ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

Cohn, Lee M., The Evening Star and Daily News, Washington, D.C.:
"Spending Cuts Would Exceed $6.9 Billion", October 5, 1972
"Nixon Vetoes $29.3 Billion Labor, HEW Appropriation", October 27,
1972_

"Nixon Cuts Programs $6.5 Billion", January 29, 1973_
Crenshaw, Albert B., "Albert Raps Nixon Cutbacks", The Evening Star
and Daily News, Washington, D.C., February 12, 1973-
Dale, Edwin L. Jr., "Wide Spending Reforms Urged in Congress Study-
Annual Ceiling Is Proposed", The New York Times, February 7, 1973-
Daniel, Clifton, "Nixon and Spending: President Sees Victory", The New
York Times, February 5, 1973...

Denver Post, "Nader: Put Tough Rein On Nixon", January 31, 1973-
Dietsch, Robert, "Spending Battle Between Nixon, Congress Heats
Up", Rocky Mountain News, Denver, Colorado, February 1, 1973----
Egan, Richard, "A Twist on the Purse-String Battle", National Observer,
New York, February 17, 1973.

Elder, Shirley, The Evening Star and Daily News, Washington, D.C.:
"Mr. Constitution: It's All Up to Him", January 30, 1973-
"Impoundments Unconstitutional, Rehnquist Told Nixon", Febru-
ary 7, 1973.

Page

1021

1022

1024

1028

1028

1029

1030

1031

1032

1034

1036

'Nixon Defied on Farm Funds", February 8, 1973..
"The War Over Impounded Funds", February 11, 1973

1038

1040

Elsasser, Glen, "Congress, Nader Upset: Furor Increases Over Nixon
Fiscal Stand", Chicago Tribune, February 5, 1973.
Evening Capitol, "Colorful Ervin Attracts Controversy", Annapolis,
Maryland, February 19, 1973_

1042

1043

Evening Star and Daily News, The, Washington, D.C.:

"Key Nixon Officials Link Tax Lid to Spending Ceiling", October 3,

1972.

1043

"Woodcock Hits Nixon's Policy on Environment", November 29, 1972_

1044

"Water Cleanup Delay", editorial, December 4, 1972-
"Evins Says Nixon Impounded Funds Totaling $12 Billion”, Jan-
uary 16, 1973__

1044

1045

And the State of the Opposition", editorial, January 21, 1973.. "Budget Confrontation", editorial, January 24, 1973.

1046

1047

66

Ash Says U.S. to Aid Viets At Cost of Domestic Needs", February 11,
1973

1049

1050

Fialka, John, "Environmentalists On Hill Hit Nixon Fund Impounding", The Evening Star and Daily News, Washington, D.C., November 29, 1972 ..

"A Tough Line On Domestic Spending", editorial, February 11, 1973Federal Times, "Amtrak for Arkansas-Fulbright Seeking Foreign Aid Cuts", February 21, 1973---

1051

1052

Finney, John W., "Congress-Challenge To the Lawmakers", The New
York Times, December 3, 1972.

1054

Greensboro Daily News, "The 'Impoundment' Flap", editorial, Greensboro,
N.C., February 9, 1973-

1055

Hamilton, Martha, "Broyhill, Hogan Act To Save Impact Aid", The
Washington Post, February 10, 1973.

1057

Heffner, Linda J., "Nixon Budget Sets Stage for Battle; Congress Fires
Opening Salvos", Philadelphia Bulletin, February 2, 1973_

1057

Hendron, Ron, "Bare Bones Budget: Story of Bombs vs. Books", Washington Weekly, volumn II, No. 31 (1972)

1058

Hill, Don, "They're Trying To Open the Money Tap", The Virginian-
Pilot, Norfolk, Va., February 4, 1973.

1059

Horner, Garnett D., "Nixon Says Right to Impound Based on U.S.
Constitution", The Evening Star and Daily News, Washington, D.C.,
January 1973.

1060

Kraft, Joseph, "Budget Battle, Round One", The Washington Post,
February 11, 1973.

La Course, Richard, "Nixon Administration Slashes BIA Budget", The
Cherokee One Feather, Cherokee, N.C., October 4, 1972-
Large, Arlen, and Norman Miller, "Back to Battle", Wall Street Journal,
January 2, 1973.

Houston Post, "Pickle Pushing Bill To Cut Back President's Power",
February 1, 1973..

Humphries, Bill, "Farm Program Dropped", The News and Observer,
Raleigh, N. C., December 27, 1972..

Journal, "Impounding Funds", Providence, R.I., November 1, 1972__
Kennedy, John, "HUD Ruling Halts Delaware Housing", State News
(Dover, Del.), January 10, 1973---

Page

1061

1062

1063

784

1064

1065

1066

Lawrence, David, “Can Deficits Be Congress-Proof?", The Evening Star and Daily News, Washington, D.C., October 16, 1972.

