to submit each proposed impoundment to the Congress and if overrode the item by a two-thirds vote he would release the n

So by agreement between the legislative and the Executive a way to prevent this and I would hope the President would

that.

The other thing that I would like to say here, speaking fo only, and I am speaking to my colleagues as well as you. I bel the manner in which any new budget committee is constitute inportant to the success of achieving better fiscal control.

I do think it is possible that the taxation committees, the ap tions committees, and the legislative committees could desi their number representatives to serve on such a special bud mittee that could agree on a budget celling speaking for committees. I think that would be a practical approach, rat setting up an entirely new group.

No system will work unless we get some vehicle wherek y get Congress to pull together.

Dr. BURNS, Your suggestion seems very sensible to me bei will be bringing in not only the appropriations committees tex raising committees, but also the various legislative oct You would be doing it all on a representative Fasis. The nu in divi duals involved world not be so large as to be unable the job an å yet everlody would have a part in it. That mig Very best way of doing it.

the

Y

WHITTEN. Legg reciate your comment.

ULLMAN. Are there any further quest

ven do conmr then in our effort to establish a m Gerelby Conurress mould establish an overill

and expenditures, and thereby lave a mechanisti i into the whole.

Dr. PENS. I endorse that wheldleartedly, I dik it is al

as an i srecestions and perseverance lave leen met time and me want to exy ness enr appreciation to

Senator

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM BROCK, A U.S. SENATOR FE

STATE OF TENNESSEE

CAZ

UZZMAN. Seraton, me melome von fore the se

It is my

ant to to

that have been undertaken since 1 by the Congress.

I would also like to express my gratitude to Dr. Burns for his support f some of the concepts that are embodied in my bill.

With your permission, I am going to summarize my testimony rather han give it in total and I think it might ease the burden.

Chairman ULLMAN. Without objection, your full testimony will be n the record.

We appreciate your comments.

Senator BROCK. If we were spending within our means, and we are not, it would still be true that the Congress has no system for seeing to t that we are spending wisely.

If one subscribes to the view, which I do not, that deficit budgets are not harmful, it would still be true that reforms are needed.

This point is important and I raise it because budgetary reforms. leserve support not only of those who believe as I that our budgets are too large, but also deserves the support of those who favor large spending programs.

They, too, have an interest, perhaps even a greater one in seeing to it that our appropriations process makes sense, that our resources are allocated in relation to our priorities and that the programs which we fund are in fact effective in dealing with the problems for which they were designed.

Moreover, this action is something we owe to the people of this Nation. The money we are spending is not ours. It is theirs. They deserve assurance that we are spending it wisely and under the current system none of us in Congress can honestly give that assurance.

This viewpoint was clearly recognized in the Interim Report which was issued a month ago by this particular Joint Study Committee.

I want to compliment the committee for this document and for the conclusions they assert in it. To wit, the legislative process should include an opportunity for the Congress to examine the budget from an overall point of view, together with a congressional system of deciding priorities.

Gentlemen, we obviously do not have such an opportunity for such a system today. Just as obviously we should and I think we must. My proposal in this regard is embodied in legislative bill S. 40 which I have introduced in this session of the Congress.

If I may just briefly summarize it. Titles I and VI of this bill amend the House and Senate rules to create a joint committee on the legislative budget.

A joint congressional committee and a legislative budget is not a new idea. The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 enacted both concepts. But the joint committee under the 1946 act proved unworkable.

The 102-member committee was too large and frankly far understaffed, and its legislative budget proved unworkable because of inadequate time for its formulation of legislation.

One of the lessons from this experiment was that Congress simply did not have the professional staff to do the job required in budget analysis.

If I may deviate just a moment here from the text and point out that the Congressman from North Carolina who is one of the most able Members of either body was asking Mr. Burns about the possibility of congressional cooperation, consultation with OMB during the budget

preparation. That would concern me. I understand the logi request, but I am afraid it would rather than enhance the pow Congress, diminish it.

I am afraid it would again place us, as we are today, at the and the mercy of a huge and talented staff for which we have terpart to give us alternative suggestions. And I question whet is really what we want to see. I think there is a better alternat The joint committee and the legislative budget provided in would remedy earlier defects in attempts to reform the cong budgetary system.

A standing joint committee with adequate time to formulate lative budget is provided. This joint committee is streamline composed of 18 members represented by three members from the Appropriations and Finance Committees, three members fr House Appropriations and Ways and Means Committees, an members at large from both sides.

May I add, to function this Joint Committee simply must quately staffed-in fact, the original point that the Cong raised.

Incidentally, I should point out this procedure, and the attendant to it, is a normal one in many States. California, for ple, provides its State legislature with a budget review and a staff of comparable size to that afforded the Governor. This revi recommendations are encompassed in a report equal in magni the original budget proposal.

Mr. Schneebeli was asking Mr. Burns about whether or shouldn't give more power to the President because more Stat more power to the chief executive.

I don't agree because I think that is our problem today. I th have handed over too much power to OMB and to the Executiv The California process illustrates the alternative and that is the legislative branch, the peoples' branch, a staff of sufficien petence and size so as to allow us to truly be coequal.

The legislative budget would be submitted to Congress no lat May 31 of each year. The legislative and appropriations comm work will not be hindered, but a systematic analysis of the I budget will be made before any expenditure is authorized or priated.

Neither the House nor the Senate would consider any bill re out by a committee of Congress unless a statement from that con accompanies the bill as to whether an authorization or approp is within the legislative budget limits.

