S. 537

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP65B00383R000100010002-0
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 18, 2003
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: January 25, 1963
• Content Type: REGULATION

Approved For Release 2004/01/15 : CIA-RDP65B00383RQ'Ql93QO010002-0
Joint Committee
OnThe B u d g e t
Speech By
Senator John L. McClellan
Chairman, Committee on
Government Operations
In The U. S. Senate
88TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
S9537
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
JANUARY 25 (legislative day, JANUARY 15), 1963
Mr. MCCLELLAN (for himself, Mr. ALLOTT, Mr. ANDERSON, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr.
BAYH, Mr. BEALL, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. BIBLE, Mr. BOGGS, Mr. BREWSTER,
Mr. BURDICK, Mr. BYRD of Virginia, Mr. CANNON, Mr. CARLSON, Mr.
CASE, Mr. COOPER, Mr. COTTON, Mr. CURTIS, Mr. DIRKSEN, Mr. DODD, Mr.
DOMINICK, Mr. EASTLAND, Mr. ENGLE, MI'. ERVIN, Mr. FONG, Mr. PUL-
BRIGHT, Mr. GOLDWATER, Mr. GRUENING, Mr. HARTKE, Mr. HICKENLOOPER,
Mr. HOLLAND, Mr. HRUSKA, Mr. HUMPHREY, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. JACKSON,
Mr. JAVITS, Mr. JOHNSTON, Mr. JORDAN of Idaho, Mr. KEATING, Mr.
KEFAUVER, Mr. KUCHEL, Mr. LAUSCHE, Mr. MAGNUSON, Mr. MC(3r ,I.,
Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. MECHEM, Mr. METCALF, Mr. MILLER,
Mr. MONRONEY, Mr. MORSE, Mr. MORTON, Mr. MUNDT, Mr. MUSKIE, Mr.
NELSON, Mrs. NEUBERGER, Mr. PASTORE, Mr. PEARSON, Mr. PELL, Mr.
PROUTY, Mr. PROXMIRE, Mr. RANDOLPH, Mr. RIBICOFF, Mr. ROBERTSON,
Mr. SCOTT, Mr. SMATHERS, Mr. SPARKMAN, Mr. STENNIS, Mr. SYMINGTON,
Mr. TALMADGE, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. TOWER, Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware,
Mr. YARBOROUGH, Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota, and Mr. YOUNG of Ohio)
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the
Committee on Government Operations
A BILL
To amend the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 to provide
for more effective evaluation of the fiscal requirements of
the executive agencies of the Government of the United
States.
Approved For Release 2004/01/15 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100010002-0
 Approved For Release 2004/01/15 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100010002-0
United States 881h
of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION
Vol. 109
WASHINGTON, FRIDAY, JANUARY 25, 1963
Senate
JOINT COMMITTEE ON
TIE BUDGET
Mr. McCLELLAN Mr. President, I
ask unanimou$ consent that I may in-
troduce some bills out of order and dis-
cuss them without being charged with
a speech on the pending issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, Is there
objection? The Chair hears none; and
it is so ordered.
Mr. McCLELLANN. Mr. President, I
introduce, for'; appropriate reference, a
bill, for myself, and cosponsored by 75
other Members of this body.
The PRESIDING .OFFICER. The bill
will be received and appropriately re-
ferred.
The bill (S..537) to amend the Legis-
lative Reorganization Act of 1946 to pro-
vide for more effective evaluation of
the fiscal requirements of the ex-
ecutive agencies of the Government
of the United States, introduced by
Mr. MCCLELLAN (for himself and Sen-
ators ALLOTT, ANDERSON, BARTLETT, BAYH,
BEALL, BENNETT, BIBLE, BOGGS, BREWSTER,
BURDICK, BYRD OfVirginia, CANNON,
CARLSON, CASE) COOPER, COTTON, CURTIS,
DIRKSEN, DODD, DOMINICK, EASTLAND,
ENGLE, ERVIN, FONG, FULBRIGHT, GOLD-
WATER, GRUENIiG, HARTKE, HICKENLOOPER,
HOLLAND, HRTiSKA, HUMPHREY, INOUYE,
JACKSON, JAVITS, JOHNSTON, JORDAN Of
Idaho, KEATING, KEFAUVER, KUCHEL,
LAUSCHE, MAGNUSON, MCGEE, MCGOVERN,
MCINTYRE, MkCHE11t, METCALF, MILLER,
MONRONEY, MORSE; MORTON, MUNDT,
MUSKIE, NELSON, NEUBERGER, PASTORE,
PEARSON, PELL PROUTY, PROXMIRE, RAN-
DOLPH, RIBICpFF, ROBERTSON, SCOTT,
SMATHERS, SP4RKMAN, STENNIS, SYMING-
TON, TALMADGE, THURMOND, TOWER, WIL-
LIAMS of Delaware, YARBOROUGH, YOUNG
of North Dakota, and YOUNG of Ohio),
was received, read twice by its title, and
referred to the Committee on Govern-
ment Operations.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President,
there are 76 sponsors of this measure,
more than three-fourths of the Mem-
bers of the Senate having endorsed it.
The cosponsors join. with me in its intro-
duction and irk asking for its enactment.
The bill would create a Joint Com-
mittee on the Budget. This is not some-
thing new orstrange to this body, nor
Is it strange to the country. The bill
has been introduced before. It has been
passed by the Senate of the United
States.
The Committee on Government Oper-
ations has reported favorably, and the
Senate has approved, in the 82d, 83d,
84th, 85th, and 87th Congresses, bills
proposing the: creation of a Joint Com-
mittee on the: Budget.
The 76 Senators who now sponsor the
bill represent. the largest number who
have ever cosponsored it. In the 85th
Congress, when there were only 96 Mem-
bers of the Senate,; 71 Senators cospon-
sored the bill:
I submit, Mr. President, that the con-
ditions which prompted the initial intro-
duction of this measure and its initial
passage by the Senate of the United
States have in no way diminished. In-
stead, they have increased in intensity.
