Congressional Reform: The Clash with TraditionAuthor(s): Bruce HopkinsSource: American Bar Association Journal, Vol. 54, No. 1 (JANUARY 1968), pp. 80-83Published by: American Bar AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25724294 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 18:58

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

American Bar Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AmericanBar Association Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.31.195.96 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:58:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Department of Legislation Charles B. Nutting, Editor-in-Charge

The first session of the 90th Congress having ended, it is appro

priate to inquire as to whatever happened to the Legislative Re

organization Act of 1967, passed by the Senate in March of that year. The following article tells us. It is an interesting but discouraging comment on the legislative process. The author is legislative assistant to a member of Congress.

Congressional Reform: The Clash with Tradition

by Bruce Hopkins

HE HOUSE of Representatives, one recent August afternoon, hurriedly shouted through a bill doubling mem bers' travel allowances. Cloaked in an

onymity, the Representatives briefly considered the bill and the measure

passed?without a record vote. This action not only caused a cynical public once again to question Congress's pro fessed intention to reduce federal

spending, but underscored the stark realities of Congressional reorganiza tion: why such reform is sorely needed and why it appears doomed.

A voice vote on a change in the rate of compensation for members of Con

gress would be prohibited by one of the provisions of a comprehensive re

form bill, the Legislative Reorganiza tion Act of 1967 (S. 355), which over

whelmingly passed the Senate early in

March, but was promptly imprisoned in the House Rules Committee. The bill resulted from the work of a bipartisan Joint Committee on the Reorganization of Congress, established by the pre vious Congress and assigned to draft a

reorganization plan for the House and Senate. Six Senators and six Represent atives served on the joint committee, and membership was equally divided between the parties. The committee held forty-one public hearings and re ceived the views of more than 200 wit nesses. Today the reform bill is lying moribund in the Rules Committee and

faces slim prospects for consideration on the House floor. A hearing was held for part of one day in April, but no further action has been scheduled.

Opposition members, however, have

been subtly sabotaging the bill by in

troducing its more salient features as

separate measures. For example, to sat

isfy public pressure for strong action

following the expulsion of Adam Clay ton Powell, the House in April estab lished a Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, with instructions to

develop an enforceable ethics code for members and employees. In May, the House adopted a resolution creating seventy-eight new positions on the Cap itol Police Force. Both the standards committee and the strengthening of the

police force were appealing features of the Congressional reorganization bill.

Compensation of members of Con

gress was removed from consideration

as part of the reform plan by House ac

tion on the Postal Revenue and Federal

Salary Act in October. A commission was created composed of representa tives of the legislative, judicial and ex ecutive branches and charged with re

sponsibility for determining high-eche lon federal salaries, including those of

House and Senate members. If recom mended by the President, the commis sion's determinations become law, un

less disapproved by Congress. Commenting on the August enact

ment of a travel allowance increase,

one member of Congress took the House floor to remark that the increase "was another in the summer's discour

aging string of actions designed to ex tract the sweeter chunks from the Leg islative Reorganization Act and rele

gate the rest of the bill to the historical

graveyard reigned over by the House Rules Committee".

The first session of the 90th Con

gress is now over, the wake of its de

parture strewn with a staggering load of unfinished business. Much of its re

maining work is urgent, crucial and

anxiously awaited by the nation. But no business still unaddressed is more

conspicuous than Congressional reor

ganization. The blame for this failure must fall squarely on the House of

Representatives.

The Legislative Reorganization Act

contains five titles, each of which is

devoted to a principal element of Con

gressional reform.

Title I covers committee procedures and realigns the jurisdiction of several

standing committees. Title II provides for more complete budgetary data and new procedures relating to appropria tions. Title III increases the commit

tees' professional staff and provides the

minority with staff members. Title IV covers job services, the capitol police and pages, appointments of postmas

ters, and an August recess for Con

gress. Title V revises the Regulation of

Lobbying Act.

Relegated now to an obscure pigeon hole, the plan's principal fault is that it

clashes with cherished practices of the House power structure. Members who

gravitated into positions of leadership and influence arrived there by opera tion of the seniority system. Present

rules and traditional practices were

their vehicles to control. Since the re

organization plan tinkers with the sta

tus quo, it tends to frighten away those

whose support is needed most for pas

sage : the parties' leadership, committee chairmen and a majority of the Rules

Committee.

