Page images
PDF
EPUB

Senator BYRD. Yes.

Senator WHERRY. Then either before or after your statement I would like to get your reaction on that.

Senator BYRD. The only way to prevent a deficiency bill is not to have a deficiency.

Senator WHERRY. That is right, and that is the point I am making. Senator BYRD. The first paragraph of the resolution states: "As used in this paragraph the term 'general appropriations' shall not include deficiency or supplemental appropriations" but deficiency and supplemental bills are treated in subsequent paragraphs.

Senator WHERRY. In the interpretation of your resolution do you provide for a deficiency bill in the event it is not all handled in the general appropriation bill?

Senator BYRD. It is not precluded, and the manner in which the purpose of the consolidated bill are carried forward into deficiency or supplemental bills is set out in this resolution.

Senator WHERRY. That is one thing to which I would like to have you address some of your remarks, for this reason-I want to say at the beginning that I am in total sympathy with the resolution-I don't want to prejudge it because I am on the Senate subcommittee; but I am in harmony at least with the principle. However, there is one thing that always comes up when you talk about a single appropriation bill, and that is, what about the clean-up? I wondered if there was any provision made for it or if we could have a bill that would be adhered to in such a way that one general appropriation bill would suffice.

Senator BYRD. I will be glad to deal with that.

By way of brief introduction to the provisions of the resolution it may be noted that:

First, it is the nature of an amendment to the joint rule of the Senate and of the House of Representatives contained in section 138 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946.

Second, the resolution divides into two parts: (1) A provision for consideration and enactment of all regular Federal appropriations in one bill; and (2) a provision for itemizing appropriations and expenditures in tabular form within the single bill.

I have a copy of section 138 which I have designated as exhibit B, and which I request be incorporated in the record at this point. Senator WHERRY. Section 138 may be incorporated in the record. (Sec. 138 is as follows:)

SEC. 138. (a) The Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Finance and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, or duly authorized subcommittees thereof, are authorized and directed to meet jointly at the beginning of each regular session of Congress and after study and consultation, giving due consideration to the budget recommendations of the President, report to their respective Houses a legislative budget for the ensuing fiscal year, including the estimated over-all Federal receipts and expenditures for such year. Such report shall contain a recommendation for the maximum amount to be appropriated for expenditure in such year which shall include such an amount to be reserved for deficiencies as may be deemed necessary by such committees. If the estimated receipts exceed the estimated expenditures, such report shall contain a recommendation for a reduction in the public debt. Such report shall be made by February 15.

(b) The report shall be accompanied by a concurrent resolution adopting such budget, and fixing the maximum amount to be appropriated for expenditure in such year. If the estimated expenditures exceed the estimated receipts, the

concurrent resolution shall include a section substantially as follows: "That it is the sense of the Congress that the public debt shall be increased in an amount equal to the amount by which the estimated expenditures for the ensuing fiscal year exceed the estimated receipts, such amount being $------."

There were three principal reasons for the introduction of Senate Concurrent Resolution 6.

The first reason is a confirmed belief that simplification and clarification in Federal appropriation bills is a much-needed reform in our legislative technique.

The second reason is that if Congress is to comply faithfully with section 138 of the Legislative Reorganization Act, there is a clear requirement for (1) a congressional translation of appropriations into terms of expenditures; and (2) a means for determining the grand total of funds available for expenditure in the "ensuing fiscal year." The third reason is that it would appear inconsistent, if not useless, for the legislative branch to impose upon itself a control on expenditures for which it will appropriate, under the Legislative Reorganization Act, unless the control on expenditures is extended to the execution of appropriations in the executive branch.

Of course as the committee knows, the appropriation bill does not correctly outline the expenditures. For instance, there are expenditures this year of $37,500,000,000 under the budget, and my recollection is that the appropriations are $28,000,000,000. So if you are going to carry out the purpose and intent of the Legislative Reorganization Act there must be some way whereby the Congress will know, when they are passing appropriation bills, exactly what the expenditure will be for the ensuing fiscal year.

