Senator BROCK. If it is any consolation you have one vote bill on the other side.

Mr. DAVIS. Senator, I think we are all joining with you i for a procedure here that will give us a more effective way might be termed a legislative budget rather than a piecer sideration of an executive budget.

I can't help but note that we did try a joint committee and generally conceded to be a failure.

I can remember also back in about the same period of tim did attempt to put all of the appropriations in one package that brought before the House in that manner in order that get an overall picture which everyone concedes to be necessary too, was pretty generally conceded to be a failure and was after the first year's experience.

Of course, for more than a century now we have had a between the revenue raising committee in the House and propriations Committee in the House and we haven't, general ing, any effective liaison between those two.

In other words, one proceeds as if there were no revenue and the other proceeds on the basis that they do not wish to the commitments that might be made through the other comm Part of your suggestion is that we have a joint committe would be a smaller one and would be more adequately staf was the previous one.

I am wondering how such a committee would have any r with the existing committees that do have the authority u House rules to deal with appropriations and with taxes.

Would you expect this to be a moral influence or how cou be some kind of effective, absolute control over what these con might do without creating a great deal of resentment on their having them say, well, you have given us how much money appropriate. You have told us how much money you should r that is really not your responsibility. The responsibility is ou I am looking for a mechanism here rather than simply sta of principle that might not have any real probative force. Senator BROCK. I think you put your finger on the nub problem.

The Congressman from Mississippi mentioned the difficulty c ing whatever reform process is suggested by this committee and agree. It is my view that one of the reasons-there are two funds reasons why the Reform Act of 1946 failed-one is the fact t had a hundred and two members of the committee. There is mittee known to man in the history of the world than can eff operate with a hundred and two members. There is no such anir Eighteen may be large, but that is as high as I could possibly in The second is in 1946 there was no counterbalancing influ terms of staff at that particular time so the Congress did no sufficient alternatives in a factual sense presented to it.

As I say. I have no pride of authorship. If this committer wisdom saw fit to present a joint committee with two member Ways and Mean, and two from Appropriations and two fro standing legislative committee. I could go for that.

I think it would be somewhat unwieldy, but it would address the oblems you raised. Alternatively, this committee which has three embers at large from each committee could rotate those at large embers based upon the legislative area that they were considering it could call in the committee chairman and ranking members of ch of the legislative committees as exofficio members to present the se in a particular problem area.

There are a number of ways we can resolve this question. The point unless we do something we are going to continue on the road to aos, and I think it is imperative that we try. Perhaps we are not ing to come up with a perfect solution, but at least we are now orking down that path in the right direction for a change-something e have not done for the last 20 years.

Mr. DAVIS. I think we are beginning to get some basic agreement on ecessity. One of the big problems is going to be to get the House and he Senate as a whole to really pay a great deal of attention to what e do.

In other words, we don't seem to have a great concern among memers generally as to what the executive branch does and I wonder how e can get a greater concern on the part of members generally as to hat a super joint committee or whatever you wish to call it is going > recommend along these lines.

Senator BROCK. If I may say, the Congress sometimes leads public pinion. Sometimes it follows. I think the tide of public opinion in this ountry is enormously powerful toward a reform of congressional esponsibility and structure to the end that we establish some say in he national priorities and some acceptance of responsibilities in terms f national utilization of resources within the framework, the limitaions of those resources.

I full well recognize the difficulty and if the Congress wants to take ny bill and toughen it up, I would be delighted.

I would say in my first draft we had absolutely mandatory standards. It could not be deviated from. I frankly felt that would not pass the Congress. I felt this is about the best I could come up with that would mave general acceptance.

I would say at least in my conversations on the Senate side that here is a growing awareness of this particular need and desire to mplement a reform structure.

Mr. DAVIS. At least you do have a number of flashing red lights along

he way.

Senator BROCK. Yes, sir.

Mr. DAVIS. Then, of course, I suppose that once you flash the warnng signal, and fools see fit to ignore the warning

Senator BROCK. Well, you raised a pretty interesting analogy. If ou are a public citizen and you ignore a red light, somebody is going to pull you over to the side of the road.

Perhaps the electorate may pull some of us off to the side of the road if we continue to ignore our public responsibility.

Chairman ULLMAN. Thank you very much. Senator. You are rendering an important service by making the public aware of the problem. We appreciate it.

STATEMENT OF HON. J. GLENN BEALL, A U.S. SENATOR F STATE OF MARYLAND

Senator BEALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With your permission I will put my statement in the ro comment briefly on the statement and make some observa might.

