As you know, we have tremendous numbers of people going through the White House daily. There are tours in the early morning that are conducted that we try to be helpful to Members of Congress, having their constituents join in these tours. And you can understand, the Congressman on the Hill would have half a dozen important constituents arriving in Washington, and he has difficulty setting a schedule for them so they can view the White House at their leisure that could be an embarrassment to him. Those things don't sound awfully important, but I mentioned earlier human relations, the human element, and we are constantly aware of the need and the right of the Congressman to receive reasonable service from the executive branch. After all, most of those fellows give us great service, because they support the program, and again—always recognize—recognizing they're elected to office. It provides a variety of opportunities here to be of some meaningful service, but as I say, there's no single element of it that is overridingly important, but the overall activity day to day in putting the package together over a period of years can only hope the Member up there has the view that the White House is interested in him and his problems. That's really-and therefore, when we have our problems-we will get favorable reaction at least from the sense of giving us a hearing, seriously considering our viewpoint, if he feels that we in turn understand his problems. Well, to sum it up, and I think you can succinctly, why let me just say that no one here in this building will ever suggest to a Member of Congress that he commit political hara-kiri. That's not the realistic approach to this problem, and as long as we don't reach that point where we feel a Member just must darn well be with us or all bets are off-then, I think that we have good mutual understanding and rapport. We just have to recognize the problems of the Members of Congress, their constituent, or, if you want to term it that way, political problem. As long as we have a clear understanding of that, and most of us here have been engaged over a long period of time in the political arena, and I think we do have that understanding, that is the major asset that we have, in my view, in working with them. CURTIS COMMENTS During June 23 hearings before the Joint Committee on Organization of the Congress, of which he is a member, Representative Thomas B. Curtis, Republican, of Missouri, took strong exception to certain lobbying practices of the executive branch. Curtis said he would be opposed to proposed laws to tighten reporting requirements for regular lobbies "unless we move in at the same time to control in some way the biggest lobbyists in Washington, which is the executive branch of the Federal Government. "Now, there are two laws and there are criminal statutes that prohibit lobbying with Federal funds," Curtis continued. "And that means the time of Federal employees as well as their facilities. This is so scandalous and it is just accepted. And in fact even in newspapers like the New York Times it is praised as being political astuteness today ***. "Take this thing with medicare. It has just been fantastic the way in which the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has been engaged in lobbying in the Congress over a period of years in this area, as well as using Federal funds to deal directly with the people ***. "The executive branch of the Federal Government * ** should be forbidden to lobby. They have a forum to be heard in the congressional committees, and they should use it. They also have the ability to communicate directly with the people, as the President does on TV time, and so forth. "So let's have a cessation of this business of the executive officials, Cabinet officials, coming into Congressmen's offices. They don't even come before the committees, they come to visit you in your office to sell you on this particular point of view. And I say, if you want to say this, say it out in public where the (other) side can hear you, don't come in and talk to me privately unless there is a basic reason ***. "And it is going so far now as to tie in Federal research grants, contracts, with this whole process of influencing the legislative branch of the Government." 47-814-66-pt. 15- -5 [An excerpt from the files of the Government Information and Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the House Government Operations Committee (the Moss committee), consisting of a table showing personnel, salary expenditures, and related costs for public information activities of executive departments and independent agencies for the fiscal year 1963] TABLE 3.-Number of personnel, salaries, and related costs for public information TABLE 3.-Number of personnel, salaries, and related costs for public information activities-Continued 3 Personnel spend only part time replying to inquiries and preparing material for public dissemination. 4 Total does not include 2,041 personnel whose principal duties are in the area of public information operations but who also spend time on other functions. Includes assistants to 15 regional directors who perform both public and congressional information functions. 