Government, Politics, and Citizen Involvement; Charles Whipple

Here to introduce this evening's next program is Richard Oleson, research associate and public affairs at Boston College. [Oleson] Good evening ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the 4th in our lecture series on government, politics and citizen involvement. Tonight we start the first of a two part discussion on the legislative process. Our lecturer this evening will center on the federal legislative process and our guest lecturer is Mr. Charles L. Whipple. Mr. Whipple is the editor of the editorial page of The Boston Globe. He's a lifelong resident of the Commonwealth and is a graduate of Lexington High School Phillips Exeter Academy and Harvard University. After a year at the Harvard Law School he came to the Boston Globe as an office boy. A year later in 1937 he was promoted to the night city staff. Since then he has served as a reporter, rewrite man feature writer editorial writer and chief editorial writer. During World World War 2 He served as a volunteer Red Cross

field director with the Air Force in the infantry in Europe. It's with a great deal of pleasure that I present to you Mr. Charles L. Whipple. Mr Whipple. [applause] Thank you very much Dick. Ladies and gentlemen I feel I ought to thank you too for coming it was quite a time getting here I believe for all of us. I'm sorry I've been delayed in my own appearance. I'd like to start out the talk tonight if I may by telling a story about General James McCormack who is now chairman of the trustees of the MBTA. I tell it because I think it illustrates a point I'd like to make a little later on. I found this story in the two volume diaries of David Lilienthal which were published a few months ago. In one of those volumes Lilienthal writes about his experiences with

the Atomic Energy Commission. And it seems one of the officers that he had to deal with on the AEC was General Jim McCormack. He tells this story in his diaries about McCormick it seems that when McCormick was a young major during World War 2 uh He was an aide of the great General George C. Marshall, then chief of staff, and the story concerns a very low point in our fortunes during that war. We seemed to be losing battles all around the globe and it on this occasion fell to the lot of major McCormack to watch the phone at the Marshalls office in the front of the Pentagon. Between the hours of midnight and 8 am. Marshall himself was on a global tour and due to arrive back home in Washington that night around

midnight. He did and went straight to his home in Virginia, and from there he called his office in the Pentagon and of course Major McCormack answered it. Major McCormack picked up the phone and said Yes sir. And General Marshall said this is General Marshall Major. Yes sir said Major McCormack. And then General Marshall said very innocently, what's going on? Major McCormack lost completely all sense of military protocol and said My God sir if you don't know who does. Well with whatever reflection that may seem to cast upon the experts I wanted to lead from that into a little booklet I've just read which touches I think very closely on the subject which I've been asked to discuss here tonight. It contains contributions from a number

of experts on the Congress and America's Future. That is the title of it it's in paperback it's just out it's a spectrum book and I highly recommend it. A group of political scientists some of them very eminent including David B Truman who has edited the book, Richard E. Neustadt of Columbia who's coming here shortly to be connected with the Kennedy Memorial Library. A number of other people have contributed to this and they make some very telling observations and what I'm going to do tonight if I may since you have asked me to talk on the federal legislative process and its operations and how it may be influenced by the citizen I'm going to discuss some of the ideas that they throw out offer a few observations of my own and then perhaps we can have what is always much more interesting than a talk, a good long

question and answer period. In the first place About the operations of our Congress I think we're all familiar with what are its constitutional powers with the House of Representatives' control over the purse, over of initiating appropriations with the Senate's powers of confirming nominations and with the power of Congress as a whole to oversee, so to speak, or to investigate. much of that is all spelled out in the Constitution. But there are the other powers that have grown up with history. I think it's well to remember that back in the early days certainly Congress was the kingpin or the linchpin of the federal government structure, it loomed a lot larger I think in the people's consciousness

than even the presidency which helps I think to explain why one of the early presidents John Quincy Adams felt no compunctions at all, indeed was honored after leaving the White House to become elected to a term in Congress and to serve in the Lower House. That was regarded then as a the great achievement. And while nobody was slighting the White House it was always in those days the Congress which was paramount. I think today there is good ground to suggest that perhaps the emphasis has shifted, has shifted to the executive branch of the government. Certainly Congress does not seem to be so powerful today except in the sense that it is powerful in the

