or another in both houses all of which, in essence, would require the President to notify Congress of any impoundment and release the funds unless Congress specifically approved withholding the money.

[From the Evening Star and Daily News, Feb. 14, 1973]

ERVIN PRESSING FOR STIFFER CURBS ON IMPOUNDMENT

(By Ronald Sarro)

Sen. Sam J. Ervin, D-N.C., has ordered a Senate subcommittee to stiffen the provisions of his proposed legislation to limit the authority of the President to impound congressionally appropriated funds.

While the new package would fall short of an outright ban on presidental impoundments, it would sharply limit White House latitude in future moves to eliminate spending programs approved by Congress.

Among the additional provisions being written into the measure now under preparation by the staff of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on separation of powers, are items which would:

Allow Congress to immediately vote its disapproval of any presidential impoundment action.

Allow Congress to vote in favor of any percentage of a presidental impoundment. If the President impounded, for example, 100 percent of a program's funds, Congress could approve impoundment of 50 percent.

If Congress withheld its affirmative action on any presidential impoundment within the 60 days, the President could not impound funds for the particular program again within the same fiscal year.

Specifically bring officials of the Office of Budget and Management, Cabinet members, and all other federal officials, under impoundment limitations provided in the measure.

Ervin directed the subcommittee to stiffen the sections as a result of testimony last week by four top administration officials who the subcommittee feels provided a "blueprint for presidential rule of the government."

The officials contended that the President has an implied constitutional right to impound the funds to stay within debt limits approved by Congress and control inflation. President Nixon has impounded $8.7 billion for mostly domestic programs, according to the OMB.

A majority of the Senate had cosponsored Ervin's original draft of the impoundment measure. Originally, it merely would have required the President to release appropriated funds in 60 days unless Congress approved of his action.

The subcommittee staff also was considering narrowing the 60 days to 30 days. But it was likely this would not be written into the bill in view of the new provisions which would allow Congress to vote to end any impoundment immediately.

The measure is scheduled to be considered by the Senate Government Operations Committee, which Ervin also heads, by March 1, with action on the Senate floor soon after.

Ervin's Judiciary separation of powers subcommittee has been working on the measure because it has held extensive hearings on the executive's authority.

[From the Post-Dispatch, St. Louis, Mo., Oct. 31, 1972]

LAW, ORDER AND PRESIDENT NIXON: II

ADMINISTRATION CORRUPTING DEMOCRATIC PROCESS, HISTORIAN CHARGES

(By Arthur Schlesinger Jr.)

The second form of malpractice represents a genuine innovation: that is, the introduction into American domestic politics of techniques devised by the CIA for use against foreign enemies. What is involved here is not old-fashioned money corruption, for which analogues may be found in the Administrations of Harding and Grant, but the systematic corruption of the democratic process itself. I have taken part in a number of national campaigns, but, until the Republican campaign of 1972, I had never even heard of the office of "security co-ordinator."

Of the two "security co-ordinators" in the Nixon campaign organization, one is under indictment for his part in the Watergate affair and the other has been named by the wife of the former Republican Attorney General as the man who kicked her, knocked her down and gave her an injection. Splendid fellows these. One can imagine how uncontainable the indignation of the press and of all God-fearing Americans would be, if only they had been Democrats! But by the curious double standard applied in this campaign, the Democratic candidate is to be held personally accountable for the confusions of his organization, but the Republican candidate is not to be held responsible for the crimes of his organization.

