I know a great many of the witnesses who have appeared before this committee are very well experienced in legislative matters, and have recommended abolishing the rule of seniority, but have not recommended a formula. I do think a substitute formula can be devised in which experience will play a part in the selection of committee chairmen, and perhaps committee members as well.

The VICE CHAIRMAN. The American Political Science Association. makes a little enlargement on your suggestion. They have suggested rotating chairmanships. The chairman would be limited to a fixed term, and the next in seniority would come on-a practice which would probably make the seniority system work rather better than our present practice which limits the application of the seniority system. to whomever happens to be in that spot at the time, and he stays there until he retires from Congress, blocking off probably just as able a man who has had almost the same amount of experience.

Mr. KORNBLUM. A suggestion has been made about limiting the terms of chairmen, and then the possible rotation of chairmen.

Mr. GALLOWAY. To keep the record straight on that, Mr. Kornblum, it is true the National Planning Association in one of its recommendations suggested a modification of the seniority rule, but they did not recommend a substitute for it.

Mr. KORNBLUM. That is quite right. I think the study said in so many words that they had no substitute formula for seniority, but they recommended that some substitute should be devised.

There should also be uniformity in the method of selecting committee members. For example, in the House, minority committee members are now chosen by a committee on committees elected at a party caucus, whereas the majority members are selected by the Members of the House Ways and Means Committee after their election by the House. Selection in all cases should be by an elected committee on committees whose first task should be to ascertain the qualifications, experience, training, et cetera, of each Member of the House. It may be that in that way you can devise a substitute formula for seniority.

In other words, have this select committee on committees prepare some kind of a chart for each Member of Congress so that you can get a kind of portrait really from the point of view of experience in given fields, seniority and specialised training, and so forth. That may be the way to really work out your substitute formula. I don't know.

Third, formal policy committees:

There should be established for both Houses a formal joint majority policy committee and joint minority policy committee, the former to be composed of the Vice President, President pro tem, and majority leader of the Senate, Speaker and majority leader of the House, and the chairmen of all standing committees, the latter of the minority leaders of both Houses and the ranking minority members of the standing committees. These committees should, like the other standing committees, have regular, formal sessions, with fixed agenda, et cetera. Their proceedings, too, should be public and publicly recorded, save for executive sessions. The point of this recommendation is primarily to fix the locus of party responsibility for the legislative action on a national level.

70841-45-pt. 4- -14

Further, the joint majority policy committee would also serve as part of a legislative-executive council, to work with the Executive in the formulation of legislative policy and to strengthen liaison between the two branches of Government. This is now done, if at all, on an informal, casual basis. It is to be remembered in considering this recommendation that the Chief Executive is also the head of his party and should not have constantly to be forced to resort to the people over the heads of the Legislature and, especially, the members of his party in the Legislature.

In making this recommendation of the Union for Democratic Action, we are aware of the dangers of strengthening the "party whip" and the possible coercion of legislators seeking to assert their independence, but intelligent use by the people of the primary system of party nominations should provide safeguard against such party rebuff.

Here, again, to interpolate, I know this is a rather debatable recommendation in the sense that there are possible dangers besides the matter of party coercion, the question of shifts in majority control of the House, and things like that.

But there, again, if there is a shift in the majority control of Congress in the midst of a Presidential term, and no corresponding shift in the Executive, then the minority party policy committee can be the legislative cabinet. But the need for uniform action in government will be so urgent in the postwar that party issues will have to be overcome if we are to get along.

Mr. GALLOWAY. It might be noted in passing that this differs from the corresponding proposal of the Political Science and the Heller reports in proposing a joint policy committee.

Mr. KORNBLUM. I know that the Heller report advocates a bicameral policy committee. The danger is in having these joint committees exercising too much power over the Executive. I know they recommend policy committees for each House.

Mr. GALLOWAY. I think a further consideration was that a joint policy committee so composed might be too large in size to function effectively, that it might be unwieldy.

Mr. KORNBLUM. And the fears of the Members of the House of Representatives on the policy committee that in a joint committee the Senators would exercise too much influence.