Once Congress was activated in

1789, one of its first moves was to

agree to work in committees. Subse

quently, great power has come to those members who are chairmen of the

80 American Bar Association Journal

This content downloaded from 185.31.195.96 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:58:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Department of Legislation

committees, each of which functions as a separate mini-legislature. Except for certain uniform rules provided in the 1946 reorganization act, every commit

tee is free to establish its own rules and

procedures. This flexibility serves as the wellspring for effective control by the chairmen, who generally control the agenda, appoint subcommittees and their chairmen, marshall the manage

ment of bills on the floor, dictate the

hiring and firing of committee staff and disburse travel funds.

Title I threatens the authority of committee chairmen by driving some

small but revolutionary wedges into

their power centers. The ability of the

chairmen to schedule meetings, keep them closed, keep votes secret, and em

ploy members' proxies is curtailed in

the bill. The measure would require the chairman of a committee to call a

meeting upon the written request of a

majority of the members and would

provide that the senior member of the

majority party may preside over meet

ings in the chairman's absence. Under other provisions, a majority of the committee members present would be

required for the reporting of bills, res

olutions, reports and the like. The

committee chairman could not utilize an absent member's proxy unless the member was informed of the matter to be voted on and had affirmatively re

quested that he be recorded by proxy. The committee activities would be

come less enmeshed in secrecy since

the meetings (except executive sessions or during voting) would be open to the

public and the committee report would contain the result of committee roll

calls, including a list of votes cast.

Hearings could be broadcast by radio or television, or both, under rules

adopted by the committee.

The package of committee procedure reforms embodied in Title I is de

signed to correct many problems con

cerning autocratic control, as recog

nized by the Senate Special Committee on the Organization of Congress. When the bill was reported, that committee said: "A majority of the committee should have the power to work its will after adequate deliberation. No single member of the committee?including the committee chairman?should be

empowered to obstruct or control arbi

trarily committee decision."

Of considerable importance to those who are concerned about the decline in the quality of floor debate, most nota

bly in the House, the reorganization plan provides for the filing of supple mental or minority views with respect to reported bills, printed as part of the committee report. The report would have to be filed at least three calendar

days before any vote is taken on the bill. Moreover, the committee would be

required to make every reasonable ef fort to distribute records of committee

hearings to members in advance of consideration of the particular bill.

Such reforms have been recom

mended in an attempt to provide mem

bers with information relating to the measures under consideration, includ

ing positions for and against the meas

ure, prior to the debate and voting. Ac cess to ready information, directly rele vant to the measure on the floor, could result in more meaningful participation in the proceedings and more informed

voting.

A provision for changes in commit tee jurisdiction encroaches on another sensitive area of controversy and has

prompted strong objections from mem

bers of committees which would lose

jurisdiction. The Senate and House Committees

on Banking and Currency would be re

designated as the Committees on Bank

ing, Housing, and Urban Affairs and would receive additional jurisdiction with respect to urban affairs in gen eral. A new Senate Committee on Vet

erans' Affairs would be established, with appropriate jurisdiction. The

counterpart House Veterans' Commit

tee has been in operation since the 1946 reorganization.

The current House Committee on Education and Labor would be divided into two committees, a new Committee

on Labor and Public Welfare, which would have jurisdiction over matters

relating to labor, including maritime unions and railroad labor, and a new

Committee on Education. The greatest controversy in this area of committee

jurisdiction is generated by the propos als relating to the Committee on Edu

cation, which would have jurisdiction

over measures concerning education in

general, plus additional jurisdiction transferred from two standing commit tees. From the House Committee on

Agriculture would come jurisdiction over agricultural colleges and exten

sion services and from the House Com mittee on Interstate and Foreign Com merce jurisdiction over public health

legislation and railroad labor meas ures.

The bill also revises the distribution of Senators on the various standing committees and places certain limita tions upon committee assignments. The

membership of "major" committees would be decreased from 223 to 200 and that of "minor" committees in creased from twenty-eight to thirty four.

Title II is designed to enhance the control by the legislative branch over national fiscal policy. The reform bill would require the Comptroller General, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Bureau of the Budget to develop, establish and maintain a

standardized information and data

processing system for budgetary and fiscal data, which would be used by all federal agencies. These officials also would be required to develop, establish and maintain standard classifications of programs, activities, receipts and

expenditures of federal agencies for the use of all three branches of govern

ment.