Chairman ULLMAN. Without objection it will be in the rec [The statement follows:]

STATEMENT OF SENATOR J. GLENN BEALL, JR.

I want to thank the Members of this Joint Study Committee on Buds for permitting me to testify today. I also want to congratulate you on t tious and thorough manner you are moving to carry out the Congress date to study and improve the budgetary process in the Congress.

The provisions mandating the Study were, of course, added to the d sion bill (Public Law 92–599). During consideration of this legislation gress engaged in an important, and for me an encouraging debate. T was triggered by the President's request for a $250 billion expendit and the blanket authority to reduce programs in order to keep federa at or below that ceiling.

The Congress, in my judgment, wisely refused to grant the Presi authority for this would have meant that the Executive Branch, an elected representatives, would determine federal spending and program Notwithstanding my deep respect and admiration for the President an that he is from my political party. I did not and could not support such The power of the purse is probably the most important power of This power includes not only the raising of revenue but also the de of how such funds will be spent. I cannot, as one who believes in the as a e equal branch of the Government, give the President a blank cl the Congress' business.

I am even more encouraged with the growing interest, as evidenc number of bills introduced in the Congress on this subject and by th tlås Committee. I believe that the debate of last year and the work of Committee may prove from the standpoint of the e untry and of the Cor. of historie significance. The true test, however, will not be whether w ways and means and have the will to take the required action and ex nedded discipline to control the budget and determine the Nation's pr Therefore, I am pleased to join in this search for improving the n of the "eoples' business by Congress.

I will now describe to the Members the provisions of S. 758, the Công Budzet Control and Oversight Improvement Act, which I introduced ary 5, 1973

Steelically. S. 758 w »uld:

1) More the federal fiscal year to coincide with the calendar year. (2) Establish an appropriations ceiling and a workable mechanism Congress to live within that ceiling and to make those necessary hard dets mining priorities.

3 Strengthen the Congressioral oreright functions to make certai federal programs are reviewed and evaluated at least every five years. 4. Renire that each bill introduced and each bill reported to the 2 an estimate of the average ensts for each taxpaying family. Create a federal program evaluation dige.

I will now disenss each of these proposals in greater detail.

e legislation won'd change the federal fiscal year, which ends fe entreide with the calendar year. The clampern of this i la is Senator M Un ler his leadershin the establishment of a volendir year budget er has been gaining nsbrille suport in the Concr

in the previons Congress over a majority of the Senators es text for his pronost!.

mess has pat e impleted action on all announciations Mills & fsal year for whid the forks are being appropriated since World W fait, less than 100% of the appropriated measures in the last decade we before the start of the fiscal year. None were passed pri

ar in either 1969 or 1970. We did better in the last Congress passing 5 out of 16 lls before the fiscal year in 1971 and 3 out of 12 bills before the start of the cal year 1972.

This is intolerable. Delay in appropriating federal funds is not conducive to anning or effective use of federal funds. It is particularly disastrous for local ucation agencies and State and local governments. As a former member of the aryland Legislature, I can say that knowing by December the Federal programs id their funding would be beneficial to the States in planning and budgeting for eir fiscal years.

While there are many causes of the delay, such as proliferation of federal proams and responsibilities, I am convinced that a move to the calendar year is an portant first step in the improvement of our budget process.

BUDGET CEILING

Secondly, under my proposal, Congress would set its own budget ceiling and eate a mechanism to make Congress discipline itself fiscally and make those hard ecisions necessary in determining the country's priorities. This concept would ork in the following manner. The Ways and Means and the Appropriations Comittees of the House of Representatives, together with the Finance and the Apropriations Committees of the Senate would meet jointly at the beginning of the ew session to examine the President's budget and then make recommendations › both the House and the Senate on a budget ceiling. The full House and the enate would then concur or modify the ceiling recommended by the Joint ommittee. Once a Joint Resolution was enacted, however, the amount specified ould be the spending ceiling for the year, unless Congress later lowered or raised e ceiling by a subsequent law. My bill also provides a mechanism for forcing he Congress to abide by the ceiling which it set.

