age of 70. I commend that approach to this committee as an important step forward.

My frank opinion is that any Senator-at any age-who has served for 12 years, or two terms in this body, should be entitled to the maximum. If Senators knew that they were assured that kind of treatment, I believe it would give them greater courage in facing up to some of the so-called tough votes, those votes upon which we Senators often think our victory or defeat depend.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think if such a provision were made for us that we would not be under the political pressure, that we would be more free and would feel more free to vote our deep convictions, rather than to think, "Well, if I vote this or that way, I am going to incur the displeasure, maybe, of this group or that group?"

Senator BENTON. I firmly believe that, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to give you two illustrations out of last year's session. These deal with the President's vetoes. They were what are called tough votes. They help show how much of the waste and the high cost of our Government is attributable to the Congress, and is much more attributable to the Congress than is generally supposed, and much less to the administration.

These two illustrations deal with the President's veto of the SpanishAmerican War veterans' bill, by which these veterans were to get free medical service for the rest of their lives, regardless of the cause of their illness.

Now, there were only three Members of the Senate who supported the President on that veto. That was a tough vote. It was tough because if you supported the veto you risked arousing the veterans. against you back in your State. In close States, like Connecticut, where I won by 1,102 votes, that 1 vote, out of 200 votes during 1950, could cost a man his seat.

Senator Byrd, with his great leadership in the field of economy, did not vote to sustain the President's veto. Senator Robertson, his colleague, was one of the three, and I was another one, and Senator Ellender was the third. We were the only three who stood up on this particular issue. Three out of ninety-six.

Perhaps even a better illustration is that of the postal clerks. I hope I am betraying no confidence when I say that my State chairman was very much distressed when I voted to uphold the President's veto on their bill which gave seniority rights to the veterans who had become postal clerks after the war-rights we did not award veterans in other Federal departments. I agree the postal clerks are underpaid. Their pay should be raised and at once. But I agreed with the President this wasn't the way to do it.

Senators Taft, Millikin, and most others running for office did not vote to sustain the President's veto of this bill. That bill would have ultimately cost, according to Senator Humphrey's statement, $452 million. It would have cost many times that, applied to all Federal employees.

I believe that half the Senators who supported the President on this veto were southern Senators-whe prevented that $452 million from being spent-were southern Senators who, to us northerners, seem reasonably secure and safe in their seats, and in this case it was perhaps due to their sense of security that the President's veto was upheld.

Now, on vote after vote we Senators have these pressures of the kind that Senator O'Mahoney and Senator Moody were discussing, represented by the business groups even more dramatically than by an underpaid and undernourished group like the postal clerks. When I had the privilege of being a member of your committee last year, we Senators felt them on issue after issue on the Hoover reorganization proposals-as the vested interests would come in and make their pressures felt.

These pressures and these tough votes give a great sense of insecurity to men running for office. If the men do not have independent financial resources and their reelection is important to them financially, it is surely not to be wondered at if these pressures are felt even more strongly.

The postal clerk issue alone, in the judgment of some of my associates in Connecticut, could have involved two, three, or four thousand votes, and yet I went in by only 1,102 votes. You can see why my State chairman was distressed that I upheld the President on that issue. I cite this as an argument for a liberal retirement and pension plan for Congressmen. I think such a plan would cost the taxpayers pennies, in contrast to the millions or billions that would be saved if the Members of the United States Congress were better able to withstand the pressures of the business groups and others who are advocating policies which make for extravagance and inefficiency in the Federal Government. Such pressures can come from the bankers, Mr. Chairman, as they did last year on our Reorganization Plan No. 1 to reform the Treasury Department. Practically all groups in the economy are organized along the lines Senator O'Mahoney described at the beginning of his testimony. There are at least 3,000 trade organizations representing various business groups.

Now, if I could take just another 4 or 5 minutes-
The CHAIRMAN. Go right ahead, Senator.

Senator BENTON. I would like to make a few quick comments on some of these topics which your agenda shows are going to come before you.

The CHAIRMAN. I would be glad if you would. I might say this, that since the Senate is not in session today and we have two or three other witnesses scheduled for today, that I intend to resume the hearings after lunch.

