ke care-be solicitous, be very careful, very conscientious, be very iligent, take care; not just casually execute, take care (as if I give man a mission, and I say take care, I want you to do this exactly s I told you to do it, take care of the responsibilities that you have— e shall take care that the law be faithfully executed (means carried ut.)"

Now it seems to me that the President is provoking a very dangerous sychology, a very dangerous attitude in the Government and the eople who make it up.

This Government of ours, this tripartite system that I believe was ever established for any other nation in the world-certainly never ny nation in the world previously had such a government as this Government of ours. It has many virtues, among them to have these hree powers, legislative, executive, and judicial, each having a seprate responsibility. However, they were not to live in a vacuum with respect to each other. They have to work together. It is like one of these Russian troikas drawing a carriage: if one goes in one direction and the others in another direction, you would never have the moving of the vehicle. Each is a separate horse, with a separate rein on it, but they are all supposed to be driven and work together toward the same common objective.

What the President is doing is exercising raw power. That is provocative, in my opinion. When the President exercises raw power, what alternative or what prospect is left to the Congress? Are we going to have to resort to an effort at impeachment? We clearly have the power in the House of Representatives-to initiate it.

Are we going to be forced to tell the people of the country that we have come to the solemn decision that the President ought to be removed from office and submit the matter to the Senate for adjudication in an effort to get the Constitution observed, not out of any personal or political or partisan motive, but in order to get him to try to keep his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

What is the other prospect open to us? Some say openly, "we can't make the President do it"; there seems to be an inference that the courts can do it. That hasn't been resolved yet. If the President is going to follow the same attitude toward the Court as he has toward Congress (if the Supreme Court should order him to carry out these laws, and he says I am not going to do it) they have but one little marshal over there to enforce their decisions, and what they can, they do.

Of course, if we are going to resort to impeachment, which is objectionable to us, we can say, "Well, Mr. President if you are going to exercise raw executive power we are forced to exercise raw congressional power." We can say, "Mr. President, you sent a budget up here, we are not going to appropriate any money to carry out that budget unless we have assurance before hand you are going to carry out the laws enacted by the Congress."

If you want to bring this country to a stalemate, because you are not discharging your congressional duties

Mr. WHITTEN. May I say this to my good friend, who is making a forceful statement. There is much in the Constitution to support the viewpoint you express here. I would like to bring to your attention another phase that has bothered me through the years, and that

is the use of special power by the Supreme Court. The Cou the right to determine congressional districting, when the tion says the House of Representatives shall be the sole ju qualifications of its Members. I introduced a resolution at thanking the Court for its advisory opinion, stating it had s and would have the attention and study of the Congress. at that time we did have congressional districting that out of proportion.

Instead of that the Congress accepted the opinion. In th Missouri, for example, there were six different realignme Supreme Court is going to upset the distribution of the M Congress, it leaves a Congressman, and I have never suff it personally, sitting on a teterpole of uncertainty of wh trict will be tomorrow.

This did not start with the President's action in this The Congress stood by and let the Supreme Court say wh to sit in the Congress. That was a clear violation of the Co except that they had a right to render the opinion. The m made when Congress took it. I say that here, so the gentler address themselves to that too, because I think it is part a of this matter of having three branches of Government.

The only way in the world government can work, as you r like the three horses, is for the three branches to pull togethe trying to get in front of the other.

Mr. PEPPER. The able chairman has pointed out how re question of degree is to the Constitution. I think Justice H said, everything up to the 12 tables is a matter of degree. In t ular case, I do not recall the Congress ignored the Supre decision but instead passed its own redistricting law, which gested we had the authority to do.

To carry further the analogy the able chairman has sugge may be one case. There may be other cases, where the Con scientiously feels that the Supreme Court has transgresse than it should maybe on the legislative power, but

Mr. WHITTEN. Would you not agree that the people are i ened position, because their representative may not know district will be say, next week. I say we made a mistake in the opinion of the Court at face value instead of accepting visory only.

Mr. PEPPER. There is no doubt, there have been in recent y decisions of the Court in which Congress did not concur. I preme Court were to carry their authority that you have spo far as the President has carried executive power, they wo tically say that "We are going to decide, not only on the ba Constitution but on the basis of policy and the like: we to strike down relatively arbitrarily a great volume of son most critical legislation the Congress enacted."

Now, if the Court were to go to the degree of just sett up to exercise raw judicial power, and say "We just do not this Congress is doing, it is Democratic and we are Republica versa," then we have power to declare that unenforceable.

That would present a constitutional crisis because then could either move the impeachment of these jurists or it could its raw power and say. “Very well gentlemen. If you w

over there and meditate and adjudicate in your marble palaces and not get any pay, we are going to cut off your pay, we are going to cut off your telephone, cut off your clerks and so on.

That is a good example of how if each branch determines to use raw power, not power deferential and respectful of the other independent branches of the Government, we would have a failure of this great Government of ours. It would not function. If each part of the Government does not show a due respect for the prerogatives and authority of the other and if either forces the other to resort to the exercise of raw power and by the exercise

Mr. WHITTEN. I know you support my view that the concept of this Joint Committee is to reestablish the power of the people through the Congress. We must recapture the control over the power of the purse. This is probably digressing, but I believe the gentleman was here when the Congress refused to pay two employees in the Interior Department because of a controversy with Secretary of the Interior. For several years there was a provision in the appropriation bill that no part of the money should be used to pay the salary of these two individuals.

Later the Court held they should be paid and Congress yielded to the decision.

I think we certainly want to avoid having to reach that stage under any circumstances in the future.

Mr. PEPPER. May I add just a word or two, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee?

In the first place, whatever the precedents of the past are, they, in my opinion, do not justify the actions that the administration is now taking. First, let me refer to the emergency argument.

