Out of the wrangling by U. S. senators over their salaries and outside income has come a highly interesting proposal for reform of the congressional compensation and work arrangement. Senate Majority Leader Howard H. Baker Jr., R.-Tenn. called for limiting annual sessions of Congress to a maximum seven mont.hs and cutting salaries to $36,000. In his words, the proposal would transfonn senators “from elected bureaucrats” into the part-time legislators they once were. In our view, Congress needs a reform to turn around the modern-day inflation of salaries and staffs and put more emphasis on service to the Republic. Since December, salaries of the 435 members of the House of Representatives have been at $69,800. Capping its sometimes-bitter debate recently, senators voted 49-47 to give themselves a 15 percent pay increase of $9,138 to the same level as the House. They delayed until Jan. 1, 1984 putting into effect a 30 percent of salary limit on income from moonlighting, mostly speaking fees. Some senators earned as high as $100,000 in honoraria for addresses last year. Sen. Henry Jackson, D-Wash., among others, argued there is conflict of interest when senators accept fees as high as $2,000 per speech from corporations when subsequently the solons must vote on issues of interest to those companies. Baker’s idea would underline service to the people as a major motivation in running for office. History provides notable examples of public servants so generous they accepted no salary at all from the treasury. For instance, when George Washington was chosen by the Continental Congress June 15, 1775, to be commanderin-chief of Revolutionary forces he declined the proffered salary of $500 monthly. 1-lerbert Hoover drew no salary for his years of relief and humanitarian services during and after World War I. And, says Compton’s Encyclopedia: “Later, even as the 31st president, he continued to live on his private means. He used the salary to hire able associates or for public or charitable purposes. He kept none for himself.” Dwight D. Eisenhower, the 34th president, used the public service idea in his argument for limiting terms for members of Congress to 12 years: “Each man so serving would tend to think of his congressional career as an important and exciting interlude in his life, a period dedicated to the entire public rather than as a way of making a living. The members probably would give more attention to national good and less to their personal political fortunes. ” Alluding to the recent Senate salary debates, Baker said: “I do not think we will ever solve the problem of pay as long as we think of ourselves as permanent full-time employees of the federal govemment instead of elected representatives of the people of our districts and states.” Under his plan, House , and Senate members would spend only part of the year in Washington and the remainder at. home, free to pursue second careers if they desired. E As Baker concedes, a reform with such a radi- cal departure from the status quo has little chance for early acceptance. However, coming Q from the Senate majority leader – an astutelawmaker in a position ‘ to evaluate congressional needs – the idea i must be considered plausible until proved.otherwise. The proposal should receive eamest study by Congress and the American people.