is not in the interest of maintaining congressional dignity, nor commanding the respect of the country. In my humble judgment, all chairmen should be carefully briefed on what is fair play. I believe that most Members of Congress have been chagrined by the techniques occasionally used by an overzealous member of a committee. THE STAFFING OF CONGRESS In my opinion the House of Representatives should have the same expert help as that enjoyed by the Senate. The Legislative Reference Service, the Office of the Legislative Counsel and the Coordinator of Information should be tools of the entire Congress and not for the Speaker or the special inner clique that may have assumed authority all out of proportion to their position. Every standing committee should have a staff available for its special work. One top member of that staff should be entirely responsible to the minority party. In my humble opinion, the compensation of congressional employees should be on a uniform basis. It might be done by establishing several grades of positions with employees receiving salaries according to their grade. I do know that the differential in salaries is a source of irritation among the House employees. STRENGTHENING FISCAL CONTROLS I believe that every appropriation bill should have a record vote. In my opinion a record vote ought to be had upon all controversial legislation. To do this successfully, there should be an electric voting system. We have had one in the Legislature of Nebraska for many years. It is satisfactory. COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS This will need careful study and review. Due to certain economic conditions of the day, the present salary is insufficient to meet the demands upon the congressional office. A sound fiscal policy must be established. Otherwise those on fixed salaries will suffer. The present congressional salary will buy about 50 percent of what it would have bought 12 years ago-and the end is not in sight. In my opinion, the recently approved method of setting up telephone and telegraphic service for Members of Congress is a fair one. All retirement allowances should be based upon a sound, actuarial basis. CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS AND IMMUNITY In my opinion a Member of Congress must have immunity from suits, when investigating the business of Government or legislating for the Nation. This should be true when conducting business on the floor of the House or in the regular established committees. It would be impossible for a Member of Congress to dig out the facts unless some immunity was established. At the same time, Members of Congress should not use this immunity to deliberately smear innocent people. They should not be permitted to hide behind the bush of immunity. I believe the same schedule might be set up on the franking privileges for mailing out speeches, etc., as is now permitted for the use of telephone services. In other words, a certain number of free speeches and letters could be allocated to each office each month. Certainly there is no place for salary kick-backs. I would suggest that regulations be set up relative to the employment of a wife or family of a Congressman on some other Congressman's payroll. PUBLIC RELATIONS OF CONGRESS Several years ago I advocated that certain events in Congress be broadcast and televised. I am still of the opinion that this would be in the interest of good government. Only those sessions of Congress which would be of the most interest to the public should be televised or broadcast. At the same time I advocated an electric voting system for Congress. This could be used on all roll-call votes. LETTERS FROM MEMBERS OF CONGRESS UNITED STATES SENATE, Hon. HERBERT R. O'CONOR, Chairman, Subcommittee on Reorganization, Senate Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, Washington, D. C. DEAR HERB: Replying to your letter of February 7, I will say that the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 doesn't need to be strengthened as much as it needs to be observed. The intent of this legislation is known to both Houses of Congress. It wasn't intended that every committee should hire employees to the limit of the law unless necessary, yet I fear some of our committees are overstaffed. It was expected that the Reorganization Act would eliminate a lot of special committees, but that has not been done so my suggestion is let Congress pay more attention to the intent of the law. If we can't observe the spirit of this law, there is little likelihood that we would do better under a revision. Sincerely yours, GEORGE D. AIKEN. UNITED STATES SENATE, February 8, 1951. Hon. HERBERT R. O'CONOR, Chairman, Subcommittee on Reorganization, Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, MY DEAR SENATOR O'CONOR: Your invitation to make some suggestions for possible revision of the Legislative Reorganization Act is appreciated. Two ideas have occurred to me which I pass on: (1) That the provisions for the legislative budget need to be reworked in the light of experience which shows that as originally passed, they proved so impracticable from a working standpoint that after observance during the 2 years of the Eightieth Congress, they were just quietly tossed into the ash can, and no pretense of following them was made in the Eighty-first Congress. Certainly they should either be revised so that the Joint Budget Committee will function or that portion of the act should be repealed. (2) The arbitrary selection of 13 as the magic size of certain committees rests upon a fallacious assumption. How can anyone say that 13 Senators is equally the same measure of senatorial attention required for the District of Columbia and for the Foreign Relations of this Government in times like these? Similarly, how can one justify 13 Members for the housekeeping of the Senate (Rules and Administration) and 13 for the Committee on Finance which has the housekeeping for the Nation in these times of $100 million budgets? My suggestion would be that the number on the Committee of the District of Columbia and the Committee on Rules be both reduced to 9 members, and that the Committee on Expenditures be reduced to 11-thus giving 10 committee positions to be redistributed to each of the following committees: Finance, Foreign Relations, Armed Services, Appropriations, and Judiciary. If it is felt that the ex officio membership on the Appropriations Committee provides sufficient division of labor there, the Committee on Judiciary or the Committee on Foreign Relations could stand an additional 2-or the Committee on Rules may be reduced only to 11. Certainly, it seems to me that the membership accorded to the committees should be more realistic to their responsibilities and scope of work rather than making a fetish of the number 13. Sincerely yours, FRANCIS CASE. UNITED STATES SENATE, Hon. HERBERT R. O'CONOR, Subcommittee on Reorganization, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR HERBERT: Thank you for your letter of February 13 about legislative procedure. I would make two suggestions if I may: 1. That the General Accounting Office, as the agent of the Congress, give expert advice on the budget as submitted by the President and aid Congress in appraising it. Failing this, that the Committees on Appropriations be given additional staff help, i. e., an average of two experts per subcommittee, so they can work the budget over. 2. That debate on irrelevant topics not be permitted while a bill is under consideration but that the 5 o'clock hour be set aside for the discussion of general topics which a Senator may wish to air. I believe the Reorganization Act has been of great value (a) in providing Senators with administrative assistants, (b) in staffing committees better, and (c) reducing the number of committees to a manageable size. Faithfully, PAUL H. DOUGLAS. UNITED STATES SENATE, March 7, 1951. Hon. HERBERT R. O'CONOR, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR HERBERT: I appreciate very much your letter of February 7 and your request that I submit to you certain reactions and suggestions in regard to your subcommittee's review of the operation of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. You are probably aware of the fact that an article by me appeared in the September 1950, issue of The American Political Science Review. The article, The Senate on Trial, presented some of my views on this question. I would, therefore, appreciate it if you could incorporate that article in the record of your subcommittee. At the outset, let me state that I consider the Senate to be one of the most outstanding legislative bodies in the history of modern parliamentary institutions. Its productivity is remarkable. Like all institutions, however, it must be constantly subject to review and its operation, therefore, constantly kept in harmony with the needs of an ever-changing and ever-complex society and world. In my judgment, the Senate is now at the point where it must change some of its rules in order to increase its efficiency and its response to democratic expression. First, with regard to the rules of debate in the Senate, let me say that in my opinion, one of the least defensible and most undemocratic procedures in our body is that which permits a minority to prevent a majority from acting. I believe in ample opportunity for debate and discussion, but free debate should never be used to frustrate the will of the Senate itself. The Senate has tried twice to correct the practice of unlimited debate: first in 1917, and again in 1949. The 1917 cloture rule came into being against a filibuster when President Wilson's armed ship bill had rendered the Government of the United States "helpless and contemptible." The 1917 cloture rule provided relatively little relief however, and in its 32 years' history was only successfully applied in but four instances: to limit debate on the Versailles Treaty in 1919, on the World Court issue in 1926, on a branch banking bill in 1927, and on a bill creating a Bureau of Customs and Prohibition in the same year. Since 1927, cloture was never successfully applied to debate in the Senate. The failure of the 1917 rule led to an effort in early 1949 to tighten that rule. In my judgment, the so-called Wherry compromise, also adopted by the Senate, is, in essence, no improvement over the 1917 rule and in some respects marks a retreat. My criticism of the existing rule adopted in 1949 is, for one thing, that under it a proposal to change the rules of the Senate is not subject to cloture. No motion to limit debate can thus lie against an attempt to change the Senate rule and any minority can thus, on this vital issue, tie the operations of the Senate in knots. Furthermore, by requiring the favorable vote of 64 Senators to close debate as compared by two-thirds of those present and voting under the 1917 rule, the present cloture procedure strengthens the rule of a minority to attempt to obstruct majority will in the Senate. I have no objections to reasonable delay; I am in full support of thorough debate; I respect the right of a minority to express itself fully and earnestly in its attempt to persuade the Senate. But I do not believe that it is democratic or wise that the will of any minority should prevail over any majority. The one advance made by the Wherry resolution, which I commend and urge we retain, is that which closed the loopholes in the 1917 rule and thus placed the reading of the journal and motions to take up bills within the definition of "measure" subject to cloture. To that should be added proposals to change the rules of the Senate itself, which should likewise be subject to cloture. Furthermore, I strongly recommend that the Senate should amend its rules so as to enable a majority of all its members to limit debate on any motion or other pending matter after a period of unlimited debate for a specified and reasonable number of days. I have to that end, therefore, cosponsored Senate Resolution 41 with Senator Morse, and last year cosponsored Senate Resolution 336, introduced by Senator Lehman, which I expect will soon be reintroduced with my support. Secondly, and with further regard to debate in the Senate, you and the members of the subcommittee could perform a real service by studying ways and means of limiting debate to those matters relevant to the business before the Senate. In Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice, there is a section providing that "No one