Senator BENTON. I am almost through with my suggestions.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all right. We were going to wait until you had finished, but I might make that announcement now, that I intend to resume the hearings this afternoon in order to accommodate those who were scheduled to testify today.

Senator BENTON. I shall pick those topics from your agenda on your proposed hearings where I may have some observations of special interest. On most of these topics you will have more qualified witnesses than I, and men with more experience. On your first point, the committee structure and operation of the Congress, I would like to suggest that it be either a rule of the Senate or of both parties that no firs-term Senator shall be permitted to go on two major committees before each first-term Senator is given one major committee. Here on this committee we have men of the talent and experience of Senator Monroney coming in with his long years out of the House, who has not been assigned to a so-called major committee. Let me take my own

case. When I came in in December of 1949 I was not able to go on a major committee. I wasn't put on one after I was elected in November of 1950. Mr. Chairman, you know what is called a major committee. I personally think the Committee on Expenditures in a major committee, but it is not listed in our organizational structure as such a committee.

The CHAIRMAN. I may say originally it had no marks of major importance at all, or jurisdiction, when I first came to the Senate, and was assigned to this committee. That was before the Reorganization Act. During the 4 years I was here before the reorganization bill was passed, this committee met but twice.

Senator BENTON. Well, only meeting twice a year, there was a good reason that any Senator could be on it, no matter what other committee he was on. It was not major.

The CHAIRMAN. That was before the Reorganization Act, and before our jurisdiction was broadened.

Senator BENTON. Yes. But I was in the Senate 18 months before I was put on the Banking and Currency Committee.

I am not betraying any confidences on the Banking and Currency hearings of the past months when I say that Senator Moody and I were the most regular in attendance of the Democrats, whereas our four senior members have been so busy with so many other assignments that they have been there relatively little, though the Defense Production Act under review, of course, is one of the most important pieces of legislation before the Congress.

Senator MOODY. If I may interrupt you just a moment, as an illustration the clerk of the committee just came up to me and said quietly that Senator O'Mahoney was now testifying before the Banking and Currency Committee and they wanted me to go down there. That shows the problem of being in two places at one time. I am going to ask to be excused, if I may, Mr. Chairman. Before I would like to say to the Senator that while I do not agree with everything that you have said, I think that your statement this morning reflects the great courage which is typical of the Senator from Connecticut.

go, I

Senator BENTON. Perhaps it is easier to have courage when one feels that he has a position of security either in or out of the Senate. I think that feeling is one we should try to develop for all members of the United States Senate. The cost to the American taxpayer would be infinitesimal compared to the reward.

Senator UNDERWOOD. Are you intending to make any mention of the difficulties that we are having in having two committees meet at one time?

Senator BENTON. I was not going to mention that. That is a very good point.

Senator UNDERWOOD. Since Senator Moody brought it up, I think that is one of the things that concerns me more about the work than anything I have seen. I just wondered if you had any suggestions as to that.

Senator BENTON. I know sometimes it is unavoidable, Senator Underwood, and I did not expect to elaborate on this question specifically, but manifestly a new Senator who is not yet spread thin is in a better position to attend committee meetings than some of the older Senators who are spread so thin that it is often impossible to get to

85166-51-4

meetings. Senator Moody and I have illustrated this during the past month in our attendance at the Banking and Currency Committee hearings.

Senator UNDERWOOD. I was wondering if there would be some way of not meeting at exactly the same time. Now, this committee has been meeting at the same time as the Post Office and Civil Service Committee, which has been having hearings on postal mail rates and pay raises. I imagine there are many other committees that are meeting at the same time.

Senator BENTON. If we had better central services of the kind 1 advocate, they could contribute at least to minimizing such conflicts. There is not enough thought being given to questions such as this.

The CHAIRMAN. On that point, Senator, I would like to have you comment on the suggestion of Senator Ferguson, which I am sure is something we have all thought about, and that is to alternate Senate sessions and committee sessions. In other words, have the Senate meet one day, meet earlier and try to do as much work in that one day as it would normally do in two now, and give one completely free for committee meetings.

