the biggest problem. Those who are in the majority and junior have a problem, too. And that is the reason you see the four last classes have banded together. This is an unparalleled precedent here, with the last four classes of Senators, Republicans, and Democrats, joined together. Now, we are not 100-percent united, but we are probably 80percent united.

And I think it does show that there is something wrong with the present system, that we need to change it. There has to be some relief given to those of us who believe in our right to participate with a staffer in some way.

I agree that we shouldn't overturn the chairmanship, but being a legislator also means that you have responsibilities through your staff.

So I think there are things we can do that won't ruin the system but will reform it. I am reminded, coming from the business world, that every business head in this country has access and the right to hire staff-that is fundamental. Every labor union head in this country has the right to hire and use a staff. I sit on the Appropriations Committee and without blinking an eye we appropriate a dozen jobs here, 100 jobs there-1,000 jobs there for the executive branch, without the blink of an eye. Yet here are 11 Senators almost fighting literally tooth and claw to get one staffer on one committee.

And that is a little bit what we are saying here, there ought to be a better way to do it. And if there is some jurisdictional problem between our two committees, as far as the one I serve on, we are certainly amiable to working them out. I am not sure that is the basic problem, but if there is we will certainly work on it.

So I hope the committee in holding these hearings will take the two different concepts in mind and try to work some kind of a compromise out along the line that Senator Hatfield has suggested. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, Senator, you said that to get one staff person for each committee-section 8(a) of the proposal would authorize additional clerk-hire funds to each Senator on each of the so-called class A standing committees to employ additional personal staffs in the amount of two additional employees on each committee at $34,881 per annum.

Senator SCHWEIKER. Yes; that is why I said at the start of my remarks, Mr. Chairman, that I thought Senator Hatfield's proposal, which I believe was one staffer, presented a good basis for compromise, because if we do innovate here and bring a new system-and I also think his concept of doing committee work is important. I am not arguing, as much problem as I have on staff for my Pennsylvania constituency-and I might say my Congressman from Pennsylvania. has nine times more staff than I do proportionally-I am not arguing that point today. All I am saying is that I think a staffer should do committee work and I think he should be integrated into the committee-chairman setup, like Senator Talmadge suggested.

I do not think the ideas, though, are irreconcilable. I think they can be blended in a way that there is a participatory role of the Senator and yet the staffer does work with the staff director and overall with the chairman, so that the chairman's ability to be chairman isn't really thwarted.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hatfield?

Senator HATFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions. I have talked with Senator Schweiker on this matter, and he has been certainly in a position to speak from experience, and, as a fellow member of the Appropriations Committee, we have especially had problems in trying to do our work on that committee as junior members and not have the opportunity of even having our personal staff at the time of markup in handling some of the data which is so important to our final decisions.

And so I welcome you here today, I appreciate your testimony. Senator SCHWEIKER. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Senator Haskell?

STATEMENT OF HON. FLOYD K. HASKELL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

Senator HASKELL. Mr. Chairman, I will be extremely brief. I came here to offer a case history for examination by the members of the committee.

My legislative committees are Interior and Finance. On Interior I am chairman of two subcommittees, on Finance I am chairman of one subcommittee.

In Finance, as the chairman and members of the committee know, Senator Long has asked for additional help. In Interior I have a very loose allocation of staff to my subcommittees.

Now, the staffs of both of those committees are first-rate. They are competent people. I will say that both of the chairmen are excellent chairmen, I consider them both to be good friends of mine. But as a matter of practicality, if I have a project-and if either Senator Jackson or Senator Long has a project at the same time-as a matter of human nature, who is going to get the attention?

Assuming people relatively newly elected to the Senate are to be effective I think it is absolutely essential that we have something in the nature of the Gravel resolution, as modified by the Hatfield proposal.

I wrote the chairman of the committee a letter this morning on this matter. On my desk yesterday came an article which I think illustrates the problem. The article is from a publication entitled "People and Taxes," dated April 1975. The operative quote reads: "IRS Congressional Oversight is Nil." The sentence reads: "A new Senate IRS oversight subcommittee, chaired by Senator Floyd Haskell (D.-Colo.) has no staff and no budget at all."

Mr. Chairman, in some respects it makes it look as if Don Quixote has a better chance of getting the job done than I do. And for that reason I think that something along the lines of the Gravel resolution, where people who are chairmen of subcommittees or people who are on committees have some direct access to staff to get the job done, is highly desirable.

Now, that is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman. I will be glad to attempt to answer any questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hatfield?

Senator HATFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I am privileged to serve with Senator Haskell on the Interior Committee, and I think this points up an interesting case study. It is an understatement. For this reason— Senator Haskell has indicated that he is chairman of two subcom

52-590-75—5

mittees, and I am privileged to serve on one of his subcommittees. There are nine majority members of the Senate Interior Committee. There are 32 staff members hired by the majority party, 6 hired by the minority.

And on this committee, of which Senator Haskell is chairman of two subcommittees, he is the sixth ranking Democrat out of the nine members of the majority party.

Now, I think this points up the difference in hiring policy between the committees-I am not making any critical comment, I am just making an observation. Senator Haskell is here today before this committee to indicate the inadequacy of his ability to perform the functions of his subcommittee assignments because of his lack of opportunity or the procedure that would provide him with selection of staff. Is this correct?

Senator HASKELL. Yes, this is correct. On the Interior Committee, there are two people-assigned to one of those subcommittees. I did not hire either of them, though both are very satisfactory. But unless you really have somebody of your own choosing, and you can say, "Look, my friend, you continue on this job at my pleasure," quite obviously, should the occasion arise, the chairman of any full committee would be able to preempt any of the staff people, even if they are assigned to someone else.

On Finance, Senator Long has asked for just the kind of thing the Gravel resolution contemplates. On Finance the committee staff are great, but obviously they are responsive to Senator Long and not to me. On my subcommittee in Finance I have had to assign two people from my personal staff to do the work. They have been helped by the Finance Committee staff, but I can't count on them as a regular definite thing.

Senator HATFIELD. Senator, I might point out that on the Finance Committee there has been no minority staff up until this year.

Senator HASKELL. And not yet.

Senator HATFIELD. Not yet.

Senator HASKELL. Not yet.

Senator HATFIELD. But you said you had staff assigned to you. Who assigns the staff on the Interior Committee to you as the subcommittee chairman?

Senator HASKELL. Well, I discussed the matter with Senator Jackson, and Mr. Quarles is assigned because of my conversation with Senator Jackson. A Mr. Williams is assigned, too. Mr. Quarles has had duties to perform for the chairman as well as duties assigned by me. I think a subcommittee chairman and the ranking minority member have a right to know they have somebody there all the time when they need him.

Senator HATFIELD. Senator, you had no part in the selection of these gentlemen to the full committee?

Senator HASKELL. That is correct.

Senator HATFIELD. And therefore you have had no part in the selection of these people to serve your subcommittee of which you are a chairman-except as a request.

Senator HASKELL. Except as a request.

Senator HATFIELD. But I mean, you have made a request for a number or for bodies rather than a specific person?

Senator HASKELL. Actually, I did make a request for a specific person in the case of Mr. Quarles.

Senator HATFIELD. Already a member of the staff.

Senator HASKELL. Already a member of the staff, correct.

Senator HATFIELD. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. One of the problems as I see it is that we have committee staffs who are inherited as people go on the committeeand if we were to change simply because we got a new man on the committee, we fired somebody and put new staff people on, it could very rapidly disintegrate the expertise of the staff that has been accomplished over a period of years.

I know that has been my situation on Armed Services Committee. I have been on the Armed Services Committee for 17 years, and I have never had a staff person appointed or one accountable directly only to me, even though I am the chairman of three subcommittees.

