not have the obstacle in our way in developing our missile and other programs. This is not partisan matter because I can go back to the days when Mr. Johnston was the Secretary of Defense and the Congress specifically authorized the building of the first flush-deck carrier known as the United States. The bill was introduced and authored by the colleague of my dear friend Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Hess.

The Congress specifically said, "There shall be a flush-deck carrier." The keel was laid; and overnight, without even advising the Secretary of the Navy who was then Mr. John Sullivan, Mr. Johnston, with the approval of the then President of the United States, Mr. Truman, canceled out the construction of the carrier though the Congress had appropriated the money and said, "We want this carrier built."

As a result of that action, the construction of our first carrier was thrown back some 2 or 3 years, and the figures of construction were practically doubled.

Now, Mr. Eisenhower has followed in the path of his predecessors and had good example in the case of Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Truman. In the case of those of you who are on the military, in the case of flood control, you will recall the funds that were authorized, appropriated, were withheld by the administration.

You will further recall that in the matter of the strength of our air-combat arm, the Congress authorized, I think, 140 wings and that amount was substantially cut by the mere technique and device of withholding funds.

Right here this last year the strength of the Marine Corps authorized and designated by the Congress is 200,000, but you do not have a 200,000 strength. Why? Because the appropriation funds have been withheld from the Marines which has compelled them to 188,000, which is a very, very difficult combatant strength for the Marines to have to carry out its full mission and this has been testified to by General Pate, it has been testified to by Admiral Burke and you can just cite these instance after instance whereby, by the technique of withholding funds and not following the instructions, or the mandate of the Congress, the objective of defeating the Congress has been accomplished.

Now, as to the language of the bill, it is a very difficult matter to legislate in areas of this nature as you can well understand. There are times when moneys should be withheld perhaps very justly, and I do not address myself to these exceptions, but address myself to the overall pattern and philosophy behind the purpose and the operation of these bureaus.

To say specifically you shall spend X number of dollars or you shall be jailed, or there will be a penalty, will be a very difficult piece of legislation to write. So I have approached this matter with the general objective in view by making it unlawful for any individual or agency to withhold appropriated funds unduly and then, of course, it naturally follows that if an elected or appointed official commits an unlawful act, he is subject to removal from office.

But the real and the most potent factor behind the introduction of this legislation is to bring into focus to the American Nation exactly what is going on in our executive department of Government and to give an expression of the Congress as to its attitude on this matter. I have been fighting this fight for many, many years, and I have been a

lone voice in the wilderness, and it was very reassuring that particularly during this session of Congress so many Members of Congress have come around to my way of thinking and want to bring the matter to the attention of the people. I was very, very appreciative of the fact that Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Zelenko agreed and asked to introduce similar bills because I think that never at any time, certainly since the 18 years I have been here, have I heard so much discontent and so much concern on the part of Members of the House who express themselves to me privately and many on the floor have said publicly their great concern that is going on in the usurpation of the power by the Executive.

That is a very, very old story, as Mr. Roosevelt knows, in his own family when his father was there in his great tenure of office. Congress is not without fault. Congress is as culpable as the agencies because it has been the Congress which has abrogated its power in too many instances and it has been the Congress that has allowed such abuses to grow without checkmating them early in their history.

So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the members of the committee for having indulged me in perhaps philosophizing a bit, but certainly giving forth the reasons why this legislation is before you and may I say that I greatly appreciate the expeditious manner in which your committee handled the legislation to bring it to a public hearing. Chairman DAWSON. Thank you.

Mrs. Harden?

Mrs. HARDEN. No questions.

Chairman DAWSON. Mr. Brown?

Mr. BROWN. Well, I want to say in the beginning, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Hébert is one of the most able Members of the Congress, and has done a great deal in the years he has been here to bring about greater economy and efficiency in the expenditure of public funds, especially in the field of national defense.

I believe he has brought to us here this morning a problem that is indeed a serious one. There is more than one side to it, and, as he so ably said, I think there have been times when the Chief Executive, or some of the agencies in the executive branch of the Government have not used the best of wisdom, and there have been other times when, in my opinion, the Congress has not been quite as wise or quite as careful as it might have been in connection with appropriations.

If I recall correctly, Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of the present fiscal year, we had a carryover of some $70 billion of appropriations made in previous years.

Of course, the reason why some of those appropriations were not spent is that they were continuing appropriations. A great many people, as well as myself, feel the Congress has been too liberal with the people's money in the last few years, and there are times, as Mr. Hébert pointed out, that the Congress has appropriated money that if it had been spent would have been a foolish expenditure.

I recall we authorized and appropriated money for the construction of 2 battleships for $400 million. After we spent $60 million the Navy decided not to build the battleships. They wanted something else. I never found out what was done with the rest of the funds. It may still be in the carryover funds of the Defense Department. I recall in the Department of the Air Force, certain officials of the executive branch of the Government told Congress all about how the

Russians had so many long-range bombers that we were in mortal danger, and we appropriated another $900 million for B-52's and then 30 days later we were told a mistake in intelligence had been made and the money was not needed, but the money was gone.

I think and we tried to do just that in H. R. 8002, which passed this committee and passed the House-that there should be greater congressional control over appropriations and more authority to recapture appropriations. Perhaps there is also some necessity for legislation of this type that would require the executive branch and the various agencies to carry out the intent and the purpose of the Congress.

Yet I sort of shudder, to be very frank about it, when I look at legislation that says "you have to spend the money." We are going, to force you to spend what we give you and you have to do so promptly. Perhaps there are times when the money shouldn't be spent. What would you do about a case like that, Mr. Hébert?

Mr. HÉBERT. I am glad you raised that question. The language in the legislation is an expression of a desire in general terms.

Now, what I am trying to get at, and the objective I am trying to accomplish is some sensible and logical manner of approach to the expenditure of funds. I recognize, and said so originally, that there are times when we should not spend it, but I am taking it the other way, the other extreme approach in this legislation and perhaps to bring it into better balance in the center.

In this connection, what I object to is, for instance, in the Marine Corps situation, the Marines say, "We need 200,000 men to have an effective combat mission carried out." That is the testimony of the military experts. All right.

So we give them the money for the 200,000 men, but then by the device of withholding funds, the Bureau of the Budget or the Department of the Defense, the Comptroller withholds the funds and pulls back in so the Marines can only have 188,000.

That is definitely against the intent of the Congress. If we could stretch that out to its logical conclusion, the Bureau of the Budget could withhold all funds and destroy the Marine Corps entirely. Of course, it is a farfetched idea, but I am showing the principle and the modus operandi in these methods.

In the flush-deck carrier, for instance, the Congress said, "We want this. This is on the judgment of the best military information we can get" and yet one man, one man decided that that should not be.

Now, those abuses, those extreme abuses-I can well recall after World War II that the Committee on Armed Services, the old Naval Affairs Committee and the Old Naval Affairs Committee of the Senate held hearings and conferences for some 2 or 3 weeks to set the peacetime strength of the Navy.

The Bureau of the Budget, in 3 hours, cut it back some 10 or 15 percent.

I'm still trying to find out what admiral sits on the Bureau of the Budget. I cannot find out what experts sit there. They are the faceless people. We cannot put our hands on these things.

140 wings of the Air Force were cut back. Flood control moneys were cut back. Those are specific and definite matters.

I am not talking about the appropriation of funds and what you will spend here and there. I am talking about the complete elimina

tion, the use of the line veto item under another name. That is what I am talking about.

Does that answer your question?

I am not talking about appropriating funds. Let me say this: That one admiral I know resigned. He said he was tired of having to go back and rejustifying what he already had justified. Our Spanish base program was delayed, which was so vital to the defense of this country, by the Defense of this country. Those are the things I am talking about.

Mr. BROWN. I agreed with you in the beginning that the problem exists. The question in my mind is whether legislation of this type is the proper approach to its solution. You say that the money must be promptly used and, of course, if it applies to one appropriation, it applies to all.

The Chief Executive, I believe you will agree, does have some responsibility as to the expenditure of funds within his own branch of the Government. He has to make some decisions in the public interest, and there has to be, to a certain extent in my opinion, mutual trust between the legislative branch and the executive branch.