Thus title I of my bill effectively deals with 7 of the 11 g principles of the interim report, and provides a workable mech for their implementation.

Title II requires a 5-year budget projection in program det every major functional category of Federal spending.

Full recognition of the long-range costs of expenditure pro will provide a better basis for decisionmaking on the part of t ministration as well as the Congress.

This title repeals an existing section of the Legislative Reorg tion Act of 1970 which only superficially attempts to overcon problem.

In its place, title II provides that the executive budget and bills involving spending reported out by committees of Congress, except the Committees on Appropriations of each House, must contain a statenent of the 5-year projected costs, a comparison of projected costs with estimates by any Federal agency and a list of existing or proposed programs with similar objectives.

The idea of comprehensive 5-year budget projections has broad support. In addition to its recognition by the Joint Study Committee, the House Ways and Means Committee has expressed a deep concern for increasing expenditure levels, and recommended that budget and program expenditures should be projected on a 5-year basis, as has your study.

And just to mention one of our colleagues, the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Nelson, has long advocated a 5-year budget on defense spending.

Title III requires that all authorizations for any major Federal expenditure programs, except those funded by user taxes, must expire no less than once every 3 years. This is commonly called zero-based budgeting.

The trend today is to add on to old, existing programs without the objective or the ability to terminate or even reevaluate outmoded and useless ones. We must force program administrators to justify their existence so that we can avoid the continuing laying on of more and more patches on the quilt of Federal programs.

There is a concern expressed in your interim recommendation No. 10 of the interim report that annual authorizations are cumbersome and time consuming, and impede swift action on budgetary measures. I couldn't agree more.

Title III of my bill permits authorizations of up to 3 years, while at the same time setting up a mechanism for detailed evaluation of cach program by the Senate and House Committees with jurisdiction in that area.

In other words, if we reevaluate it at least once every 3 years, we would authorize only a third of the programs each year and it would allow the Congress to honestly do its constitutional and public function of evaluation and reform.

Title IV invites consideration of at least 2-year pilot programs for proposed major programs to provide a better estimate of cost and permit a complete evaluation before national implementation.

There are other sections in the bill, but to sum up.

We use incredible terminology these days. We say that 75 percent of the total budget is relatively uncontrollable. Two hundred and two billion dollars, relatively uncontrollable.

Social security, medicare, unemployment benefits, interest on public lebt, farm supports, public assistance, all these and more are relatively incontrollable.

There are many good programs in these categories, and quite a few bad ones. But even if they were all good, I sometimes wonder how we have the gall to stand for reelection, knowing that we have taken $202 billion from the American people and lost control of it.

It ought to be a scandal, and I believe it is. We have the opportunity how, throught the vehicle of S. 40 or some comparable measure to do something about it, to restore congressional prerogatives of the peo

ple's branch. It is the people's branch. It is the instrument of We must be capable of self-reform or we fail the American desire for us to restore the rights and responsibilities of the C and to establish national priorities within the context of avai

sources.

When we talk about congressional power, I am reminded statement of the then Governor of Michigan who stated ther State rights without the exercise of State responsibilities. I th applies to anybody. This Congress has power, an enormous granted to it by the Constitution, but that power can only be e to the extent that we accept the responsibilities that it implies If we fail to seize this opportunity, we will have failed that I think we will have failed the American people.

I would be delighted to have any questions, Mr. Chairman. [The full statement follows:]

STATEMENT OF SENATOR BILL BROCK

There has been in recent years a growing recognition in the Cong reforms were urgently needed in the method by which we appropriate t funds of the United States.

This recognition has accompanied, and to a considerable degree b by, a pattern of sharply rising Federal expenditures, which have add brought about a situation where budgetary deficits have become the rul than the exception, of governmental fiscal conduct. It is important, hov realize that budgetary reform is urgently needed, independently of this If we were spending within our means-which we are not-it would true that the Congress has no system for seeing to it that we are spendin If one subscribes to the view-which I do not-that deficit budgets are n ful, it would still be true that reforms are needed.

The point is important because budgetary reform deserves the sup only of those who believe, as I do, that our budgets are too large. It also the support of those who favor large Federal spending programs. They an interest-perhaps even a greater interest-in seeing to it that our ap tions process makes sense, that our resources are allocated in relatio priorities, and that the programs which we fund are in fact effective in with the problems for which they were designed.

Thus it is that budgetary reform is in no way a partisan or an id issue, but rather one which should be enthusiastically supported by Sena Congressmen of all persuasions.

Moreover, it is something we owe to the people. The money we are spe their money. They deserve assurance that we are spending it wisely, an the current system, none of us in the Congress can honestly give th

assurance.

This viewpoint is clearly recognized in the Interim Report which wa a month ago by this Joint Study Committee. I wish to compliment t Study Committee on this excellent document, and for the conclusion wh assert in it, that:

The legislative process should include an opportunity for the Con examine the budget from an overall point if view, together with a sional system of deciding priorities.

Clearly we do not now have such an opportunity, nor such a system. clearly, we should: we must. I have spoken on this subject throughout ti try, and I can attest that people are amazed to learn of the convolu haphazard methods which we employ. I have yet to find a citizen who believe that we should improve our procedures in this regard. I have ye a citizen who believes we are going about appropriations in the right wa A man knows that he cannot consider his needs and desires for food. clothing, entertainment, transportation, furniture, and the like separat without regard to his total available resources. His wife knows that th times when a new dress must wait while tires for the car are purchased. he knows that there are times when the new lawnmower he needs must off in favor of a new clothes dryer.