Advocates; Should the president spend the money Congress appropriates?; 319

Good evening ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the advocates the PBS fight of the week. Tonight's broadcast is coming to you from the departmental auditorium on Constitution Avenue in Washington D.C. the subject of debate tonight is a major bone of contention between the president and the Congress namely the power of the purse. And specifically this question Should the president spend the money. Congress appropriates arguing in support of the proposal is Representative Morris Udall Democrat from Arizona appearing as witnesses with Mr. Udall our Democratic senators Hubert Humphrey from Minnesota and Edmund Muskie from Maine arguing against the proposal is Charles Walker deputy secretary of the Treasury in the first Nixon administration and now a Washington consultant appearing as witnesses for Mr. Walker or Caspar Weinberger formerly director of the Office of Management and Budget and Secretary designate of Health Education and Welfare. And Republican Senator William Roth of Delaware. Ladies and gentlemen may I have your

attention please. The caucus has just called tonight's meeting to order. Good evening ladies and gentlemen and welcome once again to the advocates. We focus tonight on the growing debate over the separation of power between the president and the Congress and specifically our question is this Should the president spend the money that Congress appropriates advocate. Mark Udall says yes. Next year's federal budget is 280 billion dollars and what we're talking about tonight is whether taxpayers and members of Congress are going to have something to say about where this money go. On the present and Pound's funds he deprives local citizens and local government benefits they pay taxes for and they're entitled to receive. Empowerment is arrogant. It's unconstitutional. It ought to be stopped. Advocate Charles Walker says no. Congressman you all is going to have a mighty hard time selling that bill of goods here this evening. Not

only does the president have the power to impound But at this critical juncture he must impound in order to protect your pocketbook against soaring prices higher taxes or both. Thank you gentlemen. Impoundment is a word that you're going to hear often this evening. So first a word of explanation about it. The Constitution establishes a system whereby the Congress and the president share the power to allocate our national resources to the Congress and gives the power to make laws and to appropriate money to the president who may recommend to Congress but who ultimately may be overruled by it. The Constitution charges and these are the constitutional words take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Now when Congress is keeper of the purse appropriates money and the president refuses to spend it it means that the president has impounded those funds. There may be many reasons for presidential impoundment and

Congress has long recognized that the president in order to effectively execute its laws should have some measure of discretion as to when and how he spends those funds. But in the last 20 years or so the Presidential power of discretion over spending has increased. And in the view of some at least it is gone long beyond the point which is necessary for the faithful and adequate execution of the laws. Last week the administration reported to Congress that it had impounded 8.7 billion dollars during this fiscal year and that doesn't include three billion that the president has refused to spend on water pollution control. Congressional critics charge that by impounding those funds the president has overstepped his constitutional authority. But in turn the president argues that the Constitution gives him in his words an absolutely clear right to withhold those funds and that he's determined to use that right to stop inflation and to prevent the need for higher taxes.

So during tonight's debate listen for the answers to these two key questions. First is the president as a matter of law required to spend those funds. And secondly should the president spend these funds as a matter of national need. Congressman Udall Why should the president then the money that Congress appropriates this empowerment issue we're discussing tonight strikes to the very heart of our unique American constitutional system. You know the man who wrote our Constitution were haunted by one major fear and that was concentrated power in the hands of one man power to send men the war power to raise taxes power to take property. And they established a system of divided and separated powers and the system of checks and balances designed not just for efficiency but to ensure a government by the people. And until today somehow it's worth the vital power of the purse. The power to write laws about taxes and spending was placed in the Congress that branch of the government's Pulse's to the people and the president was given a veto was a partial check on that power. But today this carefully balanced system is in real danger challenged by a president who

claims almost unlimited power to spend those appropriations he approves. And I strangle those that he dislike. And you'll hear much tonight about the shortcomings of Congress and about the efficiency and superior wisdom and virtue and the high motives of presidents. But the central issue won't go away and that issue is the Congress or shall the president make the laws that govern this country. I tell you about this crisis and its dangers. We first call on Hubert Horatio Humphrey. Welcome to the Senate Humphrey. If everyone is U.S. Senator Hubert Humphrey former vice president Democratic presidential nominee been a major national figure since he entered the Congress in 1949 served as mayor of Minneapolis. Longtime student of congressional presidential relationship Senator Humphrey let me get right to the heart of one argument we'll hear tonight and that is that this

is a fact by a Democratic Congress or a Republican President Richard Nixon didn't invent and co. did other presidents impounded if they did. What's the difference between what they did and what President Nixon did. Well of course other presidents have been pounding. But that doesn't make it either constitutional or desirable or right. This has happened within recent years. But there is a difference between slowing down and appropriations use or a modest impoundment even though I consider that unconstitutional than frustrating the will of the Congress by terminating programs. You're saying that the president doesn't just slow down on the impounds that he used this to kill programs could you give an example or if he's killed in a 2 percent loans he's killed. Senator for those of us who don't come from rural states have been explained really is Bill rural electrification for telephone and electricity 2 percent loans he has kill the rural what we call the rural environmental assistance program which is vital to the whole pollution control system in this country.

He's terminated them not merely limited them. Now you're a student of the Constitution. Does the Constitution give the president the power to determine whether or not we're going to have a rural electrification program. Are you trying to muscle in on power if the Constitution gives the Congress he's muscling in. There is no authority within the Constitution for the president to impound funds. On the contrary the Constitution specifically states that the Congress makes the laws and has the power of the purse. And Mr. Rehnquist Supreme Court justice now when he was assistant attorney general a strict constructionist a strict constructionist according to the president's own description reminded the president in a in a an opinion that the Constitution does not provide any such broad sweep of power either by reason or precedent. So we're simply asking the president to obey the law by the opinions of his own constitutional expert. We're asking him to faithfully execute the laws and uphold the Constitution. Senator there's something called an item veto that some governors have in this country which means that you can take an appropriation bill allow the whole bill to pass but veto specific item

wasn't debated in Philadelphia by the Founding Fathers or that the president should have an item veto. And wasn't they decide it was debated it was decided that it should not be part of the constitutional system the president has the right to veto. But he must veto a total bill. He cannot pick and choose. And what you see now with the present administration is President Nixon literally exercising item veto by terminating programs within they depart. Is there any difference between the item veto that the governor has in the state and the impoundment veto that he's utilizing here. Not one bit. Not in effect. Senator Humphrey the founding fathers 100 years ago created a system of democratic government that worked pretty well and then that government of the Constitution I have never been the one that some other people seem to be using these days. The legislative the legislative power was given to the Congress. Why do you suppose this arrangement was made.

Rather than give it to the president. Well as you indicated in your opening remarks the constitutional fathers had a great distrust of power concentrated in any one man and they place the legislative power in the Congress because they knew that Congress was closer to the people and the Congress is every two years members of the house. One third of the Senate every two years members of Congress go home to their constituents often the president seldom Mogi moves around the country much less going home to his constituents and they are they are they provided within the Constitution the power of the purse and of the law to the Congress and the United States. And Senator let's turn to Mr. Walker. He's going to ask you some searching questions from examinations to Senator Umphray just to set the record straight. You know that Mr. Justice Rehnquist has moved on to another job and is no longer a member of the administration. That is correct. But he once was a member of the administration apparently highly thought of then his opinion was rendered as according to what I've stated. And you recall the attorney general Ramsey Clark wrote Mr. Johnson a memorandum stating that

impoundment in the case of the highway trust fund was legal. But Senator I disagreed with that. All right very good. Senator putting aside. Find out the legal advisers to the press Senator putting aside for just a second here the questions of check a check and balance. Don't you agree with the vast majority of members of Congress and economists that we must sharply cut back the federal deficit or we will have more inflation and higher taxes or both. Well no president in my memory has purposely provided for the Congress budgets with such massive deficits as the present occupant of the White House. Our deficits are just and there are deficits. There are deficits now. Proximately $100 billion accumulated. The Congress of the United States has reduced presidential budgets by 20 billion dollars in the last four years. I'm surprised that an accident that is the spending not the Congress. Senator the deficit. The deficit for this fiscal year is estimated at $25 billion. Will you or do you not

agree that the health of the economy demands that that deficit be cut back. I happen to think that had the Nixon administration's economic policies been what they ought to be we wouldn't be in that kind of a recession that led to that kind of a deficit. Well I don't know that. Well let me just add further note here I don't think I'm going to get an answer to my question I guess your answer is that the deficit ought to be increased or stay where it is. No I think we ought to have a president that recommends policies to the Congress that what United States that will do away with that deficit. He either ought to recommend tax reform that will increase more revenue or bring us a tax program. Very well. I take it then that you're in favor of cutting back the deficit now. Doesn't Congress have to accept. Sure. You're not you're not pre-Big that. I don't walk on Mr. Walker in fairness to the senator I think he said that he was for tax reform it was necessary to cut that. But getting the deficit back now. Doesn't Congress have to accept at least a part of the responsibility for this deficit problem and the spending problem that Congress takes the

budget that the president has presented and the Congress has reduced that budget. Mr. Walker and you know what. Every year for the past four years with the exception of last year when we increased Social Security benefits provided the revenue by an increase in taxes the president said he wasn't for it but in October reminded every voter that he'd gladly signed. Well let me make this point. Let me make this point sooner. There are figures and figures and figures there are figures with respect to appropriations which do not take into account whatsoever the back door financing the Social Security financing and all of these other matters. If you just talk about cutting budget appropriations alone the figure is as phony as a three dollar bill. Doesn't Congress have to accept some responsibility. Let me give an example. The president of the United States in January 1972 sent a budget to the Congress of two hundred and forty six point three billion dollars. He asked for a spending ceiling of that amount and then $250 billion and Congress for 11 months did nothing and

appropriated close to 260 million dollars. You can't lay that at the door of the president. And might I add the president send up a supplemental budget request for four billion dollars. That makes a stupid statement and might I add that the reason for the increase in the total budget is you know when I know it was because of the increase in the Social Security payments and we're just not going to let you off the hook to pretend that somehow or another that was inflationary because it wasn't because the taxes were raised to pay for it. And that is not inflationary. And every economist know so well let's put it this way around and you think. Do you think that this fiscal year one way or another Uncle Sam ought to be able to struggle along on a quarter of a big quarter of a trillion dollars in the Congress out of him. I do and might I add this that I think that the point is that the president before he acts as if somehow or another he has one man rule should come to the Congress with his suggestions and ask for the modifications. Empowerment is not the privilege or the prerogative of the president. The president may recommend to the Congress of the Congress sees fit. We will them

we will then comply if we don't we'll take the responsibility for the decision. And he came in January 1972 and he made that request and 11 months later he did not have action might I add that the president of the United States came in and broke his own budget ceiling and you know what the supplemental requests. And you know Furthermore when the Social Security benefit increases were made that nobody could get at the head of the line any sooner to claim credit for it than the present president of the United States. So let's not get off. That's a fact. But the arguments are you're gonna have another shot to break. Don't go away. Want a quick question for Senator Humphrey senator there seems to be an underlying argument here on the part of our opponents that congressmen are subject to pressure groups so that we are subject to lobbyist While presidents are above the battle scarcely aware that elections are going on. Some of us had the crazy idea last fall that producers and feed grain people and a lot of other people

were having the federal spigots opened up as we got into September and October. Have you observed any difference between presidents and Congresses with regard to playing politics. Well all I know is that had the president of the United States told the farmers of America last October that he was going to terminate six of their programs that are vital to the agricultural economy that he was going to raise the interest rates and commodity credit Corp loans that he was going to change the entire American agricultural program. He wouldn't have got many votes in the agricultural areas of America. What happened between November and January that requires the president to use the meat axe to the tune of a million five hundred and ninety one million dollars on agricultural funds. I'll tell you what happened. He won the election. He had the votes and he decided now that he was going to keep the money. Back in the form of a question but also might have happened is that he decided he would not put the people through more inflation and higher taxes. But do you recall that President Johnson in 1967 impounded ten point eight million dollars or seven percent of the

budget twice the figure at the present time. And he took this money from housing. He took this money from education. He took this money from the highway trust fund the land and water conservation fund. So if it's right for twiddle Dee Why is it wrong for Quinnell down. Well Al I don't know who we want to call Twitter now but. That's an assumption we might not except on a very brief answer. First of all it was five billion three hundred million dollars. Secondly it was wrong. Thirdly no programs were terminated. And fourthly most of the funds were released before the end of the fiscal year which still doesn't make it right. President Johnson made mistakes and we've heard a lot about him. Mr. Nixon is compounding them and he has it with using executive arrogance to terminate programs that are authorized by the Congress of the United States for which funds are appropriated. And he is bypassing the will in the Congress expressed will of the American people. He cannot justify terminating these programs. He couldn't justify coming to Congress asking for their revision. I say that he is committing an unconstitutional act

and the Congress of the United States and the courts of this land will have to bring him up short for himself. I'm sorry Mr Humphrey thanks very much for being with us. Thank you. I just you all know. What. Mr. Walker talked to though impoundment or the intervention of some friendly Big Brother in Washington saving us simultaneously from inflation and high taxes. Well to a lot of mayors and governors and struggling citizens who pay taxes and expect some federal programs the Congress has passed to be delivered. It looks like a much different. The problem. And to prove this in a lot of other things we're calling our next witness Edlin s must be. On the other side.

Must be nice to have you with us Senator Edmund Muskie vice presidential nominee in 68 leading presidential candidate in 72 former governor of Maine. He chairs Senate subcommittees on air and water pollution and on intergovernmental relations. He was the chief sponsor of the 1972 water pollution control act. Senator Muskie as a former governor and as an author of many important the bills in the Congress and I was a student of local government. Could you give us some idea of the impact. On mayors and governors and school boards and local people when the president impounds funds from programs that Congress has passed. Well let me give you an illustration within the last year or two in a well-publicized action the administration has threatened to take the city of Detroit among others to court for not cleaning up its waters while the citizens of Detroit got themselves together put together a program which amounts to five hundred and sixty eight million dollars. Then the President announced in December and impoundment of the money that the Congress had

approved over his veto and which deprived the city of 240 million dollars of federal funds necessary to do the job. So the trouble either way you know a Either way they're under the potential hammer of federal enforcement on one side and then the federal government sneaked out the back door on its commitment. On the other hand and this impoundment debate Senator Muskie we've heard a great deal about the fact that all the administration would love to follow congressional intent in most cases but sometimes they just can't find out what they what we mean. And there are a number of conflicting laws and therefore they have to make up their mind. And you're the author of the fall there is the principal sponsor of the 1972 water pollution bill which provided for five billion dollars to be spent. Last year the president said thanks a lot we'll spend only two was it clear in the congressional procedure it wasn't clear what was the intent of you and the other sponsors of that. The intent was to write a federal commitment. We took two years to write that law and one thing we had in mind was the complaint of citizens and

citizens that the federal government never measured up to its commitment to provide matching funds. And we resolved to write this law so that the federal commitment was clear and irrevocable and that intent was clear throughout the two years of consideration throughout the Senate debate throughout the house Senate conference. In the report to the Senate of the conference and in the debate over the veto Senator Muskie what can we do about this serious constitutional crisis. How do we get the president to obey the law. Well we can see growth as the legislative means we can go to the courts a way of doing so but ultimately only the power of the people brought to bear upon the president can ensure that he faithfully execute the law in accordance with the oath he took on the 20th of January last. All right Senator let's turn to Mr. Walker. Walker you're on for some cross-examination Senator Muskie. Isn't it true that a number of your colleagues voted for your clean water bill with the clear

understanding that the president could impound the money if they did they didn't listen to the debate or read the legislation. Well Congressman Harshaw of Ohio whom as you know is the ranking minority member from the House side made the very statement on the floor of the House of Representatives. We have emphasized over and over again that if federal spending must be curtailed and if such spending cuts must affect water pollution control authorisations the administration can impound the money and furthermore our witness soon after all he's going to state that he had that clear understanding even though he voted for the bill and voted to override the bill. Well let me say as the principal author of the bill I did not have that understanding. And I made I made the intent of the bill clear on the floor of the Senate not once but three times then. And anyone who listened to the debate read it knew that the emphasis was on a federal commitment as to the city of Detroit a federal commitment or the funds

necessary to support state and local action. Well Senator I assume that extended beyond just Detroit and involved involved every community in the country and every community has to walk in. Well evidently we do have some uncertainty in Senator Robb can help perhaps with that. But if in order to clear up uncertainty why don't you simply introduce the same bill requiring the president to spend each year at least the amount of money you have in mind. How could we be clear. We enacted that legislation by a unanimous vote in the Senate by unanimous vote in the house. The legislation went to the House Senate conference came back to both houses. It was overwhelmingly approved. The president vetoed it at midnight. One of the last days of the session and within 24 hours both the House and the Senate had overridden the president got only 23 votes in the Senate or 12 votes in the Senate and 23

votes in the House to support his veto. Now how many times may I ask must the Congress speak before our intention is clear. And there are a lot of issues about Mr. Williamson. Puzzled. I don't think that's quite what I ask. I'm still puzzled why you do not enact legislation which instead of saying the president may spend he has got to spend the amount. This has been done before. We said in this legislation if you bother to read it we said the President shall not. There's no ifs ands or buts. The amounts authorized for each year by January 1st the president allotted in December. Five billion dollars of 11 billion so mandated and fail to do so by January 1st of this year. And in my judgment broke the law.

Well let's move on to another piece of legislation. Let's move on to another about impoundment and see if there are some differences involved. The president has impounded money for a canal across Florida because the Environmental Protection Agency said it would injure the environment. Did he have the right to do this. The president has the right to try to save money or take into account other considerations to delay projects. As for example in the case of the water bill if there are not sufficient contracts signed and sufficient obligations committed to meet the authorization figure in the legislation of course we have delayed the canal to delay the canal permanently if the EPA continues to say it will harm the FDR and Congress has authorized a project. He cannot delay it permanently without coming back to the Congress and asking for congressional approve even if there is clearly a another piece of legislation that requires him to take into consideration the side effects he has to go

ahead and hurt the environment down. I know the National Environmental Policy Act and it doesn't lay down any such mandate as you describe. It requires that there be an environmental impact statement to evaluate the environmental impact. But there are no punitive measures laid out in the act prescribing what action the president can take and certainly none that mandates him to cancel project turned bad news. WALKER You will have another opportunity to ask some questions Carson get all of the question please. So it must be one of the arguments made here tonight about empowerment of funds is that the president has a higher duty and a superior obligation in his ultimate wisdom to save us from the ravages of inflation. They chopped out three billion dollars of your water pollution money for Detroit in Tucson Arizona and Bangor Maine and Sioux City and a lot of other places. What do you suppose this will have to do with inflation just that you think those water projects will cost less. Two or three years from now and they might have cost if we spent the money today.

Well in 1966 Mr. Udall the Senate approved a water pollution bill and six billion dollars was provided to catch up with the backlog. We failed to fund it. The Congress and the executive alike failed to provide the money. And so last year we had to write the bill over again and we had to provide 18 billion dollars to catch up with the backlog. That's a measure of what it costs to delay. You know we have this interesting argument on the other side. Now what they are interested in is saving money the way to save money in the water pollution field is to do the job now. OK Senator let's get back to Mr. Walker. Senator I still think that the answer to your problem would be to enact legislation that President should spend not less than. But both you and I we passed such legislation you and I very much want Congress both you and I very much want Congress to play its proper constitutional role in determining spending priorities. But in the light of these facts how can it do so. It sets no budget or set spending ceiling for itself.

It makes piecemeal appropriations without regard to an overall budget one committee proposal proposes a program a Senate committee appropriates the money and a third committee has the responsibility for raising the money. Tell me how in the world that system can work well in five seconds. And if I had your view I'd do what Pratt did Marcos of Philippi of the Philippines did eliminate Congress but we're not about to find out about. That. Congressional process can stand reform but may I suggest that President Nixon's operation can stand even more as he himself acknowledged after he took office for the second time as he proceeded to accept resignations to de-couple White House staff. I don't know how many he's got but of course we need constant reform of the process. But that is something different than destroying and undermining the constitutional power of appropriations which is the Congress that's throwing the baby out with the bath.

Gentlemen I'm afraid I have to interrupt you. Thank you very much. I just you know. I think we've made it clear that President Nixon's kind of impoundment violates the spirit and the clear intent of the Constitution. It's an assault on the fundamental rights of the Congress and it has burdensome effects on citizens local government. The president we contend has the power and the right to make budget recommendations. We have the right to veto spending bills if he finds them unwise but when he signs the money bill or was passed over his veto he must be bound by that congressional decision. Have you contacted you at all for those of you at home who may have joined us late Congressman Udall and his witnesses have been arguing in support of a proposal of the president spend money which Congress appropriates. Now we're going to turn to Mr. Walker and his witnesses will oppose that proposal to walk on the floor here.

Ladies and gentlemen the president of the United States under the laws of the land and under the Constitution has the right and the clear responsibility to refuse to spend appropriated funds when such spending would hurt the country. Not only does he have this right. He should have the right because Congress in effect a committee of five hundred and thirty five people is simply too unwieldy a body to administer this huge government. Furthermore President Nixon has exercised this right responsibly. Now let me say that Congress has the constitutional authority to play a greater role in the appropriations process and we would hope that it would do so. But Congress has failed in this job over the past few years. Congress has had chance after chance to bring federal spending under control but instead has consistently appropriated too much money. If

Congress does decide to put its house in order and take more responsibility for setting priorities well and good but Congress fiscal house is not now an art. And we are facing an urgent problem which has to be met. Now the problem is this excessive federal spending threatens to reignite the fires of inflation which have hurt millions and helped only a select few. And inflation we are now bringing under control. It is not mid-morning it's not mid-afternoon and not early evening. It's one minute to midnight and only the president is able and willing to do this necessary job the job of protecting your pocketbook from soaring prices higher taxes are both. No one understands these problems better than the man who manages the budget budget for the past two years. The Honorable Caspar Weinberger you.

Only have one vote for everyone. Mr. Weinberger was the director of the office of Management and Budget until he was tapped that President Nixon to be secretary of Health Education and Welfare Secretary Weinberger Where does the president get his authority to impound funds. Well from the Constitution from his duty to enforce all of the laws from certain specific laws that Congress passes the anti deficiency act the employment act of 1946 which requires him to take all steps to prevent inflation while the debt ceiling acts aren't what is the division and deficiency act is a very simple little act that says the president should spend the money that the Congress appropriates in the most efficient and effective way possible and that if it isn't possible to do that it directs him to take other steps necessary to maintain economies and to prevent deficiencies in appropriations. We establish that President Johnson engaged in impounding did it go back earlier goes way back to Thomas Jefferson one of the most interesting examples of recent

impounding and I don't really know of a president who hasn't had to do it. I don't know how you could run the executive branch without doing it because of any change in the Congress isn't in session all the time all the time and a lot of things have to be done on on an interim basis both to prevent inflation. And as President Nixon is doing now to prevent taxes. But one of the most interesting examples was one that President Truman did and I imagine that if if we were talking about such an incident tonight there'd be waves and waves. Cl. because what President Truman did was decide that when the Congress said they wanted a 70 wing air force President Truman said No I think you need a 40 wing air force and I will not spend the money. And they passed the bill over his veto and he refused to spend the money. One of the most interesting things about this is that ever since Jefferson there have been complaints about this. But the Congress has not only acquiesced in this rule but most congressmen when they're not on stage will tell you that they have to have this kind of authority. Get. Down.

To get down the figures a little perspective how much money has President Nixon impounded. He's impounding at this point eight point seven billion out of some two hundred and sixty billion that the Congress directed to be spent which he's really reduced to 250 billion a little under 250. And why is he impounded this money. Well he's imperent of this money for a number of reasons. The bulk of it which is highway money is because it simply isn't ready or can't be spent or because the Congress has directed that buildings be built and we don't own the land yet or it's directed that we build a nuclear submarine or a nuclear carrier and the ship is not finished. We have literally no one to pay the money to. That's a big part of it. Usually the biggest part he's impounded others because to start on those expenditures would end Marcus on an inflationary course that in two years maybe in three years would balloon. I don't think very many people realize how rapidly these expenditures balloon you have an expenditure program that starts out modestly and we call it modest in Washington these days of two or three billion and in one year it's up to six or seven. And another year it's up to 15 or 18 billion and that's those are some appropriations in that

category that the president has ordered withheld simply to prevent more taxes being required. Now the government says that the president has the responsibility and the right to impound and he has done so. Changed. And we're going to turn to Congressman Needham's Walker cars and you'd all question Mr. Weinberger. The Constitution gives Congress at least two key power. One is overspending and the other is over taxes and you advance an interesting theory that with the spending power because Congress is inefficient can't do the job the president has to move Constitution gives the Congress the right to appropriate the funds. Congressman Yeah but one of your arguments is that because there's an efficiency and we don't really do the job the executive has to move in and I know that is true but that isn't my argument. My argument is that if if. No one else does it you're going to have many situations in which the president would be literally unable to hand the money that's been appropriated to anyone to receive it. There is no one there you test that philosophy.

You say that Ed Muskie's five billion dollars and water pollution. You cut it back too because of inflation. You have to consider it isn't 5 billion it's going to talk. It's going to work itself out to about well whatever the thing it's about 18 to 21 billion and that's quite a difference. I want to talk about the principle All right. Because the Congress is our benefit. 18 to 21 billion over what period of time. Over a three to four year period depending on how rapidly the Congress would try to force the spending which would mean higher taxes and would mean something else. It would mean a lot dirtier water because it would mean people simply could not afford the inflationary effect of this kind of a program on pollution equipment. Let me test let me test this theory of yours. Congress says you spent five you decide to spend two. Suppose Congress set a tax rate at 10 percent. The president said sorry in order to fight inflation preserve the general welfare. The tax rate will not be 10 percent it will be 12 percent or 14 percent or 8 percent or 2 percent. Why can't he do one if he can do the other because with the appropriations what Congress is doing is authorizing and appropriating a spending program which over the years since Jefferson every president has interpreted.

So you get more hard decision on spending but you can't ignore it on tax. Now Anderson let's let him finish. Let me finish. Which every president has interpreted as being the outside limits of the spending but which common sense and reason dictates. Can I. He cannot be forced to spend every penny of it if it can't be spent usefully economically and efficiently with a tax rate you don't have a spending program you have a specific tax law and no Congress as given a president and I don't think they should. Well the ability all the president Kennedy asked for it to move the tax rates up and down as he wishes. Well you're talking here about a principle not about Richard Nixon all knowing and all virtuous you're talking about a principle of presidential power. Let me test that principle. It may be a little painful but let's suppose for a moment that we had just inaugurated George McGovern and his press secretary. Set a hard case Congressman go ahead. I'm going to make it hard. I'm going to give you a tough case because we're testing a tough principle. McGovern announces this month in February that too to prevent

inflation under the anti efficiency Act of 1995. He's cutting out and impounding all funds for the B-1 bomber the space shuttle and the Anti Ballistic Missile. Would you send him a telegram of support or maybe go to Capitol Hill and testify that he could do that. I would probably do a few of those things but I wouldn't have her moment for the doubt that he had the constitutional authority to do that because that's exactly what President Truman did. I would question strongly the wisdom of it not his basic constitutional right to do so. Let me ask you one more thing. You talked about the inefficiency of Congress and why we take so long and we can't make all these decisions and so forth on the water pollution bill we had months of hearings public hearings governors conservationist mayors citizens testified the bytes in the House and Senate conference committees. We decided five billion dollars we needed this year for water pollution and six billion the next and seven billion indeed. And you decided not five but two and three billion next year. Right. How many public hearings did you hold and how many witnesses we relied on the legislative history of that Act which made it very very obvious with repeated statements throughout

the debate on the bill that the president did have the authority not to spend it all and that that was why it was said repeatedly the president should sign the bill because he doesn't have to spend it on anyone. Gentlemen I'm sorry I have to interrupt. Cars and all you will have another opportunity to ask Weinberg's some questions back to Mr. Walker Walker on its second if one red press. You get the implication that all the cuts are impoundment made by the president have been made in social programs poverty environment et cetera is that true. No that's exactly the opposite of the truth. We are withholding $2 billion out of this year's appropriations from the Department of Defense appropriations bill in the Health Education and Welfare bill. We are impounding 35 million and that is entirely because of construction problems. They aren't simply aren't ready to build the buildings or to allocate the funds to the contractors so that's 2 billion against 35 million. Let's go back to Congressman you know another question or two Congressman. One of the one of the points that you've made in this great discussion is that if Congress would shape up and

buckle down and do our job that maybe you'd give us back some of the constitutional power we have to decide appropriations policy. Who decides when Congress is shaped up when we get our call. Congressman you repeatedly said this you're the one that says Congress needs shaping up. I haven't said a word about it. I would hesitate to say that. Gentlemen in fairness I think what Mr. Walker is suggesting that Congress might say may be a valid point but my point is that someone has to have the overall responsibility and we would be delighted if Congress would share it with the president. And that's why we asked for a spending ceiling less generous of you to offer to share a power the constitution gives to us and not to the president. What we don't read it that we. Heard on Friday I have to break in. Thanks very much for being with us. Thank you. Mr. Walker another witness. But like to call is our next witness the senior senator from the state of Delaware the Honorable William Robb.

Get into the rough rough I can tell you what Senator Roth is a member of the Senate finance committee the Government Operations Committee and a special blue ribbon committee that has been set up for the Congress to do something about the budget in the Congress. Senator should Congress forced the president to spend all the money at appropriate. Well Mr. Walker It's it's my judgment that if Congress should mandate that the president had to spend all funds that were appropriated would not only be talking about the 260 billion dollars we appropriated during the current year but we'd also be talking about $250 billion in the pipeline. So we'd be saying a half trillion dollars have to be spent. And obviously I think most people would agree that if we did that today it would cause inflation or we would have to raise taxes that are going under when you use an expression in the pipeline. Can you tell us what you mean. I'm talking the funds that are left over from prior years that have not been spent. All right. Mr. Walker Senator isn't the president frustrating the will of Congress when he makes these

announcements. Well Mr. Walker I wish it were possible to tell but is the congressional intent in the area of spending you've got 535 different members of Congress and frankly if you polled them I doubt if we could get 10 percent to agree with that. Let me say what's the important point. The fact remains that we have given a mixed bag of directions. On the one hand we have created many programs that require spending. We have a debt ceiling which last time we upped we specifically limited spending for the current year fiscal year 73 to $250 billion. We have also passed the full employment act of 1946. Every president since Truman on down has said that the president is responsible for the economy. And I think what the president is really trying to do is to reconcile these conflicting objectives. But let me talk to you if I might just a minute about appropriations and what's meant by an appropriation are very very few

congressmen that think an appropriation is mandatory spending. It's perfectly clear you can go back to statements by Mehan by Senator and speaker cabinet. Appropriations are permissive not mandatory. Let me explain something. All right. Statements by Mehan who is me. He is the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. All right. Now let me make this point if I might. Going back to the some of the specific legislation for example we have 13 different appropriations. One of them for example involves environment and involves agriculture policy involves consumer protection. Well I happen to be opposed to farm subsidies and we like to stop it. So I'm faced the question when the appropriation comes up do I vote for it because I'm for consumer protection. I'm for environment. Or do I vote against it because I'm for or against farm subsidies and none of us think that when we're voting final passage that we're mandating spending.

That's just a fact of life in your mind was the clean water bill spending permissive. Well you know I'm like Senator Cooper on the Senate floor because I was one that supported Senator Muskie in this legislation. I voted to override his veto. But I'd like to reiterate what was said earlier Congressman Congressman harsh Harsha the leader on the House side spelled out very clearly the language you read that the president has authority to impound those funds and Muskie made favorable reference to it. We didn't talk they didn't talk in the final form about allotment of all sounds that language had been. Change the word. All had been brought up and it it's not in excess. Now this is typical Congress waffles at one moment when they're trying to override a veto. We try and say oh yes the president has authority. But on the other hand after he's done we like to criticize him I don't know what the congressman you know in a briefing where he and his colleagues waffle but let's find out. Well. I don't have my waffle iron with me Senator but it seems to me that you have little faith in the institution of which you belong.

I have found you an honorable man who doesn't waffle who doesn't mislead his constituents are you suggesting that the great majority of the members of the Congress haven't the ability to face up to issues and decide them fairly and squarely. Well Mr. Udall I'd just like to if I might read a statement from your distinguished brother who was former secretary interior reads very much what I think it says. I hope I want to make climb. I have heard my brother and I would. Like to I like to answer your question. He says to my way of thinking the Congress itself is largely to blame for the erosion of its powers. Presidents and preparing their budgets and expanding appropriated funds are increasingly forced to make judgments about national priorities and long term goals. Yes. In that time of a rapid change the approach pro-creation comedies the Congress still essentially use the same procedures and staff function to evaluate the various programs. Now I got a chance to ask my question which was we are good but we are not very efficient up in Congress and we believe that we dont handle appropriations very well and if

we just shape up then maybe they give us back our constitutional power. Who decides that. Does the president decide when we shaped up sufficiently or do we decide. No I think I think we decide. I think the responsibility lies with us as a matter of fact as a result of that debate last year on the spending limitation we set up a joint committee. I'm a member of that joint committee meeting right now trying to decide how we can change the procedures how we can change our committees so that we will take a comprehensive look at the whole ball a week from today if I might just complete my answer is that people want to talk about spending. They don't want to talk about the other side how were going to finance it. And that's what's got to be done if Congress is going to be responsible. Well you know. You write me a quotation Let me read one to you. This is John Erlichman the president's top domestic adviser right here in the month of February the year of our Lord 73. He said that the administration will not spend money it considers wasteful even if Congress appropriates funds over a presidential veto. He said the president's power to impound

funds is not impaired if he first vetoes an appropriation on the grounds that it is too costly and Congress later overrides by a two thirds margin. Is that your. Does that square with your version of the Constitution. Let me give you my version of the Constitution. I think Congress can mandate spending but it has to act with precision and has to act with clarity. That's where the failure is that we have waffled these barriers. We have not looked at the whole picture. And until we do so the president hasn't taken the power we've given and by failing to act as we should act in the Congress. Are you willing. To concede then that we have a serious problem and it's a serious subject and that we ought to place some limitations on the president's power alone account and we ought to clarify the situation so that we know when he's bound to spend the money. Oh absolutely. I believe very strongly and I'd like to emphasize that I think Congress does have a responsibility to take over control of the purse strings. But I think we've got to do it in an intelligent way. We've got we've got to face congressional reform. I consider congressional reform a primary requirement of this session of Congress and it's

particularly true in this area of fiscal responsibility. I'm. Working on a question. Senator Roth you stated in your direct testimony that in your view the president is not frustrating the will of Congress. If so why are some congressmen so critical of the president on this. Well to be perfectly honest I think I think we've let too much politics creep into it. I don't think this is time for a confrontation between the executive branch and the Congress. I think it's time we sit down together and try to work out this problem because Congress does have a very important role of setting guidelines and spending at the same time. It's the president that must manage it. But it makes good politics. And I must say the Republicans did it when LBJ was president just as well as the Democrats are doing that with Nixon. It's nice today. It's nice today to complain about spending but if we spend everything and we have inflation tomorrow then of course everybody is going to complain about inflation. The president's a whipping boy. If we were to.

All right let's go back to Congress and you know another question or two please Congressman can you tell me Senator loss of a single program in the administration of Lyndon Johnson or the president did not simply withhold or delay funds until a later time but actually and deliberately and openly set out to kill a program like the impact aid education program or the highway program the RDA the electrification program. Can you cite me a case where Lyndon Johnson didn't just delay program Well let me kill programs and said he was going to let me if I might correct on one fact the president has not kill for example of a highway bill as a matter of fact we spent last year I think five billion roughly we're gonna spend 5 billion this year. We're going to spend five billion next year. I must say very honestly I liked and pounded until we opened up to mass transportation. But fundamentally. Fundamentally the president the current president and Johnson were doing the same things Mr. Johnson impounded funds involving housing. Mr. Johnson involved funds that involve the highway. He lies about President Nixon.

Well can you list me a program that he killed that he said this program is no good and it's unwise and we know Congress has approved it. But I don't like it and I'm going to end it. And you name me a program that the president wants. Well I would answer you this way. Basically the president the current president is deferring programs. If Congress does not like what the president is doing tomorrow it can meet tomorrow and mandate that any program be spent. But the problem is the congressional intent is not clear. Well why doesn't he ask us for guidance. If the intent is unclear he couldn't find his way up there to give us a state of the Union address. I'm sure I can give you. I can give you I'm sure if the people who may demand that I fire a congressman you know let's let Senator Roth answer this question if I may answer your question. Begin with the Senate in the first place I tried to for example get the Congress to send a set of spending limitation last January by doing so then we would consider every appropriation in light of that ceiling. It was 10 months before I considered it. That's the problem this is such a long time delay between a presidential request and congressional action that it's very

unwieldy. What we've got to be sorry I have to interrupt. Thanks very much for being with us. We advocates. Artist. Walker. Thank you very much Senator Roth I think you've made it clear that Congress can by reforming its procedures play a more responsible role in their queerish system of checks and balances. Let's be very clear about one thing. This system of checks and balances does not exclude the president of the United States in meeting his oath under the Constitution of the United States. His right to check and overspending Congress is just a much a part of the checks and balances. What these gentlemen have been discussing. Now you're somebody please. Ladies and gentlemen what we've been talking about is not a presidential grab for power. If anything there has been a congressional abdication of power. There is no

doubt that the Constitution and the laws of the land grant the president the right to impound congressional appropriations. The president cannot spend money that Congress has not appropriated. That's the control of the purse. But that does not mean he has to spend all the money that the Congress does appropriate. Now any president will from time to time make decisions that you or I disagree with but that risk is small in comparison with the consequences of a drifting leaderless government when decisive action is required today in action will hit you right in your pocketbook through inflation higher taxes or both. So on the proposition tonight. In the interest of your country and in your own interest vote no the president does not have to spend all of the money that Congress appropriate. For.

Walker. To do to all your but. In the long run the appropriations and the impoundment we've been talking about tonight won't really matter very much. Nor will the partisan differences between a Republican president and a Democratic Congress in 1973. But there's something in tonight's debate the debate is vital and permanent and it isn't going to fade away because it's part of a constitutional crisis. The president claims today. That his power to faithfully execute all of the law entitles him to faithfully execute some of the laws and in effect to repeal others. But he doesn't lie. And this I say is an unprecedented grab for power and if it sticks we will drastically change the Constitution without bothering to amend it. No citizen no president is above the law. President Nixon should set an example of restraint for himself and his successors by faithfully executing all of the laws all of them and filing lists the Congress must find legal and constitutional ways to preserve its legitimate power. Thank you gentlemen. Ladies and gentlemen you are here with us in Washington.

Thousands more of you watching at home over your television sets have an opportunity to get in on the act and let us know how you feel about tonight's question. What do you think. Should the president spend the money that Congress appropriates. Should Congress act to require him to do so. Send us your vote on a letter a postcard and mail it to the Advocate's box. 1973 Boston 020 1:34. We will tabulate your views and distribute them to the members of Congress to the executive branch of government and to others concerned with this problem. So remember that address it's the advocate Spark's 1973 Boston 020 1:34. We received many letters requesting transcripts of our programs. If you would like a complete transcript of tonight's debate send your request to that same address the advocate Spark's 1973 Boston 020 1:34. Don't forget to enclose a check or money order for $2 to cover the cost of printing and mailing. You should get your copy within 10 days of our receiving your request. And don't forget to specify the program by name and your return address.

Recently the advocates debated the question Should drug advertisements be banned from television. Of the more than thirty five hundred viewers who sent us their votes. Eighty five percent said yes. Drug ads should be banned and 15 percent said no they should not be. And now let's take a look at next week's program amnesty of presidential prerogative. First exercised by President George Washington nearly 200 years ago a word that means to get a word that always comes up after a war. Now that the long war in Indochina has finally ended President Nixon has told the nation he will not forget. Should unconditional amnesty be granted to those who have evaded military service. A question next time for the advocates. It's been a real pleasure and privilege to have had such a distinguished group of advocates and witnesses with us tonight on our program. And so thanks to our advocates and to the very distinguished and able witnesses.

We conclude tonight's debate. The advocates of program takes no position on the issues debated tonight. Our job is to help you understand both sides more clearly. This program was recorded. By