And then again, as I recall, the Heller report indicated not only that such a committee would be unwieldy and exercise perhaps too much power, but the danger of a shifting majority in the House of Representatives as distinguished from the Senate, and the problem that that would entail. That too might be overcome by having the minority policy committee of the House in effect join with the party policy committee of the Senate.

I think calling it "majority" and "minority" is a matter only of appellation.

I think the importance of this recommendation is the concept of having established in each House, or jointly, policy committees which would fix party responsibility on a national level rather than in this local or regional way as it now is. I think that is pretty well agreed by most observers.

The VICE CHAIRMAN. Isn't it the logical thing to have the party machinery in each House which holds its position because of the party's control of the House amenable to the party policy? And

then the individual voting Member of Congress is, of course, free as an individual, but not as a committee officer, to exercise his own particular judgment and to represent his own particular region?

Mr. KORNBLUM. That is quite right, and that is the implication of this recommendation. In no way is the independent legislator to be bound by the action of the majority or minority policy committee. Fourth, committee proceedings:

Save for executive sessions, the proceedings of all committees should be open to the public and be made matters of public record. In addition, the rules should be amended so that committee chairmen should be required to call committee meetings when requested by a majority of the members. More importantly, when a committee has taken favorable action on a bill it should be reported within a reasonable time after such action or else any member of that committee should be privileged to report the bill. As matters stand now, favorable committee action on a bill is no assurance that it will get to the floor; it may be held up indefinitely by the committee chairman or by the Rules Committee.

We recommend also that the number of signatures required on a petition to discharge a committee from consideration of a pending bill or resolution in the House be reduced from one-half of the Members, or 218, to one-third, or 145.

Again I would like to interpolate.

I know there are definite limitations to the powers of this special joint committee. I know it does not have the power to recommend revision of the procedural rules in Congress. It may be that such a recommendation could be considered, however, in relation to committee procedures, and in regard to committees I know the resolution does give rather broad powers to this select committee.

The VICE CHAIRMAN. We are definitely limited. We cannot go through the doors of the House of Representatives or the Senate Chamber. We can work from the door of the Chamber backward through the committees.

Mr. KORNBLUM. Fifth, committee staffs:

The staffs of congressional committees should be implemented with independent, qualified experts to be attached directly to the committees. For this purpose, adequate salaries will have to be provided and, therefore, the appropriations to each committee increased.

In addition, the appropriations for the Legislative Reference Service and the Office of Legislative Counsel should be increased so as to permit their expansion and to implement their research and legal facilities, not only to aid the work of the committees, but also to provide greater assistance to the individual Members of Congress. Again, to interpolate, I think there is pretty general unanimity on this type of recommendation. I know other witnesses have appeared before this committee who have been rather more specific in their recommendations about committee assistance than is this statement. The VICE CHAIRMAN. You would not have a continuation of patronage in selection of committee staffs and officers, would you?

Mr. KORNBLUM. We would generally join with the recommendation or suggestion made by the American Political Science Association study which I believe talks about a pool of such assistants, for example, in expanding the Legislative Reference Service which is now bound by civil-service rules on appointments, as I recall. I don't think that is true of the Office of Legislative Counsel, but I am not quite sure.

From the point of view of the major standing committees, I think we would join with the Heller report and give the power to the committees to select the qualified experts for their staffs. They would not, therefore, be bound by existing rules of civil service.

The VICE CHAIRMAN. But you would certainly need some very high degree of qualification rather than simple patronage selection.

Mr. KORNBLUM. You are quite right, and in addition, you would have to have a fairly attractive salary in order to get the services of a qualified expert in a given legislative field. No question about that. Drawing upon my own experience, I know that in some instances, you can, by the use of the civil-service processes, get highly qualified men in the field.

Of course, your field is sometimes very narrow for an expert in a given field. It may be that you would have a much broader area of selection if you were not restricted by civil-service rules. The point is, of course, for these committees to be privileged and empowered to get qualified experts to assist them in the committee work.

Mr. GALLOWAY. People appointed on merit rather than through political influence?

