In other words, the Appropriations Committee could not exceed the additional ceiling given it by the second concurrent resolution for new programs or adjustments in existing programs.

The real debate, then, would come on the second concurrent resolution. Congress would work its will on the floor in connection with all the new legislation as to what funding it wants to provide. For the first time it would be considering funding for all the new programs as an integrated operation rather than through single actions on individual legislative items.

Senator METCALF. So we will begin with having these 13 appropriation bills. We will have the ceiling as established by the concurrent resolution. Then the wrap-up will be where we say, “Well, we would like to have a little more priority for education or for the REA, or maybe we need a new aircraft carrier or something of that sort.'

Mr. WILHELM. Yes, and there will be the contingency fund provided in the first concurrent resolution which can then be allocated in the second concurrent resolution for implementation in the wrap-up appropriation bill.

Mr. WHITTEN. Or adjustments could be made. You can do whatever the Congress wished to do on a particular point.

Mr. WILHELM. It would serve a purpose similar to the final supplemental appropriation bill which we now have, to implement new legislation and revised requirements.

Mr. WHITTEN. One other thing, you mentioned awhile ago about what the representation on the budget committees from appropriations and the taxation committees. I am not on Ways and Means but I am second on the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. Mahon is chairman. Sometimes he asks my advice and other places where he does not. We are close friends.

Senator METCALF. And pretty influential.

Mr. WHITTEN. We are very close. I would say, if my opinion were asked or if I was in that position, that the different viewpoints should be represented on any committee that is named. But the representatives of the Appropriations Committee on the Budget Committee would be approved by the full committee.

Senator METCALF. Senator Brock, have you any questions?

Senator BROCK. I would make the comment I have made before, about my respect for not only the special joint committee but the distinguished member from Mississippi.

I think the Joint Study Committee bill is one of the finest pieces of work I have seen. I commend him for his leadership. I am grateful for the interest he has shown. I know it took a great deal of effort.

The problem is so immense. We simply must deal with this entire budget process and procedure.

Mr. WHITTEN. I thank my friend and colleague from Tennessee. I acknowledged the fine statement I received from you and wrote you at the time. I appreciate the very fine work you have done in this area. I can see the similarity in many areas between the answers you have and the suggestions we have pointed out.

I enjoy our relationship and being neighbors. I like to say my district supports the State of Tennessee because I have all of Mississippi under your State, as you know from Alabama to Arkansas.

It is a pleasure to work with you, not only here but in other areas as well.

Senator BROCK. We are grateful for your contribution in the sense that you have seen other efforts and failures.

Mr. WHITTEN. I think I learned what wouldn't work. I hope I learned something to help me plan what might work.

Senator BROCK. I introduced a bill sometime ago on this subject. and I have said on a number of occasions that I don't have any special access to wisdom nor a guarantee that mine isn't right.

I think in essence the report of the Joint Committee endorses the concept of virtually every section in my bill and is perhaps an improved refinement on how to get from here to there, an objective we

all share.

Mr. WHITTEN. I said earlier, Senator, we have studied and recognize the value of your work and the similarity of your proposals. I hope we come out with favorable action.

Senator BROCK. I think you have done very well.
Mr. WHITTEN. Thank you.

Senator METCALF. Thank you very much, Congressman Whitten. Again I congratulate you on the splendid job well done. I think the time has come when we have an opportunity to pass this kind of legislation, to put in a ceiling, to have some fiscal responsibility and fiscal control. You and your committee have made a great contribution to opening the door for our participation.

Mr. WHITTEN. May I add one thing. This calls for a ceiling, but it is an adjustable ceiling, up or down as a majority of Congress sees fit to make it.

Senator METCALF. I have handed out a digest of the various bills before the subcommittee. We will provide as many copies as you need. Mr. WHITTEN. We would be delighted to have it.

Senator METCALF. There are some ideas in some of the individual bills that are innovative and exciting, new ideas from new Members of the Congress.

Mr. WHITTEN. Thank you.

Senator METCALF. The next witness will be Mr. Leon Shull, appearing on behalf of the Americans for Democratic Action.

Mr. Shull, the committee welcomes you, and invites you to proceed with your statement.

STATEMENT OF LEON SHULL ON BEHALF OF AMERICANS FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION

Mr. SHULL. Mr. Chairman and members of this subcommittee, my name is Leon Shull. I am national director of ADA, for whom I am testifying today.

We are grateful for this opportunity to testify cn proposed legislation to improve the budget-making process. The importance of the proposals which are presently before this subcommittee cannot be overemphasized. While ADA agrees that Congress should finally play an effective role in the budget-making process, we do not believe that the correct solutions are found in the proposals before you. Specifically, we have serious objections to the Budget Control Act of 1973 (S. 1641)

hich encompasses the recommendations of the Joint Study Commite on Budget Control.

Our objections to the report are the following:

1. The proposal would place sweeping responsibility for all Federal ending in the hands of an unrepresentative group of legislators; the gislation would set up two new legislative committees on the budget ade up of 21 members in the House and 15 members in the Senate. n each case, one-third of the members would come from the Approriations Committee, one-third from the tax committees (Ways and Means and Finance), and one-third would be appointed by the party eadership from the remaining committees.

The legislative committees created would be composed of unrepresentative legislators. The four standing committees with permanent seats on the Joint Budget Committees have traditionally been among the most conservative in Congress. Moreover, as stipulated in the report, the four committees would choose their own representatives. We can assume that the selections will roughly follow seniority lines. If the senior committee members were appointed (four Democrats and three Republicans in the House, and three Democrats and two Republicans in the Senate), the dominant two-thirds of the joint committee would register a mean ADA rating of 18.25 (18.79 for the House and 17.50 for the Senate), which is substantially lower than averages compiled for the House and Senate as a whole.

2. The geographical distribution of the membership would be as narrow as their ideological distribution; only 20 States would be represented with preassigned seats on the two committees. Four States would have two members each, Arkansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, and Michigan. Six Southern States are represented, while California is not. The geographical distribution, therefore, heavily favors southern and rural districts, while major industrial States often go unrepresented. It would seem that urban-oriented social programs would have difficulty surviving in such a committee.

3. The rule of consistency would inhibit the introduction of amendments to the concurrent resolutions; the rule of consistency requires that any amendment proposing an increase in either concurrent resolution must be accompanied by an equivalent cut in another program or by a tax increase. Since this rule requires members of Congress to agree both on the needed new funds and also on the source of these funds, it places a double burden on an amendment and on the Member when proposing an amendment. A Member will find it extremely difficult to be both a proponent of one program while an opponent of another program in a completely unrelated area. And it will be almost impossible to persuade a majority of the House to agree to both a specific budget increase and cut at the same time. A member will find it even more difficult to propose a tax increase to justify his proposal.

In addition, a two-thirds vote is needed to waive the rule of consistency. This requirement, which acts to defy the will of the majority, will make it virtually impossible to amend either concurrent resolution from the House and Senate floor.

After the concurrent resolutions are passed, it will require a twothirds vote to amend either budget authorities or outlays in excess of the amounts allocated in the concurrent resolutions thus again making it impossible for a majority of Congress to act.

4. The proposal would reduce the level of program analysis b Congress; the calendar under which the Joint Budget Committee an the Congress would adopt its original resolution on the spending an! appropriation target ceilings would actually reduce Congress' opportunity to analyze the budget. The Budget Committees must introdn. the first spending ceiling by March 1, only a little more than a mon after the administration forwards its budget proposals to Congre This means that the committees will have to adopt a target ceilin without holding extensive hearings and with little time to review an question and administration's proposal.

In addition, after the first spending ceiling resolution is introduced both Houses of Congress must act by May 1, or the administrationbudget estimates will serve as the ceiling. Debate on the House an Senate floors will be limited to 30 hours. This timetable gives Congre little opportunity to review the committee's recommendations.

