I have been here with the President since Richard Nixon was President, and I can say that they all want to get Congress off their back. They all want to be able to do whatever they want to do without Congress providing any oversight; and that is okay in a different form of government, but ours is a constitutional form of government.

I think with the reprogramming provisions and the transfer authority that we have already provided on a regular basis; and the fact that we responded to September 11th with a $40 billion supplemental appropriation which provided no strings attached for the first $20 billion-and I am not sure that was even a good ideabut we did it because we wanted the President to be able to move quickly anywhere that he had to move, shows.

I believe, that flexibility is already there in our system, but I think we have got to maintain the constitutional perogative of the Congress being responsible for the appropriation of funds and learning and knowing about how those funds are used. That is what I read to you from the Constitution earlier.

Congress appropriates, and Congress will make sure that there is accountability for the money that has been spent. That is the way the system is supposed to work. It is what the Constitution intended, and that is what we are recommending here, that we stay within the Constitution.

Mr. OBEY. If I could just make the point, in all of the 33 years I have been here, no Congress has ever changed any President's budget by more than 2.5 percent. That 2.5 percent is the difference between a monarchy and a democracy, and as the chairman indicated, we have immense flexibility now through the processes; and those processes are individualized so that different agencies are treated in different ways depending upon the nature of control that must remain in legislative hands in order to prevent abuse and the needs of the agencies involved. That has been worked out over time.

But if you want an example of what will happen if we don't hang on to our constitutional responsibilities, look at that Transportation Security Administration. Five months after they were created, they still had not sent a budget down to the Congress. When they did send one down, it was so outlandishly ridiculous, that it became the laughing stock of the country. We can't afford that.

Chairman ARMEY. I thank the gentleman for his cogent observation and thank the gentleman from Ohio, recognizing the gentlelady from Connecticut.

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let me just use a word of my kids. When I listen to your testimony, it is awesome; and I will just say to you, thank you both for being skilled and knowledgeable legislators. You do us all proud here today as Members of this great institution.

Let me Ranking Member Obey, let me ask you a question. The issue of cost, that was raised in the letter that you coauthored with Representative Waxman, and have you seen any evidence to support the administration's contention that the cost of the new department, including its administration and the new entities that it creates, can be funded from savings achieved by, and I quote, "eliminating redundancies in the current structure"?

Mr. OBEY. I have seen absolutely no evidence. In fact, to the contrary, people in this town who are the most skilled at making those evaluations have said just the opposite, including CBO.

Look it, you have got 170,000 employees. Nobody can convince me they are all going to stay in the same buildings that they are located in now. Nobody can convince me you are not going to have new office buildings built as a result of this agency. Nobody can convince me that it isn't going to cost a lot of money to put in a whole new phone system, a whole new computer system, to move people; and I think it is pretty obvious that one of the reasons this added flexibility is being requested is simply so that the agencies can use program money to pay for those costs that are not being admitted up front.

That is a classic OMB action; I don't care what administration you are talking about. And, to me, that means that you run the risk of having fewer port inspections, less border protection, less aggressive action in getting illegal entrance under control and out of the country.

In the military, it is called "tooth to tail," the ratio of tooth to tail. How much do you have to spend on the tail in order to provide a set of teeth up front? And there are obviously, in this kind of arrangement, going to be tremendous administrative costs. We will damage a lot of the substantive activities of these agencies if we don't admit up front what the administrative costs are going to be; and the best way to keep those costs down is to admit what they are up front and appropriate what is necessary and make judgments about whether there are unnecessary activities that should. be curtailed or not.

But no administrator in the history of this country has ever had the kind of authority that is being requested in this legislation to disregard existing law, spend money for purposes not provided by law. Never done it. No reason to do it now.

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Chairman, do you share that view, Mr. Obey's view of the.

Mr. Young. The question is, do I share that view?
MS. DELAURO. Yes.

Mr. Young. Yes, I do. And if I might.

Mr. Young. say one thing that neither one of us has mentioned regarding flexibility-the Economy Act provides great flexibility. I would recommend that you have your staff review the Economy Act and advise all of you on just how much flexibility there is for executive branch agencies under the Economy Act to get reimbursements for activities that they believe need to be done in an emergency situation.

We could go into a lot of detail about it today, but I think your staff could provide you with a review what the Economy Act provides for executive branch agencies.

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you.

Let me just ask, Mr. Chairman-Mr. Obey, in his comments, talked about his thoughts on the issue of CDC and NIH and moving out of the funding. I mean, there has been a tradition on the Labor-HHS subcommittee. We don't dictate to the NIH where they should spend the funds that are given to them. I think that that has been a very good practice, and both sides of the aisle have

agreed that scientists know where these funds ought to be spent better than politicians.

What is your sense- -as I say, I have heard from Mr. Obey on this issue about the proposal to allow the DHS Secretary to set priorities that affect NIH research?

Mr. OBEY. Me or-.

Ms. DELAURO. I will ask Chairman Young first, and then I will ask Mr. Obey to comment.

