BUDGET IMPOUNDMENT AND CONTROL ACT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75B00380R000600080012-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: November 17, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 14, 2000
• Sequence Number: 12
• Publication Date: March 27, 1974
• Content Type: MFR

Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR0006000800
OLC 74-0518
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
SUBJECT: Budget Impoundment and Control Act
STATINTL
1. Comptroller, called regarding the subject
legislation and I informed him that, failing to get a hold of either
STATINTLhimself or I had called Jim Oliver, OMB, because of the
press of this matter to learn further about the legislation's impact
and prospects. I reminded that we had been uneasy about
this legislation and although we had discussed it with appropriate offices
within the Agency and staff members of our appropriations committees,
we still thought that it had not received the attention it deserved; thus
the memorandum of 7 December 1973 to interested offices by
Jack Maury calling attention to some of the features of the bill that
we thought could cause us some problems.
STATINTL 2. is reviewing the House and Senate passed bills
to further assess their possible impact. I told him that
is now handling the matter for our office and he could be in contact with
him if he needed any further information, but that we should be moving
rather fast now if it is determined that somethin has to be done on the
Hill. It is Mr. Cary's opinion that whatever comes up with
should be sent by the Office of the Comptroller directly to OMB.
Distribution:
Ori f- Subject file
1 - LLM Chrono
1 - OLC Chro no
STATINTL
STATINTL
STATINTL
STATINTL
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000600080012-9
 Ii~pa 1:3
Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000600a8D0112-90
In
Committee
VISED BUDGET REFORM BILL 5ZEPORTED O SENATE
Action-Senate Rules and Administration Com-
mittee March 6 unanimously reported with amend-
ments S 1541 reforming congressional budget proce-
dures (S Rept 93-688).
Seeking consensus in an attempt by Congress to take
control of federal economic and spending policies, the
Rules and Administration Committee submitted to the
Senate a compromise version of budget-reform legislation
(S 1541).
To satisfy objections and criticisms raised both by
individual senators and by legislative committees, the
Rules Committee recommended substantial revisions in
the original version of S 1541 reported by the Government
Operations Committee on Nov. 28, 1973 (S Rept 93-579).
The revised measure was likely to be the bill under con-
sideration when the Senate took up budget reform late
in the week ending March 16 or the following week.
In making its revisions, the Senate Rules Committee
preserved the general outlines of budget control reforms
proposed in 197.3 by a special joint committee set up to
analyze the inability of Congress to harness its appropria-
tions decisions to over-all budget requirements. With some
modifications, the joint committee's proposals had been
followed by the Government Operations Committee in
drawing up its version of S 1541 and by the House in
passing a budget.-reform measure (HR 7130) on Dec. 5,
1973. (House action, 1973 Weekly Report p. 3174, 3092;
Joint cumrni'tte'r' proposals, p. 2443, 1013)
The Rules Conunittce's revisions--produced by un-
precedented negotiations among staff representatives of
10 Senate committees, four joint committees and the
house Appropriations Colmnit.tee--were "for the most
part designed to add a new and comprehensive budgetary
frtuuework to the existing decision-making processes, with
minimum disruption to established methods and pro-
cedures," the Rules Committee said in its report..
To produce it bill which would be "(it) enactaible,
(h) workable and (c) useful," the cotnmit.t,ee proposed
changes in the Governmont Operations Connniiiec's
recommendations for establishing a budget-making time-
(.able, setting annual budget targets, reconciling separate
appropriations decisions to those targets and bringing
backdoor spending programs under better annual control.
Like the Houtic hill, both Sensate versions would give
Con"Iress more time to consider the budge( by starting
the t'u;e 1) yenr on Oel.. I insl tad of .luly 1.
(n sutnnuu;v, the Rule's ('onuniltep's substituto re-
vnnapetl the filth(. Versioll of s 1511 hy:
I,en;~theninl( the hudgel-Hulking timrhlblc and key-
itli: drndline;a t,r cnnel n'nt. of appropriations hills and
reconrilinl ion of )apen+linl; Jeri;;ions to (lie custoluau'v
rAul~nal euul;ra^r,iionnl reeerta;.
I,ooneuinl~ (he llf)prol)rinlioo,; and ollihly to rl,els that
t"call;re;~:1 would net for itself by concurrent resoluLion
brfore I eking up Nepartil.e appropriations regrtests.
Congressional Budget Timetable
As revised by the Senate Rules and Administra-
tion Committee, S 1541 established the following
timetable for consideration of the budget by Con-
gress:
Original Bill Substitute Bill
Current services Dec. 1 Nov. 10
budget submitted
President's budget Feb. 1 Feb. 15
submitted
Committee reports April 15 April 1
to budget committees
Office of Budget report May 1 April 15
submitted
Budget committees report June 1
first budget resolution
Authorization bills May 31 May 15
(enacted) (reported)
Budget resolution July 1 June 1
cleared
Appropriations bills Sept. 20
cleared
Budget committees report Not
second budget resolution required
Second budget resolution Not
cleared required
Reconciliation bill Sept. 30
cleared
5 days before August
recess (or Aug. 7)
3 days before August
recess (or Aug. 15)
3 days after August
recess (or 4 days
after Labor Day)
Sept. 25
? Requiring Congress to take a second look at its bud-
get targets before cutting appropriations to meet them,
? Keeping new entitlement programs committing the
federal government to provide benefits to designated
groups outside the regular appropriations process.
To provide a step-by-step transition as Congress
started using the new budget-making procedures, the
Rules Committee recommended that. the bill's require-
ments be phased in gradually, taking full effect for the
fiscal year starting on Oct. 1, 1976.
The committee also made other changes in provi-
sions dealing with membership on a Senate Budget
Committee that would report budget resolutions and
with appointment. of a director to head a Congressional
Office of the Budget that would assist congressional
budget decisions.
fhe committee dropped a provision limiting program
uithorizal ions to three years and weakened another that
would have required pilot testing of proposals for new
federal programs.
Approved For Release 20080/p8/ ed=.4,hl4-RDIPR 00380R00069AQe,?Q9
1919-PAGE 679
 Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000600080012-9
In Committee - 2
Budget-Making Process
Budget Committees
Like the House-passed bill, S 1541 would establish
House and Senate budget committees to study and
recommend changes in the President's budget policy.
Both bills also would establish a staff organization-
called the Legislative Budget Office under HR 7130 and
the Congressional Office of the Budget under S 1541-
to assist the budget committees and other members in
budget analysis.
HR 7130 left to the Senate determination of the
Senate budget committee's membership. Similarly leav-
ing it to the House to determine the House budget com-
mittee make-up, S 1541 provided that senators be
assigned to the budget committee by normal Senate
Within those functional categories, moreover, the
revised S 1541 would require that funds be further allo-
cated between existing and proposed programs, perma-
nent and annual appropriations and between controllable
and uncontrollable programs. While the resolution itself
would not allocate totals among committees and sub-
committees, the budget committees in their reports for
storekeeping purposes would do so.
Under the Government Operations bill, Congress in
its initial budget resolution could have required outlay
limitations in appropriations and other bills that would
set ceilings on amounts that could be spent for particular
programs during the fiscal year. Arguing that appropriate
ceilings were difficult to determine-and that a presi-
dent could use such limits to justify impoundments-the
Rules Committee dropped the provision.
procedures. Appropriations Process
Making one minor change in the original Senate bill, As under the House bill, once enacted the budget
the Rules Committee substitute would allow senators resolution would guide but not bind Congress as it acted
assigned to the budget committee to keep serving on two on separate appropriations measures providing budget
other major committees until January 1979. authority for spending on federal programs. With an
Budget Submission exception for Social Security and other self-financing
In moving to an Oct. 1-Sept. 30 fiscal year, S 1541 programs, no measure appropriating funds or making tax
like the House-passed bill would establish a timetable to changes could be considered before adoption of an initial
assure completion of congressional action on spending budget resolution.
measures before the fiscal year began. To clear the way for prompt action on appropriations
To give Congress a quicker start in considering the bills, the revised S 1541 would set a May 15 deadline for
budget, S 1541 would require the executive branch by legislative committees to report authorization bills to the
Nov. 10 of each year to send Congress a "current services floor. The Rules Committee revamped a Government
budget" projecting what would be spent for existing Operations provision setting a May 31 deadline for enact-
federal programs at existing commitment levels during ment of authorization bills on the grounds that such a
the upcoming fiscal year. In revising S 1541, the Rules requirement was unworkable and would allow opponents
Committee moved the deadline for submission of the cur- to kill programs through delaying tactics. (The House bill
rent services budget to Nov. 10 from Dec. 1 to avoid inter- set a March 31 deadline for passage of authorization bills.)
fering with preparation of the President's actual budget Unlike either the House bill r or the Government
message. Operations version, the revised S 1541 would allow each
S 1541, also delayed the deadline for release of the appropriations bill to be sent to the President to be signed
President's budget proposal to Feb. 15. The House- into law as soon as it cleared Congress. The Rules Com-
passed measure made no change in the existing practice mittee eliminated a provision in the original Senate
of submitting the budget about Jan. 20. (Senate time- version making all appropriations contingent on a "trig-
table, p. 675; House timetable, 1973 Weekly Report p. gering" ceiling enforcement measure.
3174) Under the Government Operations Committee bill,
no funds provided by an appropriations bill could have
Budget Resolution been spent until triggered by the ceiling enforcement
After reviewing the President's budget proposals the measure that would reconcile separate spending decisions
House and Senate budget committees by May 1 would to budget targets. The Rules Committee concluded, how-
report a concurrent resolution setting forth a tentative ever, that the triggering requirement would make all
alternative congressional budget. appropriations bills hostage to a presidential veto of the
By June 1, Congress would have to clear the initial enforcement bill.
budget resolution, which would set target totals for appro- As passed by the House, HR 7130 would allow appro-
priations, outlays, revenues, budget deficit and the over- priations bills to be sent to the President upon final pas-
all public debt. (Under the House bill, the resolution sage only if they met target totals set by the budget
would have to be cleared by May 1.) resolution. All other appropriations bills would be held
As reported by the Government Operations Commit- up until a reconciliation process was completed.
tee, S 1541 would have required that the target total The Government Operations version set a Sept.. 20
"limitations" be broken down among committees and deadline for final action on appropriations. The Rules
subcommittees handling spending measures to provide a Committee moved the deadline up to August to require
scale against which to judge actions on separate spend- that Congress finish action on appropriations before its
ing measures. customary August recess. In non-election years, when
As revised by the Rules Committee, however, S 1541 Congress generally recessed for most of the month, appro-
like the House bill would require that the "appropriate priat.ions would have to be cleared five dayv before t 1w
level" target totals be broken down among 14 funclional Aug u t recem. In election yearn, when ('n i ri reinnioe"I
dent ;i pp`roveds yoi?`Aelease~i20b0/08/27: CILRDR7&BOu3li3O.R000600080012-9 l?ave h)
 Approved For Release 2000/08/27 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000600080012-9
(HR 7130 set an Aug. 1 deadline for final action on
appropriations bills.)
Reconciliation
As revised by the Rules Committee, S 1541 would
establish a budget reconciliation process essentially simi-
lar to that required by the House bill. It differed substan-
tially, however, from the Government. Operations version.
Under the Government Operations bill, Congress after
finishing work on spending measures would have taken
up the ceiling enforcement measure. If separate appro-
priations decisions had stayed within the initial budget
resolution targets, the enforcement bill simply would
trigger the appropriations measures.
If the budget targets had been exceeded, however,
inal S 1541 would have required Congress to first
the ori
g
attempt to cut appropriations to fit the targets. Only if
that attempt failed would Congress reconsider its budget
targets.
Concluding that the enforcement process thus would
make spending cuts-rather than tax or deficit adjust-
ments-the preferred approach to budget reconciliation,
the Rules Committee revised the procedures to require a
second budget resolution.
Under the revised bill, just before the August recess
(or by Aug. 15) the budget committees would report a
second budget resolution either affirming or revising the
first budget resolution's targets. After returning from its
recess (or just after Labor Day), Congress would finish
action on the second resolution.
If Congress then concluded that its earlier spending
and revenue decisions should be adjusted to fit its budget
requirements, the second resolution could require enact-
ment. of a reconciliation bill cutting appropriations,
adjusting revenues or the public debt or combining such
actions. Any reconciliation bill would have to be cleared
by Sept. 25.
The Rules Committee version specified that the recon-
ciliation bill could rescind appropriations carried over
from previous fiscal years as well as for the upcoming
fiscal year. By thus gaining control over spending from
unobligated funds already in the pipeline, the committee
reasoned, Congress could better accomplish the outlay
control objective that the Government Operations Com-
mittcc had sought by providing for spending ceilings.
Backdoor Spending
With some modification, the Rules Committee re-
tained the bill's provisions bringing new backdoor spend-
ing programs under the annual appropriations process.
As drawn up by the Government Operations Committee,
S 1541 would have made spending on most such programs
subject to appropriation of the funds in regular appro-
priations measures reported by the Appropriations Com-
mittec.
Revising the original Senate bill, the Rules Committee
applied the annual appropriations requirement to contract
and loan authority programs but devised a looser proce-
dure for Appropriations Committee consideration of spend-
ing for new entitlement programs in which the federal
L;ovcrnmvIil would he obligated to pay benefits to all
I't1 lot dial Iirnrrtlttrr,
,~1`fl i 1 ~1I t0 0A' t1ttreCIA- ' . aoloo tO r 19 b`~`08b`b12ri r:~;;
In Committee - 3
for 10 days. In reporting the measure back to the floor,
the Appropriations Committee could recommend an
amendment limiting the potential obligations that the
government could incur through the new program.
While S 1541 required Appropriations Committee
review of increases in existing backdoor programs, the
revised bill would exempt trust funds, government cor-
porations, gifts to the government, government-guaranteed
and insured loans and general revenue sharing.
(The House bill, in addition to making outlays under
new backdoor programs subject to appropriations com-
mittee review starting in 1975, would require annual
appropriations for existing backdoor programs after Oct.
1, 1978.)
Program Review
The Rules Committee made substantial changes in
provisions designed to require periodic review of the per-
formance of existing federal programs. A provision limit-
ing program authorizations to three years was dropped,
and another requiring pilot testing of new program pro-
posals was modified to make such testing only an option
that could be used by authorizing committees considering
the proposals.
Impoundment
In passing HR 7130, the House included the provi-
sions of separate legislation giving Congress power to
force the President to release impounded funds. No im-
poundment provision was included in S 1541, but the
Rules Committee added language clarifying the Anti-
Deficiency Act of 1950 to limit its use as justification
for impoundment of funds.
As revised, S 1541 would delete language in existing
law allowing the President to reserve funds from spending
to take account of "other developments" as well as of
possible savings, greater efficiencies or contingency
needs. The bill also would forbid impoundments under
the Anti-Deficiency Act for fiscal policy purposes. /
ABORTION HEARINGS
Hearings-Senate Judiciary Constitutional Amend-
ments Subcommittee March 6-7 on proposed amend-
ments to the constitution (S J Res 119 and S J Res 130)
guaranteeing the "right to life" to the unborn.
More than a year after the Supreme Court decision
striking down state restrictions on abortion during the
first trimester of pregnancy, congressional hearings began
on the sensitive issue.
Four of the nation's eight active Roman Catholic
cardinals, other religious leaders, and members of Con-
gress lead the list of 20 witnesses testifying at packed
hearings on the moral, ethical and religious questions
surrounding abortion.
The resolutions (S J Res 119 and S J Res 130) under
consideration proposed constitutional amendments which
would have the effect of negating the court's Jan. 22,
1973, decision. The court held that states could not inter-
i,vre with tilt, decision of a wonum and her doctor to trr-
I t;t>iluiinu rt+Ia1rlt'd In' itn utittttir it 1IrlIt;11tutt\ by +thnrlion chitin,; lilt, fir,;l I111-re