President Nixon may dodge debates but he can hardly dodge responsibility. With the piling up of a secret campaign fund (Newsweek tells us that "GOP insiders now concede that fund raiser Maurice Stans may have collected almost twice as much money as the $10,200,000 reported 'on hand' by the Committee for the Re-election of the President"), with the clandestine transfer of the money to foreign countries in order to conceal its origins, with a large network of spies, burglars and saboteurs bugging telephones, wiring offices, forging documents, even carrying guns, our President, as The Washington Post cogently put it, is "not running just against Senator McGovern but against the public-against the normal processes by which a democracy is permitted to make its elective choice." There has been nothing like this in American history. And now that we know how deeply the knowledge of this campaign has extended into the White House itself, the voters surely are entitled to an honest accounting from the President about his own relationship to these black operations. It is hard to believe that his appointments secretary-the White House aide any President sees most oftenknew about them and that the President did not. If he did know, then he has conspired against our basic democratic processes. If he did not know, then at the very least he has failed to create in his official family the moral atmosphere that would render such actions unthinkable; and his inability to control his own White House staff must raise the gravest questions about his fitness to serve another four years.

The third form of malpractice is that of constitutional usurpation: that is, the assumption by the Executive Branch of powers assigned by the Constitution to the Congress. The best known case is that of the congressional war power. This was already well eroded when Mr. Nixon took over. But he has carried the claim of unilateral Executive authority even further than his predecessors. The ground invasion of Cambodia, the aerial invasion of Laos, he has informed us, were no more than the routine employment of powers inherent in the President as commander-in-chief. By the Nixon theory of defensive war, a President, entirely on his own initiative, without any need to consult with Congress or even to notify it, can order armed intervention in any country containing any troops that might in any conceivable circumstance be used in an attack on American forces.

The attempt to usurp domestic powers of the Congress has been less noticed but is no less serious. The Executive impoundment of funds appropriated by Congress, at best a questionable procedure, has been carried to inordinate lengths under the Nixon Administration. Senator Ervin says that President Nixon has impounded 12.7 billion dollars of appropriated funds; Congressman Boggs has said 25 billion; but, whatever the sum, it represents a considerable repudiation of the legislative will.

In his campaign for a spending ceiling, President Nixon sought not only to evade his own constitutional responsibility to veto bills of which he disapproves but also to demand from Congress an unprecedented surrender of its constitutional powers. Senator Humphrey, without undue exaggeration, called it “a domestic Gulf of Tonkin resolution." In general, this Administration has been greatly guilty, in Senator Ervin's words, of "official insensitivity to constitutional principles."

Sometimes a foreign perspective may be instructive. Henry Fairlie is a British journalist who serves as Washington correspondent for the rightwing London weekly The Spectator, I can identify his general slant by saying that few writers, American or English, are more scathing about American liberals. But the Nixon presidency has finally succeeded in outraging Mr. Fairlie's high Tory soul. "Nixon is the chieftain of a lawless Administration," Mr. Fairlie recently wrote. “. . . The present Administration is carrying the exercise of corruption to a level of lawlessness which is intolerable. . . . One can only believe that the American people may begin to wonder what such an Administration, having

66

bought its way lawlessly into power, might then consider itself entitled to do during a second term in which its power was virtually unchecked."

People, like the readers of this newspaper, who care about the integrity of our public processes should consider this question carefully before they vote to return Mr. Nixon and his associates to power. The way it has been working these past four years should not be the way the system works.

[From the Washington Post, Feb. 12, 1973]

CUTBACKS PLANNED IN SOCIAL SERVICES
(By Austin Scott)

The Nixon administration is preparing to make major changes in the way the federal government supports programs in day care, aid to the elderly, mental retardation, juvenile delinquency, and other social services.

Although new social services regulations aren't scheduled to be announced by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare for another week or so, some affected groups have obtained copies and are gearing up for a fight.

Rep. Bella Abzug (D-N.Y.), a vocal supporter of day-care centers, denounced the new proposals as "unconscionable," and said she will call for congressional hearings into their effect on day care. Arkansas Gov. Dale Bumpers said parts of them are "patently absurd."

While the proposed new regulations would change the ground rules for federal aid to a number of important social services programs, most of the comment so far has been aimed at their effect on day care.

As written now, they would eliminate existing mandatory federal child care standards, and end the $3 in matching money that the federal government gives for every $1 private contributions. However, they would permit the government to continue matching, 3 for 1, state and local funds.

That end to the federal matching of private money applies to all the programs, not just day care, and it is what Bumpers termed "patently absurd.”

"To give you an example of the effect it would have on our mental retardation program," he said, "when I was elected [in 1970] we had fewer than 20 community facilities caring for a little less than 400 children.

"In the past year and a half . . . we have expanded that to 82 facilities caring for over 2,000 children.

"Quite frankly, with the guidelines prohibiting the use of private funds and the further restrictions . . . we will probably wind up closing virtually every one of the new ones we have started in the past year and a half."

"It's such a bad law I can't conceive of it standing," he said. "I have heard they expect to save $1 billion. My guess would be they'll have $2 billion with the guidelines as they are now.'

Among the changes in the proposed regulations are:

Quarterly recertification of applicants for some programs, instead of the yearly recertification.

Tightening day-care eligibility requirements. Current rules allow day care for children who have been on welfare within the past two years, or are prospects for welfare in the next five years. The new ones change those figures to three months and six months, respectively.

Elimination of the "special need" category, allowing services for the handicapped regardless of income.

Elimination of federal money for code enforcement, to make sure state standards are being enforced.

Setting of a maximum income figure for day-care eligibility that in some states works out to below the poverty level for a family of four.

HEW officials point to their plans to increase the amount of money spent on day care, and the number of children covered.

Federal budget estimates show one portion of the government's support for day care jumping from an estimated $82 million under the Work Incentive Program in Fiscal 1973, to $204 million in Fiscal 1974 which will begin July 1.

Some child-care groups, however, are convinced the dropping of federal standards will mean more "warehousing" of children with little attention paid to their education or other needs.

The new regulations drop all reference to existing federal interagency regulations about the ratio of children to adults at day-care centers.

Instead, a set of HEW Model Day Care Codes, currently on Secretary Caspar Weinberger's desk, recommends approximately twice as many children per adult as the standards now in effect.

The opening pages of the Model Day Care Codes indicate they are to be used as guidelines for states to draw up their own codes, but are not requirements. "It's all a matter of money," said the source who gave a copy of the proposed regulations to the Washington Post, and who asked not to be identified.

"The key thing to remember is that most experts say the child-to-staff ratio accounts for 75 per cent of all the costs. They were spending $800 million for day care at the end of fiscal 1972. If you double the child-to-staff ratio, as they're proposing, that's a saving of $300 million."

These regulations are unconscionable,” said Rep. Abzug. “They affectively shut out children from middle income families from federally assisted day care, and they will substantially reduce the number of senior citizens eligible for vitally needed services."

An advance copy of the proposed regulations was floated by the Council of State Governments in November for that group's reaction.

"We are quite sure that the states will have major objections to the denial of the use of private funds for matching," said Allen Jensen, a special assistant on human resources to the group.

"They feel this is a way to have community involvement and community participation in delivering these services."

Jensen estimated that private donations along with the three federal dollars that can now be given for each private dollar, supply about $55 million worth of day-care services around the country.

The private money comes from many sources, including charitable organizations such as United Way, and even bake sales or garage sales conducted by the day-care centers.

Along with eliminating such federal fund matching, the new proposals also eliminate federal matching for the value of "in-kind contributions," such as when furniture or a building are donated.

A number of experts are saying that politics is playing a heavy role in the federal matching section of the new regulations.

They point out that the government's proposed policy is opposite the position taken by former HEW Secretary Elliot L. Richardson when he said to several members of the House last summer that he supported federal matching for private donations.

The proposed policy, however, does go along with a directive from the Senate Finance Committee, which said during last year's debate over welfare reform that this kind of matching should be stopped.

There are predictions that federal matching for private money will be reinstated before the regulations become final, and the administration will make its real fight over the elimination of federal standards, and a new ban it proposes to place on transferring social services money to other state programs.

