faithfully executed, that obligation exists in the spectrum of the appropriation bill as in any other bill. There is no doubt of the fact that under the rule of construction that the repression of one thing is the exclusion of another, the given expression of the President excludes the veto power.

Mr. MORRISON. In the interpretation of the Constitution we would

agree.

Mr. NADER. May I say that I think it would be helpful to all concerned that the legal effects as to this concurrent resolution question should be researched.

Senator ERVIN. It is a serious question because the Constitution speaks of what the President has to sign to make it effective.

Mr. NADER. And the President does not sign a concurrent resolution. Mr. MORRISON. I think an analogy could be drawn of administered regulation of delegated power similar to concurrent resolution, but that will have to be looked into.

Mr. JACKS. May I say one thing in response to Senator Ervin's suggestion that S. 373 might be more palatable to the President, thus avoiding a veto? I do not know about that. I note that Senator Muskie had the same problem on the water pollution bill. The bill was amended to make it more palatable and the President vetoed it anyway. I think we had better not put all our eggs in that basket.

Senator ERVIN. There is no question that human beings who occupy public office are very reluctant to lose public office. George Washington said law officers had a love of power and were prone to abuse it. Senator CHILES. Thank you, gentlemen.

Our next witness will be Senator Humphrey.

After Senator Humphrey's testimony the committee will recess at approximately 12:15 to reconvene at 2 o'clock.

STATEMENT OF HON. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

Senator HUMPHREY. Mr. Chairman, I know that every member of this committee and the Congress is very grateful to Mr. Nader and his associates for the enlightening discourse that has taken place here today, and I want to join in their expression of thanks.

The issue before this committee as an agent of Congress is a basic constitutional issue to which the chairman, Senator Ervin, has directed his attention through the years, and really it is the issue of the role of Congress in the setting of public policy. It is the question of whether or not there really are coequal branches of the Government in fact as well as in theory.

Every schoolboy has been taught, of course, that there is in the Constitution a delicate balance in our constitutional system in our coequal branches of Government, executive, legislative, and judiciary.

Now, the Constitution specifically outlines in some detail the powers of the legislative branch. The article of the Constitution dealing with the legislative is the most explicit of all the articles of the Constitution. The articles dealing with the judiciary and the executive are more general.

There has been a tremendous shift in the sharing of power, a shift that has upset the delicate balance in our system, particularly as it relates to the legislative and executive branches. We know why. The dif

ficult and tortuous times of a collapse of our economic system in the early 1930's, called the great depression, the period of World War II which required the total energies of this country for victory, the period of post war for reconstruction, the period of the cold war when we lived in a very dangerous period of our history and the more recent days of confrontation on the battlefield, in Vietnam and with international situations of severity as we see in the Middle East-all of that has tended to precipitate or to impel the public to look more and more to the Executive for leadership without going into any discourse on it. The fact is that since 1930, there has been a very rapid accumulation of power in the executive branch of the Government. Much of this has come about because the Congress itself has been willing to give under stress and strain, under conditions of domestic crisis or international emergency powers to the President and the Executive Office in the belief that that Office was best capable of mobilizing the resources of this country and doing it rapidly.

This has added up to a bill of particulars which faces us today almost like a set of grievances that characterized our early history. We could list them quickly:

The Constitutional war powers of the Congress has been systematically eroded as the President committed forces to war without congressional approval. We have debated this at length.

The executive branch, without any consent from the legislative branch continues to negotiate secret international commitment pro

grams.

Policies legislated by Congress are terminated without cause by the transfer authority, contingency funds, reprograming, special waiver authority, and covert financing, are used by the executive without due notice or scrutiny by the Congress

Key executives make decisions, without public accountability, and without being subject to checks and balances.

Investigative agencies of the executive branch compile and collect dossiers on Members of Congress. Fortunately I hear that has been stopped because of the timely intervention of Chairman Ervin and others who saw this as an invasion of individual liberties and constitutional powers. Pocket vetoes are used by the branch.