The Comptroller General would be

required to have available in the Gen eral Accounting Office employees who are expert in analyzing and conducting cost effectiveness studies of government programs. These experts would be

available to any committee to assist in

analyzing cost effectiveness studies fur

nished by federal agencies or to con

duct cost effectiveness studies of pro grams under a committee's jurisdic tion.

The Senate and House Committees on Appropriations, due to the unique ness of their functions, would be ex

empt from the committee reorganiza tions of Title I. However, Title II would require these two committees to conduct open hearings, unless the na

tional security or an individual's char

acter or reputation were involved.

January, 1968 Vol. 54 81

This content downloaded from 185.31.195.96 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:58:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Department of Legislation

These committees also could provide for radio and television broadcasting of their proceedings.

In an effort to bring the operations of the Committees on Appropriations into more consonance with other stand

ing committees, the reorganization bill would require the concurrence of a ma

jority of committee members present for the reporting of measures, limit the use of proxies, as in Title I, and re

quire that committee reports accompa

nying each appropriation bill include an analysis of the major factors taken into consideration by the committee in

recommending the appropriation. To combat the anonymity on the

House and Senate floor which often ac

companies politically unpalatable changes in money matters, the bill would require a record vote on final

passage of appropriation bills. More

over, it would require that no measure

increasing or decreasing the compensa

tion of members of Congress could be

passed unless the compensation modifi cation was set forth as a separate prop

osition from any other provision in the measure and that the proposition be

approved by record vote. A greater burden of scholarship and

legislative responsibility would be

placed on committees under the reorg anization plan. Each committee, when

reporting a measure, would be re

quired to include in the accompanying report an estimate of the cost of car

rying out the measure for the then cur rent and next five fiscal years (or the duration of the proposed legislation if less than five years). Extraordinary circumstances would permit a state

ment of the reasons why the furnishing of the estimate was impracticable.

Title III contains several provisions intended to improve the quality of in formation available to members of

Congress. The plan would increase the number of permanent professional staff members for all standing committees and would give minority members of committees the right to select some of the professional staff. Temporary or in termittent services of consultants or or

ganizations could be procured by the

standing committees, and professional members would be provided special ized training to enable them better to exercise their functions.

Each Senator would be authorized to

employ a legislative assistant to assist him in the performance of duties in

volving legislation. Travel allowances for members of Congress and employ ees in their offices would be increased. A study would be undertaken of the te

lecommunication requirements of Con

gress in order to formulate plans under which Congress would participate in the existing Government-wide leased line telephone system or establish its own leased-line system.

The Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress, which serves

additional information and research needs of the Congress, would be rede

signated as the Legislative Research Service. The bill restates, clarifies, re vises and broadens the duties of the

Legislative Research Service and in creases the compensation of research

specialists in an effort to provide serv ices of the highest quality to Congress.

Various internal reorganizations, staff

allotments and additional responsibili ties of the Service are recommended to

provide for the improvement, expan sion and co-ordination of the legislative research facilities available to the Con

gress.

Title IV is a catalogue of alterations and improvements intended to

strengthen the operation of the Con

gress as an institution. A Joint Com

mittee on Congressional Operations would be empowered to study the or

ganization and operation of both Houses and make recommendations to

simplify the operations of Congress, improve its relationships with the rest of the Government, and enable it better to meet its constitutional responsibili ties. The Joint Committee also would be responsible for informing Congress of any court proceeding or action of vital interest to either or both Houses and for arranging for appropriate rep resentation of Congress in such pro ceedings or actions. The necessity for

legal assistance to the Congress was most recently demonstrated in the case of Adam Clayton Powell, when mem bers of the House were subpoenaed and the possibility loomed of judicial en croachment onto legislative preroga tive. Furthermore, the Joint Commit tee would be required to study auto

matic data processing and information

retrieval systems to determine the fea

sibility of utilizing such systems in the

operation of the Congress. The reorganization plan also calls

for the establishment of an Office of Placement and Office Management of the Congress. Members, committees

and officers of the House would have access to the office for assistance in sat

isfying their personnel and office man

agement requirements. The plan directs the present Capitol

Police Board to formulate a plan for

converting the Capitol Police Force into a professional force. The board would be required to examine the fea

sibility of operating the capitol police according to standards comparable to

those utilized by the District of Co lumbia Metropolitan Police Force.

The requirements for Senate and House pages would be changed to pro vide that no person may serve as a

page until he has completed the twelfth

grade of school or during a session of the Congress which begins after his

twenty-second birthday. The page school would be abolished.

