That is what is in the budget. Senator CHILES. If there is an existing law which Congress has already contemplated, and passed. A law that something is going to be spent one way, would you tell me what authority you think the President has, by Constitution or otherwise, he is going to withhold moneys from that program because he contemplates he might pass something else or he wishes Mr. Ash. It could be very fitting within the Antideficiency Act if a program is proposed to be supplanted and the Congress agrees that it should be supplanted by a different kind of program. The Presi dent, charged with maximizing efficiency of Government expenditures, quite properly would phasedown an old program so that it would be in a better condition and more efficiently closed than if it moves right up to June 30 and closes straight down. Those are completely consistent with the Antideficiency Act, which charges the President to operate programs with maximum efficiency. Senator CHILES. Then you think the Antideficiency Act would allow the President to cut off funds from any programs that should be phased out and new programs supplemented? Mr. Ash. If he judges that to be not only consistent with, but on obligation under the Antideficiency Act to spend the moneys wisely and efficiently with good conscience. Senator CHILES. Doesn't that become a subjective judgment? Mr. Asu. I'm afraid so inasmuch as the congressional consideration of all these programs is subjective. Senator CHILES. Isn't that subjective judgment of the Congress totaled out into a vote that becomes a law? Mr. ASH. And we certainly propose in the 1974 budget what the President's subjective judgment is and offer it to the Congress. Senator CHILES. But isn't that a law, the President's subjective judg ment, that he sends to the Congress? Mr. Ash. Certainly to comply with such laws as the debt ceiling, he then must exercise subjective judgment as to how he shall comply. Senator CHILES. We are getting back to debt ceiling. I was on the Romney theory and that is what I thought we were talking about, that the President could phasedown a program, or refuse to fund a program because in his judgment he felt that a new program should supplant that. Mr. ASH. As we read under the Antideficiency Act, it does provide that if there are other developments subsequent to the date on which the appropriation was made available, that subjective judgments should be changed. This is an obligation of his. Senator CHILES. Do those other developments just go to thoughts or opinion of the President? Mr. ASH. No, sir: his other development-as a good example, in 1966 when President Johnson chose to impound some funds, an eminent Member of the House of Representatives explained that his reason for doing so was under the Omnibus Appropriations Act and under this Antideficiency Act. He did so because of the then developing inflation and he was responding to that other development, the then developing inflation, in the impounding of the funds. That is clearly another development since these funds were made available and one not contemplated by this act itself. Senator CHILES. Secretary Romney said in the news release about the withholding of funds for FHA, for the rural housing program they are not sure this would be the best way to do this and so the administration is going to have an 18-month study in which during that time no funds would be granted; is that another development there, that you just decided there could be a better way of doing it in spite of the fact the Congress expressed itself this way and do it this way, that you withhold the funds for 18 months? Mr. Asн. In fact, in that case there have been dramatic other developments, being largely that the programs have not achieved the purposes for which intended and even those that represent the congressional objectives. The moneys have not gone in many cases, in a substantial number of cases, to the recipients intended for those moneys. They have contributed to inflation, to higher costs themselves. An analysis of those housing programs suggests that the congressional objectives are not being obtained Senator CHILES. I am not talking about some of the urban renewal Mr. ASH. Subsidized housing programs, you are speaking of? Senator CHILES. No, sir. I am talking about under the Farmers Home Loan Administration, rural housing. I would like you to furnish me with any studies showing me moneys haven't been going where we thought they were going. The program was only started a few months ago. Mr. Ash. I don't have examples, but I was responding to the other one, thinking that was the one you had in mind. But still the very nature of that program is sufficiently like the other in its consequential effects and its effects on housing costs in general and inflation. That one, also deserves an 18-month look to make sure that we do have our hands on a good set of programs rather than ones that have given rise to considerable question. Senator CHILES. The Congress has felt after considerable hearings in legislation that a part of our problem in our cities was that too many people from the countryside were coming to the cities and were never going to be able to cure the problems of crime and slums and pollution as long as people were fleeing the countryside. Because of that we started doing something toward rural redevelopment. That was a judgment the Congress made after considrable hearing and policy judgment and in connection with that judgment they made a certain finding. Now, do you think the executive branch has the right to say we are going to delay funding for 18 months while we study or while we determine this is an efficient way? Mr. ASH. Certainly we are not drawing the line between good programs and bad programs. I am sure I can join with each of you in arguing the merits of many of the programs, even those touched in this reduction this year. What we are doing is to draw the line between good programs and sometimes better programs, and in the process seek a means of reducing by $11 billion the total of expenditures. This requires in some cases that the reduction be made in programs for which individual arguments can be made. That is not the issue so much as whether we can make an argument on behalf of $261 billion in total. That is really the issue at stake here, not the process, and consequence of any particular issue. This is the issue the President addressed himself to in the budget message when he encouraged the Congress to deal first with totals before it deals with individual issues. The alternative creates the kind of problem we have. That is, the individual issues are dealt with, finding merit in many, and most, and finding on the other hand that they add up to more than we can afford. We can all imagine what we would like to have as individuals purchasing items. We could have a third television set to put in the bathroom, but at some point we have to see what they add up to in total and go without it. Senator CHILES. Title IV of Public Law 92-318 provided for Federal assistance for programs designed to meet special education needs of Indian children. We had representatives here that represented the Indians. Congress appropriated $18 million in a supplemental appropriations bill which I understand the President signed. You might check into that one, too, because that will go for schoolteachers. The Indians told us that they relied upon another white man's law and they started the programs and the President has now recommended that the 1973 funds be rescinded and that no funds be spent for the Indian education programs next year. Again we recognize the President can recommend that no funds we can afford. But all of the funds for 1973 have now been reserved, impounded, struck, or what it would be, according to this. This morning someone brought to my office a speech by an Iroquois chief. Ca/bas/sa/te/go, a letter he wrote on July 4, 1744, when he was replying to an offer of the Virginia Legislature to the Six Nations, inviting them to send six young men to be educated at William & Mary. He said: We know you highly esteem the kind of learning taught in these colleges, and the maintenance of our young men, while with you, would be very expensive to you. We are convinced, therefore, that you mean to do us good by your proposal, and we thank you heartily. But you who are so wise must know that different nations have different conceptions of things, and you will therefore take it amiss if our ideas of this kind of education happens not to be the same as yours. We have had some experience of it. Several of our young people were formerly brought up in the colleges of the Northern provinces; they were instructed in all your sciences; but when they came back to us they were bad runners, ignorant of every means of living in the woods, unable to bear either cold or hunger, knew neither how to build a cabin, take a deer, or kill an enemy, spoke our language imperfectly, were therefore neither fit for hunters, warriors, nor counselors; they were totally good for nothing. We are, however, not the less obliged for your kind offer, though we decline accepting it; and to show our grateful sense of it, if the gentlemen of Virginia shall send us a dozen of their sons, we will take great care of their education, instruct them in all we know, and make men of them. I think heretofore we were sending the Indian children to schools that we thought they should go to. For the first time, this act would have allowed the Indians to have some say in how it would be done, and they were very proud of it, but now we were going to take them back the other way. I guess this goes to the example that you are saying, all programs have some merit. It is who decides which have the most merit. Mr. Asi. Let me comment on that one particularly. First, it was a very eloquent statement. I wish I could be so eloquent in defending my position here. The 1974 budget is, of course, a proposal to the Congress for congressional consideration. So that does not represent a position other than a recommendation. As to the 1973 budget which deals with the subject, funds for that very program have been apportioned to the fourth quarter of this fiscal year in order to give the opportunity for congressional consideration of the recision that is set forth on page 1074 of the appendix to the budget, which in effect is another proposal to the Congress. So in the case of this program, both as to 1974 and to the remainder of 1973, it is submitted for congressional consideration and congressional action. Senator CHILES. No funds have been impounded or withheld? Mr. ASH. They have been apportioned to the fourth quarter of this year for the purpose of allowing the Congress to consider the recommendations that came before it in the budget this week. Senator CHILES. I do not understand, apportioned? Have some funds been withheld from the fund? Mr. Asн. No, sir; under the Antideficiency Act, funds are apportioned so that they do not all get spent in the first of the year, as explained earlier. The remainder of the funds have been apportioned to the fourth quarter of the fiscal year-they have not disappeared. They are there to be spent, just as validly available as always, but only during the fourth quarter, and supplementary information has been submitted to the Congress, outlining the President's recommendations for this program, pointing out there are other sources of money for the objective that you have in mind, and for congressional consideration and action on the budget as submitted. We stand at the moment with the funds as fully available as ever, with the proposal before the Congress to deal with the use of those funds for the years 1973 and 1974, and invite action on it one way or the other. Senator CHILES. But no funds can be released—will be released to them now, and they cannot start their program now? Mr. Ash. I think it is not reducing from some amount to zero, but reducing from some amount to some other amount, and I do not happen to know that one. Senator CHILES. Can you give us the answer? Mr. COHN. I will be glad to put that in the record. I do not have the answer to that. I am sure there are funds available and are being obligated currently for that program. Senator CHILES. What you are saying is, you have the effect today as to withholding all of the funds until the fourth quarter and ask the Congress not to strike this out? Mr. ASH. Not necessarily all. We will have to find out which amounts. Mr. COHN. I think, Senator, the $18 million that the President recomLended that the Congress rescind for this program, that $18 million part of the total, was apportioned for the fourth quarter, the quarter starting April 1, to give the Congress an opportunity to decide on it one way or another. Senator CHILES. Well, I think the $18 million were the funds that were apportioned for this program, so I think it is all of it, from the testimony received. Mr. COHEN. Let us look into it. Senator CHILES. Fine. (The Office of Management and Budget subsequently supplied the following information for the record:) ANSWER TO QUESTION CONCERNING IMPOUNDMENT OF INDIAN EDUCATION FUNDS An appropriation of $18 million for Indian education was provided in the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1973, enacted October 31, 1972. The 1974 Budget proposes that this amount be rescinded in light of the wide variety of programs already providing support to the education of Indians and because the programs for which the appropriation was intended were for the most part duplicative of existing programs. A listing of the Office of Education programs and estimated 1973 obligations benefiting Indians follows: Estimated 1973 obligations in the Office of Education for programs benefiting Program Aid to school districts: Indians Elementary and secondary education: Educationally deprived children (ESEA I). Bilingual education (ESEA VII). School assistance in federally affected areas: Emergency school assistance__ Education for the handicapped_. Vocational and adult education: Vocational research: Innovation (VEA part D). Research (Part C)----. Adult education teacher training (AEA) –– Higher education: Student assistance: Work-study grants- Direct loans (NDEA II). Basic grants-- Special programs for the disadvantaged (HEA IV): Talent search___. Special services in college_ Upward bound____ Categorical institutional assistance: Strengthening developing institutions (HEA III)....... College personnel development: Training programs (EPDA part E). Cooperative education--- Library resources: Public libraries (LSCA I, II. III and IVB) School library resources (ESEA II)...‒‒‒‒‒ Library and information science research and demonstration (HEA IIB)__. Amount $24, 388,000 1,275,000 2, 799,000 32,450,000 4,000,000 817,000 781,000 120.000 13.000 250,000 $31.000 1,000,000 6, 000, 000 758, 172 1,057, 605 2, 480,000 2,590,000 344. 55. 22,500 1, 551,000 127,563 457, 600 2,825, 764 234, 620 45,000 713,000 212, 0000) 282.000 128,000 310,000 3, 706. 852 92,570, 231 While it is true that under Parts B and C of the Indian Education Act, grants could be given directly to Indian organizations, Part A-for which approxi |