Bibby & Davidson 1972 - On Capitol Hill (2nd Ed) - Chapter 8 - Legislative Reorganization Act

7/21/2019 Bibby & Davidson 1972 - On Capitol Hill (2nd Ed) - Chapter 8 - Legislative Reorganization Act

1/31


2/31

Legislatures

are creatures o conflic t, and Congress

is

no

exception.

U

ni

q

ue

l

y

ex

p

o

s

e

d

a

n

d

in

t

e

n

se

l

y

p

o

l

it

ic

a

l

,

it

i

s

t

h

e

o

bj

e

c

t

o

t

h

e

c

o

m

b

in

e

d

aw

e

a

n

d

d

en

i

g

r

t

io

n

w

it

h

w

h

ic

h

A

m

e

ri

c

an

s

v

ie

w

t

h

e

ir

el

e

c

te

d

o

ff

ic

i

al

s

.

In

t

h

e

p

a

s

t

fe

w

de

c

a

de

s

C

o

n

g

re

s

s

h

a

s

e

n

d

u

re

d

p

e

r

io

d

ic

c

r

it

ic

i

sm

fr

o

m

b

o

t

h

sc

h

o

la

r

s

a

n

d

ot

h

er

c

i

ti

ze

n

s

fo

r

it

s

i

ne

f

f

ic

i

en

t

p

ro

c

e

d

u

re

s

,

i

ts

u

n

d

em

o

c

ra

t

ic

s

tr

u

c

tu

r

e

,

a

n

d

i

ts

p

ol

it

ic

a

l

s

h

o

rt

co

m

in

g

s

,

w

h

e

t

h

e

r

r

ea

l

o

r

im

ag

i

n

e

d.

T

h

es

e

c

r

it

ic

i

s

m

s

,

to

g

e

t

h

er

w

i

th

g

r

ea

t

er

e

x

e

cu

t

iv

e

p

a

rt

ic

i

p

a

ti

o

n

i

n

l

e

g

is

la

t

iv

e

fu

n

c

t

io

n

s

d

i

sc

u

s

se

d

i

n

C

h

a

p

t

er

7

),

h

av

e

c

a

ll

e

d

in

t

o

q

u

e

s

t

io

n

th

e

v

e

ry

su

r

v

iv

a

l

o

o

u

r

n

a

ti

o

n

a

l

le

g

i

sl

a

tu

r

e

as

a

v

i

ab

l

e

p

ol

ic

y

-m

ak

i

ng

in

s

t

ru

m

en

t

.

N

o

r

h

a

s

C

o

n

g

re

s

s

re

m

a

in

e

d

u

nm

o

v

e

d

i

n

th

e

fa

c

e

o

e

x

t

e

rn

a

l

c

h

a

ll

en

g

e

s

.

In

re

c

e

nt

de

c

a

d

es

m

a

n

y

in

s

t

it

u

ti

o

n

a

l

a

lt

e

r

at

i

o

n

s-

f

o

rm

a

l

a

n

d

i

n

fo

r

m

a

l

,

p

la

n

n

e

d

a

n

d

u

n

p

la

n

n

e

d-

h

a

v

e

o

c

c

u

rr

e

d

o

n

C

a

p

it

o

l

H

i

ll

.

T

h

e

m

o

d

e

rn

h

is

to

r

y

o

C

o

n

g

re

s

s

p

r

o

b

a

b

ly

b

eg

i

ns

w

i

th

th

e

la

n

d

m

a

rk

L

e

g

is

la

t

iv

e

R

e

o

rg

a

n

i

z

at

i

on

A

ct

o

1

9

4

6

,

s

p

u

rr

e

d

b

y

th

e

e

x

te

n

s

iv

e

in

v

e

st

i

ga

t

io

n

s

o

a

j

o

i

n

t

c

o

m

m

it

te

e

c

h

ai

r

ed

b

y

S

e

n

a

to

r

R

o

b

e

r

t

M

.

L

a

F

o

ll

e

tt

e,

J

r.

P

r

og

.

-W

i

s.

),

a

n

d

R

e

pr

e

s

e

n

ta

ti

v

e

A

.

S

.

M

i

k

e

M

o

n

r

o

n

ey

D.-Okla.).

The

act producedfar-reachinginnovationsi

n

c

o

n

g

re

s

s

io

n

a

l

p

r

ac

t

ic

e

s

,

e

s

p

ec

i

al

ly

in

i

n

cr

e

a

si

n

g

s

ta

f

f

r

e

so

u

r

c

e

s

a

n

d

r

e

d

u

ci

n

g

th

e

n

u

m

b

er

o

s

t

a

n

di

n

g

C

O

m

m

i

tt

ee

s

;

s

om

e

o

t

h

er

r

ef

o

r

m

s

,

p

a

r

ti

c

u

la

r

ly

i

n

f

i

sc

a

l

p

r

o

c

e

d

ur

e

s

,

f

e

ll

b

y

t

h

e

w

ay

s

id

e

. M

an

y

m

in

o

r

i

n

n

o

v

a

ti

o

n

s

h

a

v

e

o

c

c

u

rr

e

d

s

~

e

W

o

rl

d

W

a

r

I

I

in

r

es

p

o

n

s

e

t

o

t

he

i

n

c

re

a

si

n

g

w

o

rk

lo

a

d

s

o

in

d

i

v

id

u

a

l

m

e

m

b

er

s

.

O

t

h

e

rs

h

av

e

ar

i

se

n

fr

o

m

th

e

e

b

b

a

n

d

f

lo

w

o

p

a

r

ty

f

o

rt

u

n

e

s:

T

h

e

a

d

v

e

n

t

o

a

D

em

o

c

ra

t

ic

a

d

m

i

n

is

tr

a

ti

.o

n

n

1

9

61

l

e

d

l

a

te

S

p

e

ak

e

r

o

th

e

H

o

u

s

e

S

a

m

R

a

y

b

u

rn

D

.-

T

e

x

.)

to

t

ak

e

c

o

n

tr

o

l

o

th

e

o

b

st

re

p

e

r

o

us

H

o

u

s

e

R

u

le

s

C

o

m

m

i

tt

e

e;

an

o

u

t

si

z

e

d

D

em

o

c

ra

t

ic

m

a

j

o

ri

t

y

n

the

89th

Congress

enabledliberals to enactaseries

o

ruleschanges; disastrous


3/31


4/31


5/31


6/31

th

' l S ,\

\

S

\ l ~

t

lH

.lW

~ S

t tta

t

a

s

t\ l tl .

)f t

ht' 1

0 pH>p

ost

'd :tl

\H: ttd

ttll tlt

s t h W

t'll d

l'ftatl

'd

(no

ar thlll

was

takt'H

nn ano tln ' t l

t)

,

th)

ft 'W

a

than

J

\ l t l \

ft

ltll

Sl ' l l : ti l t

l a d ~

an

d

w

ith

S\1 h l

\l:titt

tS a

s lotu

r H.

Sl ' l P

' t i O l

l o

f

t

.lllllll

l( t

l h

tit

t\ll ll, ~ t t l

S

t'll lt s

1\llt

:-

tnak

ing

ptl\V t .

All

Wt

tt

t as

U

d t '

l t

t

d .

(

ln fill

') th l t

h

M

ont

on

had

ht'

n

au

tlHlti

7.t'd

h

his

cou

uuU( t

' t)llt'

au es

t )

ac ' l 'pt

.

nut ud -

nu.

n

ts th

at w n u

ld tna

kl'

th h

ill tt

HHt ac

p

ta

to th

t' S

t

u ,lf

t'

,ts

a

\V

Ihlh

: . (

t

t

la

a a n ~

t H h H l

l l t s that

Wl l l tdop

tt 'd

\ d

l'alt

with

l Ol

lliHit

tt l pt l

l t \h t

n s a

nd

t'

U

tl\l

'

fro t

u l)t.

