Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
The complaint about Congress which has been more or less chronic in this country's history became acute during the 77th Congress (1941–42). While some of the condemnation was abusive, personal, and partisan, much of it was a frank recognition of existing weaknesses emphasized by present responsibilities. Intelligent response to this criticism both inside and outside of Congress resulted in constructive suggestions intended to restore the representative branch to fullest prestige and usefulness. While far-reaching alterations in the working arrangements of Congress proposed by publicists and scholars may be completely sound, it would be naïve to assume that any reform could be imposed on Congress from without. Congressmen are notoriously jealous of their own prerogatives, and the only hope of modernizing the lawmaking branch rests with them. It is therefore highly significant that the members of the 78th Congress reacted to the criticism by introducing an unprecedented number of resolutions ranging from the smug suggestion for a committee to protect the integrity of Congress to two soul-searching recommendations for special committees to study all aspects of Congressional reorganization.
1 See Hazlitt, Henry, A New Constitution Now (New York, 1942)Google Scholar; Young, Roland A., This Is Congress (New York, 1943)Google Scholar; Galloway, George B.et al., “Congress—Problem, Diagnosis, Proposals,” in this Review, Vol. 36, pp. 1091–1102Google Scholar; “Our Form of Government,” No. 5 in the postwar series, “The United States in a New World,” Fortune, supplement, Nov., 1943.
2 H. Res. 13, 78th Cong., 1st Sess., introduced by Representative Clare E. Hoffman.
3 H. Res. 19, 78th Cong., 1st Sess., introduced by Representative Everett M. Dirksen, and identical resolutions (H. Con. Res. 54 and S. Con. Res. 23) introduced simultaneously by Representative Mike Monroney and Senator Francis Maloney.
4 S. Con. Res. 1, 78th Cong., 1st Sess.
5 Senator Vandenberg, Arthur H., in Hearing on Joint Committee on War Problems before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Military Affairs, Senate, 78th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 16.Google Scholar
6 Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., ibid., p. 9.
7 This opinion was rendered in a reply on December 27, 1941, to Senator Vandenberg's letter proposing an agency of liaison shortly after Pearl Harbor. The Maloney resolution is substantially the same as Vandenberg's proposal except for the title of the committee.
8 Senator Edwin C. Johnson emphasized this in the Hearing: “Your whole proposal is dependent upon the full coöperation of the President in this whole matter, and he has these agencies now, and if he does not utilize them, … why would you believe that he would want to consult with a super-committee, set up for the same purpose that the leaders are set up now?” Hearing on Joint Committee on War Problems, Subcommittee of the Committee on Military Affairs, Senate, 78th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 19.
9 Consultation might be completely assured if the central committee were made up of chairmen of the important standing committees and these chairmen were chosen by the party caucus, as Roland Young suggests. Op.cit., pp. 251–253.
10 Hearing on Joint Committee on War Problems, p. 11.
11 Cong. Rec., 77th Cong., 1st Sess., Vol. 87, p. 5081, June 12, 1941.
12 S. Res. 169, Cong. Rec., 78th Cong., 1st Sess., Vol. 89, pp. 7259–7261.
13 H. Res. 19, 78th Cong., 1st Sess.
14 H. Con. Res. 54, 78th Cong., 1st Sess., and S. Con. Res. 23, 78th Cong., 1st Sess.
15 H. Res. 22, 78th Cong., 1st Sess.
16 An additional joint committee, having as its purpose checking the executive, is discussed below.
17 S. 764, 78th Cong., 1st Sess.
18 H. Con. Res. 8, 78th Cong., 1st Sess.
19 H. J. Res. 10, 78th Cong., 1st Sess., introduced by Representative Dirksen.
20 Cong. Rec., 77th Cong., 2nd Sess., Vol. 88, p. 8647, Oct. 1, 1942.
21 S. J. Res. 22, 78th Cong., 1st Sess., introduced by Senator Claude Pepper.
22 H. Con. Res. 3, 78th Cong., 1st Sess., introduced by Representative Dirksen.
23 H. Con. Res. 2, 78th Cong., 1st Sess., introduced by Representative Dirksen.
24 H. Res. 327, 78th Cong., 1st Sess.
25 Cong. Rec., 78th Cong., 1st Sess., Vol. 89, pp. 9565–9570, Nov. 12, 1943.
26 New York Times, Nov. 21, 1943.
27 Cong. Rec., 78th Cong., 1st Sess., Vol. 89, p. A4036, Sept. 14, 1943.
28 H. Res. 102, 78th Cong., 1st Sess.
29 Cong. Rec., 78th Cong., 1st Sess., Vol. 89, p. 913, Feb. 11, 1943.
30 78th Cong., 1st Sess., House Report No. 699, July 27, 1943.
31 78th Cong., 1st Sess., House Report No. 898, Nov. 29, 1943.