is to speak impertinently or beside the question, superfluously, or tediously." No Senator has been called to order for irrelevancy since 1848. Our rules should be amended to require debate to be germane to the pending business. One proposal which merits consideration is to set aside certain periods of the day or week in which the rule of germaneness will not apply. This will allow Members of the Senate to fulfill their responsibility to other issues of public interest without interfering with orderly business operations in the Senate. A third suggestion I would make relates to the need for the Congress, in the light of increasing international responsibility, to review its huge nonlegislative workload now imposed on a Member of Congress. In my judgment, the hundreds of private bills for the payment of tort claims and for the suspending of immigration and naturalization laws in individual cases interferes with the efficiency of Congress. These matters should be referred to an appropriate and judicial agency. In addition, home rule should be granted to the District of Columbia for unsually large amounts of congressional time and attention is consumed in the aldermanic functions of the District of Columbia, which has been deprived of self-government since 1874. For Congress to perform efficiently it must limit itself to national legislation of national importance. In an attempt constantly to review the rules of the Senate, I have proposed in Senate Concurrent Resolution 3, introduced by me this session, the establishment of a Joint Select Committee on the Organization of Congress, which would report to the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments of both the Senate and the House and which would have the responsibility of making continued studies on the organization and operation of the Congress. These studies should include but should not be limited to a contant review of the operation of the Organization Act of 1946; the organization and operation of each House of the Congress; the relationship between the two Houses; the relationship between the Congress and other branches of the Government; the employment and remuneration of congressional officers and staffs; the structure and relationship of the various committees; and the ruling parliamentary procedure and practices of each House. Your own subcommittee's investigations are certainly within the spirit of this resolution and can perhaps provide the framework for constant joint congressional study. Finally, I wish to recommend to the attention of your committee my deep belief that the machinery for party responsibility and government in the Congress should be strengthened. I have recommended in the past that the party caucus be used more extensively for the information and promotion of party policies. I have likewise recommended the creation of joint policy committees in each party to be responsible to the two Houses for the formation of over-all congressional legislative strategy and programs. It is also my strong feeling in this respect that the party policy committees should make certain committee assignments, the select committee chairman having in mind the need, and the chairman and the members should be chosen upon the basis of ability and willingness to cooperate in carrying out the party program and not on seniority alone. Thank you very much for the opportunity to express myself to you on this most critical question. You and the members of the committee are performing a most valuable service, and it is an honor for me to offer my cooperation. Sincerely yours, HUBERT H. HUMPHREY. UNITED STATES SENATE, February 15, 1951. Hon. HERBERT R. O'CONOR, Chairman, Subcommittee on Reorganization, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR HERBERT: I appreciate your letter of February 7 advising that the Subcommittee on Reorganization of the Senate Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments is planning to review the operation of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. I am submitting an outline of suggestions, in line with your request: METHODS OF LEGISLATING MORE EFFICIENTLY 1. Reduce workload by: (a) Banning introduction of all private and local legislation, e. g., private claims, immigration, and deportation bills. (b) Granting home rule to the District of Columbia. (c) Referring election contests to the courts. (d) Stopping nonlegislative work for constituents. 2. Save congressional time by: (a) Electric voting in both Chambers. (b) Limitation of debate in the Senate. (c) Requiring Senate debate to be germane. (d) Staggering committee and Chamber sessions. (e) Central scheduling of committee meetings. (f) Administrative assistants to Representatives. (g) Installation of modern labor-saving machines. (h) Modernizing administrative organization of Congress. (i) Holding joint hearings on same subjects. (j) Place all postmasters and cadets under merit system. 3. Improve legislative staff aids via: (a) Expansion of Legislative Reference Service. (b) Expansion of professional committee staffs. (c) Modernize personnel administration on Capitol Hill. 4. Place more reliance on impartial expert witnesses and less on lobbyists. 5. Stop attaching legislative riders to appropriations bills. 6. Advance planning of legislative program. (a) See Senate Concurrent Resolution 62, Eightieth Congress, to provide for a legislative timetable for Congress. METHODS OF BETTER SUPERVISION AND LIAISON 1. Expand staffs of supervisory committees for performance of oversight function. 2. Spot-check service audits of executive agencies by GAO. 3. Periodic question periods for agency heads before supervisory committees. 4. Experiment with question time in the House. 5. Perfect parallelism of committee and administrative structures. 6. Enforce the fiscal control provisions of the Legislative Reorganization Act. 7. Create a joint legislative-executive council. 8. Establish departmental branch offices on Capitol Hill. 9. Consolidate all appropriations in one omnibus bill. 10. Synchronize elections of President and Congress for same terms to avoid divided party control. METHODS OF IMPROVING REPRESENTATIVE FUNCTION 1. Schedule sessions so as to allow regular recesses for contact with constituents. |