** The failure of our national parliament to revise its antiquated procedures and machinery is, in my judgment, a loaded gun pointed at American democracy itself. Just a few years ago, the people of France, in disgust with their ineffective Parliament, rewrote their country's constitution to give the executive, President Charles de Gaulle, nearly unlimited power. Our situation is not yet that bad but it is steadily becoming worse. If our congressional paralysis continues, we too may awake some day to find a strong executive completely overriding a weak and divided legislature. This could happen here. I hope it does not.

2. The professional and technical staffs which serve the Congress are outstanding. Many of our traditions and procedures are exceptionally good.

3. Many columnists blame the failings of Congress on poor leadership. I can't buy this either. In my opinion, neither Henry Clay nor the Apostle Paul could successfully lead under the rules by which the leaders of the House and Senate must

4. I fully recognize that our government is and was intended to be one of checks, balances and divided powers. Congress should not, and must not, rubber stamp proposals of any President. My criticisms are not based on the sole fact that we have failed to enact any substantial part of the Kennedy legislation program, for it is Congress, not the President, which must make the laws.

For three years I've discussed these matters from countless platforms in Tucson, Yuma, Superior, Bisbee and every other Southern Arizona community. As of this writing, I've voted on only one of the four; Congress has taken final action on none.

At the beginning of 1963, the President asked Congress for action on nine major proposals: tax reduction and reform, civil rights, medicare, mass transportation, civil defense, aid to education, youth employment, Security and Exchange Commission amendments and the land conservation fund.

As the summer wore on, the nation awaited and demanded action at least on civil rights and taxes. To meet these two overriding issues, we stayed in session an unprecedented 365 days. Yet the New Year's bells rang out without final action on

2. Appropriations Process is Stalemated. A legislature can operate successfully without passing new laws or repealing old ones. But its one essential function is to pass proper appropriation bills for the operation of government departments. In 1963, the President presented his budget in January for the fiscal year beginning in July. July came and went and by December--5/12s of the way through the fiscal year--only 5 of the 13 major money bills had been passed. By this time department heads were preparing their new 1964-65 budgets for submismission to Congress in January. They didn't know what their current budgets were! If one expects a reasonably efficient government, this is an intolerable situation.

Again, I am not quarreling with any decision Congress finally makes. Foreign aid should be either $4 billion, $2 billion or nothing. The Federal Aviation Agency may need either $100 million or $800 million. My point is that the administrator of a public agency--just like his counterpart in private industry--ought to know what his budget is before his fiscal year begins.

3. One Can't Represent People He Doesn't Know. Our system of indirect or representative democracy was based on the assumption that legislators would live among and mingle with the people they represented most of the year, coming to Washington for four or five months to legislate. In 1963 I spent 322 of my 365 days in Washington. And to get even a few days at home I was forced to miss floor votes. Is it reasonable to believe that I can continue to know and reflect the feelings of 500,000 Arizonans and be in Washington year around?

4. Conflicts of Interest and the Double Standard. If a competent man is persuaded to become Assistant Secretary of Defense, the Congress demands that he disclose every business association which might even remotely affect his duties and to sell (often at a loss) any stock interest he might have in any company. Yet, most members of Congress are outraged when it is suggested that we be required, not to sell our stocks and business interests, but merely to publicly list and disclose our assets, business directorships and affiliations, stock holdings, etc. Along with six other House members I made a voluntary disclosure of this kind last January. Yet most members continue to vote on legislation vitally affecting personal business interests the public doesn't know they have. I am not suggesting that most members are dishonest. I am suggesting that it would be a healthy thing for a member's constituents to know of any conflict of interest so they could judge his vote accordingly. In our court systems we rigidly require a judge to disqualify himself in cases where he has a personal interest. Yet I could (but don't) own, for example, large chunks of tobacco stocks and sponsor and lobby, from within the legislative branch, for tobacco legislation without my voters being any the wiser.