The President obtains control over the congressional power of the purse through first his request and then through the assertion of a budget ceiling.

Needed information is concealed from the Congress through the doctrine of executive privilege.

The President has succeeded in getting for himself an item veto expressly denied by the Constitution.

Might I add, impounded does not only impair the flow of funds, but the impoundment actually has the result of modifying, changing, or killing a program so that impounding is like a veto without any right or without any power of the Congress to override that veto.

There has never been a more appropriate time than the present to take up this crucial constitutional question of the role of the Congress and its relationship with the executive and whether or not we have coeqnal branches of Government.

For the coming years, maybe the first time in 40 years, that the United States has not been in a state of severe depression of war or

international crisis, all of which, as I have noted, have resulted in unquestionable acceptance of Executive leadership-whether or not Congress can reassert its authority depends on the question of this Congress of law such as is being proposed in the Ervin bill and resolution and of our will.

We keep reading about this. Do we have the will to really do it? I believe there is no more timely focus for the reassertion of congressional power than the 1974 budget. I am not arguing about every detail of this budget because no one has examined that as yet, nor am I arguing that every program that we have legislated in the past should be considered or should it be accepted without modification. I am not saying that at all. I am simply saying that when the President comes down here or sends down here a budget of this magnitude, and take a look at it, it is hundreds of pages of documentation, mainly statistical information, over 1,100 pages, then with a description of certain budget programs and clearly designed charts and different exhibits to demonstrate how right the Executive is and how wrong anybody would be that disagrees with him.

I think you can begin to see the nature of our problem.

Let me lay it on the line. From the point of public relations the Congress does not have a prayer or chance today in dealing with the President on the budget. We are not organized to do it and I will document that. We do not have any way to compete with this kind of massive publication.

Every newspaper in the United States has headline stories that makes the budget look like its "holy writ." "Nixon Budget Trims Programs to Prevent Tax Rise." That is like saying three cheers for motherhood. Then you have another story here, "Nixon's $268.7 billion is designed to restrain inflation and hold line on taxes."

Well, now, how can you be against that? Who wants inflation? Who wants more taxes? He has got the argument coming and going simply because of the initative of the executive branch on the budget process.

If the Congress does not agree with what is in these sacred documents that come down here wrapped up in sealing wax with the Presidential ring seal literally upon them, looking as if they are documents of not mortals, but immortals, if the Congress does not agree we are the spenders, the fiscally irresponsible people individually and collectively and a branch of government that is totally incapable of dealing with matters of high public policy, that is why today when you read the public opinion polls Congress has held in disrepute. Individual Congressmen are apparently well enough liked to be here--but the Congress is an institution which represents the people, is held today in disfavor, not only disfavor, but disdain and I submit that is very dangerous for representative government.

I read the text of the President's radio speech to the American people. I want to just read you one line which indicates what I mean by the clever use of Executive privilege and Executive power is molding public opinion.

First of all, there are such noble statements as this, "The only way to restrain spending." Now that really required a great deal of analysis and thought, but it is a good short sentence. "The greatest threat to our new prosperity is Executive spending." Yet, I might add this budget is an unbalanced budget and that has been unbalanced for every year for years, and the theory is if you spend you get prosperity.

The whole idea is to get full employment, so despite the fact that the administration, the President recommends an unbalanced budget without the courage to provide the means of balancing it, the whole theory behind it is you have it unbalanced because if you have enough spending you encourage full employment, fuller spending. Then we get another one here that I think is rather interestingSenator ERVIN. Pardon me.

That budget itself provides for deficit financing for this year and predicts it for the year following.

Senator HUMPHREY. The Senator is absolutely correct.

Senator ERVIN. And we have also during this administration increased the national debt approximately $110 billion; isn't that right?

Senator HUMPHREY. Yes, sir.

Senator ERVIN. And isn't it true that Congress cannot provide for the expenditure of a single penny unless the President consents to that expenditure, unless Congress overrides a Presidential veto of the appropriation by a two-thirds majority?

Senator HUMPHREY. The Senator is correct.