It does this by instructing the Appropriations Committee to determine the diferences, as an average percentage increase or decrease, by the Congressional ceilng and then utilize such percentage as the guideline in considering all appropriaon measures. Perhaps an example would clarify the workings of this procedure. et us assume that the budget set by the Congress represented a 10% increase. The Appropriations Committees would then instruct its Subcommittee that a 10% crease was the general guideline to be followed. If, for example, the Interior ubcommittee of the Appropriations Committee approved a 20% increase in the nterior Appropriations bill, and this sum were approved by the full Committee, nd upheld on the floor, the Appropriations Committee would then reduce perentage guideline for other appropriations measures which may mean that the ew guideline would be 9.8%. This proposal will result in all members having an nterest in all appropriations measures, for an increase or decrease in one ppropriations bill will lower or raise the percentage for other appropriation

easures.

In short, Congress will be forced to face up to an unpleasant fact. Priority seting does not just mean passing, authorizing or appropriating bills with addiional money, but also requires the balancing of the new proposals with other -ompeting claims on limited federal resources.

IMPROVE OVERSIGHT

Thirdly, the bill would greatly strengthen the legislative oversight role of the 'ongress. The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 contemplated additional egislative review. While this idea was and is excellent I do not believe that the Act provided an adequate mechanism for achieving its goal. Therefore, this roposal is aimed at assuring an adequate, and not a cursory review, is made y the legislative Committees of the Congress. It would do this by requiring ach standing Committee of the House and the Senate to establish a Subcommittee on Legislative Review. When a Committee already has a Subcommittee, with the responsibility with respect to a subject matter, that Subcommittee, assisted by the Legislative Review Subcommittee, may evaluate the program or egislation.

However, if the Subcommittee having jurisdiction failed to evaluate and make a report of its review and study at least once every three years the Subcommittee on Legislative Review would then be mandated to conduct a review.

To make it absolutely certain that a review would be forthcoming in any vent once every five years, the General Accounting Office would be required to make a study and report to the appropriate Committee and the Congress if the

review had not been done by either the appropriate Subcommittee Legislative Review Subcommittee, by the end of the fourth year.

This procedure will guarantee that the vital oversight function i gress will be accomplished.

FEDERAL PROGRAM EVALUATION DIGEST

Fourth, my bill would require the preparation of a federal program digest. Presently, there is published each year the Catalog of Federa Assistance. This catalog runs some 817 pages and lists about 1,200 p has proved useful to our citizens and our communities in determining eral programs or benefits are available and how to apply for them.

I see the need in the Congress, and elsewhere, for a similar public in effect, would be a handy reference guide for all federal programs eral Program Evaluation Digest would to the extent feasible, be cross to the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance and contain the follo mation:

(1) the name of the program, the statute authorizing the program, federal officials administering the program, and give a brief descrip program:

(2) the original purposes, goals and objectives of the program, and a thereto :

(3) an evaluation by the head of the program on whether and ho poses, goals and objectives are being achieved;

(4) references to any study, conducted partially or completely wi funds, evaluation the program, and to the maximum extent practica ences to any study conducted completed with non-Federal funds, eval programs;

(5) the total administrative costs of the program paid out of fede the total costs of the program paid out of federal funds, and the tot administrative costs so paid as a percentage of such total costs so pa (6) the average cost to the program for each recipient; and

(7) cross-references to the program and matters related to the progr are included in the latest available Catalog of Federal Domestic Assis cluding any supplements thereto).

There is a major distinction, however, in that this Digest, unlike th of Federal Domestic Assistance, would include all federal program: just domestic programs except to the extent that national defense doe mit a program's listing.

I am certain that you and other Members of Congress on the I Senate Floors, have been confronted with an amendment increasing priation for a program for which there was no ready source of inf even the basic information that the Digest would contain.

I believe that such a Digest would be a useful and valuable tool fo ing our understanding of programs and our ability to determine pr

COST PER FAMILY

Finally, the legislation contains a provision requiring all bills and j lutions introduced, and the report of any bill or joint resolution, to in average cost per taxpaying family. While admittedly this requirement is like. I believe it is needed and will serve an important purpose. Co recent years has passed various laws designed to better inform the Acts like the Truth-in-Lending. Truth in Packaging, and others. This may be viewed as “Truth in Legislating”.

This provision will require, that in addition to our taking the c heralding the benefits of programs, we also apprise the electorate of gram costs.

Perhaps, there are better methods of computing the costs, but I believ thrust of the proposal is healthy for us in the Congress and good for t ican taxpayer. As drafted, when a member introduces a bill or an am it would have to include an estimate of the cost of the legislation for paying family. This will be calculated by dividing the cost of the bi number of federal tax returns filed with the federal government for th ing calendar year. As an example, for taxable year 1971. 60 million ta turns were filed with the Treasury. Since there are on the average 3. ner family the number of taxable returne annrovimatas the much-