But I have various members of the staff who work with me, but they are highly specialized people, they are part of an expert staff. And I inherited them and I have never attempted to try to get one of them fired so that I could put someone on of my own choosing.

Senator PELL. If the Senator would yield there, I have seen something of the opposite process starting to take place in the Foreign Relations Committee, that we have had that same expert unified staff in the past-and there is a tendency now to appoint staff members responsible to individuals. And it, in my view, is not having a good effect on the overall competence of the staff.

Senator HASKELL. May I make a suggestion, gentlemen? It seems to me that you could have a small core of experts as staff members, and that then subcommittee chairmen and ranking minority members could have people of their own choosing.

To use myself as an example, I would not choose anybody else than the person who was recently assigned to my subcommittee. He is a very competent man. If I am defeated or something, somebody takes my place, the chances are pretty good that he would continue to keep him on the subcommittee staff but I think the important thing is knowing that the person is responsible to you.

Now, that is the guts of it.

Senator HATFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to second that comment, and I think it is not an irreconcilable situation that Senator Pell and Senator Cannon have described here today. I think we could very well adopt a system similar to that in a change of Presidential administration. The chief staff of the President is in effect a cabinet, but that cabinet does not just continue on, because there is a change of personnel in the office of President. I think if all the professional staff and everyone offered their resignations every time there is a change in chairmanship and give that new chairman the opportunity to rehire, which he probably would do in most instances, at least we would break this kind of bureaucratic longevity that I think freezes in an awful lot of problems and creates the problems that we are trying to deal with today.

After all, we are not here in perpetuity, we are only here on a 6 year term. And I think sometimes that staff is far better off than the Senators are, as far as having longevity or having seniority or having job security.

Senator HASKELL. I do think there is a compromise, Mr. Chairman. I see we probably have a vote. I don't mean to delay you, but I will be glad to answer questions as long as you have them.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you want to comment on that?

Senator HASKELL. I think, Senator Hatfield, that something like that would work. Maybe you could have subcommittee staff and when you would get a new subcommittee chairman, they would go through the process you are talking about. My hunch is that if you have competent folks, 9 times out of 10 you would keep them on.

But it is a question of whom they are directly responsible to.
Senator HATFIELD. Exactly.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. There are a number of statements that have been submitted by Senators Randolph, Pastore, Proxmire, Moss, McGee, Sparkman, Abourezk, Biden, and the chief of staff of the Foreign Relations Committee. Those will all be made a part of the record-and others as they are submitted. [The documents referred to follow:]

Hon. HOWARD W. CANNON,

UNITED STATES SENATE, Washington, D.C., April 30, 1975.

Chairman, Committee on Rules and Administration,
U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR HOWARD: I hope you will give the most serious consideration to the request being made by Senator Bill Brock and others before the Rules Committee today concerning committee staffing arrangements. The growing difficulties we are all facing, I believe, require a new look and new action by the Senate. I will be grateful for your help. Sincerely,

HOWARD H. BAKER, Jr.

UNITED STATES SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,

Washington, D.C., April 23, 1975.

Hon. HOWARD W. CANNON,

Chairman, Committee on Rules and Administration,
U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR HOWARD: Your letter of April 18, 1975, requests my views on S. Res. 110. As Chairman of the Committee on Public Works I will share with you the consensus expressed by Members of the Committee on Public Works as we discussed our budget proposal for the coming year. It was agreed that additional staff assistance would enhance the ability of Members to carry out their activities with respect to the Committee.

Section 9 of S. Res. 110 dealing with Committee staffing is a matter of serious concern. The staffing request which we presented to the Rules Committee was agreed on after discussion with the Members and reflects their evaluation of the Committee schedule and workload. The appropriate time to discuss the need for additional personnel is during consideration of the Committee budget. It is my greatest fear that the approach suggested in S. Res. 110 would adversely affect the accountability of Committee staff to all of the Members of the Committee. It would tend to fragment the cohesive operation of the Committee as it has evolved over the past quarter of a century.