The bill would provide members of

Congress with an automatic adjourn ment or recess for one month begin

ning not later than July 31 of each

year.

Title IV also revises existing law

governing appointment of postmasters,

acting postmasters and rural carriers

in the postal field service, and makes administrative revisions in present law

relating to employee compensation, po

sition standards and descriptions, and

payroll administration in the House. Title V consists of several amend

ments to the Federal Regulation of

Lobbying Act. Administration of the act would be placed in the hands of the Comptroller General and certain

powers and duties would be conferred on him. The act would be amended to

apply to any person who solicits or re

ceives money or other consideration "a

substantial part of which is to be used to aid, or a substantial purpose of which person is to aid" in lobbying.

All contingent fee arrangements would have to be fully disclosed, state ments filed would have to be retained for five years and violation of the reg ulations of the Comptroller General would be a misdemeanor punishable by

82 American Bar Association Journal

This content downloaded from 185.31.195.96 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:58:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Department of Legislation

a fine not exceeding $5,000 or impris onment not exceeding twelve months or

both.

Most objective observers agree that

reorganization and reform of Congres sional practice and procedure is desira

ble and long overdue. Congress is in need of modernization, for in its two main areas of responsibility?lawmak

ing and oversight of the administration of the laws?there exists a lamentable

performance gap. Both new procedures and new techniques are immediately required so that Congress can shed out

moded legislative machinery and re sume a full role as watchdog of the

public purse. The Congress must be come more efficient and effective if this branch of government is to carry out its responsibilities properly.

The possibility remains that public demand may intensify to such a degree that the House will decide that it is ad visable to pass a reform measure. In

anticipation of such a development, several House members have intro

duced watered-down versions of the Senate plan.

The first revision to appear was drafted by majority party members of the Joint Committee on the Organiza tion of the Congress. Working inde

pendently of the other joint committee

members, these members slashed most of the proposed changes in committee

procedures and also effectively de

stroyed several provisions dealing with the privileges of minority members. Other sweeping changes included se vere restrictions on the broadcasting of

House hearings, deletion of the provi sions for equal time for debate on conference reports by opponents and

proponents, elimination of the author

ity of the Legislative Reference Service to establish an automatic data process

ing system, striking of all provisions relating to the procedures of the Com mittees on Appropriations, and dele tion of the requirement for a separate vote on measures changing the com

pensation of members of the Congress. Another version of the Senate bill

was prepared by a majority member of the Rules Committee. This version re tained minority staff assistance, but with limitations to preserve majority control of the committees. It also pro posed deletion of the changes in com mittee jurisdiction, restrictions on

proxies and the provisions for open hearings. It retained the provisions re

lating to oversight information in Title II and lobbying in Title V, yet re flected the author's view that too many

House traditions would be affronted by the Senate bill.

Viewers of the progress of reform would be mistaken to view the struggle as one between Republicans and Demo crats. The controversy transcends party lines and boils down instead to a clash between entrenched and reform-minded members.

While reform of the national legisla ture is a bipartisan endeavor, probably the prime stimulant for a plan accepta ble to both Houses is public support. All indications persist, however, that there is little public interest in

Congressional reorganization, despite the adverse publicity given to the

wrong-doings of individual members. Some members may seek to bring the

question to their constituencies during the 1968 campaigns. Indeed, the Re

publican Policy Committee in May unanimously reported a resolution stat

ing that "unless Congress is strength ened and new procedures and tech

niques developed, there is grave danger that the historical role of Congress as an essential check on the massive

power of the Executive may be danger ously diluted".

It is unlikely, nevertheless, that re

form can be converted into a campaign issue. Certainly it does not have the

impact of the war in Vietnam, a tax in crease or crime in the streets. Gener

ally, the public would approve of, and even applaud, Congressional reform.

Yet few voters will select their repre sentatives in Washington on the basis of which is the more ardent supporter of reorganization. The citizens of the

country either expect that the House and Senate will operate properly or feel that there is nothing they can do to correct any malfunctioning. It is not the type of national policy question that is normally subjected to public dialogue, in or out of an election year.

Therefore, the battle for reform will be fought not in the public spotlight, but behind closed doors on Capitol Hill. Prospects are not encouraging and if a reorganization proposal emerges from the House, it will almost

certainly be the product of appease ment and not of victory.

January, 1968 Vol. 54 83

This content downloaded from 185.31.195.96 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 18:58:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions