payers who are paying the bill for these people riding around in Cadillacs, with uniformed chauffeurs-officials, many of whom back home never rode around in a Ford; nor did they know how to run a business before they came down here. I think the way to correct that is Senator DwORSHAK. You think then that Members of Congress arementally and physically qualified to drive their own cars, notwithstanding the fact that there are 7,000 chauffeurs serving in the executive branch of the Government? Senator WILLIAMS. I agree with you on everything you say in criticism of the chauffeurs in the executive branch, but I think that is our fault and I think we should cut it out. I think, as far as the President is concerned, certainly he should have a chauffeur. But I say this: It has gone far afield and we have officials today riding around town in Cadillacs who never could even afford a Ford back home. They never knew how to make enough money back home even to buy a Ford. You know it as well as I do. Yesterday I walked across the Capitol Grounds and there were four Cadillacs and three of them had chauffeurs in them. I suppose the other chauffeur was around. They were representing an agency lobbying for the bill we were then voting on right before the Senate. I do not know of anyone who asked those fellows to come down. Senator DwORSHAK. Could we not put those chauffeurs in military uniforms or in some defense industry necessary to our national defense? Senator WILLIAMS. Yes; and, remember, it is the taxpayers who are being discriminated against; it is your job and mine to clean that out. Senator DwORSHAK. Of course, I have been engaged in this colloquy not because I disagree with the Senator from Delaware, but merely to provide some of the background to refute the erroneous charges which are frequently made that Members of Congress are the recipients of special privilege, which is not a fact. Insofar as this bill is concerned, I join the Senator from Delaware. I opposed the tax exemption when it was first proposed in 1945, so certainly it is in accord with my thinking to correct it at this time. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. S. 1290, introduced by Senator Williams, will be inserted in the record at this point. (S. 1290 is as follows:) [S. 1290, 82d Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL Relating to the salaries and expense allowances of the President, Vice President, and the Speaker and Members of Congress Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) section 102 of title 3 of the United States Code is amended to read as follows: "COMPENSATION OF THE PRESIDENT "SEC. 102. The President shall receive in full for his services during the term for which he shall have been elected compensation in the aggregate amount of $150,000 a year, to be paid monthly. He shall be entitled also to the use of the furniture and other effects belonging to the United States and kept in the Executive Mansion." (b) (1) Section 104 of title 3 of the United States Code (relating to salary of the Vice President) is amended by strking out “$30,000” and inserting in lieu thereof "$40,000". (2) Section 111 of title 3 of the United States Code (relating to an expense allowance for the Vice President) is repealed. (c) (1) Section 601 (a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (relating to salaries of Members of Congress and of the Speaker of the House) is amended (A) by striking out "$12,500" and inserting in lieu thereof "$15,000"; and (B) by striking out “$30,000" and inserting in lieu thereof "$40,000”. (2) Section 601 (b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (relating to expense allowances for Members of Congress) is hereby repealed. (3) Subsection (e) of the first section of the Act entitled "An Act to increase rates of compensation of the President, Vice President, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives" (Public Law 2, Eighty-first Congress) (relating to an expense allowance for the Speaker of the House) is hereby repealed. (d) In computing the amount to be deducted from the compensation of any official whose salary is changed by this section for the purposes of the Civil Service Retirement Act of May 29, 1930, and in computing the amount of any annuity under such Act any change in compensation provided by this section shall be disregarded until further Act of Congress. (e) The provisions of this section shall take effect as of January 1, 1951, except that subsection (a) shall take effect at noon on January 20, 1953. The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Pickett, come forward, please, sir. We are very glad to have you come. You know the subject under consideration and the scope of it, and we would be glad to have your comments on any phase of it. STATEMENT OF HON. TOM PICKETT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS Mr. PICKETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My comments, of course, will be brief, in the interest of conserving your time, and in the interest of clarity. While I have not heard the testimony that witnesses who have heretofore appeared before you have given, I think I know in substance what many of them have said. I did hear the gentleman from Delaware, who just preceded me, in part. I heard the colloquy between him and the gentleman from Idaho. I want to say at the outset I am in very hearty