Senator ERVIN. And does the Senator from Minnesota agree that of the spending during the first 4 years of this administration, that not more than $4 million represented expenditures made as a result of appropriation bills passed over the President's veto?

Senator HUMPHREY. That is correct.

Senator ERVIN. He has led the way in deficit spending and has he not recommended to the Congress that it appropriate $20 billion more than Congress was willing to appropriate during this period? Senator HUMPHREY. That is my understanding.

I use this little paragraph to indicate the impact on the public mind as relates to budgeting: "Take some of our urban renewal problems. They cost us billions of dollars with very disappointing results. And little wonder. How can a committee of Federal bureaucrats decide intelligently where building should take place? That is a job for the people you elected to local level." Well, Mr. President, apparently you haven't had a chance to get around to some of these cities. There isn't a single one of these building programs which is not selected by these citizens. Every community has its own housing and urban development authority. Every single building project must be approved by the county commission or council.

This kind of political garbage-and that is what it is-is misleading to the public. Bureaucrats in Washington may not do a good enough job, but it is wrong to tell the people these programs have failed simply because somebody in Washington makes the grant or the loan, without telling them that that is done after the project has been planned and approved at the local level.

Now, this budget represents one-fourth of the total gross national product, but I regret to say, and I say it sadly, Congress is not equipped to analyze this mighty document, nor are we equipped to even compete in a public examination or education of this document which starts on the defensive from day 1.

The Office of Management and Budget has more than 700 professional employees and the annual expenditure of $20 million devoted to preparing this budget.

In contrast, the Senate Appropriations Committee that has to deal with this budget, employs 35 staff aids with a total staff appropriation for all activities of committee oversight and all of $1,400,000. In short, we deny ourselves the staff technology facilities to function effectively.

Congress has the budget tools of the 1930's to deal with the budget of 1970. I just looked it up. In 1938 in the day we called Mr. Roosevelt the great spender, the budget was under $10 billion. We are talking aout $268.7 billion budget here. But there is more. To see the budget process unfold is to see Presidential power in action.

How is this budget prepared?

Mr. Chairman, I know a little bit about this as some others may. I sat in on committees that looked at the budget at certain stages. You talk about the Pentagon papers being secret. They are as open as Sears, Roebuck catalog compared to the budget. No one saw this briefing until it got down here. There were a few people who saw it. Let me tell you that this was the most secret document that this country has; no document of the CIA, no document of the State Department, no secret treaty can match the secrecy of this budget. Who prepared it?

Well, people with a passion for anonymity. How can you be anonymous and passionate at the same time? But a passion for anonymity. It is delivered to us overnight like a bolt from the blue; all the decisions have been made.

Gentlemen, we are going to operate within the perimeters of this budget. We are going to be arguing on the executive's grounds within what they have designed over there; the Congress is threatened either to go along or to be called a big spender.

If you take a close look, it shows programs are terminated, phased out, cut back, and rearranged all without a word of explanation or justification. Congress has got to demand some answers to questions about this budget.

For example, why is the spending ceiling $268.7 billion?

Why couldn't it be $269.7 billion; why not $279 billion? What is the magic about $268.7 billion? Who came up with that figure?

What is the evidence to support it? Who prepared this budget? Who was consulted? Was a single Governor, mayor, legislator. business leader, a person from the South, the North, the East, the West, a Congressman or Senator, was a single person that you know outside of the executive branch of this Government consulted on the preparation of this document? The answer is "No." The budget is an in-house document.

The fact is that if the Department of Labor, for example, wants to make a budget request, there is a budget bureau hearing examiner to listen to that hearing from the Department of Labor.

Do we know what they say? Talk about open government—not a bit. You don't know what that Department said to that hearing examiner. It would seem to be a proper document for members or staff of the appropriate committee of Congress to be present when a department makes its presentation to a budget hearing examiner.

What about the economic assumptions under this budget? Are these assumptions valid? What about taxes? What will they be?

For example, the President said we do not want any tax increase. Well, does he think we ought to have tax reforms? The President at