fiscal session of Congress to take place prior to the beginning of a new fiscal year.

It is interesting to note that while the budget of the Federal Government is based on a fiscal year beginning on the 1st of July, all of the income from taxes are reported to the Federal Government on a calendar year basis. This causes a great deal of confusion in the operation of government.

The concept of a fiscal year beginning July 1 was adopted early in our Nation's history when congressional sessions were short. Since the overall operation of the Federal Government was small, Congress by convening in January could still accomplish both its appropriations and legislative functions before July. Now with the need for longer sessions and, as I feel, legislative and fiscal sessions, we should set the fiscal year to coincide with the calendar year.

Title III affects changes in the time of submission and content of the President's budget, amends section 201 of the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. Beginning in 1966, or any other year the committee would see fit, the budget for the succeeding fiscal year would be required to be submitted on or before July 15, or approximately 4 months prior to the beginning of the fiscal session during which it will be passed upon. The benefits of having the budget published and on record well in advance of its consideration by Congress are obvious.

In order that the fiscal position of the Government be reflected in a more businesslike manner, this title requires the annual budget to incorporate two features not now required by law. That is a matter that has been discussed by Congress over and over again. (1) A showing of the amount of proposed appropriations and expenditures which are reimbursable to the Treasury, and (2) a report on the total capital assets of the Government, and their value, as of the end of the last completed fiscal year.

This is the way any well-run businesses or corporations would handle their fiscal matters.

These items are essential to give Congress and the American people a true picture of the Federal financial position. The effect of the size of the budget as a whole cannot be properly analyzed unless some overall differentiation is made between absolute and reimbursable expenses. Even more important is the long-overdue requirement that some accounting be kept of our Government's capital assets.

It is almost impossible to make an intelligent appraisal of the Nation's solvency in terms of debt alone for the same reason that the indebtedness of a business or of an individual means nothing unless we also know something of their assets. The Federal Government today has the ownership of billions upon billions of dollars of lands, minerals, buildings, capital goods, supplies.

The Senator from Oklahoma and I at one time, in cooperation with Congressman Thomas in the House, asked the General Services Administration to make a review of our assets in personal and real property, and we found that a conservative estimate was in the billions of dollars. This is not listed on July 1 when we determine what the fiscal position of the Government is at that particular time.

Inconceivable as it may seem to an outsider, no official accounting has ever been required to show the current value of this property, against which to measure the amount of our national debt. Surely this reform is now, more than ever, demanded.

The Government keeps books in a manner which no one else would attempt. We consider what comes in, and what is appropriated for the year, and the difference is a deficit, with no indication to the American people of the capital assets which the Government holds.