1 Less than $50,000,000. The total cost of the January 1973 pay raise is about $300,000,000 for civilian agencies; most of this amount is expected to be offset by savings.

Senator BYRD. I would also like to insert in the record, if I may, a table, "Budget estimates of new budget (obligational) authority and budget outlays for fiscal 1974," which will show that of the $269 billion in budget outlays recommended by the President as a ceiling for fiscal year 1974, only 45 percent, or $120 billion, will go through the Appropriations Committees of the two Houses, and of that, we have to remember that a great deal of that is not even controllable. Hence, when it is all boiled down, only about 25 percent of the $269 billion will be subject to control of the Appropriations Committees of both Houses, which makes it pretty difficult when we talk about establishing a ceiling and making cuts in budget outlays, and new budget authority that will bring us within that ceiling. It is an extremely difficult task, Mr. Chairman.

(The table referred to and a table on uncontrollable funds follow:)

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, U.S. SENATE

BUDGET ESTIMATES OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY AND BUDGET OUTLAYS, FISCAL YEAR 1974

1974 BUDGET AUTHORITY OF RELATIVELY UNCONTROLLABLE ITEMS CONSIDERED IN APPROPRIATION BILLS

Senator BYRD. Again, I compliment you and I wish you well in your efforts.

Senator ERVIN. I would like to say a little in defense of the Congress.

We have an expression in North Carolina which frowns upon the pot calling the kettle black, and it seems to me that that homely adage applies here.

As the President stated in his press conference the other day, the Congress is financially irresponsible. Well, that offended me at first, and I came to the conclusion that the President had told the truth, but he told the half truth.

Every President that has lived in the White House since I came to the Senate-Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and President Nixon-has recommended that Congress authorize expenditure of Federal funds which would necessitate funding through the deficit financing process. If it is financially irresponsible for Congress to appropriate more funds than the current taxes are raising, it is likewise equally financially irresponsible for the President to recommend the expenditure of funds which require funding through the deficit financing process.

While I am talking about the Presidents, the most financially irresponsible one, above all of them, is the present occupant of the White House, because during the first 4 years of his administration the Federal Government has spent approximately $110 billion more than the resources that were available to the Federal Government. I may be a minority, but I have always thought that if a President is going to recommend the expenditure of more money than taxes raised, that he ought to request Congress to increase taxes to take care of the excess expenditure, and if Congress is going to appropriate more money than it had available, it should enact new tax laws.

As I construe the budget the President has recommended, it recommends that we spend money, and prognosticates that it is going to require about $30 billion of deficit financing to finish the program recommended by the President.

Senator BYRD. Mr. Chairman, I think both the pot and the kettle are black.

The President talks about the necessity for increased taxes if the Congress goes over the ceiling. Last year-2 years ago, the President recommended a program of general revenue sharing and Congress last year enacted this program to the tune of $6 billion a year for the next 5 years in general revenue sharing. I am glad to say that I voted against this.

Senator ERVIN. So did I.

Senator BYRD. Mr. Chairman, let me say this: There are many communities in my State and every other State in this Union for which this money was a windfall. This money is going to be coming into these communities; they do not know what to spend it for; they send out hundreds of thousands of letters asking people what this money should be spent for.

The money will be spent for a swimming pool or something down here where there are greater needs. But we are already tied to the tune of $30 billion for general revenue sharing in the next 5 years, including the one that has just passed.

90-538-73- -22

So here is one of the areas which I think will help to necessitate a tax increase. The President talks about the necessity for avoiding a tax increase. He talks about this tight budget and, as I have already indicated, sends up a budget request that is $19 billion greater-$19 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born-than the outlays for 1973.

In addition to this, during the first 5 years, as I have already pointed out, he will have run up a total Federal funds deficit of $134 billion, which is just 26 percent, or one-quarter, of the total national debt which has accumulated since national debts came into being in this country.

Then he talks about sparing the people continued spiraling inflation and points the finger at Congress while, at the same time, he removes phase II controls which he did not want and the Congress forced upon him against his will, in the beginning.

Here, in the Congress, we can say we, too, are a little black because every time we bring a bill to the floor, some senator, and I include myself-I think I offered about the greatest amendment of all, about a billion dollars last year, but very justified in a sense because the Federal Government was already committed to pay it; it had to do with black loan payments. But every time we get to the floor with an appropriations bill, we all join in running roughshod, barefooted, over the appropriations committee. We also authorize bills that add expenditures ad infinitum, in perpetuity, without any thought of the economics involved.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much.

Senator ERVIN. I regret I have to keep my word not to ask any questions, but I will ask you one more. I am getting obsessive in verbiage.

But it is not true under the Constitution that Congress cannot bring about the expenditure of a single penny of Federal money without the consent of the President unless Congress passes an appropriation bill over the veto of the President by two-thirds majority in each House, and virtually all of this $110 billion deficit, as I figure, incurred in the first 4 years of the administration's present occupant of the White House and was consented to by the President.

Senator BYRD. No question about it.

That deficit, which on June 30, 1973, will be $473 billion, would have been $493 billion had the Congress not cut $20 billion out of the budget authority requested by the President during the past 4 years.

Senator ERVIN. So if either the Congress or the President can be convicted on the charge of financial irresponsibility they would both have to be found guilty as principals acting jointly, as principals in the first degree?

Senator BYRD. No question but that they are both guilty, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CHILES. The tables you offered have been included in the record, Senator.

Senator BYRD. Thank you, Senator.

(The full prepared statement of Senator Byrd follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT C. BYRD, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

Mr. Robert C. Byrd. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to appear today to join in support of S. 373, introduced by Chairman Ervin and co-sponsored by almost one-half of the Senate, myself included. I wholeheartedly subscribe to the vital principle which this legislation seeks to restore and preserve, namely, the constitutional power and authority of the Congress to determine in what amounts, and the purposes for which, the Nation's revenues will be spent.

We have today been brought face to face with what recent newspaper editorials and network commentators have called the "constitutional collision of our generation" and "the constitutional crisis of the century." It is a crisis that has crystalized quite abruptly as a result of certain impoundments of budget authority by President Nixon during the past few months, but it is a process that has been going on for years under various presidents representing both political parties. The distinguishing feature of the recent impoundments which has sparked the storm of controversy lies in the fact that while some impoundments are legal and appropriate-for example, the withholding of current funds to protect against future deficiencies in programs-many of the recent impoundments have not been sanctioned by the Congress, and, in the judgment of the co-sponsors of this legislation, such impoundments constitute an instrument resorted to solely for the implementation of fiscal and economic policy.

This is where the grave constitutional question arises, and it comes at a time when the whole issue of separation of powers is being raised in many areas simultaneously-executive privilege, war powers, and so on. In all of these, the problem is one, perhaps not entirely of our own making, but, nonetheless, one to which Congress itself has substantially contributed by acts of commission as well as omission.

Regarding the constitutional issue involving impoundments of budget authority as an instrument in the exercise of fiscal and economic policy, several United States Senators, the Majority Leader and I included, have joined with you, Chairman Ervin, in filing an amicus curiae brief in the case of State Highway Commission of Missouri v. John A. Volpe, Secretary of Transportation and Caspar W. Weinberger, Director of the Office of Management and Budget. The case is on appeal to the Eighth Circuit from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The District Court ruled last June that the Secretary of Transportation does not have the power to impound Federal highway funds indiscriminately. But the case does not go to the question of the Constitutional power of the President to impound legislatively appropriated funds, since the case turns on statutory construction of the Federal-Aid Highway Act which includes a section prohibiting impoundment except under strict limitations. Therefore, S. 373 goes to the broader question of impoundmentlimiting the power of the Executive to impound except where that impoundment is sanctioned by the Congress.

As I have indicated, the problem with which we are here dealing is one that is largely of Congress' own making. Candid reflection compels the admission that, for too long now, the Congress has been unwilling to wield its power of the purse in accordance always with the highest sense of responsibility. I hesitate to suggest that it is too much to expect of the Federal Legislature considering the countless cross currents of spending pressures to which it is constantly subjected, and keeping in mind its constitution of 535 members with differing views and differing constituencies-that it at all times act in a fiscally responsible manner. But one cannot deny the patently evident fact that a high degree of fiscal responsibility, political independence and statesmanship has not been the constant standard by which the Congress has measured its collective judgment regarding the authorization and funding of programs.

In many instances, Congress has acquiesced in the creation and funding of costly and unsound programs urged upon it by Presidents of both parties. It has all too often yielded, also, to the political pressures of blocs and groups with vested interests in continued and increased funding for various and sundry programs. It cannot be gainsaid that organized special interest groups, with political clout, have, on many occasions, influenced the creation and perpetua