Dr. GALLOWAY. Mr. Chairman, the Congressman has a statement that might be inserted at the end of his remarks.

The CHAIRMAN. You do have a prepared statement?

Mr. BURDICK. Yes. That statement has in it communications from other people and organizations favoring the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. All right; would you like to have it printed in the record?

Mr. BURDICK. I thought it was a little bit too laudatory of what I was trying to do, so I did not offer it.

Senator MOODY. I do not think it will do any harm.

Mr. BURDICK. I do not want the public to get the impression that I am a crusader, because I am not. I am just like the rest of you. The CHAIRMAN. I think we will place it in the record, if you have no objections. Thank you, Mr. Congressman.

(The statement of Mr. Burdick is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. USHER L. BURDICK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

(Prepared for delivery before the Senate Committee on Expenditures June 14, 1951, which is currently considering the subject of congressional ethics and immunity. Mr. Burdick has introduced H. R. 451, titled "A bill making it unlawful for any Member of the Congress of the United States of America to receive or accept any part of the salary, directly or indirectly, of any person employed by him in the discharge of his official duties whose compensation is paid by the United States, providing a penalty therefor, and for other purposes.")

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have never felt while in Congress that I was anything else but the hired employee of the people of North Dakota-that having been elected it has been my duty to represent all the people and not merely those who elected me. In representing North Dakota, I have also kept in mind that while, strictly speaking, I represent my State, I also represent the best interests of all the people in the Union.

My present bill is designed to restore the faith of the people in their elected representatives. Many of the people do not have that faith now, even though I personally feel that 99 percent, if not all, of our Members are honest. If my proposal is passed, there will be no room for question and no chance of anybody being tempted. The facts will be right out there in black and white for all the public to see. My bill says in part: "Within 10 days after the close of any session of Congress, every Member of that Congress shall file a written statement, under oath, with the Secretary of the Senate or Clerk of the House (to whichever body the Member belongs) giving the names of those employed by him during such past session, the salaries or compensation received, and what part of said salary or compensation the Member has accepted or received, directly or indirectly, for any purpose whatever. Such reports shall be open for public inspection.

Since I made public my proposals on congressional payrolls, I have received hundreds of letters from persons all over the country congratulating me on my bill and expressing the hope that such an investigation will not be side-stepped or "hushed-up." This confirmed the impression I got during long speaking engagements in North Dakota last year that there was a well-formed opinion out in the grass-roots section of this country that Congressmen, generally, were not honest. This feeling has been brought about, no doubt, through the convictions of a few Members but the opinion evident was that many of us were equally as bad, but had not been caught.

The information which this bill asks for can be very easily obtained and when made public will convince the people that their Congress is an honorable body. We cannot afford to have the people think or believe otherwise. When the people lose respect for Congress, they lose respect for the Government, and at this particular time the people should have no cause whatever to lose faith in their Government.

Mr. Chairman, I ask permission to include with my remarks here a few short extracts of letters from persons who have written me on the subject of congressional payrolls.

(The letters referred to are as follows:)

EXCERPTS FROM LETTERS COMMENTING ON PROPOSED PAYROLL LEGISLATION

"ST. PETERSBurg, Fla.

"It seems that much credit is due to you for the stand that you are taking in trying to clean up the kick-back situation that at the present time exists in our Congress. Please accept my best wishes in the tough task that you have seen fit to take on, seemingly single-handed, and more power to you.

"It seems only proper that the people of this country should have confidence in their representatives. * * * Without this confidence * *

we are

going to drift from bad to worse until the franchise won't be accepted as a great opportunity.

"Your staunch leadership in this vital situation, I am sure, will be very much appreciated by the people, and I trust that you will have the support of the worthwhile Members of our Congress.

"I remain your staunch supporter, "Sincerely,

"R. P. HALL."

"DULUTH, MINN.

"Your bill to investigate congressional payrolls is very sensible. I doubt that you will find many crooks in the House or Senate, but if there are any they should be weeded out. Such an investigation should restore the confidence of the voters in the lawmakers in Washington. I want to congratulate you and hope that you can persuade your conferees to pass the bill.

"Respectfully,

"GEO. C. DOYLE, M. D."

"GADSDEN, ALA.

"Congratulations to you for the stand that you have taken on payroll padding as reported in Drew Pearson's column of yesterday. I'm with you 100 percent and hope that you will continue the fight.

"Yours very truly,

"W. H. WINTON."

"KANSAS CITY 5, Mo.

"An article appearing in our Kansas City Times said that you were pressing an investigation of Congressional payrolls. A fine move, and should have been done years ago in the interest of public confidence in our Government officials. It would surely impress Members of Congress (both political parties) if they would hear some of the remarks from people in criticism of certain practices of our Members of Congress. Not a very healthy condition, to my thinking. "Respectfully,

"ROBERT I. LUPFER.”

"BIRMINGHAM, ALA.

"Thought you would like to know that yourself and Drew Pearson are not the only ones wondering where the crooked Congressmen are going to lead us. If they will pad their payrolls and steal indirectly off the taxpayers we do not know what else they will do. I read where a percent of both Democrats and Republicans want to hush-hush the deal. I feel, like yourself and all other Congressmen that are on the square, that you should do all that is in your power to stoy this graft. I close, wishing you continued success in your investigation on this and other grafts, as they may appear.

"Yours very truly,

"C. M. LowE."

The CHAIRMAN. Is Mr. Heller present; Robert Heller?

Mr. Gross: is he here? Mr. Gross, will you identify yourself for the record, please, sir?

STATEMENT OF BERTRAM GROSS, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL PARTIES, AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION

Mr. GROSS. My name is Bertram M. Gross. I appear here today as chairman of the Committee on Political Parties of the American Political Science Association. I have no prepared statement for the simple reason that your committee felt that our recent report, entitled "Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System," was important enough to be printed as a committee print for the use of Members of Congress. I have that document in front of me. I believe the members of the committee have it before them.

It was transmitted to the chairman of the committee by Senator O'Conor on March 6. The major part of my statement is directed toward an explanation of the philosophy behind this report on party responsibility. The rest of my time will be devoted to answering whatever questions committee members might ask.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, you may proceed.

Mr. GROSS. I may say at the outset that I feel a little embarrassed as an amateur and a representative of a group of amateurs talking about political parties before members of a committee who know much more about the practical realities of politics through their own experience.

The CHAIRMAN. I expect any member would be glad to learn more than he already knows about how to make a successful political campaign.

Senator MOODY. I consider myself an amateur also, so I would like to hear what you have to say.

Mr. GROSS. I must start by confessing that the great majority of the 14 members of our committee are professors. However, let me counterbalance that fact by indicating that at least five of them have taken a long course in political science by working for Members or committees of Congress during which time I am sure they learned as much as they did in their classrooms. I have here a full list of the members of the committee, since I am speaking on their behalf. I could insert their names.

The CHAIRMAN. That may be filed as an exhibit, so it will be available for reference.

(The biographical sketches of the members of the Committee on Political Parties was filed as an exhibit and is on file with the committee.)

Mr. GROSS. Referring to this report, I might say it took 16 political scientists about 3 years to write it. We believe it is a starting point. We do not believe it is the last word. It certainly does not represent or pretend to represent the collective judgment of all political scientists in the country. There are many points of dispute within the political science profession.

Senator MOODY. You would not imply that all political scientists could agree, would you.

Mr. GROSS. By no means. There are some major points of disagreement. In this report, we started by deciding at the outset that we would reach conclusions in a definable period of time, instead of merely engaging in two decades of research as a preliminary to our getting

ready to reach conclusions. That surprised some of our colleagues who felt that all the relevant facts should first be assembled. As I look through our work, I might say it would take more than my lifetime to assemble all the facts needed to study American parties. One of the reasons for that is that political parties for some time have been regarded as something lacking in respectability and, oddly enough, that has been true even among students of government.

Over the past two decades a disproportionate amount of emphasis, in my judgment, has been given to public administration, because of the growth of the executive agencies throughout our country. A disproportionate amount of emphasis has been given to other phases of political science. In fact, as I look back upon the very important work which culminated in the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 probably the only major deficiency that I can find is that insufficient attention was given at that time to focusing upon the parties in Congress. I say that because to think of Congress and the organization of Congress and to neglect the role of political parties is to run the risk of looking at the abstract form instead of the substance.

We believe that we should get beyond the point in this country of regarding the word "political" as a term of opprobrium. We believe we should get beyond the point of regarding the word "party" as a word of opprobrium.

Senator MOODY. I certainly agree with what you say.

I shall have to leave now because of an executive session of the Banking and Currency Committee. It is not lack of interest in what you say that compels me to leave. I should like to commend your organization on this report, because I think it is a very good report.

Mr. GROSS. Thank you very much, Senator.

There are two extreme positions, Mr. Chairman, that can be taken on party responsibility, and you and the other members of the committee are familiar with both of them.

One is that we need in this country a line-up of monolithic, tightly organized, internally disciplined parties which can present a complete and absolutely clear-cut choice to the voters, with each party winning, as a result of election, full power to enact down to the last detail all of the campaign promises and platform provisions on which it rests. At the other extreme there is the theory that the price we pay for unity in this country, the price we pay for avoiding class and sectional strife, is to have two parties which are practically indistinguishable one from the other. That point of view has been presented in great detail and with great erudition in a recent book by Herbert Agar and in another recent book by Arthur Holcombe, both of whom are outstanding men in the field of political science.

The CHAIRMAN. Haven't we arrived at that situation. In reading the two platforms, they say about the same thing, although they are in different words. What are the major differences now between the two parties? Is there any major difference as to the backbone of each of the parties? Can you point out any major difference?

Mr. GROSS. You have asked me a question, the difficulty of which you are very familiar with, Mr. Chairman. I would answer you in abstract terms that if you are trying to tell the difference between two creatures you look at something other than what they say about themselves. And I would find that, in attempting to depict in de

tail the differences between the Republican and the Democratic Parties, probably the worst place to start would be the two platforms. The CHAIRMAN. I think that is true. I think you would find the least differences there possibly than anywhere else.

Mr. GROSS. Nevertheless, I can find differences. I cannot find black and white differences. I can find different aggregations of sectional influence and group influence and personal values. I believe it would be a mistake to say that today there is no difference, there are no policy differences between those two loose aggregations that we call the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.

Senator DWORSHAK. Mr. Gross, couldn't you be more specific? If you were to approach this problem on the basis that probably we have three parties in this country, the New Deal or Fair Deal Party, the Jeffersonian Democrat Party, and the Republican Party, wouldn't that be a better appraisal?

Mr. GROSS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You have to add one more to that. I find some New Dealers in the Republican Party.

Senator DwORSHAK. That is true, Mr. Chairman, but I was hoping Mr. Gross might give us some information to the effect that, if he confines his remarks to the two parties, that you have a conservative and a liberal group within each of the two major political parties.

Mr. GROSS. That is absolutely correct. With Senator McClellan's amendment, I would accept your statement as a starting point for analyzing the structure of our two parties.

Senator DwORSHAK. We have actually four parties.

Mr. GROSS. I think something like that would be a good starting point for analysis.

Senator DwORSHAK. What would you call the fourth one?

Mr. GROSS. You could call them the Jeffersonian Republicans. Senator DWORSHAK. I do not think you could call them Jeffersonian Republicans, because if you were to consider the so-called liberal fringe of Republicans, it would be an insult to the Jeffersonian Democrats to call them Jeffersonian Republicans. I do not think that is

accurate.

Mr. GROSS. They are independent people and I think they would insist on picking out their own name. They did at one time, in the past, when I believe Senator Moses of New Hampshire referred to them as sons of the wild jackass. They picked up that term, I believe, and took it as their own.

Senator DWORSHAK. Yes, but I made the pertinent comment a year or two ago that we in the West may be sons of the wild jackass, but in the light of some political trends in the New England section of our country, I was inclined to believe that the jackass came from Senator Moses' part of the country.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gross, we have to insert a little sense of humor here once in a while.

Mr. GROSS. To resume: I have indicated there are two extremes that can be defined, the extreme of having two parties well disciplined and with nothing in common, and the extreme of having parties that are indistinguishable. We have taken a position which, not being an extreme, cannot be so precisely defined. We take the position that we need a more responsible two-party system, that we need two major