through economic assistance to other free nations. Our aid has been a major contribution toward world stability and has been instrumental in lessening world tension. However, my recommendations recognized the fact that, under existing international conditions, a relatively high level of military preparedness must be maintained for a number of years to come.

Our defense program thus represented a balance between security needs in the light of our foreign policy and the economic and fiscal problems facing us domestically.

In the 1950 Budget, emphasis was given to air power and the procurement of newly developed weapons with which to re-equip and modernize our military forces. Similar emphasis was given to research and development, to industrial mobilization, to reserve forces, and to the integration of operations within the three services. The defense program was designed to be flexible, not rigid. It was drawn up so that changes in the international situation, in technology, and in the domestic economy could be reflected in our defense preparations.

Action at this time by the Congress in increasing authorizations for the Air Force by over $615,000,000 could have a serious effect on our ability to maintain balanced military forces in subsequent years. Although these increased authorizations would have comparatively little effect upon military expenditures in the current fiscal year, the fact that they are largely for the procurement of aircraft would have a serious effect on expenditures in the future. As additional aircraft authorized by this Act were delivered, we should have to make corresponding provisions for additional personnel to man them, for higher maintenance and operating costs, and for greater replacement costs. The present authorization for increased procurement would thus be merely the first step in an expanding program which would have to be supported by greatly increased appropriations in future years.

Furthermore, the programs provided in the Budget were based on national defense plans in which our air, naval and land forces were planned and operated under a unified strategic concept. Expansion of one service beyond the planned level would require the re-evaluation of that concept. To build up the strength of the other services so that they could complement and support an expanded Air Force would require additional very large appropriations. It is obviously impossible for the Department of Defense to plan and operate efficiently if there are to be widely fluctuating appropriations and programs. Rapid contractions or expansions inevitably result in confusion and waste.

Increasing the structure of the Air Force above that recommended in the 1950 Budget would be inconsistent with a realistic and balanced security program which we can support in peacetime and would interfere with orderly planning for the three services based on a unified strategic concept.

I am therefore directing the Secretary of Defense to place in reserve the amounts provided by the Congress in H. R. 4146 for increasing the structure of the Air Force.

See-House Report No. 417, 81st Congress, April 9, 1949, pp. 30 and 31 House Report No. 1797, 81st Congress, March 21, 1950, pp. 310 and 311

The Honorable Louis A. JOHNSON

The Secretary of Defense

THE WHITE HOUSE, Washington, November 8, 1949.

MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: By virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, and pursuant to the provisions of section 202 (b) of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, you are directed to place in reserve the funds provided in the National Military Establishment Appropriation Act, 1950, which would permit increasing the structure of the Air Force beyond the program proposed in the 1950 Budget.

This order wil confirm my prior discussions with you and my statement of October 29, 1949, which was made public at the time I signed H.R. 4146, the National Military Establishment Appropriation Act, 1950.

Sincerely yours,

HARRY S. TRUMAN.

Exhibit 2

PRECEDENTS FOR RESERVING FUNDS APPROPRIATED BY THE

CONGRESS, BUT NOT REQUESTED BY THE PRESIDENT

The list below represents past instances in which the Congress has appropri ated funds for the Department of Defense which were not requested by the President (so-called "add-on" funds); and which officials of the Executive Branch have, in their best judgment concerning the circumstances then existing. placed in reserve.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: With the profoundest respect for your leadership in national defense and congressional affairs, I must take this opportunity to urge your reconsideration of the language added by your committee to H. R. 9751. The amendment to which I refer states that the Secretary of the Air Force is "directed" to utilize not less than $491 million of this authorization (fiscal year 1963 funds for aircraft, missiles and naval vessels) to proceed with production planning and long leadtime procurement for an RS-70 weapons system. I would respectfully suggest that, in place of the word "directed," the word "authorized" would be more suitable to an authorizing bill (which is not an appropriation of funds) and more clearly in line with the spirit of the Constitution.

Each branch of the Government has a responsibility to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution and the clear separation of legislative and executive powers it requires. I must, therefore, insist upon the full powers and discretions essential to the faithful execution of my responsibilities as President and Commander in Chief, under article II, sections 2 and 3, of the Constitution. Additionally implicit in the Constitution, of course, is the intent that a spirit of comity govern relations between the executive and legislative. And while this makes unwise if not impossible any legislative effort to "direct" the Executive on matters within the latter's jurisdiction, it also makes it incumbent upon the Executive to give every possible consideration in such matters to the views of the Congress. For that reason, Secretary McNamara has indicated to you in a separate letter his willingness to reexamine the RS-70 program and related technological possibilities.

