Title III of the Reorganization Act of 1946 marked a significant advance in the control of lobbying activities, but its provisions need to be strengthened and revised. Its terminology should be clarified as to coverage and filing requirements, and responsibility for its administration should be centralized in a specific agency equipped with a full-time staff adequate to handle the job. The original recommendation of the LaFollette-Monroney committee for the establishment of an Office of Congressional Services is even more in order than it was in 1945. The primary function of this office would be to coordinate the miscellaneous housekeeping services of the Congress which are now scattered all over Capitol Hill, and to develop a modern system of personnel administration for employees of Congress to replace the present patronage system. There is one other significant thing that Congress should do to and for its Members. It should raise their salaries and provide them more adequate pensions. Many Members of Congress who know that when they complete their terms they will have less money than when they began them and who believe that the congressional salary should be raised and more adequate pensions provided, would rather swim the Potomac than introduce these measures; and this simply because the Members of Congress are in the anomalous position of being the only means by which their salaries can be raised. Part of this problem can be avoided. If Congress would ask the Supreme Court to review its compensation, the Court would be within its constitutional authority in agreeing to do so. I have talked to the Court about it and they say they could do that. Its prestige and independence of Congress are great enough to assure the objectivity of its review and public acceptance of it. In the event the Supreme Court were unwilling to take on the job—and they probably would be unwilling, so they tell me-Congress should call on a carefully selected independent commission to analyze and evaluate the congressional job and determine the commensurate pay. This would be a logical basis on which to peg congressional salaries and pensions at the right level. The objection will be made that with a general salary freeze in effect this is no time for Congress to consider defrosting its own compensation. This is not a valid argument. Congressional salaries should have been evaluated and raised long before the current wage freeze. The objective of raising congressional salaries and pensions would be to pay what the job is worth and insure that able men would not be deterred from seeking congressional office because compensation is so far below comparable levels in private business. In other words, I have seen so much of that going around that I am convinced that you people in Congress are selling your services below cost. Summing up, Congress, as near as I can figure as an outsider who, since 1945 has observed and tried to help, is today operating as a group of autonomous, conflicting, irresponsible committees, and not as an institution. The formation and operation of management, or policy committees in the true sense, Mr. Chairman, is the only answer that will allow Congress to act in the concerted manner it must to perform its duties effectively and on time. It is a little under 5 years since the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 became law. That law was a great step forward, but the experience of the intervening years clearly indicates that it did not go far enough. I sincerely believe that the proposals I have outlined here will help Congress do a more effective job, if adopted, and I submit that no task before Congress today is of greater importance than that of putting its own house in order. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Heller. I appreciate your taking the time to come before the committee and discussing these things with us. This is a job that, while it is our primary responsibility, is also the job of the citizens of this country, to try to help us to do it, and we entered into these hearings with the sincere purpose and objective of getting some good results. I appreciate those of you who have taken the time to come here and help us with them. I may not agree with everything that is testified to. That is not expected. But we do get the different ideas and we get the reasons back of them, and the information gives us a picture which we can look at. I am very confident and very hopeful, when these hearings are concluded, the committee will review the hearings. It is unfortunate they cannot all be here. Today I am missing an Appropriations Committee meeting. I would like to be here because I feel something like this should be done, too. I cannot be in both places. I believe that, when we conclude and the members have had time to read and study these hearings, we can come together in executive session and bring out some legislation that will make decided improvements. That is our purpose. I am hopeful, at least, that we are going to succeed. Thank you very much. The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow. (Whereupon, at 12:10 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a. m., Friday, June 15, 1951.) ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION OF CONGRESS FRIDAY, JUNE 15, 1951 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS, Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10:15 a. m., in room 357, Senate Office Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators McClellan and Dworshak. Also present: Walter L. Reynolds, chief clerk, and George B. Galloway, consultant. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order, please. Come forward, please, Congressman Javits. Mr. JAVITS. Thank you, sir. STATEMENT OF HON. JACOB K. JAVITS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK The CHAIRMAN. We are very glad to have you with us this morning, Congressman. Mr. JAVITS. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Do you have a prepared statement? Mr. JAVITS. How much time may I take? The CHAIRMAN. Take just as much time as you like. We have not limited anyone else. I don't know why we should limit you. We are looking for helpful information. Mr. JAVITS. Thank you. I will take, if I may, about 5 minutes, in a direct statement, and then if the committee so desires, I will be more than happy to answer any questions. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, may I say first how grateful I am to be permitted to testify on this subject. I am delighted that the committee considers it one of the important issues in connection with the reorganization of Congress. I believe it deserves to be an important issue in that connection. Since I introduced the resolution very early in the year in the House, seeking the privilege of televising and broadcasting important House sessions—and I emphasize the word "important"-sufficient time has elapsed, and sufficient public discussion has ensued, so that we have been able to turn up a good many of the bugs, as well as some of the strong points in the proposal. The CHAIRMAN. What is the number of your resolution, sir? The CHAIRMAN. Do you have a copy of the resolution with you? 85166-51-20 Mr. JAVITS. I do, sir, and if I may, I would like to hand that up to you. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. We would like to have it inserted in the record. Mr. JAVITS. Thank you, sir. The CHAIRMAN. We try to make these hearings complete, so that if one is interested he has all the information right before him. Mr. JAVITS. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. It may be made a part of the record. (H. Res. 62 is as follows:) [H. Res. 62, 82d Cong., 1st sess.] RESOLUTION Resolved, That the paragraph numbered 3 of rule XXXV of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended to read as follows: "3. Such portion of the gallery of the House of Representatives as may be necessary to accommodate reporters of news to be disseminated by television, radio, wireless, and similar methods of transmission wishing to report debates and proceedings and to broadcast and televise the same, shall be set aside for their use and reputable reporters thus engaged shall be admitted thereto under such regulations as the Speaker may from time to time prescribe; and the supervision of such gallery, including the designation of its employees, shall be vested in a standing committee of Television and Radio Reporters, subject to the direction and control of the Speaker; and the Speaker may admit to the floor, under such regulations as he may prescribe, one representative of the National Broadcasting Company, one representative of the American Broadcasting Company, one representative of the Columbia Broadcasting System, one representative of the Mutual Broadcasting System, one representative of the DuMont Television Network, and one representative of the Transradio Press Service, and one representative each of such other radio or television broadcasters as the Speaker may from time to time consider to be appropriate in the interests of the adequate coverage of debates and proceedings in accordance with this paragraph." The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, Congressman. Mr. JAVITS. The fundamental proposition of broadcasting and televising sessions of the House is not novel. The House has been both televised and broadcast on occasions, for example, when it has heard the President, or when it has heard some distinguished foreign visitor, as indeed the Senate has in that kind of joint session. What has not been done is to broadcast debates of any kind, except I understand that the proceedings incident to the adoption of the resolution declaring World War II were broadcast, either from a tape or actually from the floor. The Speaker of the House has the power today under the House rules to regulate broadcasting. All that my bill seeks to do is to deal with the House rules (House Rule 35). The Speaker could today order any part of the House proceedings broadcast or televised, unless the Members stopped him. It is obvious, however, that a major decision of that character would not be made by the Speaker alone. In fact, the Speaker has so indicated. It would only be because the membership evidenced their will that something would be done on that score. Hence, my-resolution only proposes a way in which that will may be manifested. My resolution does not intend, nor do I believe it would be sound, to broadcast and televise all House proceedings or Senate proceedings. A great many of them are routine and would be of relatively little interest to the country as a whole. I think it would overemphasize |