Page images

In payments for transportation the carry-over is much longer. It runs from 33 to 40 percent of the amounts carried over, running from 120 to 140 days for that sort of an item.

It runs from 35 to 90 days in printing and binding. That is due to the fact that the Printing Office takes some time to deliver an order, sometimes as much as 6 months to print an order. So there is a carry-over of 20 to 25 percent of the printing items into the

second year.

Senator WHERRY. Is that because of the congested condition or the volume of business?

Mr. LAWTON. It is largely volume.

Senator WHERRY. When we get back to peacetime conditions will that be reduced, that time element ?

Mr. LAWTON. Some, but there has always been a lag on work that didn't have a high priority. They will push work such as taking care of the Congressional Record, and things of that sort.

Then in travel and communications, they will come close to getting within the 60-day limit. The average there is 55 to 75 days. That is travel vouchers and communications expense and contractual services, supplies, and materials.

Rents and utility services would generally be within the 60-day period. They run from 35 to 55 days after the end of the year, as a Tag. Those are current billings, generally, and are billed the month after the service takes place.

Those are the types of things that have a normal lag. This is a normal pattern picked out from the considerable number of appropriations over a period of years.

Senator WHERRY. There are other examples that you might mention, but these would be ones that

Mr. LAWTON (interposing). Those are in the annual appropriations; that doesn't apply to public works and things of that sort.

Senator WHERRY. If you made the maximum 90 days, that would cover most of it, would it not?

Mr. Lawton. Yes; except the transportation, and that could possibly be speeded up. The delay there is in the rendition of bills.

Senator WHERRY. This amendment that the Senator offers on page 2 is offered to correct the very difficulty that you mention.

Senator BYRD. Yes; but Mr. Lawton thinks that 60 days is not sufficient.

Mr. LAWTON. I would say that 60 days would fail of covering two or three classes of expenditures.

Senator BYRD. I see no objection to making it a maximum of 90 days, if Senator Butler is agreeable.

Mr. Lawton. That would cover the bulk of annual expenditures. But the question of when you will know that is a question for Mr. Bartelt to answer.

Senator WHERRY. If the thing were put into law, then it might speed it up. I can see with respect to printing, where you have all these priorities, that you might have a handicap that would be justifiable, but in connection with getting the bills in, if you made it 90 days, wouldn't that speed it up; wouldn't you get them in then?

Mr. Lawton. It is possible that you would, with the reduced volume.

Senator WHERRY. If this were made 90 days, would that amendment, do you feel, be practical and answer the questions that have been raised i

[ocr errors][merged small]


Mr. Lawtox. That gets into the accounting field primarily and I would rather have Mr. Bartelt answer that.

Mr. BARTELT. I would say that that would not obviate the necessity of maintaining a dual set of accounts, in my opinion. The only thing that would obviate, as I see it—that difficulty—is to strike out the word "show," in line 6 of page 2, and insert in lieu thereof “shall be accompanied by a statement. My point is that if that is written in the appropriation bill, then it seems to me that we have to maintain a separate cash account for each one of those appropriations.

Now, the matter of supporting the bill with a statement showing this information is something entirely different from writing it right into the appropriation bill.

Senator Byrd. It is very different because this makes it a matter of law, and what Mr. Bartelt suggests is just a matter of information. There is a big difference.

Mr. BARTELT. And that, it seems to me, should be very carefully considered because, if you write it into the law, it means that you have to maintain a separate set of accounts.

Senator BYRD. There certainly ought to be some way whereby if you spend $37,000,000,000 a year you can get accurate information as to what is spent in each fiscal year and what is not.

Mr. BARTELT. We propose to give you the information, but it is a question of whether you want to write into the law a dual requirement—one to maintain controls on a cash basis and the other to maintain controls on an obligation basis.

Senator BYRD. If you don't write it into the law, then the departments are not compelled to abide by it; they simply give the information.

Mr. BARTELT. If you fix the limitation on the department as a whole, wouldn't that accomplish your main objective and at the same time avoid putting the departments into a strait-jacket so that they are prevented from operating at the end of the fiscal year?

