« PreviousContinue »
PUBLIC HOUSING ACTIVITY IN JEOPARDY BECAUSE OF HOLD-BACK OF FEDERAL FUNDS
DEC. 31, 1970_Continued
Chattanooga.-.. Elizabethton..... El glewood, Athens Franklin Harriman Hohenwald.. Huntsville, L Jackson. Memphis. Oneida, LaFolette..... Pulaski.... Red Bolling Springs Sharon, Martin........ Union City..... White Pine, Morristown......
100 100 384
VERMONT Brattleboro... Burlington Montpelier. Winooski.
100 100 100
& PUERTO RICO
200 725 100 100 100 300 100 100
84 100 200 100 100 100 200 100 974 100
150 100 100 504
NATIONAL CONSUMERS LEAGUE,
Washington, D.C., March 29, 1971. Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Chairman, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: The National Consumers League wishes to commend your Committee for holding these hearings on the Separation of Powers, and would like to go on record in opposition to the action of the OMB in freezing funds for urban renewal, low-rent public housing, model cities, and water and sewer programs.
If the OMB is allowed to emasculate programs authorized by the Congress by withholding funds which Congress has appropriated for those programs, it appears that the Congress itself is being emasculated.
We understand that the Anti-Deficiency Act permits some limited control of funds, but surely the intent of the Act was not to permit the OMB to destroy or alter priorities established by the Congress.
The $1.325 billion withheld from the HUD appropriations bill completely negated the action of the Congress, arrived at by well established regular procedure. The programs which were thus shortchanged are badly needed, as the record of the hearings on these programs will clearly establish.
OMB has withheld other funds of equal significance. We urge the Congress to resist this usurpation of their powers. Sincerely yours,
SARAI H. NEWMAN,
NATIONAL HOUSING CONFERENCE, INC.,
Washington, D.O., March 29, 1971. Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Chairman, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers of the Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: The National Housing Conference has been most interested in the very significant hearings held by your Subcommittee on Separation of Powers Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. Senate. The National Housing Conference is the principal national citizens organization dedicated to the support of housing and community development programs.
Our organization is deeply concerned by the arbitrary action of the Administration in impounding funds appropriated by the Congress for this fiscal year for urgently needed housing and community development programs. Specifically, I refer to the following:
$200 million in appropriated funds for urban renewal for this fiscal year. This action was taken not withstanding the existence of a backlog of over $3 billion in pending urban renewal applications from communities throughout the country.
The withholding of available annual contribution authority for low-rent public housing in the amount of $192 million. This action has brought the undertaking of urgently needed low-rent housing substantially to a halt for this fiscal year and is also imperiling the solvency of a number of local housing authorities around the country,
The withholding of $584 million in appropriated model cities funds.
The withholding of $200 million of appropriated Federal funds for water and sewer grants in this fiscal year, notwithstanding the urgent needs for such facilities in the interest of the environment.
Of equal concern to our organization is the failure of the Administration to request appropriations for the large sums authorized by Congress but not funded for urban renewal, model cities supplementary grants, interest subsidies for housing lower income families under Sections 235 and 236, rent supplements for housing for low-income families, and water and sewer grants.
In our opinion, all of these actions by the Administration are thwarting the intent and the will of the Congress as expressed in enacted legislation.
We will greatly appreciate you placing this letter in the records of your hearings. Sincerely,
NATHANIEL S. KEITH,
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
Washington, D.C., March 14, 1969. Senator Sam J. ERVIN, Jr., Chairman, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers, Committee on the Judiciary Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request of February 5, 1969 for information on appropriation reserves established by this Agency, at the request of the Bureau of the Budget on behalf of the President.
Attached is a table showing an analysis of reserves established through the apportionment process in fiscal years 1945-1968. The table relates the reserves to the Agency's initial and final appropriations. Comments are added to supply as much information as possible; although our records do not, in a number of cases, clearly indicate the basis for the reserve established.
Generally speaking, the reserves shown were ordered established by the Bureau under the Anti-Deficiency Act or voluntarily set up by the Agency as a management tool to provide orderly expenditure of funds or as an aid to identify savings when they existed. Our review indicates that these approaches were more prevalent in the 1940's and 1950's than has been the case in the 1960's.
Insofar as we can determine, from our limited records, there were no instances of impoundment of funds for the purpose of affecting this Agency's case processing programs. There were, as indicated on the attached table, (1) instances of impoundment of funds related to general reductions stemming from Congressional action, and (2) fund reserves for the purpose of administrative control of savings and expenditures. Sincerely yours,
FRANK W. McCULLOCH,
ANALYSIS OF RESERVES IN RELATIONS TO APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEARS 1945-68
[In thousands of dollars)
50.0 80.0 Reserve apparently established by Agency. 4.307.5 50.0
0 Bureau directed establishment of reserve. Later
released funds for operating needs.
900.0 Bureau directed establishment of reserve of
$48.000 for penalty mail needs. Agency added to reserve funds which could not be used to carry
out program. 8,605.0 67.0 .......... Bureau directed establishment of reserve. Later
released funds for operating needs. 8,562.5
50.0 Appropriations reduction resulted from fund re
strictions by Congress. Bureau directed reserve. 8, 295.7 ...........
Total NLRB appropriation during year was $8,662,
200. Reduced $3 76,500 by action of Congress. 9,000.0 75.0
Reserve established by agency. 9, 125.0
0 Bureau directed establishment of initial reserve.
Agency added to reserve. 8,472.8 ............ 25.0 Agency reserve. Funds were used later to help
meet pay increase cost. Supplemental was also
495.0 Do. 15, 280.0
140.0 Bureau directed establishment of reserve. Later
released funds for operating needs.
**45.0 Agency reserve.
Reserve established by Bureau to comply with
· The subsequent reserve total represents the last apportionment action. This was, in many cases, followed by release of funds for operating purposes as indicated in the comments.
NATIONAL TUBERCULOSIS AND RESPIRATORY DISEASE ASSOCIATION,
New York, N.Y., March 17, 1971. Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Chairman, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: We have recently noted that your committee will consider the effects of impoundment of appropriated funds. It has occurred to us that you might wish to be alerted to an example of this practice which is proving extremely critical to the future of tuberculosis control.
I refer to the action of the Administration in not releasing funds appropriated for implementation of the Communicable Disease Act. This Act was signed by the President in late 1970 and an appropriation of $2 million was made available by Congress to implement it during fiscal 1971. As its title signifies, the Act provides support for control of communicable diseases (through project grants).
Our organization and its many affiliated TB-RD associations were very happy to see the legislation passed because categorical project grant support for TB. which had been available for several decades, was being phased out under the Comprehensive Health Program. It became apparent that neither Federal formula money supplied for health programs (314(d) grants) nor state funds were sufficient to pick up the scope of Federal support needed.
The common sense appeal of a program designed to assure continuation of effective health department programs against communicable diseases was demonstrated by the almost unanimous vote by which the Congress passed the legislation. The President has now seen fit to withhold these funds at the very time he stresses the need to prevent disease or to discover it before it becomes serious.
Beginning in 1964, Federal project grants were substantially increased in response to the recommendations of the Surgeon General's Task Force on Tuberculosis Control. Because these funds were used for expanded outpatient treatment facilities and for programs directed at preventing tuberculosis from developing in persons exposed to the disease, more than $400 million were estimated to have been saved in hospital costs during the next five years.
In spite of a remarkable decline in incidence of cases, more than 39,000 new active cases of TB were reported in the United States in 1969. It is obvious that this is no time for the nation to stop programs of proven value. Yet this is what the future holds if funds are not released for implementation of the Communicable Disease Act. The President's budget for 1972 requests no proj. ect grant funds for TB control under the Comprehensive Health Program.
I hope that this information is of some help in your assessment of the sig. nificance of impoundment of funds. Sincerely yours,
ROBERT J. ANDERSON, M.D.,
NORTH CAROLINA TUBERCULOSIS AND RESPIRATORY DISEASE
Raleigh, N.C., March 16, 1971. Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Chairman, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: We are pleased that the Congress passed the Communicable Disease Act in October, 1970 by an almost unanimous vote, thus authorizing among other items support of tuberculosis project grants. As you know, the problem is now one of providing the funds. In this connection we ask your Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to look into the impounding of $2,000,000 of health funds by the Administration which were appropriated by Congress for fiscal 1971. If these funds were released tuberculosis projects could be funded and the Communicable Disease Act of 1970 implemented.
The North Carolina Tuberculosis and Respiratory Disease Association and its local affiliates support appropriate measures to fund tuberculosis project grants both now and in the future. Many local health departments in North Carolina have been dependent upon these funds for specific and meaningful projects and their discontinuance would be detrimental to our state. Your help in this respect would be very much appreciated. Sincerely,
C. SCOTT VENABLE, Executive Director,
OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY,
Washington, D.C., February 25, 1969.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your letter of February 5, 1969, requesting information pertaining to any instances in which funds appropriated to the Office of Economic Opportunity have been withheld by the Bureau of the Budget.
We wish to advise that since its first appropriation, for the fiscal year 1965, this agency has lost no appropriated funds through the establishment of Bureau of the Budget reserves. The full amount appropriated by the Congress each year has been apportioned by the Bureau.
There have been instances in which the Bureau of the Budget has imposed temporary reserves on portions of OEO funds pending additional justifications for the use of funds or the development of program plans. However, in each of these instances all of the reserved funds were released prior to the end of the fiscal year for which they were appropriated. I am uncertain as to whether these temporary reservations are within the scope of your inquiry. However, on the assumption that it may be of interest to the Subcommittee, I am enclosing more detailed information on this subject.
I hope that this letter and its enclosure provide a satisfactory response to your inquiry. Sincerely,
BERTRAND M. HARDING, Acting Director.
TEMPORARY RESERVES OF OEO APPROPRIATED FUNDS ESTABLISHED BY BUREAU OF
THE BUDGET DURING FISCAL YEARS 1965 THROUGH 1969
FISCAL YEAR 1965 The initial annual apportionment for OEO, dated November 11, 1964, included a reserve of $201,450,000. By March 31, 1965, this reserve had been reduced to $67,220,000, and on May 15, 1965, the reserve was eliminated. The November and March reserves are shown below, by program:
Fiscal YEAR 1966 The first full year apportionment for fiscal year 1966 was dated December 8, 1965. This included the following reserves: Community action program.-
$25, 700, 000 Adult literacy ---
22, 000, 000 Work experience.------
25, 000, 000 Total...
72, 700, 000 Note: These reserves were released on Jan. 20, 1966.