"It's a foolish (HEW) Secretary who ignores a directive from the Senate Finance Committee ** * * *.

[From the Sun, Baltimore, Md., Jan. 27, 1973]

ALBERT JOINS FUND-FREEZE OPPONENTS

(By Albert Sehlstedt, Jr.)

WASHINGTON.-Representative Carl Albert (D., Okla.), the speaker of the House, yesterday joined a growing list of Democrats complaining about President Nixon's refusal to spend some congressionally appropriated funds.

Mr. Albert, often at pains to avoid public criticism of anybody, said, "there's a question of whether they are legislating or we are." By "they", he meant the Nixon administration.

The speaker, talking to reporters in his office before the House convened, had returned from a White House budget briefing for congressional leaders.

OBVIOUSLY ANNOYED

He was obviously annoyed by the administration's moves to cut back on spending in the present fiscal year and suggested that those executive branch decisions constituted a usurpation of the legislative process.

The President, in an effort to keep federal spending within $250 billion, has not spent or has impounded, to use the Washington word-about $12 billion that Congress had earmarked for various programs. The legislators have demanded an exact accounting of the impounded funds by February 10.

Mr. Albert's concern about the usurpation of congressional prerogatives has been voiced repeatedly by critics of Mr. Nixon's action, notably by Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (D., N.C.), regarded as Capitol Hill's expert on constitutional law. Senator Ervin said earlier this month that impounding money was a practice "contemptuous of the role of our Congress in the tripartite system" of govern

ment.

However, one of the administration's top financial experts has taken the position that there is nothing outrageous about what the White House has done and has argued that impounding by the executive dates back to the presidency of Thomas Jefferson.

Caspar W. Weinberger, the director of the Office of Management and Budget who has been nominated by the President to be the next secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, cited the Jeffersonian precedent in appearances before two Senate committees this month.

[From the Evening Star and Daily News, Washington, D.C., Feb. 8, 1973]

COURT BATTLE READIED TO SAVE OEO PROGRAM

(By Philip Shandler)

The National Association for Community Development is rounding up support for a court fight against President Nixon's dismantling of the Office of Economic Opportunity.

NACD Executive Director James Boylson said a class-action suit probably will be filed next week in U.S. District Court here. He said other groups are being asked to join the suit.

The NACD is circulating copies of a heretofore unpublished study by OEOthe federal anti-poverty agency-which shows that community action agencies helped raise about $1.3 billion from a variety of public and private sources to aid the poor.

The study, completed in December, also was cited yesterday before the House Labor Committee's equal opportunity subcommittee, which is holding hearings on President Nixon's budget proposals to abolish the OEO and disperse its service programs among other agencies.

The OEO study was especially aimed at countering administration claims that shifting OEO's community action programs to the local level, with funds coming from revenue sharing, would speed decentralization of government.

The study said OEO's fund-raising efforts created "closer working relationships ... which offer genuine help in making the decentralization of government succeed during the next few years."

OEO SHIFT CHALLENGED

Even before Nixon disclosed his plans for dismantling OEO, congressional experts were saying it could not legally be done without new legislation. The NACD is an association of anti-poverty workers.

As a practical matter, however, Congress cannot compel the President to take any particular approach, the experts have acknowledged. Thus the House hearings-and similar others expected to be held in several weeks by the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee--will be concentrating on showing that an OEO breakup would have a grave impact on communities and individuals.

At the same time, sympathetic Senate aides are telling callers, apprehensive about the future of OEO, to concentrate their lobbying on the House Appropriations Committee.

This is where the budget proposals will first get tackled, a Senate aid noted, commenting: "If the money isn't kept flowing, you can forget about everything else."

A manpower expert from George Washington University and a spokesman for anti-poverty workers urged retention of OEO before the equal opportunity subcommittee.

Both Sar A. Levitan, director of GWU's Center for Manpower Policies Studies, and John Kearse, director of the Economic Opportunity Commission of Nassau