32 78th Cong., 1st Sess., House Report No. 862, Nov. 15, 1943. “Distrust of the good faith of the executive departments in interpreting the powers granted,” the report stated, “will inevitably discourage and deter the Congress from delegating those powers essential to the efficient functioning of government” (p. 2).
33 New York Times, Nov. 16, 1943.
34 House Report No. 699, p. 3. In its second report the committee declared that “where legislation is drafted by officials to implement their own authority, the resulting legislation is almost invariably far broader than necessary to effect its declared purpose and object.” House Report No. 862, p. 4.
35 See Hart, James, “The Exercise of Rule-Making Power,” President's Committee on Administrative Management, Report with Special Studies (1937), p. 325.Google Scholar
36 The members of the Smith Committee voted consistently in favor of price administration when that subject was under consideration in Congress. Only one of them, Representative Clare Hoffman, spoke against the Emergency Anti-Inflation Bill. Cong. Rec., 77th Cong., 2nd Sess., Vol. 88, pp. 763–764.
37 An additional committee would be set up by S. Res. 196 with the very broad mandate “to investigate the authority of the President to issue executive orders, and the effect of their enforcement upon the national economy and constitutional democracy.” A joint committee whose powers would cover a similar wide range would be established by H. J. Res. 173 “to obtain complete information with respect to the functioning of the executive departments and independent agencies of the government.”
38 H. Res. 60, 78th Cong., 1st Sess., introduced by Representative Jerry Voorhis, and H. Res. 186, 78th Cong., 1st Sess., introduced by Representative Earl R. Lewis.
39 Rep. Voorhis, in Cong. Rec., Vol. 89, pp. 561–562, Feb. 2, 1943.
40 Ibid., p. 7260, July 5, 1943.
41 H. J. Res. 66, 78th Cong., 1st Sess.
42 See Millett, John D. and Rogers, Lindsay, “The Legislative Veto and the Reorganization Act of 1939,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 1, pp. 176–189 (Winter, 1941).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43 Senator Maloney, Francis, in Cong. Rec., 77th Cong., 1st Sess., Vol. 87, p. 5200, June 13, 1941.Google Scholar
44 Cong. Rec., 77th Cong., 2nd Sess., Vol. 88, p. 7945, Oct. 1, 1942.
45 Clarence Cannon, chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations, referred to by Macmahon, Arthur W. in “Congressional Oversight of Administration: The Power of the Purse, I,” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 58, No. 2, p. 187 (June, 1943).Google Scholar
46 See Lindsay Rogers, “The Staffing of Congress,” ibid., Vol. 56, pp. 1–22 (Mar., 1941).
47 H. J. Res. 57, 78th Cong., 1st Sess., introduced by Representative Dirksen.
48 H. R. 2468, 78th Cong., 1st Sess. A bill of a similar nature, but with provision that the compensation of personnel be paid out of the appropriations of the Department, was introduced by Senator Bone. S. 1556, 78th Cong., 1st Sess. Both Representative Cochran and Senator Bone explained that they proposed these measures (to permit committees to continue to use experts from executive agencies) after the Comptroller General had ruled that a select committee cannot secure help from government agencies unless the matter being investigated has a direct bearing upon the activity of the agency when the request is made.
49 H. Res. 69 provided the staff and H. Res. 116 made the appropriation.
50 S. Res. 193, 78th Cong., 1st Sess.
51 H. Res. 325, 78th Cong., 1st Sess. The funds for these examiners would be provided by H. Res. 326.
52 H. Res. 358, introduced by Representative Fritz G. Lanham. This measure had been introduced earlier in the session by Representative Lanham as a bill, H. R. 83.
53 Letter to the author from Representative Lanham, Oct. 12, 1943.
54 H. R. 30, 78th Cong., 1st Sess.
55 H. R. 3275, 78th Cong., 1st Sess. This appropriation reveals Representative Jones' idea of the “enormity of the task,” which he feels similar proposals introduced by other Congressmen do not recognize. Representative Dirksen's bill to establish a Federal Efficiency Service appropriates only $2,000,000.
56 H. R. 3274, 78th Cong., 1st Sess.
57 Letter from Representative Robert F. Jones to the author, Oct. 20, 1943.
58 H. R. 3273, 78th Cong., 1st Sess.
59 Letter from Representative Jones to the author, Oct. 20, 1943.
60 Pearson, Norman, “The Budget Bureau; From Routine Business to General Staff,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 3. No. 2, p. 217 (Spring, 1943).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
61 See the author's Rôle of the Governor of Michigan in the Enactment of Appropriations (Ann Arbor, 1943), p. 168.
62 Macmahon, Arthur W., “Congressional Oversight of Administration: The Power of the Purse, II,” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 58, No. 3, p. 411 (Sept., 1943).Google Scholar
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.