Senator WHERRY. And for that current fiscal year?

Senator BYRD. That is right-which information is not available

now.

By custom and tradition, appropriations for the world's greatest budget-that of the United States Government-are enacted in supply bills which are numerous, unrelated, and without legislative coordination in relation to the whole budget. These bills are brought in over a period of months and set up funds that may be actually expended not only in the ensuing fiscal year but in subsequent years as well.

In addition to the complexities which develop from this method of considering money bills, efforts to expand the old form of appropriation bills to provide for the tremendous growth and spread of Federal fiscal activities have developed a confusion of language and practices.

It is no exaggeration to say that Congressmen who have not been privileged to serve on Appropriations Committees have great difficulty informing themselves sufficiently on appropriation bills to vote intelligently upon them. There is probably not a Member of Congress who does not wish for a clearer and more concise presentation of essential information. The present technique leaves much to be desired not only for intelligent consideration of the various appropriation items and their relation one to another, but also for consideration of appropriations as a whole as compared with the revenue situation on the opposite side of the Federal fiscal system.

With these conditions in view, the patrons of the pending resolution introduced a resolution for a single appropriation bill, late last session.

The measure was not perfect but it served the purpose of

stimulating thought on the subject. Meanwhile, the Legislative Reorganization Act was passed providing for legislative budget limitations in terms of expenditures. It was this provision which brought sharply into focus the difference between appropriations and expenditures-another confusing factor in the consideration of appropriation legislation.

Traditionally, both the President's budget recommendations and appropriation legislation have been in terms of appropriations. Prior to World War I appropriations for a fiscal year and expenditures during the fiscal year were virtually identical, but in these days of big Federal programs and projects, there is generally a vast difference between the two. When Congress this year tried to carry out the expenditure ceiling provision of the Reorganization Act it found. that, on the basis of the President's recommendations, estimated expenditures for fiscal year 1948 totaled $37,500,000,000, while appropriations requested for expenditure in the year totaled only $28,500,000,000. The difference was in the money being brought forward for expenditure in 1948 which had been appropriated in prior years. At the same time it was revealed that Congress was being asked this year to appropriate $4,000,000,000 for actual expenditures in some year after 1948.

When legislative expenditure ceilings are established Congress at present has no way of knowing when or whether the limits are reached or exceeded, and it is equally important to learn that at present there is no accounting control in the executive branch on expenditures beyond the obligation stage.

With this situation in view the patrons of the single appropriation resolution of last year revised and extended its provisions and now have reintroduced it in the form of the pending measure.

It is not intended that Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 6 should be regarded as policy legislation. By its nature, as an amendment to an existing rule, it is intended to be the technical implementation of an already established policy which provides for an annual expenditure limitation on appropriations.

In short the resolution would do three things:

(1) It would provide for presentation to the respective Houses of Congress of a consolidated appropriation bill for their consideration. This would give the Congress and the country an opportunity to see the budget picture as a whole and to compare the spending proposals with the revenue estimates. This is not possible under the present system of considering 12 separate and almost unrelated appropriation bills over a period ranging up to 6 months.

(2) The resolution would provide for fixing in tabular form within the consolidated bill not only the current appropriation items and amounts but also the expenditures which could be made against them in the ensuing year, along with the expenditures from appropriations made in prior years; and it provides for showing also that part of current appropriations to be carried over for expenditure in subsequent years. This provision would apply also to deficiency and supplemental appropriation bills. This would conform with the intent of the Legislative Reorganization Act insofar as it shows the budget in terms of expenditures, as well as in terms of appropriations.

(3) In tabular form the bill, with a maximum of clarity and simplicity, would show not only the appropriation and expenditure

63435-47-—2

figures for each item but it would show also the totals which could be compared with the legislative limitations as provided in the Reorganization Act. The resolution provides also that each amendment. to the appropriation bill shall show in tabular form the changes in each amount amended, including the totals, and thus act as a running deterrent to exceeding the expenditure limit set by the joint resolution required under section 138 of the Legislative Reorganization Act.