1069

Long Island Press, "Congress vs. the President", editorial, Long Island,
N. Y., February 7, 1973..

1070

Lyons, Richard L., and Spencer Rich "Senate Defies President for OMB
Voice", The Washington Post, February 6, 1973...

1070

Mathews, Jay, "3-Year Wait Seen in Plan For Potomac", The Washington
Post, January 25, 1973.

1072

Miami News, "Is Great Society on Way Out?", January 27, 1973

1073

Milius, Peter, "Nixon Defends Budget Cuts", The Washington Post,
Washington, D.C., January 29, 1973.

1074

Miller, Norman and Arlen Large, "Back to Battle", Wall Street Journal,
January 2, 1973.

1066

Minneapolis Tribune, The, “Loan Freeze Chills Hope for Home Repairs",
February 2, 1973.

787

Morgan Guaranty Survey, The Morgan Guaranty Trust Company, New
York, "Getting a Grip on the Federal Purse", January 1973-
Morning Globe, "Mr. Nixon Takes His Stand", Boston, Massachusetts,
February 2, 1973..

1077

1081

Murray, David, Chicago Sun-Times:

"Nader Suggests a Bill to Curb Impounding", January 31, 1973---"Sam Ervin Gets the Congress Crusade Rolling", Chicago Sun-Times, February 4, 1973...

1082

1083

Naughton, James M. The New York Times:

"Ervin Assuming Leadership in Effort to Reassert the Authority of Congress", February 4, 1973..

1085

"Wide Spending Reforms Urged in Congress Study-Official Upholds Nixon", February 7, 1973_..

1087

"House Votes Bill To Require Nixon To Release Fund", February 8, 1973.

1088

"Nixon's Challenge-Struggle Over the Power of The Purse", February 11, 1973.

1090

"Funds Release Pushed In Senate", February 12, 1973..

1091

News and Observer, The, Raleigh, N.C.:

"Highway Fund Suit Pondered", Sept. 9, 1972.

1093

"Ervin Mulls Stiffer Impoundment Statute", February 12, 1973New York Post, The, "Nixon Aide Says Curbs on Spending Are Legal", February 6, 1973.

1093

1094

New York Times, The:

"Power of the Purse", October 27, 1972.

1095

Randal, Judith, "Fund Freeze on Wastes Hit", The Evening Star and
Daily News, Washington, D.C., December 1, 1972___

1095

Rich, Spencer and Mary Russell, "Hill Strikes At Budget on Three
Fronts", The Washington Post, February 2, 1973__

1096

Rich, Spencer and Richard L. Lyons, "Senate Defies President for OMB

[blocks in formation]

"Senate Seeks Way To Block Nixon Funds Impoundment"

1101

Russell, Mary and Spencer Rich, "Hill Strikes At Budget on Three
Fronts", The Washington Post, February 2, 1973.

Russell, Mary and David S. Broder, "Rural Aid Revival Is Voted-House
Fights Nixon Freeze In 251-142 Test", The Washington Post, Febru-
ary 8, 1973.

Page

1096

1103

San Francisco Chronicle, "The Struggle Over Powers", January 28, 1973_

Sarro, Ronald, "Ervin Pressing For Stiffer Curbs On Impoundment",
The Evening Star and Daily News, Washington, D.C., February 14,
1973_

Schlesinger, Arthur, Jr., "Law, Order and President Nixon: II", Post-
Dispatch, St. Louis, Mo., October 31, 1972

1105

1106

1106

Scott, Austin, "Cutbacks Planned In Social Services", The Washington
Post, February 12, 1973.

1108

Sehlstedt, Albert, Jr., "Albert Joins Fund-Freeze Opponents", The Sun,
Baltimore, Maryland, January 27, 1973.

Shandler, Philip, "Court Battle Readied To Save OEO Program", The
Evening Star and Daily News, Washington, D.C., February 8, 1973....
Times-Dispatch, "Sen. Ervin Probes Congress' Conflict With Expanding
Role of the Presidency", Richmond, Virginia, January 28, 1973...
Tomasson, Robert E., "Freeze on Funds Shatters a Dream in East Har-
lem", The New York Times, Jan. 28, 1973_.

Wall Street Journal, "Business Bulletin: A Special Background Report on
Trends in Industry and Finance", November 30, 1972.

Washington Post, The:

"Water Over the Budget," October 22, 1972__

1109

1110

1111

790

422

1115

"Impounded U.S. Funds Challenged", January 27, 1973. "The Poor Potomac", January 29, 1973

1116

1117

"Acknowledgeing the Status of OMB", February 5, 1973"The Impoundment Battle", February 6, 1973

1117

1118

"Hill Chairman Attacks OEO Dismantling", February 8, 1973. "Mills Says President Can Impound Funds", February 11, 1973 WCBS-TV Editorial, Channel 2, New York, January 9, 1973. Wicker, Tom:

1119

1120

1120

"Impounding and Implying", The New York Times, February 8, 1973_...

