mately two-thirds of the $18 million appropriation would go-only provides for grants to local education agencies. Thus, less than one-third of the total $18 million would otherwise be available for allocation directly to Indian organizations.

Senator CHILES. I wanted to ask you, when we get into this question, then, of merit, some programs have merit, some have more merit. Does the Congress have say-so as to which programs have merit?

Mr. ASH. Absolutely. That is the purpose of congressional action, to deal exactly with that point. That is the main function, a main function at least to determine the merits of the many competing programs that are available to it.

Senator CHILES. We talked a lot about the debt ceiling and the mandate that the President has because of the debt ceiling, $465 billion. Is the President going to ask for an increase in the debt ceiling this year?

Mr. ASH. If again you will refer to the budget, and I do not know the page, it indicates we can under the plans the President is now working on-that is, the $250 billion total limitation-we can move to the end of the year and still stay within that debt ceiling.

Senator CHILES. How about next year?

Mr. AsH. Next year the budget as submitted indicates that an increase in that debt ceiling will be needed.

Senator CHILES. So that is something that this administration has on several times in the past, and already plans in the future to ask for an increase; is that correct?

Mr. ASH. That has been the customary practice and I am sure will continue to be the customary practice.

Senator CHILES. It is interesting to me, if that is the customary practice, why the President now feels he is held within the law of the debt ceiling and he cannot violate that law in any way, and therefore that becomes constitutional duty when he holds spending within that, when he plans as is practice to ask for an increase.

Mr. ASH. But this does not mean to ask for an increase at an indefinite time. There is an important need to restrain the rate of debt growth and the rate of inflation, and even the Senate, particularly, has expressed its sense that $250 billion was a correct amount to spend during last year.

Senator CHILES. How did they express that?

Mr. ASH. When Senator Ervin was talking about the action taken that never did become law because of the inability to work out with the House

Senator CHILES. Mr. Ash, most things we do around here, if they do not come out to a law, we do not think they amount to much. That is to be a law for us.

The interesting thing, and what I am trying to understand is, you are saying it follows what the balance is between inflation and new taxes, and this is when you can ask for an increase in the debt ceiling and when you cannot; is that correct?

Mr. AsH. Yes, sir; if you will again refer to the budget and particularly in this case I refer to the charts that went along with the budget. The full employment balance concept is one that carefully measures out the amount of deficit that in any 1 year is an amount of stimulus to get us on the road toward full employment, but not so much stimulus that it goes on the road of rampant inflation.

90-538-73-20

The budgets for this year, for next year, and into 1975, all are ones that are very close to maintaining full employment balance, that being defined as the proper balance between these various factors at work; and we all know, given our experiences in the late sixties, that we do not want the kind of inflation we had then.

Senator CHILES. But then it is all right to ask for an increase in the debt ceiling if it is going to help this full employment ceiling or whatever it is; it is all right to ask for an increase in the debt ceiling then?

Mr. Asi. Yes, sir. The level of debt is directly tied to full employment balance and the concept of the full employment budget as being that that is best able to get us to the optimum economic situation.

Senator CHILES. Now, that full employment theory, that is a theory, is it not; and that is a subjective judgment, is it not?

Mr. ASH. There are many theories and that is one. There is the theory of unified budget versus Federal one.

Senator CHILES. But that is a theory?

Mr. ASH. Yes.

Senator CHILES. So it is all right to ask for an increase in the debt ceiling for that, but it is not all right to ask for an increase in the debt ceiling to carry out the statutory law that is on the books, the spending law that is on the books?

Mr. Asи. Yes, sir; in that theory it does provide the final discipline, the ultimate discipline of debt level, that is, that in the making of a tradeoff between expenditures, taxes, inflation-what we are talking about is the tradeoff.

Senator CHILES. That is the theory?

Mr. Asm. That is the theory, that at that point of optimum tradeoff, one would have full emplovment balance and the amount of debt that went along with full employment balance. To move away from that in the direction of greater debt would be to move to a condition of inflation at an unacceptable level, and in the process be contrary to the other constraints imposed upon the President.

Senator CHILES. I am really not arguing the full employment theory. I am trying to determine if, under that reasoning, then, it is more important, or the administration would rather follow theory than the law, the existing law?

Mr. Asu. It is the law as well. The Congress, for instance, had full opportunity when it voted appropriations that ended up with total spending of $261 billion to increase the debt ceiling on a comparable basis. It did not exercise that option to increase the debt ceiling on a comparable basis, and, as a result, the President lived with the debt ceiling that was handed him.

Senator CHILES. But would the President put the theory above the law?

Mr. ASH. No: the law is always controlling and there are a number of laws that did in fact control the particular actions that he took during this vear.

Senator CHILES. Senator Muskie.

Senator ERVIN. I have not finished.

I can explain what the full employment theory is. It is the assumption that Federal officials use to stultify their consciences and make them support deficit financing. That is what it is. That is all it is.

I will make it short.

I understood you to tell Senator Chiles that the President could stop executing the law in the hope and expectation that Congress at some future time would repeal that law or change it?

Did I understand you to say that?

Mr. ASH. I am not sure I understood the point that you were making. It may have been regarding

Senator ERVIN. I understood you to tell Senator Chiles that you thought the Antideficiency Law empowered the President to refuse to spend an appropriation in the hope or expectation that at some future time Congress would repeal the law when it made that appropriation. Mr. Asн. No, sir; I think that is not the way to characterize the discussion that we had. I was particularly quoting that which you had earlier quoted. In apportioning any appropriation, reserves may be established because of changes in the requirements or other developments subsequent to the date on which such appropriation was made available.

Senator ERVIN. That does not say anything about the President being given the power of cutting into the program funded by Congress, by its appropriation.

Mr. ASH. I am not sure I am tracking exactly.

Senator ERVIN. I say those statutes do not give the President power to nullify the appropriation bill as passed by Congress, to read those as inappropriation. It says apportionment for expenditure, not for cutting into expenditure.

Mr. ASH. No; but, if conditions change, we obligate the President to change. If there was a bill passed by the Congress to paint the White House once again and even a different color, and if we went

over

Senator ERVIN. Is this apportionment done for expenditure of appropriations, to avoid deficiencies?

If apportionment reserves may be established to provide for contingencies, it means contingencies which would arise carrying out the programs. It also says that the three other cases in which reserves may be established are, one, to effect savings wherever savings are made possible or through changes in requirements-that is, changed requirements of the project—and if you change it, to make it less than the amount of money expended.

The next is when it is possible by or through greater efficiency of operations.

If you find a better, more efficient way to develop the project at less expense, then you can do that.

The other one is, other developments subsequent to the date on which appropriation was made available.

Now, for example, on the recommendation of OMB, the President impounded environmental funds. There have been no changes to cause less pollution in our watercourses, have there? The pollution is still there, so there have been no subsequent developments after that appropriation was made.

These children have not become educated since the appropriation was made for their education, and yet those funds have been impounded. I think it is just as clear what the Anti-Deficiency Act means. It just means you can reserve a share for a contingency which arises as a re

sult of carrying out the project, or where there has been a change in the requirements of the projects which make it less expensive, or where you can get greater efficiency and operation of the project, or where there is some change or development after the appropriation is made. I do not see in any of these cases that any of these needs have vanished for which these appropriations were made. I do not think that the President or the OMB think that they can decide better than Congress that the change in the development of that thought is a change in the development of this condition.

Mr. Asн. Sir, your reputation for the law on the subject is widespread and I am not going to attempt to answer it here, knowing that a representative of the Justice Department can do better than I, but I would say that one change of condition that we all are mindful of is the total adds up to $261 billion, not $250 billion, and that $11 billion added on top of the economy as it is, is a very substantial other development and condition.

Senator ERVIN. To save time, I will put in the record a statement prepared by Congressman Evins from Tennessee, chairman of the Subcommittee on Public Works and Atomic Energy, figures for 1973 showing the funds which he says that he got from the different departments administering these different programs by OMB.1 Senator CHILES. Senator Muskie.

Senator MUSKIE. Mr. Ash

Mr. ASH. I have been invited to make a statement here. I have made it and have made a very important commitment that I be back to the White House in just about 25 minutes from now. I am willing to come back at any other time, but I would, if possible, like to be able to make that other commitment.

Senator MUSKIE. Are you willing to lift the debt ceiling?
Senator ERVIN. You say you can come back later?

Mr. ASH. If I can leave within 10 minutes.

Senator CHILES. We are going to have these hearings on the sixth and seventh and I am sure that there are some other questions that Senator Muskie, who has been here patiently during all your testimony, and I think probably Senator Javits and Senator Roth have also been waiting. Would the seventh be convenient?

Mr. ASH. The seventh-I am before the House Appropriations Committee on the sixth, but I would work out coming back here on the seventh, and if 10 minutes will do any good I will stay with you for that time. I am sorry I made this other commitment-I did not make it, I had it imposed on me-that I cannot get out of.

Senator CHILES. Would you like to start into 10 minutes?

Senator MUSKIE. That would hardly

Senator JAVITS. I would suggest maybe we could profit from reading what the questions and answers are, too.

Senator CHILES. Senator Muskie has been here.

Senator CHILES. Would you like to start into 10 minutes?

Senator JAVITS. That's fine with me.

Senator MUSKIE. I will be glad to touch upon relevant points.

First of all, Mr. Ash, in your statement you say much of the present difficulty results from a lack of congressional mechanism to review

1 See page 563.

and act on the overall situation in advance of taking appropriation and other legislative action.

I would guess, therefore, that you would support legislation that I introduced yesterday that would require that all agencies, when they send their budgets to the Budget Bureau, submit them at the same time to the appropriate committees of the Congress so that we may be equipped with the same information that the Executive is at the same time that the Executive is, and thus prepare ourselves better in your estimate, to deal with these important budget responsibilities.

Mr. Asн. I am not sure that that would be the most effective way for the Congress to deal

Senator MUSKIE. May I remind you, Mr. Ash, before the creation of the Budget Bureau in the early twenties, all budget requests came to the Congress first.

Mr. ASH. Yes, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. And the purpose of establishing the Budget Bureau was to help the Congress do a better job. The original purpose has since been twisted into a denial of relevant information to the Congress that is submitted to the Executive.

If what we are talking about is priorities and determining which programs are better, are we not entitled to have the evaluation of the relevant agencies at the same time the Executive is so that when we are asked to consider your reshaping of those priorities, we have the exchange of the same information that you do, apart from the legislation which you have not seen and you cannot comment on the mechanics?

Mr. Asн. Well, I am sure, sir, in the process of hearings that always take place regarding the budget, there is considerable opportunity to consider the many options, possibilities, alternative ways of

Senator MUSKIE. Who is the better judge of how we can perform our procedures, you or the Congress?

Mr. Ash. I think the fact is, as you may know, the President has expressed a strong willingness to be cooperative with the Congress but without attempting to suggest what method the Congress adopts. We agree it is the business of the Congress to determine the method it adopts. We will be cooperative in working with any group of people. Senator MUSKIE. If the Congress enacts this piece of legislation, in your judgment, would you recommend that he sign it?

Mr. ASH. I don't even know that particular piece of legislation. Senator MUSKIE. We are speaking of principle and not the legislation. The principle is at the time the President receives budget recommendations from the agencies and departments, that the same information come to the Congress so that we can start off on the same base of information, get started at least at the same point, even though we may anticipate that we would end up at a different point.

All I am asking is that we get the cooperation to which you pay lip service to get the information at the same time you do. Now, what possible objection do you have to that?

Mr. ASH. I would recommend that such a bill not be signed to the degree that I understand it for the following reasons: Given the present structure within the executive branch of the Government, a very fragmente: one, individual programs in many cases, not each and