A lot of people cite the example of what Lincoln did after Fort Sumter and before Congress convened that year. I don't think anyone can suggest that is a fair analogy. I don't think even from the view point of the President, he is doing this to preserve the Union and to keep it together.

Nobody is complaining about the power of the President to protect his country in an emergency. The legislation that we have proposed and I hope the Congress will adopt, now that it looks like we have terminated the South Vietnam war, does not. We all recognize if the Russians are fixing to shoot a missile at us, we do not have the time to debate it in Congress. We give the President the power to respond. If somebody attacked us as, the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor, he could start right away, and call upon the Congress for a declaration of war.

What is happening now is not analogous to what Lincoln did. It is more analogous to what Truman did when he grabbed the steel mills. Mr. WHITTEN. We will yield now to Senator Fulbright.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Our witness today was my professor back in 1935, and he taught me a very great respect for the Constitution. He was professor of law at the University of Arkansas in 1935. By coincidence, didn't he also used to be on the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate before I was.

He has had a very broad experience in the academic field and in the Senate, where he absorbed all of this knowledge and respect for orderly government.

I agree with everything the Congressman said. I think t has gone very far in cooperating with the Department o in the Gravel and Brewster cases. For the first time they in the constitutional provisions that Members of Congress are t ject to discipline by their own bodies.

If it is connected with their activities, their votes, spee actions in the Congress, the Constitution says the Congress s the responsibility for discipline.

Now, here we have a procedure which can intimidate any the Department of Justice has to do is call up any Member of and say, we are going to indict you unless you get in lin bill here.

It is a terrible thing for any Member of Congress to have the power of the Attorney General to haul him up before a gr and say, well look, you have had a contribution from Comp lately, didn't you, didn't that influence your vote?

That is what in effect they have established in that p Senator Ervin has gone into this in great length. What you h is exactly what has been happening.

Now, this committee to reestablish the proper place of C and other similar efforts are of great importance. It is notCongress or the Senate or the House that is involved. It is the ment as a whole, the whole system. If we do not do something and do it pretty soon, we will have an authoritarian governm I cannot overemphasize how important it is to reestab congressional responsibility.

The President has no respect for Congress. Frequently Con not deserved any respect because we have laid down and play If we can develop a new budget of our own and empha priorities and deny the President the ones he wants, then we confrontation and I believe the Congress will prevail.

Mr. PEPPER. I could not agree more heartily with my 1 distinguished friend. You have already referred to the fact allowed it to happen over the years. Some say Jefferson exe a little too much, and now this President. Where is the stoppi going to come, if we allow our authority to become eroded? this is the time to stop it.

Mr. DAVIS. Senator, am I to interpret your remarks, and you on an occupant of the White House, if a President sees fit t spend funds which have been appropriated by Congress, that he willfully violates his oath of office and the Constitution of the States?

Mr. PEPPER. Yes, I do.

Mr. DAVIS. That is a very serious charge, Senator.

Mr. PEPPER. If we ordered him to buy 1 million tons of tita some rare metal he could not find anywhere in the world, it would be justifiable if he did not spend it. But if it is someth can be carried out, then it ought to be carried out because it and if he does not like it he should veto it, and if it is made his veto, he can denounce the Congress to the country politics say it is a grave mistake, but the President is not the protecto country against the Congress. The Constitution did not give E prerogative.

Mr. DAVIS. Obviously this is not the first President that has willfully violated the Constitution and his oath of office.

Mr. PEPPER. An appropriation is a law.

Mr. DAVIS. Do you feel a president violates his oath of office and the Constitution if he fails to spend all of the funds that the Congress appropriated?

Mr. PEPPER. If we made a mistake in not asserting our prerogative properly in the past and I think we have, this is no reason we have to continue. We do not lose constitutional power by failure to exercise it, in my opinion.

You see the implications (and I am not talking about the present President, I respect him) but the implications are, if you can do what the President is now doing, what will the next President be able to do? If you can terminate a law, if you can determine what part of the law you will carry out, what law you will execute, how much you will execute a law that you accept, what is the power of Congress? It has lost its prerogative to make precise determination as to priorities and needs of the people.

Our judgment is gone. We do not know what we are doing. We are not doing anything for sure, as long as we permit that executive policy to be pursued.

Mr. DAVIS. Just one further question. You referred to the work of our Constitution makers, and if my recollection of history is correct, the entire history of this struggle about the purse in our mother country, and this was the atmosphere in which our Founding Fathers worked, of course, was the struggle of the Executive, in that case the King, to spend more and the reluctance of the Parliament to provide it to him.

Wasn't this what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote our Constitution? They did not say the Executive shall spend all of the money they appropriate, they said in the negative, there shall be no withdrawal from the Treasury except as appropriated by law.

How can you say, then, that an Executive has violated his oath of office, if he fails to spend every dollar appropriated. There is no mandate that says he has to spend it.

Mr. PEPPER. One of the reasons that the President has given to the country and the Congress for his actions is that he wants to spare the people against excessive taxation to be imposed by the Congress. Let us suppose Congress says, "Very well, we think we should raise an additional $31% billion from revenue with new taxation, in order to meet some of these needs." And Congress passed a bill, levied certain new or increased taxes and the President could say, "I am against any new taxes" and vetoes the bill. Let us suppose Congress should override the veto, and then suppose the President said, "I told you I am against that: I am not going to collect those taxes," and tells the Internal Revenue Service, "You are not to go to collect those taxes." Mr. DAVIS. I think you have gone off in another direction, Congressman, I do not think you have answered my question.

Mr. PEPPER. I was using an analogy to the stopping of the expenditure.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I want to put one word in. It is not just spending every nickle. As a matter of fact we passed an antideficiency law and the President is supposed to save money if it is possible, in carrying out the accepted program.