agreement with the expressions made in reference to the tax-free provision of the $2,500 expense allowance that we Members of Congress have been receiving since 1945. At the time the program was first presented to us in the House, as I recall it, in May of 1945, the issue was raised under a rule waiving points of order to the legislative appropriation bill. Provisión in the bill made the expense allowance available to us at the cost of $1,642,500 for that year. The bill was presented to us under a rule waiving a point of order against that provision. The debate on the rule centered on the expense-allowance provision, and the issue was clearly drawn. The proponents of the rule, and the proponents of the expenseallowance feature, prevailed in that discussion on a record vote, but like the Senator from Idaho, my record shows that I opposed it then. I have opposed it since then, and I oppose it now. It is not because, as some folks say, we are according ourselves special treatment. I do not favor the principle, spelled with an “l-e,” of tax-free anything when it is a matter of income to the individuals of this country. I make that statement in regard to this $2,500 allowance for ourselves. I make that statement in regard to the allowances for the Executive Office, because I do believe that we, as persons in a position of public trust, ought to be held accountable for our actions and our expenses, as all other taxpayers in this country are held. accountable. There may be some justification and some necessity for arriving at an area of agreement on what is a proper allowance for deduction from our income for certain expenses that we incur by reason of our service as Members of Congress. That would be true, I am sure, of the Executive Office. But, to say the least, gentlemen, I think we ought to be accountable for those items as a matter of income and as a matter of legitimate deduction. I would like to urge you respectfully to give consideration very carefully to a revision of the present law that gives us that allowance without tax accountability. At the time the Reorganization Act of 1946 was before the House, the provision was included to pay us $15,000 salary and to repeal the tax-free provisions of the existing law at that time. An amendment was offered by the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Brown, to change the committee's action to a $12,500 salary and a $2,500 expense allowance without tax accountability. At that time I again opposed that amendment as offered. I want to say that if I had an opportunity to vote on a measure now to change the present structure in that respect, I would vote to change it. Gentlemen, I came over here for the very purpose of expressing myself at the very first opportunity before a committee of this Congress handling the subject. I do not want to take your time longer, other than to say that I appreciate this opportunity, and if you have any questions you would like to ask, I would certainly be glad to try to answer them. The CHAIRMAN. I do not believe you were here, Congressman, in the early part of the discussion with Senator Williams. I have not said this yet for the record. As I recall it, I think the record showed I voted against the whole Reorganization Act. I spoke against this provision when it came up in the Senate. Mr. PICKETT. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. I think I finally voted against the Reorganization Act not only because of this provision, but because of some others to which I objected at the time. Anyway, Senator Dworshak here and others have commented about what the background of this provision of the law is. The Revenue Department does not recognize and permit Members of Congress credit for actual expenses associated with the performance of their duties, and that is what prompted this statute, I am sure. It should be repealed, but at the same time we should write a provision in the law that will compel the Revenue Department to allow Members of Congress to take credit for legitimate expenses-those that under similar circumstances businessmen are permitted to take credit for. When that is done, then the evil in the present legislation will be corrected and justice will be done. Dr. Galloway, do you have some questions? Dr. GALLOWAY. Mr. Chairman, for the information of the committee, permit me to point out that the tax-exempt expense allowance for Members of Congress did not have its origin in the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, but in the Legislative Branch Appropriation Act of that year. It was carried over in the Reorganization Act, but did not originate therein. Senator DwORSHAK. I think that was pointed out. It was in 1945, as I recall it, just as Congressman Pickett said. The discussion and debate in the House took place at that time, and I remember it was prior to the Reorganization Act. Mr. PICKETT. It passed the House in May 1945, and became law early in June 1945. Dr. Galloway is eminently correct, as he always is about these matters. Thank you, gentlemen. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Congressman. STATEMENT OF ARTHUR N. HOLCOMBE, PROFESSOR OF GOVERN- Dr. HOLCOMBE. I have one here, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Holcombe, would you please identify yourself for the record? Dr. HOLCOMBE. For the record, I am a professor of government at Harvard University, and a past president of the American Political Science Association. Senator DwORSHAK. How long have you held that position? Dr. HOLCOMBE. It is an annual position. I had my turn 15 years ago. Senator DwORSHAK. How long have you been a professor at Har vard? Dr. HOLCOMBE. I have been teaching there 42 years, off and on. Senator DwORSHAK. You still have seniority? Dr. HOLCOMBE. Oh, yes; but I am not chairman of my department any more. The CHAIRMAN. All right. You may proceed in your own way with whatever phase of the matter you wish to cover. Dr. HOLCOMBE. Thank you very much, Senator. Six years ago I was honored with an invitation to discuss the subject of this hearing before the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, popularly known as the La Follette-Monroney committee, and naturally followed with deep interest all of that committee's subsequent proceedings. It eventually brought in a report at the second session of the Seventy-ninth Congress which has become a landmark in the development of congressional organization and procedure. The La Follette-Monroney committee report attacked the problem of improving the legislative process with boldness and imagination. To be sure, not all its recommendations were adopted by the Congress. Some of the most promising proposals, though approved by the Senate, unhappily failed to pass the House of Representatives, but most of the committee's proposals were incorporated in the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. There has been a tendency in recent years to underestimate the magnitude of this achievement. It is true that some of the provisions of the Legislative Reorganization Act have not worked out in accordance with the expectations of the committee, and that others have proved less important than some of their advocates had anticipated. But the general result of the act has been a substantial improvement in the management of the business of Congress. It is not necessary for an outsider to remind this committee how valuable some of the changes brought about by the La Follette-Monroney committee have proved to be, but it may be timely to note the abatement of the criticism of Congress, which was certainly more widespread before the adoption of the La Follette-Monroney Act than since, and to emphasize the appreciable enhancement of the Congress' prestige in recent years. I am glad to be able to testify that among political scientists there is universal, if not unqualified, praise for the action of the Seventyninth Congress in passing the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. There is also a strengthened confidence that, by taking further thought, it will be possible for the Congress still further to improve its organization and methods of business. Mr. Chairman, I would not take the time of your committee today to advocate improvements in the organization and business methods of the Congress merely for the purpose of bringing about greater economy in the use of public funds or greater efficiency in the conduct of legislative business. These are important objectives and should never be dismissed from the minds of Congressmen eager to preserve the prestige of their branch of the Government and to strengthen their position in the esteem of the public. But at the present time the most important need, it seems to me, is to maintain a proper balance between the legislative and executive branches of the Government, and to that end to strengthen the Congress, especially in its relations with the President. We live in an age when the demands upon the National Government, and consequently the number of Government employees and the volume of Government expenditures, are rapidly growing. It is evident that under the conditions likely to exist in the years ahead the activities of the executive branch of the Government will continue to grow, and likewise its size and cost to the taxpayer. Already Government taxes and Government orders fill a greater place in the national economy than ever before in time of peace. Inevitably also the influence of the Executive is expanding. While the constitutional power of the Executive is no greater than before, emergencies are constantly arising which compel the exercise of power with greater vigor than in earlier times. The actual authority of the Executive necessarily becomes greater, and if a proper balance between the executive and legislative branches of the Government is to be maintained, it is essential to increase correspondingly the practical capacity of the Congress to influence the development of public policy and to supervise the administration of public affairs. When I appeared before the La Follette-Monroney committee 6 years ago, I spoke in support of the recommendations of a group of political scientists serving as members of a committee on Congress, appointed by the American Political Science Association. Their report, entitled "The Reorganization of Congress," was published early in 1945 and contained 10 specific proposals for changes in congressional organization and procedure. These proposed changes were designed to speed up the legislative process, bring about a better coordination of the business of Congress and a more effective use of its personnel, and produce a more unified leadership. Most of these changes were recommended also by other witnesses before the La |