Mr. KORNBLUM. That is quite right.

Sixth, special investigatory committees:

Congress should be encouraged to make more timely fact-finding inquiries into basic problems affecting the Nation as a whole. If such inquiries are timely, they can lead and shape public opinion instead of, as in the past, being the result of it. The fact that such special committees can be used for antidemocratic purposes and as a personal vehicle, as in the case of the Dies committee, should not blind us to the constructive contributions that have been made by such special committees as the La Follette Civil Liberties Committee and the Truman committee, to use those as examples.

Here again I make a personal interpolation. One of the reasons for recommendations to reduce the number of major standing committees is also to eliminate the creation of ad hoc special investigating committees. The real import of this is that the special investigations should be carried on in timely fashion when done by a subcommittee of the standing committee.

Mr. GALLOWAY. A good example of that is the study of wartime health and education being carried on by a standing subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor, headed by Senator Pepper. Mr. KORNBLUM. Yes.

Appropriate increases should be made in the annual salaries of Congressmen. We suggest an immediate increase of 15 percent, in line with the Little Steel formula, and, at the conclusion of the war, fu ther increase to from $15,000 to $25,000 a year.

Again to interpolate. In our judgment, in considering this recommendation, we were aware that local justices on the Supreme Court beach draw $25,000 a year, and we really think that the job of Representative in Congress is equally important, if not more important. Crtainly we should give an adequate reward to our legislators for the'r services in the National Legislature.

Further, the Civil Service Retirement Act should be amended to mike Members of Congress eligible for retirement at a reasonable age, with appropriate pensions. We know the Heller report recommended

reduction of the retirement age to 55. We generally join with the recommendations made by these nonpartisan studies.

Personal assistance: Individual Congressmen should be given an increase in their allotment so as to enable them to retain at least one professionally qualified executive aide who would relieve the Member of much of the burden of both substantive and routine work-analyzing bills, conducting interviews, answering correspondence, and so forth.

Here again I suppose it would be a question about the method or manner of appointing such an assistant. I think the appointment should be strictly a matter for the individual Congressman, but the implication and import of this recommendation is that the individual Congressman should be privileged to pay a high enough salary to a professionally trained, highly qualified assistant.

Senator PEPPER. It would also have to be someone with whom the people of his State or district would work with reasonable satisfaction in order to take the load off the Senator or Congressman.

Mr. KORNBLUM. We generally join with that, but the important part is to get a professionally trained assistant rather than some ordinary clerk to assist the individual Congressman.

Senator PEPPER. The man should be paid at least $7,500 and if congressional salaries are moved to $15,000, it might not be a bad idea to make it $10,000.

Mr. KORNBLUM. In order to get a professional qualified aide, you will have to give a decent salary.

Senator PEPPER. In addition to that-I don't know if the public is aware of it-the base pay for secretaries of Members of the Senate is $3.900.

Now, I think the limit is $4,500 and you can use the money in your office as you will. My understanding is that up until a little while ago, my secretary got $3,900, and he now gets $4,500.

Then the next position in the office has a base of $2,400. What a Senator has now is a secretary with a base pay of $3,900, and the next is $2,400 and the next is $2,220, and the rest are $1,800.

Who is going to handle the burden of your mail? One secretary can't take any load off the Senator and see the people who come to the office that the Senator can't see, answer the telephone, make telephone calls, and go to the departments from time to time and at the same time carry the burden of all the mail; that which the Senator does not answer personally and that which the secretary can't answer has to be turned over to a $2,400-a-year person and you have only one of those. So you see what a Senator, for example, is up against, and it is the same way relatively with House Members.

Mr. GALLOWAY. As a minor qualification to that statement, under the increased Clerk Hire Act passed by the last Congress, the top salary now payable to a Senator's clerk is $5,040.

Senator PEPPER. In my case I have not enough stenographers to answer my mail anyway, and instead of paying more to the ones I have got, as I would like to do, I have to keep their pay down. I think my secretary told me the other day I have $1,020 or something like that, and I have to find enough to add to that to justify another $1,800-girl instead of giving the others an increase.