.'tnot:r

atic l

'tlllltu

it f t t le

adt'as

IH

ltH th

t'

South

an

d

~ o u

t l l l SL

'

rh

io tut t '

n

tntn it

t t

' t ' a

q

uil Sl

t d to

all h

ut t

ol

tin S

l' atnt

'lldttl

t l t s . 'r

h t'

1

t

tt .Hil

ttl

)

atn

t'tHhn

e ut"

W

t ll tnai

nl

~ i t . . r

n :u

n p

tovas

hHlS lt

kl' .

L1

c )h

Ia

Us (

I . N

., .)

voi

r ' n tnp

lin

' a tiou

s Sll l l

l hH

tln' N

t'Unft '

t l

O(ll a

nd

I

htg

h SC

llf rs

(I

.-Pa .)

,l ll , ,) .

tn

n t i c

data

pt'Ol

'lSSiu

g

t t l ' S

lor

tiH

I ih

ull'

nt

( \ H

l h

SS . 'rht

' p a

t l l' l t l

l

t

:

tl 'Otlll

lHldat

ion

l(

)lll S

l llll d

h

thl

l\ ) :tt\ll

IHhll

l tl ts

\Vas

S

iftd I tl all

t \

r

I

lsttn

il .ll

ptor e s

s wa

s

hl

tak

pi a

rt.' in

th

l

lousP-

thoug

lt th

,

sl

d

ti l

l \ \ ,

11

(l\ll

ld ,

,,.Jld

h ,

in

p

livut

l' .

' l

'he st

tatP

J

ot

:tl'l ' O

tHHHH

lnfton

Sl

l' t\H d to

havt'

plid

,)t

t ,

lt,'tt ,

,)

11

7.

thl'

S

ll

'

tlt

:

adopted

S. \ h

,,

voh

)r

7,

t

t>

.

Both

Slu:tf\:' .

111

d

ll,l\1 Sl

1\ll

lllhl lS

o

f fht

ioiu

t ' O

tH illi

f

t

l

agll d t

hat f

lll lt t

C Ot\

\t\\t tH

l t

(

i\l

ll

S

ft

:td SU

I tV

'd

vit

tu

all

iut:a

t. S .

tlt

t'll tu

ovtd to

ti

t 11 ,

)\ lSl

\ l l p

' Ph S

l

ut

ati e

s ,


7/31

257

Two days after tl e Senate had approved S. 355 , Speaker McCormack

referred the bill

to

the House Rules Committee . He was acting on the advice of

veteran House Parliamentarian Lewis Deschler,

7

who

argued that, after all, the

bill did propose changes in House rules.

The

real reasons behind McCormack's

and Deschler' s decision were somewhat different, however.

The

committee bill

of

rigl1ts, which Senate

committee

leaders

had

succeeded

n

modifying some

wllat, was still too

potent

for McCormack and the circle

of

senior committee

chairmen around him.

He

would

not,

if he could prevent it, allow the bill to go

to tl e House floor until these provisions were drastically diluted. The Rules

Committee, composed mainly

of

senior and safe congressmen of both parties,

provided a reliable tool for transforming the bill. Or perhaps the bill could be

sidetracked altogether, for Rules Chairman William Colmer (D.-Miss.) was

known

to oppose the whole idea. As one member

of

the committee confided,

McCormack had

put the bill in the refrigerator -where, as it turned

out

,

it

would remain for

more

than three years.

Various

attempts

were made to revive the bill. Chairman Colmer began

hearings on April 10,

but

they were suspended before the first day was over.

There followed a fitful

and more or

less clandestine series of negotiations

designed

to

reach an acceptable compromise.