Senator Byrd. That is what we are trying to do—to prepare a satisfactory amendment.

Mr. BARTELT. These amendments that you propose will not do that.

Senator Byrd. I understand that. I just stated that there was another amendment that we wanted to work out. If we are spending 30 and 40 billion dollars a year we ought to have an accounting system that tells us how we have spent it.

Mr. BARTELT. The accounting system does show how it is spent.

Senator Byrd. I don't mean that there shouldn't be some flexibility in it. We have been trying to work that out and we asked you gentlemen nearly a month ago to work out something along that line; but to take it completely out of the law would, to my mind, nullify a good deal of the benefits of the proposed law.

(Discussion off the record.)

Senator BYRD. Mr. Bartelt should have made his opposition before the Reorganization Committee, which considered the policy which was later enacted by Congress fixing a ceiling on expenditures.

Mr. BARTELT. Mr. Chairman, only one person out of a hundred, I imagine, would have interpreted the word "expenditure" to mean cash withdrawal, because the term "expenditure" usually is understood to mean an obligation that you incur. That is the interpretation that is usually placed on such a term in business.


Senator BYRD. Let me ask you, Mr. Bartelt: That isn't the interpretation placed upon the Reorganization Act; is it?

Mr. BARTELT. Not as Congress has interpreted it.
Senator BYRD. Congress has already decided that policy,

Mr. BARTELT. I am talking about the time it was under consideration.

Senator WHERRY. If the Congress has adopted that policy, and that is Senator Byrd's statement—and personally, as I say, I don't want to prejudge this thing, but I am inclined to go along with him on that, what I am asking is: Can you perfect un aniendment which will accomplish the purpose that has been set out here, or does it take a complete change-over mechanically, so that the administration of the act would involve an expensive change-over and be impractical?

Mr. BARTELT. Before the law can be written, Congress must determine as a matter of policy whether it wants to control the limitation referred to in the appropriation act by specific appropriations, or whether Congress is content to exercise that control over the total for the department or for all departments.

Senator WHERRY. That is the flexibility feature. We could still do that, couldn't we, and yet not settle the question I have raised!

Mr. BARTELT. Well, if you permit this word to stand as it is in line 6 on page 2, in my opinion it will require a separate system of accounts, and that is for Congress to determine.

Senator WHERRY. Regardless of the flexibility, if we let the language there stand as it is, it is your opinion that we would require this dual system of accounts?

Mr. BARTELT. That is my opinion.

Senator Byrd. At this point I would like to read into the record the appropriate part from section 138 of the Legislative Reorganization Act:

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”

Congress has already adopted the policy of expenditures being the money paid out in that year.

Mr. BARTELT. But that doesn't say that there shall be a separate limitation for each appropriation.

Senator Byrd. You are arguing on another matter now; you are arguing on the question of what is meant by the word "expenditure.”

Mr. BARTELT. Iim arguing on the feasibility of carrying the legislation into effect.

Senator BYRD. You don't deny, do you, that the act, as Congress has interpreted it, means that "expenditure” is money paid out in that fiscal year?

Mr. BARTELT. I would rather not express an opinion on that because there is some question

Senator Byrd (interposing). You know what Congress has been trying to do; it has been trying to set an over-all ceiling on expenditures. That must refer to the money spent out, because if the ceiling is exceeded and it is necessary to increase the public debt, adoption of a resolution for this purpose is required.


Mr. BARTELT. In business when an order is placed it is usually considered that the money is expended.

Senator Byrd. You are the representative of the Treasury and you are not clear in your mind whether Congress intended by the passage of that act, and the later action taken by Congress, to say that an expenditure is the cash withdrawal in that fiscal year?

Mr. BARTELT. No, sir; I don't think that is clear.

Senator BYRD. Well, we had better stop all this work we are doing and clear that up.

Mr. BARTELT. I think Congress ought to define this term “expenditure” now.

Senator Byrd. It was certainly my understanding, as one Member of Congress who voted on it, that I was voting to limit the expenditures paid out in cash in that fiscal year, otherwise this thing about increasing the public debt would be absurd.

Mr. BARTELT. So that there will be no misunderstanding, I don't want to have it appear that I am objecting to the objective of this resolution. My only question is whether or not it is necessary to place a cash limitation on each appropriation, because that gets you into administrative difficulties and additional expense.

Senator WHERRY. Now we have Senator Butler. The first bell has Tung –

Senator BUTLER. Yes; I realize our time is rather limited, so I will be very brief.

Senator WHERRY. I didn't mean that, Senator; I meant that we would be glad to continue this to a later date so as to give you all the time you need, if you would prefer.

Senator BUTLER. No; I only have a short statement and I can finish before it is time for us to be on the floor.



I want to say that it is indeed an honor and a pleasure to be associated with the distinguished Senator from Virginia in another piece of legislation that I think is quite important. I am referring to the first one in which he and I were associated, the Corporation Control Act, and in that connection I see here about the same faces that we saw in the 30 to 40 meetings that we had in connection with the passage of that act. I consider this resolution of almost equal, if not greater, importance than the Corporation Control Act.

The statement is very short and I will just read it into the record.

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, our entire Federal budget system is a ramshackle structure of inconsistencies and contradictions badly in need of reform.

This is just as true of the congressional part of the system as it is of the part controlled by Executive action. The bill you are considering today, Senate Concurrent Resolution 6, is intended to make at least a start toward reform by correcting two of the worst evils.

Under the present system, appropriation action by the Congress is contained in 12 separate general supply bills, plus a number of deficiencies and supplements. This system makes it virtually impossible for any one of us to get a look at the budget picture as a whole. Reductions made in one agency by one bill may be canceled out by increases

[ocr errors]

contained in another bill. Nowhere is there to be found a figure representing the total of appropriations. We do not even know how much we have appropriated until the process is all through Congress and the Budget Bureau tells us.

Section 1 of the proposed bill would correct this evil by requiring appropriations for all the separate departments to be pooled together into one bill before we take a vote on it. If this bill is enacted, we will have a chance to vote with the whole picture before us. We will be required to cast our votes for economy, or against economy; for a balanced budget, or against a balanced budget. We will be clearly on record.

Secondly, the bill is designed to bring about a little closer relationship between appropriations as voted by Congress and expenditures as made by the executive departments. We, in Congress, have always loved to talk about our "control of the purse strings." We have not really had control of the purse strings, and we do not have it now. The executive departments will have next fiscal year about $13,000,000,000 to spend over and above what is appropriated in the general supply bills that will be enacted during the next 3 or 4 months. This $13,000,000,000 represents money previously appropriated and still available for expenditure during the fiscal year 1948. By this means it is possible for the administration to ask for only $28,000,000,000 of new appropriations, although it plans to spend over 37 billions next year and still have 4 billions available after June of 1948.

Section 2 of the bill is designed to give Congress real control of the money actually to be spent rather than a mere paper control which we have found does not permit Congress to make its decisions really effective.

Some amendments to this concurrent resolution are probably desirable before it is enacted. I understand that Senator Byrd has prepared several amendments, and I might state that the copy of the bill I have has not been brought up to date.

/ Senator WHERRY. Do you have any amendments other than those which Senator Byrd has suggested?

Senator BUTLER. I have no amendments to propose at this time. Senator WTIERRY. But you may have?

Senator BUTLER. That is correct. However, I concur with the amendments that Senator Byrd has proposed.

One point which Senator Byrd may not have covered relates to the possible need for greater coordination between the Senate and House committees on Appropriations.

Senator WHEELER. You mean as regards the time element?

Senator BUTLER. Yes. I can imagine that this bill might delay Senate action on appropriations by holding the consolidated appropriation bill up in the House until a date late in the Spring. It might be necessary, therefore, for the Senate committee to find some means of beginning its studies before receiving a bill from the House. Possibly joint hearings would be desirable. That is something that the two committees can best work out for themselves, so I believe the problem can safely be left in the hands of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

In my judgment, this budget problem is the biggest single issue that faces us today. The people rightly look to us to take some action to wipe out the excesses and stop the waste that has been going on for


« PreviousContinue »