Your devotion to our continued military effectiveness is admired and appreciated; and I look forward to working with you and receiving your counsel for many years to come.

Sincerely,

JOHN F. KENNEDY.

I have signed H.R. 14596-the Department of Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriation Act of 1967.

With the funds in this bill, we can move ahead to bring a better life to farmers, and to improve conditions in rural areas. We can continue to help the developing nations help themselves in our common war against world famine and hunger.

I am deeply disturbed, however, about three provisions in this measure.

First, the bill adds $312.5 million of appropriations to the total requested in my budget.

In its appropriation actions, the Congress often adds to or reduces specific items proposed in the President's budget. While the President may not always agree with the changes, this is a proper exercise of Congressional prerogative. In this case, however, the total of appropriations effectively provided in the bill-after taking into account both increases and decreases-is $312.5 million above my budget request. During a period when we are making every effort to moderate inflationary pressures, this degree of increase is, I believe, most unwise.

Rather than veto this bill-and add still further to an already crowded Congressional calendar-I intend to exercise my authority to control expenditures. I will reduce expenditures for the programs covered by this bill in an attempt to avert expending more in the coming year than provided in the budget.

I will exert such control in an even manner-reducing selectively both those items which the Congress has added to my budget and items which I myself have proposed.

In this way, we can fulfill our pledge to the American people to combat inflation and to maintain a healthy and flourishing economy.

Second, the bill contains a provision that would automatically bar any needy nation from receiving U.S. food aid for its poor and starving people if that nation engages in any trade or shipping with North Vietnam.

This absolute bar goes far beyond a measured response to the problem, for such transactions by countries receiving our food aid are currently very small. It is inconsistent with the humanitarian and foreign policy goals of the Food for Freedom program. It will tie the hands of this Administration and succeeding Administrations.

Third, there is a provision in this bill which restricts the authority of the President in proposing a financial plan for agricultural research in the Fiscal Year 1968 budget.

The provision thus clearly intrudes upon the executive function of preparing the annual budget. In developing the budget for Fiscal 1968, I will give careful consideration to the views of Congress expressed in this Act-but I will propose an agricultural research program designed and financed to make the best possible use of the resources available to us at the time.

Exhibit 5

JUNE 23, 1958.

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Staff memorandum No. 85-2-27.

Subject: S. 3578-to prohibit the withholding or impoundment of appropriations.

PURPOSE

S. 3578 was introduced by Senator Mansfield, with the objective of preventing the Executive Branch from circumventing the will of the Congress as expressed in legislation authorizing programs and providing funds to carry them out, by prohibiting the withholding or impounding of appropriated funds.

In the regular course of the legislative process, the Congress, after hearings and careful consideration, enacts legislation establishing a program and then appropriates funds to enable the program to be carried out. It appears that subsequent to such action. the Executive Branch, from time to time, either through action by the President, the Bureau of the Budget or other Executive Branch officials, impounds the funds and either fails to carry out the program, or carries it out on a reduced scale. Examples of this type of action may be found in the curtailment or elimination of flood control programs, rivers and harbors, military construction programs, authorized strength of the Army, National Guard, Navy, Marines, Air Force, etc., and authorized programs with respect to various military facilities.

This bill is designed to prevent such action on the part of the Executive Branch by making it unlawful, notwithstanding any other provision of law, for any Executive Branch official to withhold, impound or otherwise prevent any moneys appropriated by the Congress from being promptly used or applied by contract or otherwise for the purpose designated in the appropriating act.

As will be shown in detail in a later section in this memorandum, all of the major departments and agencies of the Executive Branch have expressed opposition to this measure on numerous grounds. The Comptroller General has pointed out a number of problems which are raised by S. 3578 and which, in his judgment, require very careful consideration with a view toward clarification. The Attorney General has questioned its legal effect, its impact on existing law and on the Federal financial management system, and its effect on certain of the President's constitutional prerogatives.

The Chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations has also questioned the desirability of the measure, and has suggested an amendment in the nature of a substitute which will be set forth in a separate subsection of this memorandum.

An analysis of the bill reveals that its coverage is so broad that it might be construed to prohibit actions beyond what may have been intended by its sponsor. Furthermore, the bill appears to raise serious constitutional questions. In summary, the basic problems raised by S. 3578 relate to its probable effect on the Antideficiency Act, and to the fundamental doctrine of separation of powers between the Executive and Legislative Branches of the Government.

THE ANTIDEFICIENCY ACT-BACKGROUND AND PERTINENT PROVISIONS

Over a period of nearly 90 years, the Congress has been concerned with the prevention of deficiency spending of appropriated funds, with special reference to the spending of funds by Government agencies at a rate which exhausts the appropriation prior to the end of the period for which it is made, requiring either a supplemental appropriation or a drastic curtailment of the activities financed by the appropriation. This concern has resulted in a number of legislative enactments, beginning with the Act of July 12, 1870 (16 Stat. 251), from which the present Antideficiency Act has been derived. (Section 3679. Revised Statutes, as amended, 31 U.S.C. 665). The latest substantial revision of section 3679 was effected by section 1211 of the General Appropriation Act of 1951.

The original section 3679 of the Revised Statutes prohibited only the spending of sums in excess of appropriations, or the involving of the Government in any contract for future payment of money in excess of appropriations. However, this apparently was not sufficient to accomplish the legislative purpose, and, by the Act of March 3, 1905 (33 Stat. 1257), the Congress provided for an apportionment system. In the words of the Act, this was to "prevent undue expenditures in one portion of the year, that may require deficiency or additional appropriations to complete the service of the fiscal year; . . ." A system of apportionment of appropriations has been required by law since that date. In its present form, this statute requires the Executive Branch to apportion all appropriations and all authorizations to create obligations made by the Congress, in order to avoid the necessity for deficiency or supplemental appropriations. It also requires the apportionments to be reviewed at least four times a year and imposes disciplinary and criminal penalties for violations of those apportionment requirements. Finally, it authorizes the establishment of apportionment reserves to provide for contingencies or to effect savings whenever savings are possible.

Thus, the Antideficiency Act specifically requires apportionment of appropriations to the agencies of the Executive Branch of the Government by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, and of appropriations available to the Legislative Branch, the Judiciary, and the District of Columbia, by the respective officer having administrative control of the funds. The major purposes are, in the words of the Act, to achieve the most effective and economical use" of funds and, for appropriations available for a definite period of time, ". . . to prevent obligation or expenditure thereof in a manner which would indicate a necessity for deficiency or supplemental appropriations . ." In order to ac

complish these purposes, reserves are to be established by the apportioning officer. They may be established to "provide for contingencies, or to effect savings whenever savings are made possible by or through changes in requirements, greater efficiency of operations, or other developments subsequent to the date on which such appropriation was made available."

In reporting the 1951 revision which is now in effect, the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives stated that its purpose was "to require careful apportionment of all types of funds expended by Federal agencies and efficient administration of the Government's business." (H. Rept. No. 1797, 81st Cong., p. 9).

Commenting further on the objective of this measure, the Committee stated: "Economy neither begins nor ends in the Halls of Congress. Under the Budget and Accounting Act, it is the responsibility of the executive branch of the Government to submit annually to the Congress the estimates of the amounts which officials in the executive branch feel are required to support the necessary activities of the Government. The Congress reviews these estimates and decides the maximum amounts which must be appropriated for these various activities, and the annual appropriation bill provides the sums so determined by the Congress.

"Appropriation of a given amount for a particular activity constitutes only a ceiling upon the amount which should be expended for that activity. The administrative officials responsible for administration of an activity for which appropriation is made bear the final burden for rendering all necessary service with the smallest amount possible within the ceiling figure fixed by the Congress. Every official of the Government who has responsibility for administration of a program must assume a portion of the burden for the deficit in the Federal Treasury. In the first place, he must take into account the condition of the Federal finances when he recommends to the Bureau of the Budget the amount which, in his judgment, is necessary for supporting his activity. In the second place, it is his responsibility to so control and administer the activities under his jurisdiction as to expend as little as possible out of the funds appropriated."

PROBABLE EFFECTS OF S. 3578 ON THE ANTIDEFICIENCY ACT

As previously noted, the Comptroller General and all of the agencies and departments of the Executive Branch have expressed opposition to this bill. The Comptroller General states that "whether the withholding, impoundment or prevention of prompt use or application of appropriations should be made unlawful is a matter of policy primarily for determination by the Congress. We do, however, want to point out some possible effects of this proposal which we feel should be carefully studied before the bill is considered favorably." Continuing, the Comptroller General states:

"The language of this bill is extremely broad and might be construed to prohibit many actions beyond what may have been intended by the author of the bill. * ** S. 3578 would not only supersede the authority contained in subsection (c) (2) of section 3679, Revised Statutes, as amended, 31 U.S.C. 665 (commonly called the Antideficiency Act), but it would make the exercise of such specific authority unlawful.

"We believe that the authority contained in subsection (c) (2) can serve a very useful purpose and doubt that S. 3578 is intended to prohibit the effecting of savings made possible by or through changes in requirements, greater efficiency of operations, or other developments subsequent to the date on which the appropriation involved was made available. If the object of this bill is to prevent delays in the prosecution of projects or programs or to prohibit the elimination, through the establishment of reserves or the withholding of funds,