There is greater need for this measure
today than there was previously, and
that need grows with each budget mes-
sage we receive from the President of
the United States and with each session
of the Congress, a19 the cost of Govern-
ment increases and as expenditures rise
and as the tax burden is felt more keenly
by the American p6ope'r Release 2004/01/15
ongressional Record
The need is greatly increased.. We
had presented to us only a few days ago
a budget message from the President,
which was the annual budget message,
in which the President requested that we
make appropriations this year :in the
amount of more than $98 billion, which is
the largest peacetime budget ever sub-
mitted in the history of the Congress.
It is larger than any total expenditure
ever made in any fiscal year by this Gov-
ernment, even in time of war.
I am not at this moment criticizing the
amount of the budget, except to empha-
size the need for eliminating from the
budget, as the need existed to eliminate
from previous budgets-and as I am sure
the need will continue for elimination
from future budgets-of any expendi-
ture for which it may call which is in
the category of waste or extravagance
or excessive spending; and, also, to go
further and to eliminate from any budget
any item or items of expense or any
amount of expense that we can possibly
eliminate or cut from the budget with-
out doing injury to the necessary func-
tioning of the Government.
I think we can all agree with that, if
we believe in responsible government; if
we believe in sound fiscal policy; if we
believe there is any virtue, any merit, any
wisdom whatsoever in operating our
Government on a balanced budget basis.
Now, there are those who believe in
operating the Government at a deficit as
a permanent and firm policy of the
Government, to spend more continuously
in each year than the revenues taken :In.
Those who believe in that philosophy
should not support this bill, whether they
are Members of this body or Members of
another body. Mr. President, I: would
say they should violently oppose the bill,
because it is contrary to that purpose,
and if the bill is enacted and the joint
committee functions as it is expected to
function, and as I am confident it will,
though we may not eliminate all deficit
spending we shall substantially reduce
the amount of it, I am sure. The pros-
pects will be brighter then for bringing
expenditures within the revenues re-
ceived than the prospects are now or
will continue to be if we do not do some-
thing about this problem.
To give another illustration, without
in any sense attempting to criticize, and
without meaning it in any critical sense,
to show there is a need for a joint com-
mittee on the budget within the Con-
gress, the budget which was presented to
us for the fiscal year in which we are
now operating-the figures which were
submitted to us last year at this time of
the session for the present fiscal year-
indicated and represented that the ex-
penditures of our Government would be
$92.5 billion. That same budget pre-
dicted that revenues the Government
would receive would be $93 billion, and
that thus there would be a surplus of
$500 million in the Treasury in June by
reason of the fact that revenues would
exceed expenditures.
Of course, no one can absolutely know
or be accurate as to what the figures
will actually be on next June 30, but it
is already conceded that, instead of our
having a surplus of $500 million when
the 30th of next June rolls around, the
prospects are we will have a deficit of
at least $8,800 million.
 Approved For Release 2004/01/15 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100010002-0
In other words, the budget makers in
the administrative branch of the Gov-
ernment appear to be not very accurate.
I am sure they have done the best they
can, but again an error of $9,300 mil-
linn, or an error of 10 percent in the
total expenditures of the Government,
clearly indicates the need for further
checking, evaluation, examination, and
a better "look-see," if one can be made,
to give guidance to the Congress with
respect to the fiscal affairs of our Gov-
ernment.
If there were no other reason-and
there are many others that I shall men-
tion, but if there were no other reason
at all-except that of the Congress be-
ing confronted from year to year with
budget estimates that repeatedly prove
to be inaccurate and erroneously and un-
reliable, that reason alone would be suf-
ficient to warrant the enactment of the
bill that 76 Senators have today intro-
duced.
This proposed legislation, which has
been developed and perfected by the
Committee on Government Operations
during the past 12 years, is designed to
remedy serious deficiencies in the appro-
priation procedures and to improve-and
It will greatly improve-the surveillance
over the expenditure of public funds. It
constitutes a positive approach to the
elimination of extravagance, waste, and
needless or excessive appropriations. The
swollen cost of operating the Federal
Government, to which I have already re-
ferred, with annual budgets now ap-
proaching $100 billion, dictates the com-
pelling necessity of reducing the cost of
Government, where it is prudent to do
so, in order to restore sound fiscal pol-
icies.
Mr. President, when I referred to the
budget situation a few moments ago, I
did not mention the recent development
of the proposed tax cut over the next 2
or 3 years, which would reduce revenues,
not increase them, to meet the obliga-
tions we are expected to incur and will
have to meet, but a tax cut which would
reduce revenues by $13.6 billion, with a
recommendation for certain tax revi-
sions, a broadening of the tax base in
some areas, which would restore some
$3.4 billion of that cut or of the revenues
which would be lost if the tax cut rec-
ommendations were to be accepted and
adopted by the Congress.
Mr. President, assuming that program
is carried out, assuming the Congress
enacts, to the extent of every letter, the
crossing of every "t," the dotting of
every "i," the recommendations pend-
ing before us, such action will further
increase the gap between the. revenues
the Government will receive and the ex-
penditures that will be made-again em-
phasizing the need for the Congress to
meet its responsibility to do everything
in its power, and to take every action it
can possibly take, to bring about more
efficient and more intelligent appropria-
tions and expenditures of public reve-
nues.
Mp. President, as a Member of the Sen-
ate, I am deeply concerned about the
breakdown of legislative procedures in
the processing of appropriation bills
through the Congress. As we all know,
the fiscal program has been rapidly de-
teriorating since the annual Federal
budgets have reached such astronomical
figures, and which approached a critical
state, we recall, last year. It is incum-
bent upon the 88th Congress to take ap-
propriate steps early in the present ses-
sion to devise a solution to these
problems.
I am persuaded that the bill, if en-
acted Into law, and if the joint commit-
tee is created, will be conducive to better
cooperation and a spirit of working to-
gether in harmony between the two
powerful Appropriations Committee of
Congress. If we can have them working
together, each getting the same informa-
tion, each having access to the tools with
which to work, it will enable them to get
better information with which to intel-
ligently evalyate many requests. If we
can get them to do that-and the bill,
in my judgment will move in that direc-
tion-we will be going a long way toward
removing a situation which today ac-
tually reflects to a degree, at least, upon
the integrity of the two bodies, the House
of Representatives and the Senate.
We are prone, and with justification
many times, to criticize agencies of the
executive branch of the Government for
their inefficiency and lack of diligence in
bringing about efficient operations of
their responsibility.
Yet one of the most glaring evidences
of lack of efficiency actually exists right
here in Congress on this issue, in this
particular category, when we have the
House of Representatives taking a posi-
tion that it does not need the help or co-
operation of the Senate; and vice versa,
with the Senate taking the position,
"Well, we will hold separate hearings.
We will do everything separately." The
result is that there is an unnecessary
clash.
Congress has wisely created a Joint
Committee on- Internal Revenue Taxa-
tion. That committee has been in oper-
ation a number of years. Just think of
how much more smoothly and how much
more efficiently and how much more
cooperatively the two Houses work to-
gether in that field. It has been re-
markable. They have some disagree-
ments, of course, but they work together
in that field harmoniously, coopera-
tively, with a view to eliminating a great
deal of lost motion, with a view to get-
ting some pertinent information and
with a view of evaluating it, and with
the objective of bringing about har-
monious and efficient consideration of
tax legislation.
Why should not the same thing be
done with respect to expenditures? If
the Joint Committee on Internal Reve-
nue Taxation has proven its worth and
has been of great benefit in the func-
tioning of the two bodies of Congress-
and no one will deny that fact-likewise
it has demonstrated the wisdom of cre-
ating a comparable joint committee with
respect to the budget for the evaluation
and supervision of expenditures of the
many billions of dollars that we are now
asked to appropriate each year.
Although the Legislative Reorganiza-
tion Act of 1946 made provision for the
creation of a joint committee, composed
of members of the appropriations ana
revenue committees, to expedite consid-
eration of appropriation measures, the
large membership proved to be far too
cumbersome and the joint committee
never provided the necessary facilities to
carry out the functions it was supposed
to perform.
The idea and the general approach to
this matter was taken into account and
actually given sanction and endorsement
by the Legislative Reorganization Act of
1946. At that time we were spending
about half or less than half of what we
are spending now. However, a mistake
was made in that act. The mistake was
in making the committee so large. It
was to be composed of the membership
of the Ways and Means Committee of the
House and the Finance Committee of the
Senate and of both Appropriations Com-
irittees. Although I have not checked,
the number of the members would have
run more than 100, thereby composing a
committee which would be too cumber-
some for it to function properly. There-
fore, it did not prove successful; in fact,
it has never been put into effect.
Since these attempts in the 80th Con-
gress to set up the necessary organiza-
tional structure to process appropriation
bills in an orderly and expeditious man-
ner and to bring expenditures into proper
relationship to revenues proved abortive
the problem still remains to be resolved.
No final constructive action has been
taken since.
This situation still plagues us. How-
ever, I believe it should be said to the
credit of Congress that during the past
2 fiscal years Congress was able to re-
duce expenditures; that is, Congress ap-
propriated for the past 2 fiscal years ap-
proximately $8 billion less than the budg-
et requested. Congress is entitled to
credit for that fact. I have said publicly
that that is not enough, that we still need
to find ways in which we can do better.
Our proposal today is an approach to-
ward ong of the ways in which we can
do better.
Appropriations bills introduced in the
87th Congress, providing funds for many
of the operating agencies, were not, in
some instances, approved by the Congress
until approximately 4 months after the
beginning of the 1963 fiscal year.
With that sort of efficiency, or rather
lack of efficiency, on the part of Congress,
that sort of inefficiency in the legislative
branch of the Government, when it
could, if it would, correct that situation,
it hardly behooves us as Members of
Congress, particularly those who do
nothing about this problem, or who seek
to do nothing about it, to criticize the
executive branch. In other words, it
seems to me we act with poor grace when
we criticize the executive branch of the
Government, or agencies in the executive
branch of the Government, for ineffi-
ciency or wasteful practices and a lack
of economy.
I think Congress ought to set its own
house in order. I think the time is long
overdue for us to do so. Certainly if
we were to take this situation in hand,
and thus bring about a better working
together, cooperation, efficiency, and
some economy in the making of appro-
priations, we would" then be in a better
position to speak,.and we could speak,
I think, with a litt,e more influence when
we undertook to criticize agencies in the
executive branch of the Government, or
when we complained about their Ineffi-
ciency or lack of economy. Yes; we
could do so with better grace and with
more influence if we would set our own
house in order.
Some of the administrative agencies
were without funds with which to carry
on their normal operations during much
of the 4 months last year when Congress
delayed making appropriations after the
previous fiscal year had expired and the
new fiscal year had begun. The fiscal
procedures of the last Congress reached
such an exasperating state of disorder
that I think it is now quite urgent that
the present Congress take further and
Immediate steps to effectively correct its
own fiscal procedures. The lack of
action for so long a period last year was
exasperating and detracted from the
stature of Congress.
Such legislative deficiency should not
be permitted to continue. It does not
reflect credit upon nor will it enhance
the stature of either the House or the
Senate. The longer it is permitted to
continue, the greater will be the adverse
effect upon and detriment to the public
interest.
(At this point Mr. MCCLELLAN- yielded
to other Senators, whose remarks appear
elsewhere under the appropriate head-
ings.)
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, I
assume that I may resume my remarks
now under the same unanimous-consent
agreement previously entered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator Is correct.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I have always
thought, Mr. President, that the two
Appropriations Committees could and
should work together more closely and
cooperatively, and thus insure expedi-
tious consideration of money bills and
demonstrate by example the real mean-
ing of economy and efficiency in Gov-
ernment.
The Committee on Government Op-
erations has been fully aware of the de-
ficiencies in the fiscal procedures of the
Congress. For more than 12 years it
has proposed remedial action pursuant
to the authority vested in it to consider
and recommend legislation relating to
budget and accounting measures other
than appropriations. It has, pursuant
to this directive, submitted and recom-
mended action on legislation with the
objective of solving some of the fiscal
problems with which the Congress is now
confronted. During this period, the
Senate has taken the lead in evolving a
solution to these problems through the
approach of constructive and appropri-
ate legislation in a sincere effort to bring
that about. The record will affirma-
tively and conclusively support the posi-
tion taken repeatedly by the Senate since
early in 1950 in attempting to remedy
this situation.
If the Senate recommendations for
constructive action had been taken, if
they had been acquiesced in and acted
upon and approved and the legislation
recommended had been passed, instead
of the 87th Congress being forced into
a.tug of war-and not a very pleasant
one, I may say-over procedures and
bogged down in a quagmire of fiscal
irresponsibility, the Committees on Ap-
propriations could have worked together
harmoniously.
Because we did not have this legisla-
tion, discord arose, and we have been
drifting further and further apart all
the time. Instead of being cooperative,
they have been going in divergent direc-
tions. The committees have moved
further apart rather than closer to-
gether. Certainly there is no more
impelling duty, in the sense of public
responsibility, upon one than there is
on the other. The only difference in
Approved For Release 2004/01/15 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100010002-0
 Approved For Release 2004/01/15 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100010002-0
their authority and jurisdiction is that
under the Constitution appropriation
bills must originate in the House of -Rep-
resentatives, according to some ir4erpre-
tations which have been placed on the
clause in the Constitution with respect
to revenue measures. Without arguing
that point and without debating it-and
that makes little difference for this pur-
pose-the ultimate goal and the ultimate
responsibility of Congress and of the
Appropriations Cgmmittees should be to
appropriate that which is adequate and
necessary, and under conditions; which
prevail today, it means that which is
absolutely necessary in my judgment for
the proper operation of the functions of
the Government.
Any waste, any extravagance, any un-
necessary expenditure today, is doing
something of which I think we of this
generation, we of this Congress, we who
now have the responsibility, cannot be
proud. Mr. President, do you know
what this Government is doing? Do you
know what Congress is doing? We are
responsible for it. I say that Congress
is more responsible than the President.
The President can recommend laws and
request appropriations. But the Gop-
ernment cannot spend any money unless
Congress appropriates it. I say the
greater responsibility, possibly, rests
upon Congress.
But what are we doing today? We are
refusing to pay our bills. We are going
into debt. We are refusing to live within
our income. It is said that we have some
extraordinary expenses. Certainly we
have. We have the extraordinary ex-
penses of defense-of a defense adequate
to meet the world crisis and the world
dangers of our time. But the fact that
we have that burden makes it more
necessary that we be careful about in-
curring new obligations and more obliga-
tions each year. We are not paying for
all of them. What are we doing? We
are encumbering the heritage of our chil-
dren, if they are young children, and`of
our grandchildren.
What are we saying? We are saying,
"Oh, well, let us live it up and pass the
expense on to our children and grand-
children." Do you think, Mr. President,
that that is meeting the responsibility
of our time? Do you think that that
conforms to the statement in the Presi-
dent's inaugural address 2 years ago,
when he said:
Ask not what your country can do for
you: Ask what you can do for your country.
Are we doing that? No. What we are
saying today is: We are going to have
it if we want it. If we need it we are
going to have it whether we can afford
it or not, whether we are willing to pay
for it or not.
The fact is that these young boys,
these pages, who are seated before We
this afternoon, will reap the heritage of
a burden which we. are placing upon
them because we of this generation, of
this hour, do not have the fortitude and
courage to make the sacrifices which are
necessary to operate this Government
on a balanced budget and free of. a
cumulating debt.
It is said that we have a managed
currency, a managed debt, a managed
deficit. Yes; we can manage a deficit as
individuals. A deficit can be managed
for a time, for a season. But a time will
come, if we persist in it, when the debt
will become unmanageable. I am most
apprehensive that that is what we are
doing to the next generation. We are
passing on to them something that is
growing, that is becoming less manage-
able all the time. The amount of the
deficit for this year will be almost $9
billion. What are we creating?- We r.re
creating not only the debt itself the very
fact that we will go into debt $9 billion
this year will create a recurring and
continuing obligation of $300 million for
interest each year. Are we great states-
men of our time when we manage the
Government of the United States in such
fashion? Will history so record us?
Mr. President, I am happy to yield to
the distinguished Senator from North
Carolina for a question, provided I. do
not lose the floor.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, first I
shall ask the Senator from Arkansas a
question in lighter vein, before I ask him
some serious questions. I should like to
lay down a premise.
A few days ago, r read an article by
a theoretical economist of modern vin-
tage. He said that if the Government
spends more than it receives in revenue,
the Government has an actual deficit
which is likely to support the economy
in that action.. But if the Government
receiAs in rev nue less than it spends,
the Government has passive revenue
which indicates a sluggish condition of
the economy.
I think it would require a person who
can "unscrew the unscrutable" to ex-
plain the difference between spending
more than one receives and receiving less
than one spends. But if there is any
Senator who' can "unscrew the unscru-
table," it is my good friend, the distin-
guished Senator from Arkansas [Mr.
MCCIILLANI. I should like to ask him if
he can explain to me the precise differ-
ence between spending more than one
receives and receiving -less than one
spends.
Mr. McCLE::LAN. I cannot "unscrew
the unscrutable. " I am reminded by this
process of reasoning of an explanation
given by the great .Huey Long, in his day
and in his time, when he told about a
patent medicine salesman who came
through the countryside. The salesman
had two remedies which would cure any-
thing. What one would not cure, the
other would.
One remedy was named High Cocka-
lorum; the other was called Low Cocka-
hirum. There was only one difference
between them. Both were brewed from
the same bark, and from the same tree.
The difference was that to make High
Cockalorum, the bark was skinned from
the top down. To make Low Cocka-
hirum, the bark was skinned from the
bottom up.
So the proposition stated by the Sen-
ator from North Carolina makes just
about as much sense. That kind of
medicine has just about as much virtue
in its qualities or difference in its quali-
ties as the remedies brewed from the
bark having been peeled from the bottom
up or the bark having been peeled from
the top down.
Mr. ERVIN, If I may tell a. story as
a basis for a question, down in North
Carolina there was a fellow named
George. George said to his friend Bill,
"My wife is the most extravagant wom-
an. She always wants 50 cents for this,
50 cents for that, and 50 cents for the
other thing."
Bill said, "What does she do with all
that money?"
George said, "She don't get it."
Does not the Senator from Arkansas
believe that we need somebody like
George to have a little authority to
handle some of the requests which Con-
gress receives--from one agency of the
Federal Government for so many hun-
dreds of millions or billions of dollars,
and from another agency for so many
hundreds of million or billions of dol-
lars-so that he can say, "No"?
Mr. MCCLELLAN. If we would grant
only whit is actually needed for the
efficient operation of the Government, I
do not think anyone would question that
more billions of dollars could be saved
than we have been saving. At least,
we could come. nearer to a balancing of
the budget. But our trouble is-and
this is what the bill seeks to remedy-
that we do not have the necessary tools
available to us with which to get the ade-
quate information upon which Congress
can make a proper evaluation of the
needs of the agencies.
That is what this bill will do. It will
provide us w:th the tools with which
to 'obtain that Information, so we can
determine what is actually needed, and
can determine what parts of the request
can be dispensed with, and thus can
come nearer to operating with economy
and efficiency..
Mr. ERVIN. I should like to ask the
Senator from Arkansas if it is true that
the most important question confront-
ing the country is the question of Gov-
ernment finances. That is true; is it
not?
Mr. - MCCLELLAN. Yes. Just this
week, I addressed an audience in South
Carolina and pointed out that the great-
est task confronting this Congress is, not
the task of reducing taxes, but-and it is
the first and the greatest task, and is
the higher duty of the Congress-the
task of redwing expenditures, so that
the revenues received either from the
present rate of taxes or from a reduced
rate of taxes will narrow the present gap
between revenues and expenditures, and
thus will result in a smaller deficit. So
in my opinion the higher duty of Con-
gress is to do that,, rather than merely
to reduce taxes.
Mr. ERVIN. Is It not true that Con-
gress has created a joint committee to
study the problem of how best to raise
revenue, and that the joint committee
keeps that matter under constant study,
with the aid of an able anus experienced
staff, so that any Member of either House
of Congress who is interested in such
matters can call on it for help and in-
formation?
Mr. McCLELLAN. That is correct.
Earlier in my remarks I made reference
to that. By reason of that joint com-
mittee, as it is constituted, more har-
mony has been developed in the rela-
tionships between the Ways and Means
Committee of the :House-the tax com-
mittee of the House-and the Senate Fi-
nance Committee; and, thus, today those
committees are not having th tug of war
or the friction-a situation which re-
flects upon the Congress-which oc-
curred between the Appropriations Com-
mittees of the Congress. Instead, these
committees are acting effectively.
Mr. ERVIN. This bill, which is co-
sponsored by some 70 Members of the
Senate---
Mr. McCLELLAN. In fact, the bill is
sponsored by 76 Senators-more than
three-fourths of the Members of this
body.
Mr. ERVIN. it is designed to set up a
comparable joint committee, which will
study budgetary questions-in other
words, questions relating to expenditures
or the outgo of the Federal funds. If
the - proposed joint committee is estab-
lished, there will then be one joint com-
mittee to study revenue questions and
another joint committee to ascertain the
facts in connection with expenditures
and proposed expenditures; is that cor-
rect?
Mr. MCCLELLA-N. Yes. We already
have one joint committee to help us
with questions in regard to the raising of
funds in the most efficient, most effective,
fairest, and most equitable ways. Now
we are asking for the establishment of a
comparable joint committee, to help us
conserve the revenues after they come
into the Treasury and to help us avoid
spending those funds uselessly, waste-
fully, extravagantly, or inefficiently.
Mr. ERVIN. Is not the Senator from
Arkansas convinced that such a joint
committee would save the Government
many times the cost of setting up the
committee and compensating its per-
sonnel, in the course of each year?
Mr. MCCLELLAN. Yes. I may say.
that I have had a little experience with
the operation of committees with invests-.
gative authority; and my distinguished
friend, the Senator from North Caro-
lina, has had comparable experience. He
serves with me on one of these commit-
tees, which has at its disposal approxi-
mately $400,000 of $500,000 a year, for
the purpose of investigating certain ac-
tivities related to the Government. I
would say, just roughly, at this time, that
a committee to do this work -possibly
would begin with a budget of approxi-
mately $300,000 or $400,000. Its budget
might very well ruin to $5Q0,000, or even
to $600,000, as the committee got organ-
ized and began to function. But I would
say there would be a good prospect that
the committee would develop informa-
tion which would guide the Appropria-
tions committees in such a way that they
could avoid making appropriations in
many areas, and the result would be a
saving of probably anywhere from $100
to $500 for every dollar it cost to operate
the joint committee; and I think I make
an ultraconservative statement when r
say that.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, for some
time the Senator from Arkansas has
been fighting for the establishment of a
Joint Committee on the Budget, and on
a number of occasions he has piloted the
bill successfully through the Senate. I
share hisopinion that in view of the fact
that Congress has been requested to
make provisions for a budget of practi-
cally $99 billion, the appointment of such
a joint committee has never before been
so greatly justified as it is today, because
at the present time there is no source to
which the Members of Congress can
Approved For Release 2004/01/15 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100010002-0
 Approved For Release 2004/01/15 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100010002-0
-5-
turn for disinterested information on
this subject, in view of the fact that at
present our only source is the Appropri-
ations Committee, rather than a com-
mittee which has great concern with
protecting the interests of the taxpayers.
So I think the Senator from Arkansas
deserves our commendation for the un-
tiring fight he has made in favor of the
proposal set forth in this bill.
Mr. MCCLELLAN. I thank the dis-
tinguished Senator from North Carolina,
who has wholeheartedly supported this
proposal from its inception. Each time,
he has joined me in sponsoring the bill.
I am sure that by reason of his experi-
ence on the permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations, of ti1E Senate Committee
on Government Operations, where we
have worked cooperatively and, I think,
effectively, in many respects, he knows
and can testify to the merits of this pro-
posal and the very beneficial results
which will be achieved by the enactment
of this measure into law and by the op-
erations of such a joint committee to
provide this service. The Appropria-
tions Committees and the Congress itself
need this service, in order to be able to
do their duty and to operate properly in
this field.
Mr. President, if this proposal had
been enacted into law when it was made
at prior sessions of Congress, the Appro-
priations Committees and all the Mem-
bers of Congress would have been
equipped with adequate organization and
staff, and with the necessary tools that
are essential to the efficient considera-
tion of and for expeditious action on ap-
propriations covering the annual ex-
penditures of the Government. Prompt
and efficient action through these medi-
ums would have resulted in very sub-
stantial savings and economy in govern-
mental operations.
As far back as the 81st Congress, I in-
troduced a bill, along with many cospon-
sors, proposing the creation of a Joint
Committee on the Budget, to act as a
service committee to the two Appropri-
ations Committees. Such a joint com-
mittee would have been provided with an
adequate staff of trained fiscal experts to
serve the committees on Appropriations
and the Members of both the House and
Senate. This joint committee and its
staff would be, in the appropriation field,
comparable to what the joint committee
on Internal Revenue Taxation and its
staff are, in the field of taxation, to the
House Committee on ways and Means
and the Senate committee on Finance.
The Joint Committee on Internal Reve-
nue Taxation has, for more than a quar-
ter of a century, proved its great worth
and service in the revenue field. A like
joint committee and
needed in the field of Federal expendi-
tures.
As perfected by the Committee on Gov-
ernment operations, this bill is not the
result of consideration in only one ses-
sion of Congress, but reflects the culmi-
nation of more than 13 years of study by
that committee. As a result of hearings
which have been held in previous Con-
gresses, careful consideration has been
given to the views of Members of Con-
gress, the public, and others interested
in improving fiscal control over congres-
sional appropriations.
This bill proposes to amend the Legis-
lative Reorganization Act of 1946. The
joint committee would be composed of
seven members of the House Committee
on Appropriations and seven members
of the Senate committee on Appropria-
tions, and would be authorized to elect,
from among its members, a chairman
and vice chairman, at the first regular
meeting of each session. It proposes
also that in even-numbered years the
chairman would be designated from
among members of the House Commit-
tee on Appropriations, and the vice
chairman from among members of the
Senate committee. In odd-numbered
years the reverse would be done. The
joint committee would be authorized to
adopt its own rules, except that provi-
sion is made that no measure or recom-
mendation should be reported unless
approved by a majority of the commit-
Approved
Unfortunately, members of the Appro-
priations
burdened by committees heavily
other legislative duties and
responsibilities that they are unable per-
sonally to give the necessary attention to
each budget item. Equally important,
however, is the fact that they do not
have adequate facilities for obtaining
the information necessary to enable
them to pass accurate judgment on the
necessity for the budget requests. Thus,
for. the most part, they are forced to
rely upon the representations made by
the respective initiating agencies of the
executive branch, whose representatives
appear before these committees, in
an ex parte type of proceeding for the
sole purpose of justifying their requests
for funds. As a result, the Congress is
often unable to obtain. impartial infor-
mation and facts to enable it to effect
needed economies in the operations of
the Government. Because the Congress
is not adequately equipped to carry out
its fiscal responsibilities, many millions
of dollars have been appropriated in ex-
cess of the actual requirements of the
Federal Government. These excesses
have, in turn, added to the large recur-
ring deficits which must be passed on to
already overburdened taxpayers.
The ever-increasing cost of operating
the Federal Government, with annual
budgets now exceeding $100 billion-an
increase of $56 billion over total budget
expenditures for fiscal year 1951, when
this committee first recommended this
legislation-and continued annual defi-
cits of billions of dollars that pyramid
the already astronomical national debt,
dictates the compelling necessity of re-
ducing the cost of government, where it
is prudent to do so, in order to restore
sound fiscal policies.
Important as are the services rendered
by the Joint Committee on Internal
Revenue Taxation in the revenue field,
the proposed Joint Committee on the
Budget would be in a position to render
far greater service to the Congress in
a field that is much broader in nature
and scope. Its functions would include
analyses and reports on the details of
program operations, a review of the ac-
tual administration of authorized func-
tions, and the compilation of data on
agency activities and program conform-
ity with legislative authority, for the
information of the Appropriations Com-
mittees and other committees, and to
make such data available to individual
Members of the Congress. With this in-
formation before them, the Appropria-
tions Committees will be in a position
to exercise informed judgment in sup-
plying only such funds as are necessary.
The importance of providing this type
of service for the committees dealing
with the appropriation of public funds
is emphasized by the scope of the prob-
lems involved and the magnitude of Fed-
eral appropriations and expenditures.
Failure to provide adequate facilities
for the procurement of factual informa-
tion that is needed and indispensable to
enable the Congress and its committees
to make sound and judicious determina-
tions with respect to appropriations
requested in the budget, has resulted in
a demand on the part of the public for
remedial action. The Committee on
Government Operations in its reports
to the Senate has repeatedly stressed
the belief that a Joint Committee on the
Budget would meet and would satisfy
that demand, and that it would provide
to the Congress essential services similar
to those performed for the President by
the Bureau of the Budget.
A complete legislative history of the
proposed legislation is included in Sen-
ate Document No. 11, 87th Congress, on
"Financial Management in the Federal
Government," filed in the Senate by the
Committee on Government* Operations
on February 13, 1961.
To Members of the House of Repre-
sentatives who seek to maintain the co-
equal status of the two Houses of Con-
gress, I give assurance that this measure
in no way impinges on that basic con-
stitutional concept.
To Members of the House who carry
the workload in other areas of legisla-
heavily on the judgment of their col-
leagues on the Appropriation Commit-
tee, I give assurance that this measure
will provide a means of obtaining more
information by individual Members of
Congress. It will permit them to arrive
at more informed judgments, and will
thus bring about economy in Govern-
ment, through better control over the
expenditure of Federal funds.
To those who decry the increasing
burden of legislative office, I give assur-
ance that this measure is designed to
lighten that load and, at the same time,
improve the appropriation procedures of
the Congress.
To Members who are seeking better
tools and procedures with which to meet
legislative burdens, I give assurance that
this measure was conceived for that pur-
pose.
To those who are really concerned
with the staggering fiscal responsibilities
of the Congress, I give assurance that
the creation of a Joint Committee on the
Budget would at least be a partial solu-
tion toward alleviating that concern.
Finally, I urge to Members of the Sen-
ate who have cooperated with me in sup-
porting this proposal in the past six
Congresses, to join with me again in this
effort to revitalize the legislative fiscal
process. I hope they will join with me
in again passing a bill to create a Joint
Committee on the Budget, and in sound-
ing the call to our colleagues in the House
of Representatives to examine the "imag-
inary horribles" leading to the present
impasse. Then we can hope they will
join us in our conviction that such fears
have no substance, and that they can
be struck down by adopting the realistic
procedures provided for in the bill to
create a Joint Committee on the Budget.
Mr. President, editorials published in
the Washington Post of August 24, Sep-
tember 3, and October 12, 1962, have
stressed the need for a Joint Committee
on the Budget. These editorials are in
agreement with the findings of the Com-
mittee on Government Operations that
the creation of such a joint committee,
which would serve both Houses, could
better equip all the Members to carry
out the job that lies at the heart of the
legislative function. Such a joint com-
mittee could also lead to other more
effective controls over Federal expendi-
tures, and could provide an efficient
means of critically judging an Execu-
tive budget that gets larger every year.
Mr. President, I ask that the editorials
be printed in the RECORD, as part of my
remarks.
There being no objection, the editorials
were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Aug. 24, 19621
MODERNIZING CONGRzSS-V
Sixteen years have passed since the enact-
ment of the La Follette-Monroney Legisla-
tive Reorganization Act, and the time has
come again for a concerted attempt to pare
away the lichen and moss that have gathered
on the procedures of Congress. A good ex-
ample is the appropriations process, which
is so cumbersome that Congress is unable
to perform efficiently its vital functions as
keeper of the purse. Certainly this is a
problem that warrants the sharpest scrutiny
with an eye to reform.
Five times in the pest the Senate hes
endorsed proposals for joint budgeting pro-
cedures, and five times the Rouse has
rejected the idea as an affront to its dignity
since the Constitution specifies that money
bills must originate in the more representa-
tive Chamber. As a result, each Chamber
goes through the same rituals without bene-
fiting from the advantages that would arise
from a sensible pooling of resources.
It is perhaps unrealistic to expect Congress
to hold joint appropriations hearings. It
would be equally vain to hope for the elim-
ination of the ,duplication process whereby
money is first authorized and then appro-
priated, requiring administration witnesses
to appear at four sets of hearings. The proc-
ess touches deep springs of tradition, con-
stitutional law and bicameral feeling, and a
simplification of the overall procedure must
goal rather
than probably
an immediate objective.
and
For Release 1 0
4M . %1t5 GlW-RD W09383F~2000100010002-0
 Approved For Release 2004/01/15 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100010002-0
But surely, even within the limitations of
the present system, Congress could. deploy its
resources more effectively by combining
committee staffs. Congress now has a dozen
joint committees, Including two of major
importance: the Joint Committee on Atomic
Energy and the Joint Committee on Internal
Revenue Taxation. Since the House has
been willing to accept the principle of pool-
ing for taxation, is it unreasonable to pro-
pose the same treatment for appropriations?
As it stands, the staff of both appropria-
tion committees is Inadequate to the task
that should be performed on analyzing a
budget of appalling complexity. The crea-
tion of a joint committee that would serve
both Houses could better equip all the
Members to carry out the job that lies at
the heart of the legislative function. It
could also lead to other more -efficient ways
of critically judging an executive budget that
gets larger every year.
[From the Washington Post, Sept. 3, 1982]
LIMPING AGENCIES
Congress has left itself In a very poor posi-
tion to criticize bureaucratic inefficiency.
Its own bumbling in regard to the appropria-
tions bills has Imposed a specialized kind of
faltering on the Government. Jerry Kluttz
of this newspaper pointed out In detail the
other day the grave handicap that has fallen
on many Federal departments -and agencies
because of the failure of Congress toapprove
1983 budgets. Two months have passed
since the closing of the old fiscal year, and
many agencies are still operating on merely
continuing authority-that is the authority
to go on spending as they did last year.
Obviously this makes no provlsloA for new
programs or changes In old ones. The Gov-
ernment Is partly crippled for want of ap-
propriations made before the year in which
they are to be spent. -
The situation Is worse this year than pre-
viously because of the intemperate; feud be.
tween the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees. But it is a chronic weakness
that Congress has done little to correct. It
is time to attack the problem on Capitol Hill
where the weakness lies. If there were a
Joint Committee on the Budget comparable
to the Joint Committee on Internal; Revenue
Taxation much of the appropriations spade-
work could be done by expert staff members
and the process could be substantially
speeded. In any event, Congress ought to
be laying plans for a different appro h next
year. The Nation simply cannot afford to
have its executive agencies limping along
through one-sixth to one-quarter o4 the year
because of the failure of Congres, to give
them a meaningful budget.
[From the Washington Post, Oct. 12, 19821
FEUD ON THE HILL
The country has reason for concern about
the House-Senate feud over appropriations
procedures despite the last-minute compro-
mise on the multibillion-dollar term bill.
The fight over the farm bill, which has de-
layed adjournment and raised the! question
of whether quorums of Senators and Repre-
sentatives could be kept In Washington, is
merely one phase of a much broader feud
between the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations. The struggle I$ likely to
break out in even more flagrant fashion next
year unless remedial measures are under-
taken.
As leading Senators see It, the( issue is
whether the House will recognize the Senate
as a coordinate branch of Congreas';so far as
appropriations are concerned. As the House
sees it, the question Is whether the Senate
shall be allowed to encroach upon: the con-
stitutional right of the House to originate
appropriations bills. Doubtless both are
partly at fault. The restoration' of good
working relations will depend upon p willing-
ness on each side to respect the rights of the
other, and this is likely to require the laying
down of some definite rules to which both
We have-previously expressed the view that
the Senate was unwise in challenging the
right of the House to originate appropria-
tions bills. It Is true that the special privi-
lege granted to the House by the Constitu-
tion runs only to revenue bills, but spending
and taxing were authorized In the same bills
In the early days, and in any event the tradi-
tion that appropriations bills start in the
House could not be broken without a grave
upset in the relations between the two
Houses. In our opinion, the Senate ought
to stop talking about equal rights to intto-
duce appropriations bills.
The larger fault, however, seems to lie on
the House side. In some Instances its
spokesmen have arrogantly resisted ,the right
of the Senate to amend appropriations bills
once they have been passed by the House.
The quarrel over the agricultural 'bill cen-
tered in the House's unwillingnes4 to talk
about an. item of $28 million which the Sen-
ate had added for farm research -projects.
Approved
Of course, the Pfouse has no obligation to
accept Senate amendments, but it does have
an obligation toconsider them in good faith
and to seek agreement through compromise
when necessary. It to utterly unreasonable
for the House confereeitto refuse to discuss
Senate amendments, which are germane to
the bill, on the ground that they did not
originate in the House.
Well, here are two ground rules that could
start the ball rolling toward agreement be-
tween the two committees. Let the Senate
recognize the right of the House to originate
money bills and the House recognize the un-
limited right of the Senate to pass germane
amendments. Another major aid to under-
standing would- be to create a standing joint
committee staffed by experts to serve both
groups of legislators.
No doubt the first step should be the crea-
tion of a special House-Senate subcommit-
tee representing top leadership on both sides
to work out a new understanding. Other-
wise the next Congress will be ingrave dan-
ger of bedevilment even worse than that
which has afflicted the expiring session.
Mr. MCCLELLAN. Mr. President, I
request that an editorial which appeared
in the New Orleans Times-Picayune on
October 22, 1962, also be included in the
RECORD atthis point.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
A WAY TO STOP WASTE--SOLON SAYS CON-
GRESS NEEDS OWN BUDGET UNIT
(By James McCarthney)
WASHINGTON:-Senator JOHN MCCLELLAN,
Democrat, of Arkansas, the top investigator
In Congress, believes he knows how to save
many billions of dollars for the Nation's
taxpayers.
He believes Congress should have a staff
of experts to spend full time studying the
Federal budget and making spot checks on
budgetary requests by the administration.
The result, .MCCLELLAN believes; would be
to cut billions in "fat" from the budget.
"There have been billions of dollars of
waste, extravagance, and unnecessary spend-
ing in areas which show no gains or bene-
fits to the Nation," he says.
MCCLELLAN has spent much of his time
in recent years Investigating Government
waste and mismanagement as chairman of
the- Senate's Permanent Investigations Sub-
committee, better known as the Rackets
Committee,
But he doesn't think the Rackets Commit-
tee has the powers or the staff to do a
thorough job on matters Involving the
budget.
He proposes a new Joint Committee on the
Budget, representing both the Senate and
the House.
It should have "facilities and a technical
staff to do the kind of job necessary to pre-
vent and eliminate some of the practices that
have led to crimes against the national inter-
est," MCCLELLAN Bays.
"The committee and its professional staff
would be continually studying the Presi-
dent's budget and the many appropriations
bills that. come before the Congress, with a
view to eliminating waste and duplication
and other improper expenditures."
Senator MCCLELLAN points out that when
administrationofficials request specific sums
of money or numbers of employees for a de-
partment, Congress has no way to judge
what Is really needed.
"When they say they need 25 employees,
who is there to say they don't need 25 em-
ployees?" he asks.
His special budgetary committee would be
staffed with accountants an investigators
to help Congress come to junents of Its
own. -
The Senate has passed bills proposing
establishing of a Joint Committee on the
Budget several time in recent years, but the
project has always been killed in the House.
MCCLELLAN currently is attempting to re-
vive interest in the proposal.
Mr. MCCLELLAN. Mr. President, I
also request that excerpts from an
article regarding this proposed legisla-
tion, which was printed In the November
1962 issue of the Nation's Business, be
inserted in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the excerpts
were ordered to be printed In the RECORD,
as follows:
The prolonged feud in the past session be-
tween the Senateand House Appropriations
Committees lends added weight to a proposal
which would bolster the strength of Con-
gress in its fiscal dealings with the executive
branch.
The Senate has passed six times a bill by
Senator MCCLELLAN which would establish
a Joint Senate-House Committee on the
Budget. Opposition by members of the
House Appropriattons Committee, who jeal-
ously guard the House's prerogatives in in-
itiating money bills; has prevented consid-
eration by the House.
Such a committee is absoiutely impera-
tive with the big government we have now,"
Senator MCCLELLAN says.
"The Congress new Ior many years labored
under a tremendous disadvantage in connec-
tion with processing budget requests and
making appropriations," he adds.
"Budget requests are usually accompanied
by elaborate justifications, based upon ex-
tensive agency programs and backed up by
a mass of statistical data and testimony of
technical experts who have devoted many
years in the specialized fields in which they
operate. Their main. objective In to continue
and frequently to expand existing programs,
Which they undoubtedly feel are in the pub-
lic Interest, also, to secure appropriations
for new agencies, programs, and functions. .
"Testimony from the public, except- from
witnesses appearing in behalf of public
works projects, is rarely received. In a vast
majority of instances, the only manner in
which the public Interest can beconsidered
and protected, with respect to the purpose
for which the funds are sought, their need
and adequacy, Is through careful scrutiny of
requests and justifications by members of
the Appropriations Committees. It is im-
possible for their relatively small staffs to
examine and evaluate the annual budget
with its thousands of items, running to' ap-
proximately 1,200 pages of telephone book
size each year, within the very limited time
available."
One of the Important features of the pro-
posed Joint Committee would be the estab-
lishment of a permanent, full-time, non-
political staff of experts which would help
balance the huge crops of experts in the
Bureau of the Budget and the executive de-
partments. -
At present Congress handles its appropria-
tions in piecemeal fashion, with little knowl-
edge of how the total will add up or what
Will be the long-range financial impact of
Federal programs,
The proposed Joint Committee would In-
vestigate all aspects of the Federal budget.
The Information which it developed would
be helpful to the Appropriations committees
and other committees in eliminating waste-
ful practices, recommending cutbacks In pro-
grams where possible, and developing a care-
fully considered fiscal program aimed at
holding expenditures to a minimum in rela-
tion to anticipated revenues.
Senator MCCLELLAN terms it "a positive
approach to the elimination of extravagance,
waste, and needless or excessive appropria-
tions."
Mr. MCCLELLAN. Mr. President, i
conclude by expressing the hope that
the other body wilt[ immediately give
consideration to a similar bill, if one
is Introduced there; and I anticipate
that that will occur.
I am hopeful that wisdom and pru-
dence will prevail, that such Influence
will dominate the decision of this body
and also the other body of the Congress
as it considers the proposal, and that
when it does prevail, the 1,111 will be en-
acted into law. In My judgment, it is
a great step in the direction of bringing
about some restoration of sanity in the
fiscal affairs of our Government. Every
citizen of our country knows that some
reformation In the field Is needed. It is
needed now, and that need is growing
with every passing hour and with every
budget message that comes to this body.
It cannot be delayed much longer if we
are going to bring lender, control and
proper management the spending of the
taxpayers' money of our country.
~qz
4
(.