1121

"Impounding and Implied Power", The Evening Star and Daily News, Washington, D.C., February 8, 1973.

1122

Winters, Bruce, The Sun, Baltimore, Md.:

"Democrats United on Budget", January 31, 1973..

1123

"Muskie Urges Challenge to 'Usurpation' of Power", February 1,

1973_

1124

"Ervin Hints at Subpoena; Top Aides Grow Available", February 2, 1973.

1125

Wilson, Richard, "Spending Power Shift-A Radical Departure", The
Evening Star and Daily News, Washington, D.C., October 16, 1972_

1127

IMPOUNDMENT OF APPROPRIATED FUNDS BY THE

PRESIDENT

TUESDAY, JANUARY 30, 1973

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEPARATION OF POWERS,
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY AND THE AD HOC
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMPOUNDMENT OF FUNDS,
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in room 3302, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Ervin, Chiles, Burdick, Metcalf, Muskie, Gurney, Percy, and Javits.

Also present: Robert B. Smith, Jr., chief counsel and staff director, Committee on Government Operations; Rufus L. Edmisten, chief counsel and staff director, Walker F. Nolan, counsel; and Prof. Arthur S. Miller, staff consultant, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers; and George Patten, legislative assistant to Senator Chiles, chairman of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Impoundment of Funds. Senator ERVIN. The meeting will come to order.

OPENING STATEMENT BY SENATOR ERVIN OF NORTH CAROLINA

Senator ERVIN. We have met today to hold hearings on S. 373, the bill which relates to the executive impoundment of appropriated funds. This bill is referred to the Government Operations Committee. The Judiciary Subcommittee on Separation of Powers is sitting with the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Impoundment of Funds of the Government Operations Committee, chaired by Senator Chiles, to assist in hearings because the subcommittee conducted hearings on this same subject some time ago and is familiar with the subject.

This bill is, in my judgment, a very important bill because it raises the question of whether the Congress of the United States will remain a viable institution or whether the current trend toward the executive use of legislative power is to continue unabated until we have arrived at a presidential form of government.

As I have said many times during hearings conducted by the Separation of Powers Subcommittee on various subjects, the executive branch has been able to seize power so brazenly only because the Congress has lacked the courage and foresight to maintain its constitutional position. The Congress has failed as an institution to equip itself physically to carry out its legislative duties independent of the executive branch, much less to perform its important function of over

(1)

seeing the activities of the executive branch in administering the programs it has enacted. Moreover, as individuals, too many of us have found it more comfortable to have someone else the President-make the hard decisions and relieve us of responsibility. Too often, I fear, there have been those among our ranks in the legislature who would rather receive a social invitation to the White House than display loyalty to the governmental institution to which they were elected. The time has come when something must be done to restore the Congress to its rightful role, or our representative system of government cannot survive.

The bill we are considering today, S. 373, which is cosponsored by over 50 members of the Senate, is the outgrowth of hearings conducted in March 1971 by the Separation of Powers Subcommittee on the constitutional issues raised by the practice of Executive impoundment of appropriated funds. Testimony and materials adduced at those hearings revealed that over $12 billion in appropriated funds were then being impounded by the President. Since that time, President Nixon has asserted that he will keep Federal spending within a $250 billion ceiling by impounding funds appropriated above that limit. Already we have seen the termination of several agricultural programs, including the rural environmental assistance program and emergency disaster loans to farmers, and we are all aware of the President's recent action in cutting $6 billion in funds for water pollution control which the Congress has authoriezd over the Chief Executive's veto. More than likely the list of illegally impounded and terminated programs will grow, unless Congress stops it.

Another recent and particularly flagrant impoundment action, which flies directly in the face of expressed congressional intent, is the withholding of more than $5 billion in the Highway Trust Fund. This issue was litigated in Missouri Highway Commission v. Volpe. (347 F. Supp. 951) where the U.S. District Court on June 19, 1972, held that the Secretary of Transportation and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget do not have discretion, under the FederalAid Highway Act of 1956 as amended, to impound Highway Trust Fund moneys except for reasons set forth in the act. The district court decision was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and on January 2 of this year 22 other Senators joined me in filing an amicus curiae brief in the case. The appeals court heard oral argument on January 10, 1973, but has not yet rendered its decision.

Yet even now, while the President continues his efforts to negate the programs created and funded by Congress in accordance with its constitutional responsibility, the record will show that during the first 4 years of his administration, President Nixon urged Congress to appropriate $20 billion more than Congress was willing to authorize. Reserving of appropriated funds is not a new concept, and when undertaken pursuant to congressional dictate it may be quite useful in effecting economy. Unfortunately, however, impoundment most frequently occurs under circumstances where the executive branch, for reasons of its own, desires to avoid expending funds which the Congress has explicitly directed to be spent for some particular purpose. It is this situation which poses a threat to our system of government and which so patently violates the separation-of-powers doctrine.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »