To understand the present, we must look for a moment at the past. Our federal system of government is a rare and unusual one. Throughout history, most governments have been tightly centralized with power vested in one man or in one small ruling group. But this country has been different. The men in Philadelphia who founded our government were haunted by the fear of unchecked power over men's lives and property. To eliminate the potential for such tyranny, they deliberately fragmented power into three co-equal branches of government that would check and balance each other. For most of our 200 years as a nation, this system worked well. Then about 40 years ago something happened we'd never experienced before: a long, largely uninterrupted period of dominant Presidents, each leaving the Presidency larger and more powerful.

It began when the Congress, in a depression-gripped country, frightened by 25 percent unemployment and the specter of revolution, gave Franklin Roosevelt blank-check legislative power. Congress had just begun to reassert itself in the late '30's when Hitler undertook his plan of world dominance. The back-to-back occurrence of these two unique and wrenching events, and the cold war which followed, gave rise to a whole generation of congressmen conditioned to wait for Presidential initiatives and Presidential proposals, rather than to set national policy themselves. And, while all of

Conditioned by this acquiescent role, Congress, in the crucial years following World War II, clung to archaic, outmoded procedures. While Congress slept, we as a nation faced drastic and often frightening changes as atomic fission, jet propulsion, space technology, computers, pollution, the energy crisis, one after another burst upon us. Virtually all our institutions -- the family, the church, universities, schools, business corporations, courts, state legislatures, the Presidency -- moved to keep up with the times. But Congress remained frozen in the patterns of the past.

In 1964 I wrote a pair of reports entitled "Is Congress Sick?" and concluded that it was. It was fair to say then, and in subsequent years, that had one been able to bring a World War II vintage congressman back from the grave he would have found no change either in the physical surroundings of Congress or in the way it did its job.

Well, the good news in 1973 is that you can't say those things any more because a quiet, widely unnoticed revolution -- which began about five years ago -- came to fruition these last two months. For better or for worse (and I think it's clearly better) it has dramatically changed the character and potential of Congress, especially of the House of Representatives.

To adequately appreciate the dimensions of change, let's do some supposing. Suppose that you had been a Democrat elected to Congress in 1968, just five short years ago. As the first Nixon administration is preparing to take over, you enter the House, the "people's house" -- that branch of government intended by the men in

Today, the startling fact is, not a single one of those

In the middle and late '60s there was increasing demand among reform minded congressmen, political scientists, journalists and citizens themselves for Congress to examine its way of doing things in order to strengthen its capacity to carry out its responsibilities.

This pressure began to build with the 1966 scandals surrounding Representative Adam Clayton Powell and Senator Thomas Dodd. These two unfortunate men are largely responsible for the establishment in 1967 of "Ethics Committees" of the House and Senate with power to enforce codes of conduct and power to require Members to report their outside business interests, honoraria and other pertinent financial information on a regular basis. This movement towards public accountability led Congress, less than four years later, to legislate significant reforms in the way campaigns are financed -- the first such law in almost 50 years.

While Congress concerned itself with ethics and campaign expenditures, it was also becoming interested in reform of its own internal structure. Many Members, myself included, were frustrated by the all powerful seniority system which dealt power to committee chairmen, leaving little influence to the Speaker and the rank and file. In 1968, in an attempt to help alleviate this situation, I made an unprecedented and what turned out to be largely symbolic challenge to Speaker John McCormack. I was clobbered 178-58, but I had tried. I believe my attempt at highlighting the increasingly intolerable frustration many of us younger members felt added impetus to the mood for change that was slowly gaining momentum on the Hill.

Finally, after years of delay, Congress in 1970 passed the landmark Legislative Reorganization Act, an idea whose time had truly come. This act measurably improved the capacity of Congress to do its job and began to change the whole character of the House as an institution. For example:
 

At about the same time as these changes were occurring, the Democratic Caucus in the House, largely at the urging of the Democratic Study Group, began to revive itself. In 1969 the caucus, under a change of rules, agreed to meet at least once a month. This was the first step towards making the caucus an important instrument of change. The next step was the forming of an 11-member committee, chaired by Representative Julia Butler Hansen of Washington, to study and review rules and practices of the caucus. In 1971 the full caucus adopted two important recommendations of this committee. They were:
 

With the 1971 Democratic Caucus action, the House, so long a slumbering giant, had finally begun to stir. Many of the reforms were technical in nature but, as any political scientist will tell you, the things that give a legislative body life or dry it up are often technicalities.

Congress is a unique institution with its own peculiar way of doing things. Much that goes on here is indeed complicated and technical, even for us. Yet an attempt must be made to understand its intricacies if one is to

By January of 1973 the stage was set for the most productive Democratic Caucus action of the last two decades. Over a series of January and February meetings my fellow Democrats took these important steps:
 

In addition, the caucus strengthened the hand of its elected leaders by giving them a direct voice in Democratic members' committee assignments and it established, on my motion, a new Steering and Policy Committee, consisting of the formal leadership and 12 representatives elected from different regions of the country. This committee shifts responsibility from the committee chairmen to the elected leadership and to a cross section of the rank and file. It opens up the power structure to more and younger Members and gives them a greater opportunity to influence party policies. (It is interesting to note that of the four caucuses on Capitol

The net effect of the reforms we've been discussing is that the Speaker and the House leadership have been strengthened and given the tools to lead, and less senior Members have been given greater responsibility. Committee chairmen are still mighty important -- and they should be -- but they now are more likely to be responsive to their colleagues and their countrymen. As a result of the caucus changes the House today is more effective, more open and more democratic than in the past.

I do not mean to leave you with the impression that Republicans in the House are not interested in reform, or haven't helped. They have, but since Democrats control Congress, the majority party caucus is the only place where certain of the most basic reforms could occur. Nor do I mean to suggest that Senate reform is not important. It is, but in the past 40 years the House has been much more resistant to change than the Senate and consequently has been in much greater need of reform. And finally, I do not want to imply that the millenium has arrived on Capitol Hill. There is still more that needs to be done and indeed, as long as we have a Congress, there must be a continuing effort to update its procedures and ways of doing things.

As we go into 1974 and the years ahead I would put the following on my personal agenda for the future:
 

Congress in modern times has been a favorite target for editorial writers and cartoonists. Our obvious difficulties have in many cases been self-inflicted. But when there is important and constructive change the public ought to know about it. This Congressional comeback occurs at a time when we desperately need the legislative branch to assert its rightful role to balance an increasingly powerful Presidency.

I favor strong, activist Presidents, but our system of separated powers and checks and balances won't work unless we also have strong, vital, well-lead Congresses. The dollar is a little sick this Spring of 1973. But the good news is that another chronic patient -- the Congress -- is feeling much better, thank-you! As I said earlier, that may just turn out to be one of the most important stories of this decade.