Mr. LAWTON. Mr. Chairman, as the others have said, the Budget has also worked on this bill with Senator Byrd and the staff, and we feel that the bill, of course, is a workable one; that it will provide information that will tie in with the legislative budget requirements and the Congressional Reorganization Act; that the question of the feasibility of congressional operations in handling a consolidated appropriations bill is a matter for the Congress to decide, and on that we have no judgment, no opinion.

The one question that we raised earlier and that is still present is that a consolidated bill multiplies the difficulties of legislative riders from the President's point of view; that it combines in one bill all of these provisions; and with no power of item veto or no rule that is 100 percent enforceable to prevent legislation being included in the bill, we are apt to be faced with the problem that is or has been present a number of times of having legislation attached to an appropriations bill, legislation which the administration might be opposed to but which it would be in a difficult position to veto without stopping the entire operations of Government. As you know, three or four bills have been reported under suspension of rules, rules against points of order, in the House this year so far.

Senator BYRD. Personally I am in favor of the item veto but that, of course, is another question. The Senate rules have been strengthened, haven't they, Mr. Lawton, in that respect?

Mr. LAWTON. They have been strengthened somewhat. The House rules were strong enough but they have reported bills under rules waiving all points of order.

Senator WHERRY. And if they could do it on 1 bill they could just as well do it on 6 out of 12?

Mr. LAWTON. That is right.

Senator WHERRY. But you feel, as I understand you, that wrapping it all up in one it makes it a little more difficult to veto one complete bill in order to get rid of some objectionable language or some feature in it that isn't acceptable, than if you had other bills?

Mr. LAWTON. That is right.

Senator BYRD. I think the committee, Mr. Chairman, ought to conduct hearings as to the item veto. The Governor of practically every State has that right.

Senator WHERRY. I am very strong for it myself.

Senator BYRD. Of course it is very unusual for a President to veto an appropriation bill, isn't it?

Mr. LAWTON. It has been done once or twice.

Senator BYRD. And he has the right to return the bill asking that a certain item be eliminated.

Senator WHERRY. It is unusual, too, to veto a tax bill, isn't it? [Laughter.]

Mr. LAWTON. Twice again.

Senator WHERRY. Of course new legislation always brings up new problems, but it seems to me that this is a step in the right direction and I, for one, would be very much interested if the distinguished Senator here [Senator Byrd] and our watchdog of the Treasury, would introduce a resolution to revamp the item veto, or words to that effect. Senator BYRD. It involves the question of whether you have got to amend the Constitution. Senator Vandenberg introduced an amendment to the Constitution some years ago to accomplish that result.

Senator WHERRY. We might start it all over again.

Senator BYRD. Do you know, Mr. Lawton, whether it does require an amendment to the Constitution to do that?

Mr. LAWTON. There is a wide difference of opinion and in view of that difference of opinion I would assume that that would be the only safe way to proceed.

Senator WHERRY. How many States have ratified this two-term proposition already?

Senator IVES. I don't know.

Senator WHERRY. Someone told me that 18 or 19 States had done so, and that is not taking as long as some people thought.

Senator IVES. Especially when we passed it at such a late hour, and a lot of the State legislatures had wound up by that time. New York had, I know.

Senator BYRD. The chief value of this legislation would be to present to the country and to Congress a total picture at one time, which would give you the approximate expenditures in a fiscal year and would control your obligations, and you would know what your total was as compared to the total income.

Senator WHERRY. Yes. Do you have anything further to add, Senator Byrd?

Senator BYRD. I would like to insert in the record a comparative analysis showing the changes in the present draft of Senate Concurrent Resolution 6, as compared with the original draft.

Senator WHERRY. That may be done.

(The comparative analysis is as follows:)

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

An analysis of the new draft of Senate Concurrent Resolution 6, committee print dated May 14, 1947, showing the changes from the original draft follows: 1. The new draft is in the nature of an amendment to the joint rule of the Senate and House of Representatives, relating to the legislative budget, as contained in section 138 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. This represents no change from the original draft. (See new draft p. 2, lines 1-3; and original draft p. 1, lines 2-5.)

2. The new draft makes the resolution effective with the beginning of the second session of the Eightieth Congress, next January. The original draft would have made the provisions of the resolution effective in the current session of Congress. The reason for this change is, of course, the late date already reached in the current session. (See new draft, p. 2, lines 24-25; and original draft p. 1, line 6.)

3. The new draft provides for the consolidation of all appropriations in one general appropriation bill to be known as the Consolidated General Appropriation Act. This represents no change from the original draft. (See new draft, p. 3, lines 4-6; and original draft, p. 1, lines 6-9.)

4. The new draft provides that the consolidated general appropriation bill may be divided into separate titles, each corresponding to one of the 12 regular general appropriation bills as heretofore enacted. This is a departure from the original draft which would permit consideration of the consolidated bill by titles, at the subcommittee state, without interruption of the present subcommittee organization of the respective Appropriations Committees. (See new draft, p. 3, lines 8-11.)