In

all

,

seven

committee

prints

(versions) of the bill were produced, mainly at the instigation

of

Representative

Jack

Brooks (D.-Tex.). All were designed, in the words of a

staff

member who

helped

to

prepare

them

, to

w

rite a bill the Speaker [or , more properly , his

Parliamentarian] would allow to be reported

out.

Some reformers charged that

the committee bill

of

rights was being so emasculated

that

it would be worse

than

no bill at all. Republicans charged that Brooks and others were gutting the

minority-staffmg provision through requirements that the committees' majorities

retain fmal control over

staff

decisions.

Such

conflicts occasionally surfaced

in

the press, as one side or the other attempted to gain

support

for its position.

In this atmosphere it is

not

surprising that the congressional reform issue

took on

a partisan flavor as 1967 wore on. It was obvious to everyone that the

elderly cadre of Democratic committee leaders

had

decided

to

hold the reform

measure in the Rules Committee, hoping that they could remove its committee

related proVIsions or even kill it altogether. For their

part,

many Republicans

had long been resentful

of

unfair

treatment at

the hands

of

Democratic com

mittee chairmen. Some chairmen allotted no

staff

assistance for minority-party

members, and many tried to withhold information from the minority. When

younger, activist Republicans first raised the issue in the late 1950s, they

received little encouragement from their own party elders, who, as

often

as

not,

had reached comfortable accommodations

wit

their Democratic counterparts

and were perfectly content

wit

the situation. When Ford had been installed as

GOP Conference (caucus) chairman in 1963; it had been generally understood

that

he would bear down on the minority-staffing issue.

8

He had immediately

appointed a Conference Task Force on Congressional Reform and Minority


8/31


9/31

s t

h

th

p

nd

in

l i l

l


10/31


11/31


12/31


13/31


14/31


15/31


16/31


17/31


18/31


19/31


20/31


21/31

want it, 1 would suggest to them [that] they stay pretty well within

the

lines of reason and not

try

to just revamp the whole Congress

and the character of the legislative procedures

now

in existence.

8

271

Other committee leaders echoed this warning. After a day

of

general debate, the

amending process began, also in the Committee of the Whole.

The proceedings did

not

start auspiciously for the bipartisan coalition. Its

first major proposal, presented by Representative William D. Hathaway

(D.-Maine) and forty-two cosponsors, was designed to open more committee

sessions to the public.

It

would have required

that

a quorum

of

committee

members conduct an open roll call each day on whether or

not

that day's

meeting or hearing would be open or closed

to

the public. The proposal actually

involved two amendments, one covering hearings and another covering com

mittee mark-up sessions (which are usually closed

to

the public). Hathaway

asked for and received unanimous consent to have the two amendments con

sidered together, a move

that

turned

out to

be a tactical error. The notion of

open hearings might well have passed, but the thought of open mark-up sessions

horrified many members.

29

The error was

not

long in revealing itself. Representative Emanuel Celler

(D.-N.Y.), veteran chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, followed debate

on the reform bill from his usual seat n the front row. Then he asked, Does the

amendment provide for 'hearings' or for 'meetings'?" Under the unanimous

consent request, I will say to the gentleman, it applies to

both,

" Hathaway

replied. Later Hathaway argued that only lobbyists have access to committee

members when secret meetings are employed.

Now just

one minute, inter

jected peppery Wayne Hays (D.-Ohio).

If

you

want

to

write

up

a bill with a

lobbyist sitting at every Member's elbow, some

of

you who like to proclaim

yourself as ultra-liberals are going to have a rude awakening."

3

0

Represen ta

tive George Mahon (D.-Tex.), chairman of the prestigious Appropriations Com

mittee, declared that, if open mark-up sessions were instituted, the silent

majority will not be there, but the special interests will be well represented."

Representative L. Mendel Rivers (D.-S.C.), chairman

of

Armed Services,

remarked that many hearings on national-security matters would have

to

be

closed. He said

that

the proposed change "is not needed. e get along well

now." A majority of his colleagues seemed

to

agree, for the Hathaway amend

ment was defeated by a 102 to 132 teller vote.

I

The Gubser-O'Neil proposal to permit recorded teller votes came up ten

days later, and the result was more favorable. Introducing the amendment for

the 182 cosponsors, O'Neill explained

that

although he did not think

of

himself

as a reformer, he did think that "every member should report to his or her

constituency

as

to

how he or she votes , and the complete record should be

available for public scrutiny."

31

He recited the familiar arguments against the

unrecorded teller vote: the ubiquity of debate in Committee of the Whole, the


22/31


23/31


24/31


25/31


26/31


27/31


28/31

27

s

ert

a

and C

hang

8 Ho

use R

epubli

can le

adersh

ip cha

nges a

re rec

ounte

d in C

hapte

r 4.

.

. . .

e r e

somew

hat

sporad

ic, the

tas

k force

h a

d p

l

a y

e d a

valu ab

le

9 Alt

hough

tts

c t t v l t

wh

t com

mitte

e s w

ork a

n d ev

en wro

te it

s own

boo k

o

beh

ind-th

e-scen

es rol

e m

t e ~ t n

ss

(Ne

w Y or

k: Mc

Graw-

Hill , 196

6).

n

reform ,

We

Propos

e:

A Modern ongre

p f

. t

D o

nald R

u m sfe

ld (R

.- . ) ,

d eligh

ted i

n poi

nting

to

h

is p

arty 's

1

0 O

ne of

the GO

ac

t lls

s,

ional

b aseb

a ll ga

m e as

ev

idenc

e of

Repu

blican

you

th ful-

dom in

ance o

f the ann

ua

con

gress

ness

.

f

1

T

day

G

r

ou

p

were R

eprese

nt a

tives T

homas

M

.

R

ees

(C al i f

.), William

11

Lead

ers o

t 1e

ues

d

M

) B

k

Ad

a

m s (W

ash)

W il

li am Ha

th a

wa y

(M a

tne), an

An

drew

Ja cobs

H unga

te o.

, roc

'

(I

nd .).

C

M

ille

Upda

ting

Co

ngres

s

Wall Str

eetJo

urnal

M

arch

27

, 1969

,

p

. 1.

12

N orm

an .

r,

'

13

Q uo te

d in M

iller.

1

4 O the

r m em

bers w

ere J o

hn

Yo

u ng (

D ..Tex

.)a

nd D e lb

er t

Latta (R.-

Ohio)

.

15

u

.s.

Co

ngress

, Ho us

e, Co

m m itte

eo n

R

ule

s , Sp

ecia l

Subco

mmit

teeon

Legis

lative R

e-

org

aniza

tion ,

Hea rin

gs on

Leg

i

s

la tive

Re

o

rganiz

ation A

ct o

f 97

91st C o

ng .,

2d sess

.

19 70.

16

U. S. , Con

gress,

Hous

e, Com

mittee

o n

Rules

, R ep

ort o

n L eg

islativ

e R eo

rganiz

ation Act

o 19

70

91 st C

ong.,

2dse s

s., 197

0,H.

R ep

t. 91-12

15 , p

. 4 .

1

7 By the

tim

e that

g eneral

debat

e(the

st

age

o

f con

sider

atio

n

of

le

g is la t

io nbe

fore ac

tion on

am en

dm en t

s in t

he

C

ommi

ttee

of

theW

h ole) h

ad end

ed, m

ore

th

an

2

00 am

endm

ents

had

b ee n

draft

ed. B

y their

s

he

er n

umbe

rth

e y thr

eatene

dto

prolon

g con

sidera

tion to

t

he po int

at w

hich t

hebil

l c ou ld

not

be acted

upon.

1 8 A de

scrip

tion o

f thes

e even

ts w a s

w

ritt

e nby

Andre

wJ . G

lass ,

Nati

onal J

ourna

l Jul

y 25 ,

1

970)

, pp . 16

07-161

4.

19 Th

ese

in form

algro

ups ar

e expl

ained

ingreat

er det

ail

in C h

arle s L

.

O

app

,T

he Congr

ess-

man

: His J

ob a

s He

Sees

It

(Wa

shing

ton, D

.C . :

Broo

kings, 19

63), p

p. 3

6-45

;

an

d

Miller,

C how d

er and

M arc

hing S

o c ie ty

Do es

More

than E

at and

Stru

t, W

all S

tree t J

ourna

l Marc

h

4 , 1

971 , p

. 1 .

20 U. S., Congress, H ou se ,

Congressional Record

85th

C ong ., 1st sess. ,

30 January

1957 ,

103 ,

1324 -

1326 .

'

21

Kenn

eth

K ofm ehl

Th

t .t t .

l

'

e

n s1 u

t

ona zatt

on of

a

Votm

g B lo

c W

estern

Polztz

cal

Quar

terly

1 Jun

e 1964

), 272

, p

rov ide

s a use

fu l a

ccoun

t

of

theDemo

cratic

S

tudy G

roup'

s

e

arly h i

s

to

ry.

2

2 T he

C

om

m

ittee

o fthe

W hol

e is d e

scribe

d

on

p.

21

8.

2

3

Th

e w

ork

of

M CPL is d escrib ed

in

Congressional Quarterly

July

31, 1970

, PP

19

52-195

6 .


29/31

79

24 Rep

resenta

tive S

teiger

(s ee C

hapte

r 2) f

ound

him se

lf inco

rrectly

r eco

rded on

five

ofsix

vote

u pp

licdb y

spott

ers fo

r the M

ilwau

kee pa

pers.

25

The

S ena

te A p

propri

ations

C om

m ittee

o pen

ed 7

5 perc

en t

of its m

eetin

gs, pr

obably

refle

cting

its som

ewhat different role. The H ouse com m ittee has norm ally c onsid ered its

fu

nction

as to

cu t

the bud

get, w

hereas

its Se

nate c

ounte

rpart h

as no

rm ally

acted

as a

cour

t

of ap

peals

fo r e

xec utiv

e age

ncies w

hose

budge

ts hav

e been

cu t in

the H

ouse .

26

Cong

ressio

nal Qu

arte rly

A lm

anac (

W ash

ington

, D.C.:

1 969

), pp.

1031-

1032 .

27 Q uo

ted in

Glass,

N ation

alJou

rnal

pp. 16

10-16

11.

2

8

U

.S., C

ongres

s, Ho

use , Co

ngres

sio nal

R

ecord

da

ily ed

., 91 s

t Con

g., 2d

sess.,

23

J

uly

1970

, p.H6

598.

29 A

t the t

im e

of th

e debate

o nly

on e c

ongres

sional

com

mitt

ee-the

H

ouse

C om m

ittee

on

Edu

cation

an d L

abor-

opene

d its m

ark-u

p sess

io ns (a

nd ve

rbatim

tr ans

cripts o

f the

m ) to

the

p

ublic.

Th e c

om m

ittee h

ad lo n

g b ee

n a lib

era l-c

onserv

ative b

attleg

round

, w ith

ju risd

iction

over

m any

ofthe

m ore

contr

oversi

al dom

estic

issues.

A tten

ding t

he ses

sions o

r even

re adi

ng

th

e tran

scripts

i

s an

eye-op

ening

experi

ence.

30

Debat

e on t

his am

endm

ent is

foun

d

n

U

.S., C

ongre

ss , Ho

use, C

ongre

ssiona

l Reco

rd

d

aily e

d., 91s

t Cong

., 2d

sess., 1

4 July

1 970

, pp . H

6671

-6681

.

31

UoS. ,

Cong

ress, H

ouse ,

Congr

ession

alReco

rd

daily

ed., 9

1st C

ong.,

2d ses

s., 27

Ju ly

1970,

p. H7

155.