6 Represents the total number of positions which performed some public in for mation work during the year. Approximately 609 man-years were spent on public information work. Includes 13 people in the National Bureau of Standards who spend 1⁄2 their time on public information. Although located in the Public Information Offices, 69 positions spend only a part of their time on public information: 18 other positions in the Office of Education were transferred or unfilled during fiscal year 1963. About $30,000 of this total was spent for technical films not for public viewing. 10 1 of these personnel also performs congressional information work. 11 Includes salaries and related expenses of information personnel employed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a private contractor. 12 Personnel also perform congressional information function. 13 Approximately $47,438 of this amount was paid the State Department for services rendered by that Department's Bureau of Public Affairs. [Relations between Congress and the judicial branch of the Government] REPRESENTATIVE CASES AFFECTING CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS OF CONGRESS WHERE IT WAS NOT REPRESENTED (EXCEPT IN SOME INSTANCES BY THE Department OF JUSTICE) See contempt cases such as— Watkins v. U.S.,1 354 U.S. 178 (1957); Barenblatt v. U.S.,1 360 U.S. 109 (1954); Brewster v. U.S.1 (C.A.D.C.) 255 F. 2d 899 (1958) (dissenting opinion). among others. And Article I, Section 1—Delegation of Legislative Authority Schechter Poultry Co. v. U.S..1 295 U.S. 495 (1935) ; Article I, Section 2, Clause 1-Protection of the Right To Vote for Members of Congress Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 (1884); U.S. v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941); U.S. v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383 (1915). Article I, Section 2, Clause 3—Apportionment of Seats in the House Wood v. Broome, 287 U.S. 1 (1932); Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549 (1946); Wesberry v. Sanders,2 376 U.S. 1 (1964). Article I, Section 4, Clause 1-Federal Legislation Protecting the Electoral Process Ex parte Siebold,1 100 U.S. 371 (1880); Ex parte Yarbrough,1 110 U.S. 661 (1884). Article I, Section 5, Clause 1-Power To Judge Elections of Members Barry v. U.S. ex rel. Cunningham,1 279 U.S. 597 (1929). Article I, Section 5, Clause 2-Power of Each House Over Its Members Burton v. U.S.,1 202 U.S. 344 (1906); In re Chapman,1 166 U.S. 661 (1897). Article I, Section 6, Clause 1-Privilege From Arrest Williamson v. U.S.,1 207 U.S. 425 (1908); U.S. v. Cooper, 4 Dall. 341 (1800); Long v. Ansell (C.C.A. D.C.) 69 F. 2d 386 (1934), aff'd 293 U.S. 76 (1934); U.S. v. Johnson1 (Sup. Ct.) docket No. 25, October term, 1965; decision, February 24, 1966. Article I, Section 7, Clause 1--Revenue Bills, Origination Twin City National Bank v. Nebecker,1 167 U.S. 196 (1897); Millard v. Roberts,1 202 U.S. 429 (1906). Article I, Section 7, Clause 3-Veto Disapproval Missouri Pacific R.R. v. Kansas, 248 U.S. 276 (1919). 1 Representation by Department of Justice. 2 Participation by Department of Justice through amicus curiae on leave of Court. Article I, Section 8-Powers of Congress Because of lack of time, cases under article I, section 8, have generally been omitted, except for a few outstanding ones— 2 Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895) (income taxation); Steward Machine Co. v. Davis,1 301 U.S. 548 (1937) (social security-taxation and spending for public welfare); Gibbons v. Ogden,1 9 Wheat. 1 (1824) (commerce power); Second Employers Liability Cases,2 223 U.S. 1 (1912) (commerce); U.S. v. E. C. Knight Co.,1 156 U.S. 1 (1895) (commerce); N.L.R.B. v. Jones & Laughlin,1 301 U.S. 1 (1937) (commerce); U.S. v. Darby,1 312 U.S. 100 (1941) (commerce); Wickard v. Filburn,1 317 U.S. 111 (1942) (commerce); McCulloch v. Maryland,1 4 Wheat. 316 (1819) (fiscal and monetary); Ex parte Jackson,1 96 U.S. 727 (1878) (mails); Ex parte Milligan,1 4 Wall. 2 (1866) (war power); Bowles v. Willingham,1 321 U.S. 503 (1944) (war power). Article I, Section 9, Clause 3-Bill of Attainder and Ex Post Facto Laws Cases v. U.S.1 (C.C.A., 1st) 131 F. 2d 916 (1942), cert. denied 319 U.S. 770. Article II, Section 2, Clause 3-Reprieves and Pardons Ex parte Garland,1 71 U.S. 333 (1867); Yelvington v. Presidential Pardon and Parole Attorneys,1 (C.A.D.C.) 211 F. 2d 642 (1954). Article II, Section 2, Clause 2-Appointing and Removal Power 1 U.S. v. Smith,1 286 U.S. 6 (1932); Humphrey's Executor v. U.S.,1 295 U.S. 602 (1935); Morgan v. Tennessee Valley Authority, (C.C.A. Tenn.) 115 F. 2d 990, cert. den. 312 U.S. 701 (1940). Article II, Section 3-Powers and Duties of the President Youngstown Co. v. Sawyer,1 343 U.S. 579 (1952). Article III, Section 1-Judicial Power Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816); Cary v. Curtis,1 44 U.S. 236 (1845); Lockerty v. Phillips,1 319 U.S. 182 (1943); Yakus v. U.S.,1 321 U.S. 414 (1944). Article III, Section 2, Clause 2-Supreme Court, Original and Appellate Jurisdiction Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803); Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506 (1868). Article III, Section 2, Clause 3-Treason U.S. v. Greathouse (C.C. Cal.) 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,254 (1863). Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1-Admission of New States Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559 (1911). Article IV, Section 4-Guarantee of Republican Form of Government Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 1 (1849). 1 Representation by Department of Justice. 2 Participation by Department of Justice through amicus curiae on leave of Court. |