Senator BENTON. I like that kind of idea very much, Mr. Chairman. I have not explored all the implications of this one. Offhand, it sounds very good.

The article of Robert Heller's to which I have previously referred starts off:

If Henry Clay or Daniel Webster could walk into the United States Senate today, they would find startling changes, but one thing would be familiar-the way Congress operates.

That is an interesting line to illustrate that we must examine new procedure in line with these tremendous expanding responsibilities on ourselves as individuals.

My suggestion that no first-term Senator get two major committees before each first-term Senator gets one is my compromise with the seniority system. That system is very widely criticized throughout the country, but my observations in the Senate have led me to conclude that there is not any reasonably good alternative for it. I yield to it albeit reluctantly because I have not yet been able to think of an alternative system that promises to work better. But I don't believe the seniority system should be rigorously applied to the extent that it is to first-term Senators. Merely because one Senator comes 1 year earlier or 2 years earlier, I don't believe he should get two important major committee assignments at the expense of a still newer Senator who may have unusual qualifications in his own right. If I were a member of your committee I would examine the seniority system as to how to relax it somewhat, particularly as it is applied to new Senators, and adjust it in a common-sense way to our problems and our opportunities.

Mr. Chairman, I have already commented on the second point on your agenda, the staffing of the Congress. I have told you I think the staffing should be greatly stepped up.

As to your third point, the workload of the Congress, Mr. Chairman, I must say that it does seem absurd to a man coming out of business, who is accustomed to delegating responsibility and to organizing his work to rid himself of the least important work, it does

seem ridiculous to view the spectacle of these private bills going through the Congress and taking the time they do, when a lot of them, in my judgment, ought to be delegated with appropriate powers to the administrative departments. Equally ridiculous, of course, is this problem of running the city of Washington through congressional committees.

In Congress we treat these residents of Washington as though they were some kind of queer fish who need special supervision and who need special feeding. It seems to me insulting to the residents of the city. I am told that we have 5,000 congressional man-hours consumed each year in the consideration of Washington, D. C., busi

ness.

If there is one easy, quick thing to make for congressional efficiency, it is this home-rule bill.

Mr. Chairman, skipping to page 2 of your agenda, on the registration of lobbyists, I think that the law ought to be tightened up a great deal on lobbyists. For example, lobbyists ought to be required, to the maximum extent possible, to disclose what campaign contributions they make personally, or their organizations make, or the men whom they represent are making.

The single most difficult problem I have run into since being in the Senate is the question of campaign contributions-of raising money to finance my campaign. I am going to testify at some length before Senator Douglas' committee on this problem when his committee begins hearings on the subject of ethics and morals in politics. It is my observation that how money is raised for political campaigns lies at the root of some of the corrupting or unethical or immoral practices which develop within our system of government.

I expect to elaborate on this more fully in a subsequent statement which, with your permission, I would like to send to your committee at that time and have made a part of the record of your committee. The CHAIRMAN. We will be very glad to receive it at that time.1 Senator BENTON. These lobbyists operate under umbrellas that are very leaky, Mr. Chairman, and the problem is, how do you fix these leaks and tighten up on the lobbyists' operation? Or at least, to the point so that we will know what is going on, so that their operations will be out in the open so that we can see them. They are not out in the open right now.

As a current illustration, I refer you to my efforts on television. Last week I put in a bill with Senators Bricker, Saltonstall, and Hunt, dealing with the Federal Communications Commission and proposing setting up a so-called citizens' advisory board to help provide an annual review of standards for radio and television.

This town is full of lawyers and others representing the commercial interests in radio and television. The great commercial interests employ perhaps half the big law firms of the country, or maybe more, for all I know. The consequent pressures on the commercial side are tremendous. The pressures on the side of the public, in the public interest, to keep television from going the way of radio broadcasting, right down the road of complete commercialization, are hardly

1 Senator Benton's statement before the Douglas subcommittee on the Fulbright resolution to establish a Commission of Ethics in the Federal Government may be found in the hearings of that committee.