ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

PUBLIC WITNESSES

Burt, Robert A., professor of law, University of Michigan_.

Maass, Arthur, Frank B. Thompson professor of government, Harvard
University

Cooper, Poseph, professor of political science, Rice University-.

Pollak, Louis H., professor of law, Yale University.

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

GOVERNMENT WITNESSES

Sneed, Hon. Joseph T., Deputy Attorney General, statement_.

Page

359

426

408

380

253

CONGRESSIONAL WITNESSES

Abzug, Hon. Bella S., a Representative in Congress from the State of New
York, statement-.

499

Alexander, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the State of Arkansas, statement___

493

Brotzman, Hon. Donald G., a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado, statement..

490

Evans, Hon. Frank E., a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado, letter to Chairman Madden__.

491

Ford, Hon. William D., a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, statement_

491

Harrington, Hon. Michael J., a Representative in Congress from the State of Massachusetts, statement__

495

Hungate, Hon. William L., a Representative in Congress from the State of
Missouri, statement___

489

IMPOUNDMENT REPORTING AND REVIEW

MONDAY, MAY 7, 1973

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON RULES,
Washington, D.C.

The committee met at 2:15 p.m., pursuant to notice, in room H-313, the Capitol, Hon. Ray J. Madden (chairman of the committee), presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order.

Today we are resuming the impoundment hearings and we have Congressman Jones of Oklahoma.

You may proceed, Congressman.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES R. JONES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I realize your schedule is heavy and I will answer any questions after making a few brief opening remarks.

I would say that based upon two things; my conversations with the people on the street, so to speak, back in my district, and with a number of legal scholars, both professors and practicing attorneys, I hope that this committee will act swiftly in reporting out a bill, and of course my choice would be the Mahon bill.

I come from a district which President Nixon carried by over 100,000 votes and I was the first Democrat to be elected in 22 years from that particular congressional district.

So it is not an antiadministration feeling in that district. I have talked to a number of people of both parties. They both look at this impoundment bill in the same light as I do. It is a very basic law and order question, the basic law of the land, the Constitution and who shall determine the spending and priority items, determining the priorities for the Federal Government.

I think most of the people in my district, based upon my conversations with them and the responses to our television debate on the subject of impoundment, the feeling is that to do less than to statutorily set the limits as to what the executive and the legislative branches should do would be very detrimental to the future type of government we want to have.

It may be that in my district 100 percent of President Nixon's impounding cuts are agreed to and are sympathized with.

But what my district looks at is 3 and 4 years down the road when there is a new President, when we may have a different set of prior

ities, and then they want their Congressman to have some power to be able to go back to Washington and have some influence in representing their viewpoints.

They feel that if we don't pass legislation such as this impoundment bill that Congress will be reduced to second-class status without any power to represent the viewpoints of the districts.

So I would urge swift approval. I would hope that the Mahon bill would be the one that would be reported out. I have talked to a number of scholars, as I say, on behalf of Speaker Albert who requested their opinions, and I think the majority of those that I talked to prefer the Mahon bill.

I think it is important to build into the record that this legislation in no way gives the executive branch any constitutional license for impoundment, but this merely through statute sets limitations and some guidelines.

So with those comments, Mr. Chairman, I would again request that this committee act as swiftly as possible, and I submit to any questions. The CHAIRMAN. We are very happy to hear those words from the Congressman.

I might say that these hearings started several weeks ago, but on account of the pressure of the leadership wanting to get other legislation out before the Easter recess, we were unable to terminate the hearings or finish up the various witnesses that wanted to testify.

We met about every day the week previous to the Easter recess. Of course, we were out a week during that recess.

It is my desire and I think the desire of the committee to hear all the witnesses who want to testify and there will be several to submit statements. I have in my hand here requests from several distinguished scholars. One is from Prof. Robert A. Burt of the University of Michigan Law School. He has requested to come before the committee.

Others are Prof. Louis H. Pollack of Yale University Law School, Prof. Arthur Maass of Harvard University and Prof. Joseph Cooper of Rice University in Texas.

They have requested to be heard. I think the committee wants to hear them and eventually submit legislation to the House because there is a terrific demand that something be done on this impoundment question.

I am glad to get the testimony that you just offered Mr. Jones.
Mr. Bolling?

Mr. BOLLING. No questions.

Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Jones, you realize in the previous hearings that a number of Members of Congress have testified that the Mahon bill will not work?

Mr. JONES. I think there is some very legitimate disagreement. I think it has to be looked at in terms of what we can do, as far as what is possible. I would say the Mahon approach, from that standpoint, would be the best approach.

Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Mahon, I believe, said his bill was a very narrow one. Others said, because it provides for a concurrent resolution which would not go to the President for approval, it would not be constitutional or indicated it might not be constitutional.

I wondered if you realized that?

Mr. JONES. I don't see the constitutional question being valid, based upon my research. I think it would be held constitutional. Actually, if I had my preference, I would take an approach somewhere in between which would allow instead of an affirmative or negative review by Congress as to Presidential impoundment, which is basically, I understand, the difference between the Ervin and Mahon bill, I would prefer to allow one body, either the House or the Senate, to reject a Presidential impoundment.

Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Chairman, that is all. You did a good job.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Young.

Mr. YOUNG. I take it your concern goes to the priorities rather than the dollars and cents of any given program that the Congress is the proper functionary to assess the priorities and within the basic structure of the Constitution, that that is what needs the dissension more than actually what programs are being affected?

Mr. JONES. Yes, sir, I have seen this from two ends now. As Congressman Young knows, for 4 years I served on President Johnson's staff and saw it from that particular atmosphere and then as a freshman Congressman this year, and prior to that as a congressional assistant.

I have seen it from both ends. I think there is no question but that this erosion of congressional power goes back to at least the Kennedy administration, which was my beginning in Washington.

I think that there is no question but that Congress is the closest link between the Federal Government and the people and whereas a staff assistant or a President at the White House very seldom gets out in the street and has his ear bent as to really what is concerning people. Congressmen have this experience at least twice a month and sometimes more.

I think our founding fathers set up our form of government so that Congress should make these policy decisions. I think that we should reestablish our founding fathers' system.

Mr. YOUNG. I am as concerned about those funds that have been earmarked for approval that come up here in the budget as to what the priorities are that have kept them in there and so forth as much as I am about the ones that are frozen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Latta?
Mr. LATTA. No questions.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Clawson?

Mr. CLAWSON. Let me ask the same question I have asked one or two other witnesses. This past year the Congress, by action in both Houses, although it didn't become law, certainly signaled loud and clear at the President's request that it wanted to provide a $250 billion spending ceiling.

That is what he asked for, that is what the Congress gave him in essence, even though it never did become law. Yet, there were $261 billion in appropriations.

Given that situation, what would you have done as President? Mr. JONES. I think the President, probably from his viewpoint, made the right decision as he saw it. That is not the question. To me the question is should Congress have the responsibility, should Con

gress determine priorities, and if the answer is "Yes," the buck should stop with the Congress.

Mr. CLAWSON. So what you are saying is that Congress has not measured up?

Mr. JONES. That is correct. I think two things need to be done. The impoundment question needs to be settled and we need to act swiftly on a joint budget operation so that we have some sense to our expenditure and revenue picture.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Matsunaga?

Mr. MATSUNAGA. If I were in your position, Mr. Jones, I wouldn't be so readily admitting to the leading question put to you by the gentleman from California because the undeniable fact is that Congress appropriated $20.9 billion less than what the President requested in the first 4 years of his administration.

Mr. JONES. Yes, sir, I was answering his question. He said what would the President do. I said from the President's perspective he thought he was doing the right thing. Congress may have been spending too much in certain areas. In fact, as you say, the Congress has cut back the budget request.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. With reference to the two bills we have before us, as I see the principal difference between the Mahon bill and the Ervin or Pickle-Pepper-Matsunaga bill, the Mahon bill would permit the President to impound first before getting congressional approval. while the other bills would require congressional approval before imimpoundment.

This is the thing that bothers me about the Mahon bill: Even if the Congress should disapprove of a Presidential impoundment within the 60 day period, there would have been as much as 59 days of impoundment, which could in same cases even kill the program.

This is what concerns me although as you know, I have voiced support for the Mahon bill in the thought that this might be the one bill which the Congress could pass.

I am glad to know that you share with me, Mr. Jones, the thought that either one of the two Houses ought to be sufficient an authority to veto the President's proposal to impound. We have, as you know, precedent in the Executive Reorganization Act.

Mr. JONES. I hesitate to quote which constitutional scholar I was in touch with on that particular question. But his basic analysis of it was that the Ervin bill is belittling to the executive branch and the Mahon bill is somewhat belittling to the legislative branch, and that the one House approach would be the best.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. That might be the compromise solution.
No further questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Long?

Mr. LONG. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Congressman.

Mr. YOUNG. May I make inquiry in connection with the announcement you made earlier, Mr. Chairman, about applications for noncongressional members to come before the committee? Has a decision been made?

The CHAIRMAN. No. I was going to take that up with the committee. Congressman Pepper?

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »