recruiting have occurred, even though, on the Plaintiff's information and belief, the Commandant has requested that the funds be apportioned and that he be allowed to recruit in order to comply with the provisions of Public Law 91-441. Defendants have pursued this course of action while, at the same time and under the same continuing resolutions, they have apportioned or authorized the expenditure of an excess of One Hundred Million ($100,000,000.00) Dollars on the controversial Supersonic Transport (SST) Program, and spent the full amounts authorized by Congress on other Department of Transportation programs. 11. The course of action now being followed by Defendant, Secretary of Transportation, and by Defendant, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, is contrary to the provisions of the "Reserve Forces Bill of Rights and Vitalization Act", contrary to the provisions of Public Law 91-441, and contrary to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States wherein Congress is given exclusive powers to raise and support armies, to provide and maintain a Navy and to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia and for the governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States. The course of action now being pursued by the Secretary and the Director is in dereliction of their duties as Secretary of Transportation and Director of the Office of Management and Budget. It is an attempt to usurp the powers of Congress and to do by administrative fiat what Congress has, by law, duly enacted and signed by the President, said shall not be done. All this is, therefore, improper, illegal and contrary to the expressed will and Acts of Congress and the provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America. 12. Plaintiffs in this action are officers and enlisted men of the Coast Guard Reserve specifically intended to be protected and benefited by the provisions of Public Law 90-168. In addition, Plaintiffs now serving in the Selected Reserve Units are charged by their oath and by the Acts of Congress with the duty of providing and participating in training for all members of the Selected Reserve and are entitled to pay and allowances as provided by law upon performing the required duties. If Defendants are allowed to continue on their present course of action, are allowed to continue to ignore their duties and are allowed to continue to prevent the Coast Guard from recruiting reservists, irrevocable harm and damage to the United States as a whole, to Plaintiffs individually and to Plaintiffs as a class in their capacities as reservists, will result; and the duties, rights and benefits specifically intended by Congress, provided by Public Law 90-168, will be denied to Plaintiffs by the actions of the Secretary of Transportation and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. In addition, the continued moritorium on all recruiting for the Coast Guard Reserve will make it impossible to maintain the Selected Reserve Units as required by the Mandate of Congress. These actions are illegal, and are subject to a declaration of such by this Court and also to this Court's mandamus and injunctive powers. 13. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law or other method of protecting their interest and rights as established by the Acts of Congress because there are no actions at law or other judicial remedies available to them except through this Complaint for Injunction, Mandamus and Declaratory Judgment. Likewise, there are no administrative or other procedures Plaintiffs can follow to protect their rights and interest except by this Complaint for Injunction, Mandamus and Declaratory Judgment. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray: (1) That this Court declare the Secretary of Transportation and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget are without power or authority to take any action to "phase out" or destroy the Selected Reserve of the United States Coast Guard so long as the provisions of Public Laws 90-168, 91-441 and the Congressional appropriation providing the necessary funding to carry out these laws, are in full force and effect. (2) That this Court order the Secretary and the Director to do their duties as required by law and to apportion and release the funds for the Coast Guard to resume recruiting and carry the full Reserve program as established and funded by law. (3) That an injunction be granted permanently restraining and enjoining Defendants and each of them and any of their subordinates, officers, assistants and employees throughout the United States and anyone associated with or acting in concert with them and their successors in office and each of them and anyone associated with or acting in concert or participating with such successors from causing, or permitting to occur, any acts or actions to prevent the Commandment of the Coast Guard and the Coast Guard to recruit Selected Reservists as necessary to provide for a Selected Reserve of 15,000 men as required by law, or in the alternative that the Court enjoin the selective apportionment and expenditure of funds under the four continuing resolutions and enjoin Defendants, Secretary and Director, from authorizing any Department of Transportation expenditures, including amounts for the SST, unless and until funds to commence recruiting for the Coast Guard Selected Reserve are apportioned and released; and that all acts or actions by Defendants to "phase out" or destroy the Selected Reserve be stopped so long as Public Law 90-168 and Public Law 91-441 are in full force and effect. (4) And for such other and further relief as the nature of their cause may require. HON. SAM J. ERVIN, JAMES B. CARSON, Attorney for Plaintiffs. CITIZENS ADVOCATE CENTER, Washington, D.C., April 6, 1971. Chairman, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We regretted being unable to appear before your Subcommittee during the hearings of March 23rd, 24th and 25th, as you so kindly offered in your letter of March 22nd. We would however like to submit to you the following written testimony which we hope will help the Subcommittee evaluate the proper role of the Executive, particularly the Office of Management and Budget, in carrying out Congressional appropriations in accordance with the Constitution of the United States. Our interest in this matter evolves from having conducted previous examinations of specific federal programs and the agencies responsible for their execution (i.e. Hunger, U.S.A.; Our Brother's Keeper: The Indian in White America; and The Legal Lawbreakers: A Study of Federal Relocation Requirements). In addition we have done, and are doing, work in other areas such as the Neighborhood Legal Services Program, The Federal Housing Administration, Federal Manpower Programs and the General Accounting Office. To get a complete picture of the grant-making process and to examine how effectively the Federal Government executes, evaluates and monitors programs designed to help the poor, we decided to undergo a study of the Office of Management and Budget. We are nearing the completion of this report on the Office of Management and Budget and, although it is not primarily focused on the Executive impoundment authority, we have come across a situation that we feel would be of great interest to your Subcommittee. Last year Congress explicitly rejected attempts by the Administration to put a ceiling on Title IV-A of the Social Security Act, which provides funding for social services to recipients of the four categorical welfare programs; Aid for Dependent Children, Old Age Assistance, Aid to the Blind, and Aid to the Totally and Permanently Disabled. First the House (in June, 1970, the House Appropriations Committee voted to remove Section 208 from the HEW Appropriations bill, H.R. 18515, which would have placed a 110% ceiling on Title IV-A money), and then the Senate (in December, 1970, the full Senate passed H.R. 18515, but expressly rejected Section 208 which had been reinserted by the Senate Appropriations Committee at 115%), expressed their intention to keep social services open-ended so that states could participate on a 3 to 1 matching basis. Recent actions by the Office of Management and Budget however have had the effect of limiting grants that Congress expressly made openended. In this particular case, the action did not take the form of an impoundment, but rather inhibited the usage of grant money by the states. The amount of money that could have been made available was substantial and appears to be one more instance of a low visibility decision to impose an appropriation ceiling where Congress has expressly stated that one should not exist. On November 1st, 1970, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare issued a memorandum outlining plans to coordinate the mutual concerns of the Social and Rehabilitation Service of HEW with the Office of Renewal and Housing Management of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (see Attachments, ITEM 2). These plans were in the form of a joint-funding agreement. The agreement provided that HEW would allow the 2,200 Local Housing Authorities to use their funds, largely derived from public housing rental fees, to obtain matching funds from Title IV-A of the Social Security Act, at the 75% federal- 25% state/local formula, to supply a whole range of social services for eligible public housing tenants. The idea was stimulated by several successful, jointly funded, social service programs in Philadelphia, Montgomery County, Chester, Lancaster and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania local housing authorities. These five housing authorities contributed a total of $95,661, generating $286,984 in federal matching funds, enabling the state welfare agency to employ a staff of 101 to serve families in housing projects. The experiment showed that improvement in family life, houekeeping standards, home management practices and community participation can be made possible through housing-welfare cooperation. It was anticipated that other cities would want to follow suit. The Joint-Funding Agreement and its proposed regulations (see ITEM 3) were drawn up and cleared through agency program people and through the General Counsel's Office of both HUD and HEW. HEW had completely signedoff and its Social and Rehabilitation Service, Community Services Administration had already hired a person to implement the Joint-Funding Agreement, encouraging cooperation between state and local welfare departments and Local Housing Authorities to devise projects for joint-funding. The agreement package was sent to the OMB in December, 1970. The information we have received, and we urge your Subcommittee to seek verification, indicates that the OMB has refused to clear the Joint-Funding Agreement because they disapprove of the Congressionally sanctioned open-ended status of Title IV-A appropriations. Under orders from the White House, the OMB is limiting costs under Title IV-A despite the intent of Congress that such funds remain flexible so that adjustments may be made according to the needs of the states or localities that provide the 25% matching funds. We wish to emphasize that Title IV-A is designed to provide greatly needed services only to those who meet local eligibility requirements. Its aim is to reduce dependency on welfare. It does so by providing day-care facilities for working mothers, by providing educational opportunities for those on welfare, and by supplying vocational and educational training. It also provides alternatives to institutional care by supplying the elderly and infirm with homemakers, which reduces hospital and medicare or medicaid responsibilities. Approximately $1.1 billion a year in public money is spent by welfare recipients for largely substandard housing and virtually every person in a public housing project is eligible for social services. Recognizing this, Congress, in reporting out the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1969, requested the Secretaries of HUD and HEW to study the feasibility of developing a uniform policy concerning the rents paid in public housing by families who receive public assistance. Thwarting this Congressional intent to increase benefits for the common clientele of HUD and HEW through greater coordination, and thwarting Congressional intent to keep Title IV-A open-ended, the OMB has subtly usurped the will of Congress. We urge that your Subcommittee give this matter closer scrutiny and offer our services wherever needed. We suggest that you contact the following people in regard to this matter: John D. Twiname, Administrator, Social and Rehabilitation Service, HEW. Steve Simonds, Commissioner, Community Services Administration, Social and Rehabilitation Services Division, HEW. Norman V. Watson, Assistant Secretary for Renewal and Housing Management, HUD. William Robinson, Assistant Director for the Human Resources Division, Office of Management and Budget. Thank you for the opportunity of making our views, on this extremely important matter of Executive authority over Congressional appropriations, available before your Subcommittee. Sincerely, EDGAR S. CAHN, Exhibit 1 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEPARATION OF POWERS, Washington, D.C., March 22, 1971. DR. EDGAR S. CAHN, DEAR DR. CAHN: The Senate Subcommittee on Separation of Powers of the Committee on the Judiciary was established in 1967, to investigate the separation of powers between the three branches of Government and to evaluate how faithfully the constitutional division of authority is being followed in practice. Presidential or executive impoundment of appropriated funds is a problem of long standing that is of serious concern to the Congress, to the Government agencies affected, and to the public which is deprived of the benefits of programs specifically approved by the Congress. The Subcommittee believes it should attempt to ascertain the proper roles of the Congress and the Executive in this respect, and we have, therefore, scheduled hearings on "Impoundment of Funds" for March 23, 24, and 25, 1971. I should like to invite you to testify at these hearings. They will be in the form of a round table, and we should be pleased to have you present on any or all of the hearing days. We should like to hear your views on the broad constitutional question involved, and we should also be pleased to receive your comments on any specific instances of impoundment of funds which have come to your attention. Will you please inform Mr. Rufus L. Edmisten, Chief Counsel and Staff Director of the Subcommittee, whether you will take part in these hearings. The Subcommittee's office is in Room 1418 New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510, and Mr. Edmisten's telephone number is 225-4434. The hearings will be held in Room 2228 New Senate Office Building, and will begin at 10 o'clock each morning. March 23, 24, and 25, 1971. With all kind wishes, I am To: State Agencies Administering Public Assistance and Social and Rehabilition Services and State Housing and Community Development Agencies. Subject: Transmittal Memorandum of: Attachment I-Memorandum of Agreement on Housing-Welfare Cooperation between HUD, Renewal and Housing Management and HEW, Social and Rehabilitation Service. Attachment II-Guide to State Agencies in Joint Funding of Social Services in Public Housing. RELATED REGULATIONS SRS Program Regulations, Volume 34, Number 18, January 28, 1969 on Service Programs for Families and Children, Title IV, Parts A and B of the Social Security Act. SRS Program Regulations, Volume 25, Number 80, April 24, 1970 on Service Programs for Aged, Blind or Disabled Persons (to be issued). CONTENT Explains need for Housing-Welfare Cooperation in meeting the housing and social needs of low-income families and individuals more effectively, and provides guidelines for HEW and HUD agencies in developing social service programs in public housing. Effective date: Upon issuance. Superseded: No antecedent. This is original material. Inquiries to: SRS Regional Commissioners. JOHN D. TWINAME, Administrator. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT ON HOUSING-WELFARE COOPERATION BETWEEN HUD, RENEWAL AND HOUSING MANAGEMENT AND HEW, SOCIAL AND REHABILITATION SERVICE I. Mutual Interests and Concerns 1. The Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare recognize areas of mutual interest with regard to meeting the housing and welfare needs of low income families. For many years the two Departments have cooperated in developing and carrying out programs designed to create more effective environments, services, and opportunities for meaningful living for families occupying low rent subsidized housing. 2. The mutuality, of interests is based on the following considerations: a. Both Departments serve many of the same clients. As of June 30, 1968, 33% of all families (38% of elderly and 30% of non-elderly) in low rent public housing received public assistance. Forty percent of the non-elderly families were broken families, with minors and one adult, usually the mother. b. Approximately $1.1 billion a year in public funds is being spent by welfare recipients for housing, much of which is clearly substandard. In 1965, 40% of aged recipients lived in deficient housing. As of May 1968, less than 10% of all welfare recipients resided in public housing. Obviously, the supply of public housing and of decent private housing at low rentals is grossly inadequate to meet the housing needs of welfare recipients. Hence, support should be mobilized at the National, State, and local levels, to develop and implement new approaches in solving the housing problems of families and individuals on welfare. c. With the passage of the 1962 Amendments to the Social Security Act, the role of public welfare agencies was greatly broadened to provide social and rehabilitation services to public assistance recipients and, by election of the States, to former and potential recipients of such assistance. The services were broadened to include community planning with other health and social welfare agencies to fill the many gaps that existed in services and resources needed by public welfare recipients. The Social Security Amendments of 1967 specifically included a requirement for a program of family and child welfare services for recipients of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) in order to strengthen family life and foster child development. The regulations issued pursuant to the 1967 Amendments list the following among the mandatory services to families and children: "Improve family living through assisting parents to overcome homemaking and housing problems." d. With the promulgation in March 1968 of national social goals for low rent public housing and the enactment of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, the role of Local Housing Authorities (LHA's) in meeting the needs and concerns of their tenants has been broadened. e. Thus, both Departments share the national goals of helping low-income people obtain decent housing at rents they can afford, improve their personal, social, and economic status, and become self-dependent. 3. The public interest demands that: a. Housing supported by the Federal Government be responsive to the needs of welfare-assisted families and individuals, as well as other low-income populations. This involves establishing policies which will encourage local communities to expand the supply and availability of subsidized housing, and will assure financial resources sufficient to manage and maintain such properties adequately. b. Social services be available and flow to all public housing residents according to their needs. The Social and Rehabilitation Service has a special responsibility to provide services to its recipients-the neediest of the aged, handicapped, and families with dependent children. 4. In reporting on the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1969, approved December 24, 1969, the conferees requested the Secretaries of HUD and HEW to study the feasibility of developing a uniform policy concerning the rents which should be paid in public housing by families whose rents come from public assistance. HUD-HEW Joint Task Force on National Policy on Welfare Rents in Public Housing was organized June 24, 1970, to undertake this assignment. |