5. The new draft, of course, does not preclude necessary deficiency and supplemental appropriation bills in addition to the consolidated bill, but it would be expected to reduce the number of such bills. This represents no change from the original draft. (See new draft. p. 3, lines 11-13; and original draft, p. 2, lines 1-3.)

6. The new draft provides that in addition to the consolidated bill, supplemental and deficiency bills, there may be also bills providing for appropriations for private

acts of Congress, and bills for the rescission of appropriations. The original bil did not make these provisions specifically, and they have been added for perfection. (See new draft, p. 3, lines 13-14.)

7. The new draft provides that the consolidated bill, deficiency bills, and supplemental bills shall fix limitations on amounts to be obligated during the ensuing fiscal year against all appropriations which, in part, may continue to be available beyond that year. The original draft fixed these limitations on expenditures from these appropriations, instead of upon obligations against them. This change was made in accordance with the testimony of representatives of the fiscal agencies of the Government to the effect that existing Federal bookkeeping and accounting procedures are not adaptable to control of expenditures on the basis of cash withdrawals from the Treasury. This change has been worked out in conference with representatives of the Treasury, the Bureau of the Budget, and the General Accounting Office, who give assurance that the provisions in reference to this provision are now administratively possible and feasible. (See new draft, p. 3, lines 15-25.)

8. The new draft provides that the limitations on obligations just described are not to be

(a) Construed to prohibit making contracts up to the maximum allowable appropriations made, or other legal authorizations, providing the contracts do not allow for delivery of property or services during the ensuing fiscal year in excess of the limitation on obligations for the year.

(b) Applicable to appropriations made specifically for payment of claims certified by the Comptroller General.

(c) Applicable to appropriations for payment of judgments.

(d) Applicable to amounts appropriated under private acts of Congress.

(e) Applicable to appropriations for payment of interest on the public debt. (f) Applicable to revolving funds or appropriations thereto.

The contract exemption was added to make it clear that the limitations on annual obligations should not preclude entering into over-all contracts which would extend beyond the year. Exemption of the appropriations for the payment of claims, judgments, private relief, and interest on the debt was specified because these items were regarded as fixed costs which could not be limited in appropriation legislation. Revolving funds were exempted because they do not represent an ultimate cost to the Government.

All of these exemptions have been written into the new draft on the advice of the representatives from the fiscal agencies, on the grounds that they are required in the interest of administrative efficiency, or for the elimination of unnecessary bookkeeping. (See new draft, p. 4, lines 1-14.)

9. The new draft requires reports from the respective appropriations committees, and from conference committees on appropriations bills, to include an informative table itemizing available appropriatiaons and estimating annual expenditures from the appropriation items, with totals in each case. The tables would show

(a) The amount of each appropriation, including estimates of amounts becoming available during the year under permanent appropriations, with totals. (b) Estimates of transfers between appropriations.

(c) Estimates of annual expenditures from each appropriation--regular, permanent, etc., with totals.

(d) Estimates of annual expenditures from prior-year appropriation, with totals.

(e) Cumulative revisions, in the cases of supplementals, deficiencies, etc.

A similar table was proposed to be included in the appropriation law, as the basis for the expenditure limitations. (See new daft, p. 4. lines 15-24, and p. 5, lines 1-17; and old draft, p. 2, lines 4-21.)

10. The new draft provides also that Government corporations' checking-account transactions through the Treasury shall be shown in connection with the committee and conference report expenditure tables. This was omitted from the original draft, and added in the new draft for perfection. (See new draft, p. 5, lines 18-24, and p. 6, lines 1-7.)

11. The new draft exempts appropriations of trust funds and public-debt-retirement transactions from both the limitations provisions and those requiring the tabular information in the committee and conference reports. These exemptions were made since trust funds do not represent Federal funds and net public-debt retirement comes largely from surplus revenue. There were no such provisions in the origial draft, and they were added in the new draft for perfection. (See new draft, p. 6, lines 8-10.)

12. The new draft provides that no general appropriation bill could be received or considered by either House unless it conformed with the amended rule. This represents no change from the original draft. (See new draft, p. 6, lines 11-13; and origial draft, p. 2, lines 22-24.)

13. The new draft specifies that it would be permissive for the appropriations committees of the respective Houses to hold joint or simultaneous hearings on the consolidated appropriation bills. This would be possible now, and it is added in the draft merely as a suggestion. It was not included in the original draft. (See new draft, p. 6, lines 14-16.)

Senator WHERRY. Is there anyone present who has anything to add? If not, we thank you gentlemen for your cooperation and for appearing here today, and we will now close the hearings on this bill.

(Whereupon, at 11 a. m., the hearings on S. Con. Res. 6 were closed.)