Mr. Johnson said, at his press conference yesterday, that he would pay 100 per cent only to school systems, like those serving military bases, where the children live on Federal property. That will use only about $22 million, naionwide, of the $91 million provided by Congress.

Other school systems will be left with 20 per cent less than their full legal entitlement of this "impact" aid.

Washington's hard-pressed schools have already spent the additional $1 miltion that they had anticipated, according to Assistant Superintendent Joseph M. Carroll.

"We're in real trouble," Carroll said. "It's going to mean a very drastic cut." Prince George's School Superintendent William S. Schmidt said that the -decision would mean $1.6 million less than the county had expected, and that meant "really serious trouble."

This school fund is caught in the growing struggle between the President and Congress over the allocation of the $6 billion in cuts Congress ordered in the President's budget.

Federal impact aid is very popular with local school officials because, unlike most other kinds of Federal school aid, no restrictions are tied to its use. Administration officials have objected, for some years, that much of this impact aid goes to wealthy districts, and is not focussed on the areas of greatest social and educational need.

President Johnson's decision on impacted aid funds will not create immediate urgent difficulties in three of the suburban school systems, which did not include the final 20 per cent of their impact aid in their budgets.

Montgomery County will lose $1.1 million by this decision. Arlington will get about $400,000 less than its full entitlement, and Alexandria about $225,000 less. But all three had balanced their budgets without counting on that money. President Johnson observed that Congress had not only increased by $91 million the appropriation for the past year, but increased the President's request for the coming school year by $110 million.

"In other words," Mr. Johnson said, "the Congress in one breath says you must cut $6 billion from your budget as you sent it to Congress, and while doing that we add another $200 million over and above that budget."

The House also voted last month to cut the appropriation for the President's program to aid slum schools, sharpening the edge of the controversy.

[From The Evening Star, Washington, D.C., Mar. 26, 1971]

DEMOCRATS TRY TO LOOSEN FUNDS

(By John Chadwick)

The Justice Department has agreed to draft legislation that would give Congress the final word when a president refuses to spend appropriated funds. Asst. Atty. Gen. William H. Rehnquist said he could not commit the Justice Department to supporting such a bill, but added: "We couldn't help but be sympathetic to its purpose."

Rehnquist agreed yesterday to write the legislation as Sen. Sam J. Ervin's Judiciary subcommittee on separation of powers ended three days of hearings on impoundment-the presidential practice of holding back money appropriated by Congress.

House Democratic leaders at a press conference yesterday accused President Nixon of withholding up to $18 million in appropriated funds. They charged that the funds are being held up while the President seeks support for his revenue sharing proposal.

"The President wines and dines the mayors and tells them to support revenue sharing while the cities are suffering for funds already appropriated and being withheld," said Hale Boggs of Louisiana, House Democratic Leader. Ervin said he wants for subcommittee consideration a bill making impoundment orders subject to veto by either the Senate or House during a 60-day period.

The proposal was advanced by two university professors who testified at the hearings.

Witnesses testified the practice of impounding funds was first used in a major way by Franklin D. Roosevelt and has been on an upward curve under all presidents since.

gress. It is said that several billions of dollars th for things like dams and so on you have refused the Constitution and deprives Congress of its main. purse.

The PRESIDENT. Mr. Smith, when I was a Senator : ticularly when I was a Senator and a Congressman v other party in the White House, I played all of those gan

success.

These games are going to be played. The efforts will by Members of the Senate, Members of the House, and so. very best of intentions to hamstring the Executive, the Pr the proper thing to do, it will be done.

But I think, generally speaking, you will find that in these g have occurred through the years, between the President and that sometimes the Congress wins, sometimes the President win the President's responsibility as Commander-in-Chief of the Arme concerned, and where the lives of American men are involved, us President wins and for good reason. You can have only one Comm.. Chief.

[Excerpt from transcript of meeting of Subcommittee on Reprogramming of F Apr. 6, 1971]

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

Senator STENNIS. I have a very brief opening statement. This is our second meeting of our Subcommittee on Reprogramming following one of a week ago when Navy matters were before us.

Although reprogramming actions have been handled in the past in a rather informal way, we recently learned that the requested reprogramming for the Department of Defense had reached the sum of over a billion dollars. I felt that a subcommittee was necessary to consider these reprogrammings but because each reprogramming is actually the using of money appropriated by the Congress for another purpose, each one requires a second look and a rerun. We go over and over these items many times when the laws are originally passed: we go through debate and conference and the whole thing and then the re programming requests require that we come back and go through them again. I frankly do not know how far we can go in giving a great deal of attention to this; it is just more than the Committee can do. rang them of th Fifteen prior approval reprogramming actions have been received by the Committee so far. Four have been approved, two prior to the formation of this Subcommittee, two have been withdrawn, one is a waiting final disposition, and three have not been acted on by the House Committee. This leaves five, and I

hope we can get all of them today.

[From The Washington Post, Aug. 1, 1968]

LBJ FREEZES IMPACTED AREAS FUNDS

(By J. W. Anderson) naik on!

President Johnson said yesterday that he will not spend $69 mil "impacted areas" school aid money that Congress appropriated His decision ends months of campaigning by school

country, and their Congressmen, to force the mo

The President's refusal presents severe

schools in Washington and Prince Ge

systems.

The money is aid to school dist

of Federal employees.

Congress appropriated enough

80 per cent of the amounts +

pressed by school officials

$91 million to bring the

onwide, of the $91 million wa Other school systems wil titlement of this "impact" a Washington's hard-pressed

on that they had anticipated er . Carroll.

"We're in real trouble," Carr Prince George's School Supertener ecision would mean $1.6 millio eant "really serious trouble" This school fund is caught in ter ongress over the allocation of to $ resident's budget.

Federal impact aid is very popier ke most other kinds of Federa Administration officials have obgere mpact aid goes to wealthy district reatest social and educational nee President Johnson's decision or late gent difficulties in three idade the final 20 per cent of the Montgomery County will lose $1. et about $400.000 less than its fu

But three had balanced ther? Dunge President Johnson observed that Congre

the appropriation for the pas ye

Best for the coming school year by acher words," Mr. Johnson sai

stent $ billion from your budge &

used to spend $12.8 billion of funds ading June 30.

gat we add another $200 milion over a

to those economic problems is to rojects. Most of it is in the connce, was scheduled for highways. mocratic speech goes by without

The House also voted last month to ease; rgram to aid slum schools, sharpening '

[From The Evening Star, Washingto: 1

DEMOCRATS TRY TO LO

(By John Caa...

an of the Constitutional is a presidential grab of

The Justice Department has agreed to aratt legislation Congress the final word when a president refuses to spend Atty. Gen. William H. Rehnquist said he could not c deartinent to supporting such a bill, but added: "We pathetic to its purpose."

ek that would require s to withhold or delay approval.

ist agreed yesterday to write the legislation as ben etary subcommittee on separation of powers ended three pundment-the presidentip!ctice of holding c

ference yesterday appropriated fund he President seeks

the House and the ters. Nixon can cons are confident that

Democratic party's funds, the conas higher mini

includes $1.3 antipoverty "vice mostly using, $200

resolution Cests exirtee to

602

Sen. Charles McC. Mathias, R-Md., a member of the subcommittee, agreed the type of legislation Ervin asked the Justice Department to prepare might be the answer.

He told a reporter impoundment "has become a refined kind of veto" which relieves a president of the burdens, political and otherwise, of submitting a veto message to Congress.

Under the Constitution, the president has to accept or reject a bill as a whole. He cannot veto portions of a law of items of an appropriations measure. Congress can override a veto by a two-thirds majority in both houses. Mathias said that rather than try to amend the Constitution to give the president an item veto, it might be better to set up statutory apparatus to get the same result.

Ervin said the legislation he outlined would have the effect of giving a president an item veto of appropriations that could be overridden by Congress. "I see nothing in the Constitution that militates against that," he said.

[From The Daily Press, Newport News, Va., Mar. 28, 1971]

HUSBAND, WIFE RELATIONSHIP

North Carolina Sen. Sam Ervin has a well-developed conscience. He has proved that often during his long career in public service and he is working as hard at it now as he ever has.

Perhaps he is even hoping that some of it will rub off on the Senate. For some time, he has been concerned about the "Big Brother" aspect of government record-keeping regarding individuals, and lately he has raised the ticklish constitutional point of whether the President can hold back funds appropriated by Congress.

When Senator Ervin speaks about the Constitution, it is necessary to take notice since even the liberals admit he is an authority-except when he calls them down on such subjects as civil rights. Senator Ervin, as chairman of a subcommitte on separation of powers, is holding hearings on administrative non-use of about $12 billion which Congress has appropriated and, although the hearings are just beginning, some interesting ideas have come out.

As one witness observed, the issue has been raised before-he claimed it dated back to the beginning of the nation-without generating a satisfactory solution. Mr. Nixon is not the first President to be accused of being tightfisted, either; we recall reports some years back on controversial actions which openly observed that the President could withhold or spend money he saw fit. The relationship between the President and Congress on spending has been essentially that of a husband and wife.

We must admit that the thought of congressional wisdom being short-circuited by refusal to spend appropriations has troubled us from time to time. This was basically an intellectual concern, however, and usually was interrupted by some new foolishness on the part of Congress, but the issue which created it is quite real and important, of course.

The presidential practice has been honored by time and tradition, and it does provide a financial flexibility not otherwise available. An administration can use its powers to cut back war expenditures should our commitment be reduced suddenly, and it can use the spending power in a manner compatible with the economic situation-just to mention two possibilities. The inflationary crisis which has marred the Nixon presidency is a perfect example of the need for flexibility.

It is doubtful that the current practice can be abandoned since it seems inherent in our division of governmental powers. It is, then, a question of how the necessary balances are maintained and, as such, is an issue well-raised.

[From The Evening Star, Washington, D.C., Apr. 27, 1971]

DEMOCRATIC ANGER GROWING OVER NIXON'S FUND FREEZE

(By Shirley Elder)

Democrats on Capitol Hill are moving closer each day to a showdown with President Nixon over spending.

Citing economic problems, Nixon has refused to spend $12.8 billion of funds appropriated by Congress for the fiscal year ending June 30.

The Democrats contend that one solution to those economic problems is to release the money earmarked for specific projects. Most of it is in the construction field. More than $5.5 billion, for instance, was scheduled for highways. Anger with Nixon is spreading. Hardly a Democratic speech goes by without mention of the funds frozen by the President.

Two approaches are being readied, one aimed at the money currently impounded and one aimed at the future.

House Democratic Whip Thomas P. O'Neill of Massachusetts is introducing a resolution today calling on Nixon to free the appropriated funds. With continuing inflation and rising unemployment, he says, the money is necessary to revitalize the economy.

On the Senate side, Sam J. Ervin, D-N.C., chairman of the Constitutional Rights subcommitee, is concerned over what he feels is a presidential grab of congressional power.

He hopes to have a bill ready by the end of the week that would require formal notice to Congress whenever the President decides to withhold or delay spending. Congress than would have time to vote its disapproval.

Neither of these approaches, even if cleared by both the House and the Senate, assures Congress the upper hand in financial matters. Nixon can continue to ignore commands from Capitol Hill. But Democrats are confident that would be politically careless for him.

The economy and its ills are being developed as the Democratic party's major issue for 1972. While demanding release of the frozen funds, the congressmen also are working on other legislative projects, such as higher minimum wages and public service jobs.

In addition to highway money, the list of impounded funds includes $1.3 billion for the military, principally Navy ships, $38 million in antipoverty money, $191 million for Appalachia, $235 million for the Forest Service mostly planned for roads and trails, $942 million in low-rent public housing, $200 million for water and sewer grants and $583 million for model cities.

In a related matter, Rep. B. F. Sisk, D-Calif., has introduced a resolution to try to get at the roots of administration money policies. He suggests expanding the authority of the House Government Operations Committee to investigate Nixon's new Office of Management and Budget.

[From The New York Times, Apr. 14, 1971]

ELLENDER SUGGESTS CONGRESS COULD FREE IMPOUNDED FUNDS BY HALTING OUTLAYS FOR NIXON PROGRAMS

(By John W. Finney)

Washington, April 13—Senator Allen J. Ellender, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, raised the threat today that Congress would withhold funds for Administration programs unless the White House frees some $13-billion in impounded funds already appropriated by Congress.

The threat was the latest move in a constitutional as well as political confrontation developing between Congress and the Executive branch over the President's right to impound money appropriated by Congress.

The issue is not a new one, but it has been aggravated again by the Nixon Administration's stand in withholding $12.8-billion in funds appropriated by Congress for some 40 domestic programs.

The Administration justification is that the President is under no constitutional mandate to spend moneys appropriated by Congress and that it is simply following past Presidential practice by withholding funds for economic and procedural reasons, as well as to comply with a Congressional limitation on over-all Government spending.

But to many in Congress, on an issue that has brought together conservatives and liberals, the Executive branch is thwarting the will of Congress and in the process eroding Congress's constitutional control over the purse strings. Senator Ellender suggested that perhaps the Congressional response to the Administration's stand should be a "get-tough policy" of refusing to appropriate funds for other domestic programs proposed by the Administration until the impounded funds are released.

60-337 0-71-40