If it should be desired for the record, there is submitted herewith as exhibit C an outline which demonstrates the manner in which the proposed tabular form bill would work.

Senator WHERRY. I think it would be well to have that incorporated at this point in the record.

(The matter referred to is as follows:)

EXHIBIT C

It will be noted that the consolidated appropriation bill might be drawn, considered, and enacted in a table of six columns similar to the following:

[blocks in formation]

Senator WHERRY. Senator Byrd, is there any provision worked out in the bill which provides for the mechanics of considering the subcommittee appropriation bills, and also is there a time fixed by which the House must deal with the full appropriation bill, which will include all bills, and then send it on to the Senate so that the Senate will have ample time for its consideration before the end of the session?

Senator BYRD. There is no provision in the bill as at present proposed fixing a time limit by which time the House should send the bill to the Senate, but I think that is a matter which should be carefully considered, and perhaps such a time limit should be put in the bill. So far as committee meetings are concerned, they can still be held

Senator WHERRY (interposing). You are speaking now of the subcommittee meetings?

Senator BYRD. Yes; this resolution would require no change in subcommittee procedure.

Senator WHERRY. It is your idea that subcommittee hearings could be held in the House, for instance, on the Interior Department, and the House would promptly transmit such proceedings to the Senate?

Senator BYRD. Yes, that would be possible, or they could wait until they had finished their hearings and then send them over to the Senate. That would be a matter which could be worked out at the convenience of the committee.

Senator WHERRY. All right, Senator.

Senator BYRD. Analysis of the provisions in the pending resolution will reveal that the opening clause establishes the proposal as an amendment to the "joint rule of the Senate and the House of Representatives" contained in section 138 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946.

Senator WHERRY. The only thing that we would have to provide for, then, is that the House at a definite time send the whole bill over to the Senate for its consideration, prior to the end of the session.

Senator BYRD. Yes, analysis of the provision in the pending resolution will reveal that the opening clause establishes the proposal as an amendment to the "Joint Rule of the Senate and the House of Representatives" contained in section 138 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946.

Paragraph (c) (1) would provide for the consolidation into one general appropriation bill all of the so-called regular, annual general appropriation items now contained in the 12 separate regular appropriation bills. Deficiency and supplemental appropriations would have to be taken in additional bills. As this paragraph stands the consolidated appropriation bill would be effective with the current session of Congress. It probably is indicated at this date that this provision should be modified, so I would suggest an amendment to make it effective for the next session of this Congress. The advantage of that, too, would be that having this notice, the budget could probably furnish more detailed information as to these expenditures that are to be made in the present year and in the ensuing year, and so forth.

Paragraph 2 provides for the tabular presentation of appropriation and expenditure items and totals to be enacted in all appropriation legislation-including not only the consolidated general bill but also the supplemental and deficiency bills. Of course, it would be our hope that the number of deficiency bills would be reduced; but on the other hand, if some new situation should occur, the supplemental and deficiency bills would come in as usual. The same tabular information would be required in the deficiency and supplemental bills, so that, Mr. Chairman, when Congress votes on a bill they will know exactly the total amount of both appropriations and expenditures they are voting on in each bill, and, the total of all the bills together.

Senator WHERRY. Would the deficiency bill be made a part of the general appropriation bill?

Senator BYRD. No; the deficiency bill would show the previous appropriations that had been made, and the total.

Senator WHERRY. Would it be your idea that a deficiency bill could be passed after the general appropriation bill has been enacted? Senator BYRD. Passage of deficiency bills is contemplated in this resolution and there is no provision here to prevent the deficiency bill coming in sometime later.

Paragraph 3 provides that amendments changing any figure in the table must change all other figures affected, such as totals and related figures within the body of the table.

The effect of paragraph 4 is to insure uniformity in appropriation legislation and assure clear, concise information as to the status of appropriations and expenditures at all stages.

Senator WHERRY. There is just one point on your last observation, about deficiency bills. Of course, if we could finally get the appro

« PreviousContinue »