direction of blocking things or frustrating programs. We all witnessed the first two years of that or almost three of the Kennedy administration when comparatively little President Kennedy's program was enacted into law. When bill after bill was held up in Congress we're all familiar I think with uh President, ex-president Harry Truman's labeling of one of the Congresses that sat under him as the do-nothing Congress and he campaigned on that issue nationally and won a rather unexpected surprise victory. Well he in that election I think you can say it was the victor in a representative election, an election that could be said to be a lot more representative perhaps than the elections,

the many of them that contributed to the formation of the do-nothing Congress. Since the days I think this marks the starting point since the days of Franklin D Roosevelt Congress does seem to these, many of these experts in in this book, to have lost its initiative. Instead of thinking up its own bills Congress expects the administration to present them and then Congress disposes of them. One of these political science professors claims that an estimated 80 percent of all bills in the last Congress that were enacted came from the executive department. Now this certainly is not a picture of a legislative body initiating its own legislation. Not when only one fifth of the law is

passed. The important laws passed were initiated in that Congress 4/5ths then now come from the White House or from the executive department. However other areas of congressional activity have increased. One is the field of investigations. And here's another statistic in that connection. More investigations under the authority of Congress have taken place in a recent 12 year period ending two years ago. Then in all the previous sessions of Congress put together. So that while Congress may be gradually diminishing one of its functions it does appear to be picking up in another. The very heart, as you probably all know of the Congressional system of operating is the committee system. I wonder how many of you

know how many committees there are actually. I wouldn't have myself guessed that it was this great. For besides the 36 standing committees of Congress, There are now more than 250 subcommittees. And this is where the real work gets done. The actual work of all of these committees has been very greatly strengthened by passage of the legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 right after the war. The seniority system is the basis of these committees and their formation. It's been much in the news particularly since the beginning of this year when as you all recall there was a row in Washington over seniority. these techniques of committee work

and of the seniority system which is used to fill the best committees. These techniques are techniques that are necessary in order for Congress to get its work done. It isn't like the simple picture that we are all taught in civics class in grade school where we're told all you have to do in a democracy is put things to a vote. The trouble is that there is many a stumbling block, many a road block, Many a gimmick along the way and they result quite naturally from the fact that a pure democracy and a deliberative body with no rules with simple majority votes. All of the time I suppose simply would not work. You have to have some kind of order, some kind of orderly procedure and

so they come up with rules and some of the rules can be quite important in making progress. Alas sometimes too often some rules can be quite important in blocking progress and it seems to many today that the seniority rule is one. However it has been defended as the only practical means of making the business of Congress orderly but it is where democratic rule can be frustrated. This seniority system grew in the House largely after 1910 when Speaker Joe Cannon had his dictatorial rule abruptly stopped in a revolt led by the late George W. Norris of Nebraska and others. In the Senate, seniority was almost finished off

just at the point it was beginning to grow in the house after Cannon got defeated. It was almost finished in the Senate in 1916 under Woodrow Wilson. There the senators were now for only three or four years it began in 13 being elected by popular vote and seniority had gotten a start but under Wilson's majority leader in the Senate a man named John W. Kern, seniority was on the way out and suddenly something happened: Kern got defeated for re-election. So seniority has flourished in the Senate ever since. But it wasn't always thus. Back in eighteen hundred eleven. The Congress thought nothing of electing as speaker men in their 30s. One was elected speaker as a matter of fact at the age of 30 and the great Henry Clay

was elected speaker at the age of 34. Immediately after having been elected to Congress it was in his first term. Obviously in those days seniority didn't count for much and you could be elected to a committee or the chairman of a committee. Or you could be elected even speaker on the basis not of your longevity or your survival quotient but rather on the basis of your ability. Well at any rate it does exist and while attempts have been made this year to pare it down I don't think too many people confidently expect that trend to continue long. Seniority will return. Now how representative is this Congress? The point is raised by some of these good professors writing in this booklet much has been made of the fact that in the Senate the votes

go two for each state, regardless of what the population of each state is. Little Nevada that is little in terms of population carries the same voting strength as big California or a big New York. On the other hand the House would seem on the surface to be more equitably based as far as representation is concerned. There is a certain set figure which is of people which is of voters which is represented by one congressman. But we have seen in recent years through considerable publicity how even that can be managed. We know now that the rural areas of the country through gerrymandering or through other factors have come to be favored and have come to have an over proportionate weight in the voting in Congress.

The Supreme Court decision last year while it's effect is only begun to be felt will undoubtedly have a good deal to do with diminishing that rural vote in the next 10 10 years. But still the fact remains that even with the diminishing rural vote and even with certain changes as in the south recently when some southern congressmen with safe seats lost their party designation, the fact remains though that the proportion of safe seats in the House of Representatives is extremely large. Two of the people in this book come up with the following that three fourths of all of the House districts this is in the National House of Representatives are relatively safe year after year.

And, they say, says one of them anyway, H. Douglas Price of the University of Syracuse in the eight most populous states which elect almost one half of the house. There are so many safe districts-- there are as many safe districts as in the 11 states of the South. Well it makes you sort of stop and think if a seat is safe it's going to be held term after term by the same man generally until he dies, he gets seniority he goes on to head committees. He comes to power. I question how democratic is it. And then we have in the operation of Congress the all important role of the Rules Committee in the house a particularly important role where there it acts as a force for the status quo

a force for conservatism. It's been said I believe the late President Kennedy gave one example of it in a famous radio television interview that it's easier to stop a bill in Congress than to pass one. And one of the chief reasons is the House Rules Committee. We're all familiar I think with the role played by Chairman Howard Smith in obstructing liberal or progressive legislation. He has had his wings clipped his sails trimmed in the last few years but he's still there. And I don't expect too much rapidly in the way of accomplishment in the next few years. In 1960 both Houses, the House and the Senate,

passed a federal aid to education bill but Rules Committee refused to grant a rule to let it go to a conference so that it could be finally enacted. In 1961, learning a lesson, the late speaker Sam Rayburn took on Chairman Smith in a knock-down-drag-out fight and won. And the rules committee was enlarged but it still wasn't enough to beat. It was still not enough to pass the Aid to Education bill or for that matter the Urban Affairs bill. The 21 day rule was adopted this year to expedite a Bills going through Rules Committee or were held up in the Rules Committee is not a new story. Congress did have that in 1949 to '50. Curiously enough right after Harry Truman's campaign against the do- nothing Congress. But it only lasted two years. Then the Southern Democrats and the Republicans are elected. Now the 21 day

rule is in again. But what's your guess? Two years? Four? six. Time will tell but there is one factor this year that we can point out that is encouraging, from-- not from a purely partisan political standpoint of whether the Republicans are right or whether the Democrats are right but from a standpoint of enabling a Congress to get its work done and to get its bills passed. And that is that for the first time in a long time since I believe almost in the days the early days of the New Deal you do have thanks to the Johnson landslide an overwhelmingly partisan Congress that happens to be democratic. But the same would be true if the control were in the hands of the Republican with a Republican president. You do have this overwhelming majority now which could conceivably serve to operate in the direction of Congress retrieving more of its power rather than

becoming more and more of a of a stumbling block to progress. Is Congress's power passing? I don't know the answer frankly. A lot of these boys who contribute to this booklet indicate that it is. they put all the emphasis on the White House. But as I say this new big majority has the chance to furnish us the answer. Here's one indication from Professor Neistat who as I said is coming here from Columbia he says today that the president and not Congress has the initiative in legislation and through his messages primarily but also because the important chairman of the important committee who used to be the authors of legislation now go to the White House for the bills to introduce. This is even apart from the messages and then here is another observation.

And this is a quotation again from Neistat. The most critical of government decisions the war or peace decisions have been snatched away from Congress by technology despite the plain words of the Constitution. Period end of quote. I think that's a fair observation. I wonder however whether or not only technology is responsible not only the terrifically speedy communication that we have today and the necessity for great speed in arriving at decisions on action in foreign affairs but I'm wondering if there isn't another aspect to it as well as technology. Simply that Congress itself perhaps is no longer in a position to judge all the facts in a

very complex situation. We have the case a couple of weeks ago in January 26 when the great Senator Fulbright of Arkansas chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate came out of a briefing with the CIA, hadn't announced that Something to the effect that there was no possibility of the South Vietnam Vietnamese government being overthrown and within eight hours it happened. Clearly there's a breakdown there and communication. Well at any rate those are the main points I think I wanted to make on the operations of the federal legislative branch but now we come to the remaining question which is how the citizen himself may influence Congress. And I think as most of you are well aware the most important point to be made there is the mail. Write your congressman. There's a massive tide of mail that comes in every day to Washington. Some of it

well organized by small pressure groups such mail can always be spotted. It is generally discounted by the congressmen and the Senators. it runs all alike. It runs in stereotyped form but the letters that do count are the ones that are written by individuals for themselves expressing their own thoughts and believe you me they almost always get an answer. I can recall only one case of a member of Congress who perhaps by force of circumstance did not give enough attention to his mail and that was our then junior Senator Henry Cabot Lodge. And I've heard some businessmen claim that it was not so much because he led the fight for Eisenhower and for and against Taft that they voted against him in this state when young Jack Kennedy ran against him for the Senate

they voted for Kennedy and not for Lodge they said because Lodge's office would never answer their letters. He was extremely busy in that year I know campaigning for Reich. That is true I believe that his office did not do the job they should have done on the mail. Now that is a rare occasion in Congress most letters get answered. They get answered pretty promptly a lot more so I'm afraid than let us do I read it as the glow and it does have an effect just as it does on newspapers. Many of the letters come in wanting congressman to be an errand boy do some chore a service with some government agency. Many come in. I want to know what's happened to their Social Security checks as one example. Many of the congressmen and senators have a separate secretarial staff just under a secretary just to handle the Social Security mail so you can see in what

volume this this stuff comes in and it does have an effect. How else then can the citizen influence Congress. He can be heard and should be heard. Where in too many cases the people heard are lobbyists or those representing special interests at the hearings of the committees that we've been talking about earlier. The committee hearings are most important because the tendency of both the House and the Senate on the floor is to accept the recommendations of the committee. So that's point number two that be heard at the committee hearings. If you can get there if you can't and you have a strong point of view send them a letter. It'll go into the record. Next point I think I've already made as a matter of fact but only by that procedure can the influence of special interest lobbies be counted. The last point on influencing Congress on the part of the

citizenry I think arises from the observation that these expert professors who have made in this booklet they urged that since now the emphasis is more on the initiative of the administration rather than Congress why not go through the administration. Many businesses do. They don't deal through Congress so much. And your special interest representative is more likely to sidle out of the side door of a bit of a hearing room of Congress and go over to an agency the executive department to get his point across knowing that from there it will come back to Congress anyway and may have more chance of being enacted. At any rate I think it is obvious from all this that the citizens voice is still heard in this land. And I think probably to a greater degree than ever before.

For in spite of all we've had to say about some bad practices in the current Congress the fact remains more voters are voting than ever before. The vote is more broad and widespread than ever before and certainly with the modern means of communication the interest of the general public is greater than ever before. At any rate I'm sure we can all agree that it is only with that guarantee that the citizen's voice will be heard that this can be made a continuing democracy. Thank you all very much and I hope you throw me some good tough questions. [applause] [Host] By recording you have heard the 4th lecture in a series sponsored by the Bureau of Public Affairs at Boston College on government, politics, and citizen involvement. Charles Whipple, editor of the editorial page of The Boston Globe,

spoke on the federal legislative process, its operations, and how it may be influenced by the citizen. This is the eastern educational radio network.