You make a very good argument and an able argument as to why this should be done in this way. You point out certain situations in connection with our defense, but I am not unmindful of the fact that a lot of people come up here to Capitol Hill and ask for a lot of appropriations, and in my opinion, after some 40 years' experience in public life, the average applicant usually asks for 25 to 50 percent more in funds than he needs or expects to get.

They later laugh about it and say Congress did not cut us as bad as we thought they would. We are better off than we thought. Somebody in the Navy sold the idea to the Congress that it needed. the money for those battleships, then later decided they didn't need them. Someone changed his mind. Perhaps if we had someone in the executive branch, especially the President, to have talked with the Navy Department, and said in the beginning we did not need the battleships, we would not have spent $60 million before we scrapped the keels. The same thing happened as to those airplanes.

I am just wondering if this bill is as wise—I realize and appreciate the problem and know what you want to do and I give you great credit therefor, the situation you want to meet, but whether the answer is to enact legislation which simply says that you must promptly use the money

Mr. HÉBERT. I am not wedded to the language of the bill at all, as I told you in the beginning. I am leaving it to the wisdom of the able members of this committee to perhaps come up with the solution. Chairman DAWSON. That is you, Mr. Brown.

Mr. HÉBERT. My interest is to put it out and put the cause on the table and let the country know what we are confronted with. I agree with what you say about the Congress, but the lack of responsibility in discharging our power should not allow the executive branch to do this.

Mr. BROWN. I agree with you. I do not think the members of the committee have any more wisdom than you have. We are no more able to draw the legislation to do the thing that you think should be accomplished. You would make it unlawful under this bill not to spend money regardless of how necessary the spending thereof may be, after it is appropriated.

Mr. Porter's bill goes further and puts on criminal penalties.

Mr. HÉBERT. There is another bill which abolishes the Bureau of the Budget too. Maybe that is the best solution.

Mr. BROWN. I have-off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. BROWN. This legislation worries me because I appreciate the problem and I appreciate the difficulty in drafting a bill that will say "spend it when it is right and do not spend it when it is wrong.'

Congress is not always so wise. We have passed legislation, and I voted for some things that have gone through Congress that I am not sure was wise, or as wise as many of us first thought.

I think you have brought a problem here; that is a serious one but this suggested legislation is pretty far-reaching.

Mr. HÉBERT. I am trying to bring the two ends of the pendulum to the center if I can.

Mr. BROWN. We would appreciate it much more if you brought us the answer, as well as the problem, and I am not convinced this is the

answer.

Chairman DAWSON. Mr. Michel.

Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Chairman, I would withhold my judgment until all the testimony is in, but I would certainly say at this time that I am in sympathy with what the gentleman from Louisiana wants to do by way of his legislation.

Just recently I had occasion to check with the Defense Department on several items that were in the appropriations bills that were passed by the Congress, Authorizing Expenditures and they were not outmoded items at all, but equipment that had the approval of General Gavin in Research and Development. Inasmuch as the equipment was produced in my particular district, I became curious as to why only $100,000 or $200,000 was allocated. I found out the funds were withheld by someone and to try to nail the individual down is awfully hard for a Member of Congress, and there is no question but that there is a problem here, and, as Mr. Brown indicates, we are probably supposed to find the solution somewhere.

I think it is a very real problem and one in which we ought to do something to try to resolve it.

Chairman DAWSON. Mr. Lipscomb.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. I appreciate your courtesy in giving me the opportunity to sit with the subcommittee. I am very interested in this subject, as you know, and came to listen. I think that, as stated by several other members, there is a real problem here and I hope that eventually Congress will find the answer as to how Government expenditures may be made in the most efficient way. If I can listen, I will appreciate it very much.

Chairman DAWSON. Mr. Porter, do you have any questions that you would like to ask at this point?

Mr. PORTER. No.

Chairman DAWSON. Mr. Roosevelt, do you have some questions you want to ask Mr. Hébert?

Mr. ROOSEVELT. No. I have some prepared testimony that I would like to present in answering some of the points that Mr. Brown raised.

Chairman DAWSON. You are the next witness. We will get around to you.

27693-58-3