32

D eba

te on

this a

m endm

ent,

which

wa s i

n trodu

ced

by Fran

k J. T

hom p

son (D

.-N.J .

), can

be fo

und

n U.S.

, Cong

ress,

House

, Cong

ression

al Rec

ord

daily

ed., 9

1st C

ong., 2

d sess

.,

15

-16 Ju

ly 197

0, pp .

H 6 75

0-6756

, H 68

45-68

54.

33

D ebate

on

the Rees

Reuss

Van

ik pro

posal

can b

e foun

d in

U.S., C

ongre

ss , Ho

use, C

on -

gressional

Record

daily ed ., 91st Cong., 2 d sess., 27-28 Ju ly 1970, pp. H7189-7193,

H7251

-7252

.

3

4 Glas

s, N ati

ona l J

ournal

p. 1

610 .

35

Thom

as M.

Rees,

news r

elease

, Aug

ust 10

, 1970

.

36 Q

uoted

inW a

shingt

on E v

en ing

Star A

ugus

t 11, 1

970.

37 U.S

., Con

gress,

Hous

e, Con

gressi

onal Re

cord

daily

e d.,

91st C

ong.,

2d ses

s., 17

Septem

ber 1

970 ,

p. H 88

93.

38 F

or Se

nate d

eba te

see U

.S., C

ongre

ss , Se

nate,

Congr

ession

al R

ecord

daily

ed ., 9

1st

Co

ng., 2

d sess.

, 5-6 O

ctobe

r 1970

, pp .

S1712

2-171

38, S1

7141-

17182

.

39

F or a

discus

sion

of th

e politic

s of

r

eform ,

se e R

oger

H. Da

vidso n

, Davi

d

M

.

Koven

ock,

a

nd Mi

chael

K. O L

eary,

Congr

ess in

Crisi

s: Poli

tic s and

Con

gress

io nal

Refor

m (Be

lm ont

,

Calif.:

W ads

worth

, 1966

), esp.

chap.

3.


30/31

2

8

I

n

e

r

ti

a

a

n

d

h

a

n

g

e

4

0

T

h

e

liv

e

ly

e

c

h

a

ng

e

o

f

v

ie

w

s

o

n

th

i

s

p

o

in

t

c

a

n

b

e

f

o

u

n

d

in

U

s

C

o

.

,

n

g

re

ss

a

on

g

r

e

ss

io

n

a

l

R

e

co

r

d

da

i

ly

e

d

.,

9

2

n

d

C

o

n

g

.,

1

s

t

se

s

s.

,

2

2

J

a

n

u

a

r

y

1

9

7

1

,

PP

H

'

o

u

se

al

so

R

i

c

ha

r

d

L

.

L

y

on

s

,

H

o

u

s

e

O

p

en

s

w

i

th

S

q

u

a

b

b

le

O

v

er

S

p

o

i

ls

,

a

s h

i

n

g

t ~

n

S

ee

a

ry

2

2

,

1

9

71

,

p

.

A

-

7

.

o

s

t

J

a

nu

4

1

M

il

le

r

,

H

ou

s

e

R

ef

o

r

m

B

eg

i

ns

to

T

a

k

e

H

o

l

d

,

W

a

ll

S

t

r

e

e t

J

o

u

r

n

a

l A

p

r

il

2

,

19

7

1

'

p

.

8.

4

2

D

av

i

d

S

.

B

r

o

d

er

,

S

S

T

:

H

i

ll

R

e

f

o

rm

V

i

c

ti

m

,

W

a

s

h

in

g

to

n

P

o

s

t M

ar

c

h

2

3

1

9

?

1

'

,

p

.A

-

1

9


31/31

Documents

Bibby & Davidson 1972 - On Capitol Hill (2nd Ed) - Chapter 8 - Legislative Reorganization Act