5. The proposal would institutionalize the reactive posture of Congress to executive priorities; the report makes no provision for the kind of staff necessary to do a comprehensive job of reviewing, amending, reducing, or adding to the Federal budget.

The report points to the California Legislative Analyst's Office as possible model for staffing arrangements. However, the California body has 63 people and a $7 billion budget to analyze, as opposed to the Federal budget of more than $268 billion.

A similar arrangement to meet congressional needs necessaril should include at least 500 persons, but no mention is made in the report of any such staff. Without such a staff, the committee could not do the job, and would inevitably come to depend on the executive department for initiatives and information.

Mr. Chairman, we believe that the proposed committee is not a step forward. It would reinforce the seniority system and concentrate power in the hands of a few. It would counter the congressional reform movement, which, in recent years, has taken several promising stepADA believes that, at the very least, an acceptable Committee on the Budget must include the following:

1. The committee must be composed of a representative group of legislators. One way to assure such representation might be to have the original committee members nominated by the leadership of each party and ratified by each party's caucus. After the first 2 years part of the composition of the committee-say one-third-could rotate out and other members, selected in the same way, could rotate in. This rotation could occur every 2 years so that every Member of Congress would be in line to serve on the Budget Committee.

2. Adequate provision must be made for staff assistance. A sound proposal in this regard can be found in Senator Hubert Humphrey's bill, S. 1030, "The Fiscal and Budgetary Reform Act of 1973." This bill would establish a Congressional Office of Budget Analysis and Program Evaluation for the purpose of recommending budget ceilings and controlling expenditures. The office would have four divisions as follows: (1) The information section, (2) the analytic section, (3) the program evaluation section, and (4) the special studies section. In addition, specific mention is made in the bill of other resources sorely needed if Congress is to conduct any meaningful review of the budget. These resources include a computer.

3. Committee procedures should not act to thwart the will of the ajority nor exclude most Members of Congress from effective articipation. ADA objects to artificial restraints such as the "rule consistency" and the two-thirds vote requirement which assume hat Congress is weak and irresponsible when it comes to budgetary atters. We reject this view of Congress and the need for such retraints. In fact, in each of the last 20 sessions, Congress has approved eductions not increases-in total expenditures in the executive udget. Underlying any new structural proposal should be the preumption that the entire Congress is capable of playing a role in the udgetmaking process, and in fact is constitutionally required to do so. We also believe that Congress should adopt a structure that would nake priority setting an important part of the budgetary process. But this structure must permit a broad discussion of priorities-so that priorities in this country will be set by the representatives of the people and will be designed to serve the real needs of the people.

In addition, to adequately set priorities, Congress should be given the opportunity to scrutinize the budget as a whole. Perhaps the legislative calendar could be changed to permit the adoption of the budget late in each year so that the budget can be examined, discussed and adopted in its entirety, all at one time.

Finally, ADA believes that further deliberations and greater public debate on the recommendations of the Joint Study Committee on Budget Control are necessary, for these changes are far too important to be adopted in haste. We hope that with more study and with broader input, a responsible system for setting priorities by the entire Congress can be achieved.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator METCALF. Mr. Shull, the committee is very appreciative of the views you have expressed concerning the pending legislation. Are there any questions?

If not, thank you again for your statement.

Mr. Shull. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator METCALF. The next witness will be Mr. Joseph Young, Executive Director, National Advisory Council on Education Professions Development.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF JOSEPH YOUNG

Office: Room 308 1111 20th Street NW. Washington, D.C. 20036
Home: 3346 Reservoir Road, NW. Washington, D.C. 20007

Graduate of Rhode Island College. Received Master's and Doctoral Degree at Harvard University.

Taught four years in a junior high school; Executive Secretary, Rhode Island State Education Association; employed at the Graduate School of Education, Harvard University, in a number of posts, over a fifteen year period: Director of Admissions, Assistant Dean, Lecturer, Director of the Alfred North Whitehead Fellowship Program, etc.

Served in Navy, World War II and Korean Conflict; currently Captain, USNR-R.