Mr. Young. I didn't hear part of your question.

Ms. DELAURO. The point of the question is, how do you feel about the Secretary of the new department being able to set priorities that would affect the NIH research, given what we have prided ourselves on in the Appropriations Committee on Labor-HHS of not taking on the role of the scientists?

Mr. Young. Well, let me say this. We have colleagues who believe that we should micromanage everything that every agency does, including the Department of Defense and NIH. We resist that. We resist that in our-and you are a member of our committee and you know that we do resist the attempts to micromanage. And so I believe that the Secretary of Homeland Security, if that is the title that that person is given, should be dealing with homeland security and should not be disrupting existing agencies that are going about the normal business of the Nation.

But I would also suggest that the Secretary of Homeland Security should certainly be able to call on any of the agencies, whether they are within the jurisdiction of the new agency or not, for aid and assistance in providing security for the homeland.

It is very much like the Central Command, for example, that is managing the war in Afghanistan. Central Command does not have a huge military organization under the command of Central Command, but they have the ability to reach out to other military organizations of all of the services for what they need as they go about their function.

And so I would think that the ability to reach out and get the assistance certainly should be there for the Secretary of Homeland Security, but it should not be disruptive of the existing ongoing activities of those agencies.

Mr. OBEY. Why should we take the institution that has more credibility than virtually any other in government and screw it up? Ms. DELAURO. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman ARMEY. Gentlemen, the Chair reserves the final 5 minutes for himself. I am going to use my time to give you a few reassurances, and then I will save the remainder of my time for you, each of you, to make any final statement you would like to make before the committee.

I would like to thank you for your excellent testimony. It is as I expected. But let me say, Mr. Young, I think you will see that this committee does understand, has a deep respect for our constitutional separation of powers. We are acutely aware of how important that is and how important, it be preserved.

You will also see, I think, Mr. Obey, that this committee has not just saluted the first iteration that has come along. Indeed, the next two iterations of Homeland Security that you all see will be

the chairman's mark, which will be completed sometime, I would guess, in the wee hours of tomorrow morning; and you will see, I think clearly, there that the chairman's mark reflects the respectful consideration of that which has been brought to us by all our committees of jurisdiction, as well as that which was initially introduced by the President.

The next iteration you will see of the Homeland Security Act, following that, will be the report of this committee, and I dare say, judging by the people on this committee, you may see some difference between that and the chairman's mark as well, because there is a process that I think is deeply thoughtful and committed, and yet one where there will be divergent points of view that will be, I think, in the final analysis, worked out through the process of voting in this committee. So please take confidence in that as you watch the next few days.

Finally, on the particular jurisdictional concern of your committee, the whole question of transfer authority flexibility, it is the Chair's understanding and hope that there are still ongoing discussions between your committee and the White House. If those are not going well, let the Chair offer whatever resources we have at the disposal of this committee to facilitate further discussion.

It would be most advantageous, I think, to all concerned if indeed this very important committee of jurisdiction and the White House could come to some agreement that could be seen as satisfactory with respect to the need for flexibility on the part of the White House and the clear and certain commitment that your committee has to its constitutional mandates. And we would like to see that worked out and facilitate that, if at all possible.

If not, then I am afraid both the White House and your committee will have to find a way hopefully to accept the communal judgment of this committee as we try to find out. It is far better that you work it out to your satisfaction first. We would like to help with that.

With those observations, let me just then concede the remainder of my 5 minutes to the two gentlemen from the Appropriations Committee for your final observations before this committee. And I thank you again. Mr. Young.

Mr. Young. Well, Mr. Chairman, first, thank you for again letting us be here to give you our thoughts on some of these important issues. And I want to emphasize what you just said, Mr. Chairman. It is important that the Congress and the President of the United States work together, and the Members of both political parties need to work together.

On September 11th, the Pentagon had Republicans and Democrats who lost their lives. On September 11th, nearly 3,000 people died in the World Trade Center. I would bet that there were both Republicans and Democrats in the World Trade Center, and I know some of them, because I lost some friends on that day.

The people of America do not want to live in fear of terrorism, and they insist that we, the Congress, and the administration, work together to protect the people of this great country in our homes, in our places of business where we work, where we pray, and where we have recreation. I think that is essential, and I know that that is exactly what your committee is going to do; and our

committee is going to do the same thing to work together with you and the President to do what is right for the people of America. Chairman ARMEY. Thank you. Mr. Obey.

Mr. OBEY. Well, Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank you and the committee for the opportunity to testify here today, and I would simply have one observation.

We can all have legitimate arguments about structure, and some of those can be very important, and some of them can be minor; and we all have to make judgments about that. The one thing that is not minor and the one thing that in my view should not be compromisable is the willingness of this institution to maintain the power of the purse against the desires that are routinely expressed by every administration we have ever had in this country.

There has never been a President, there has never been an OMB Director who hasn't wanted to use whatever incidents of the moment that they could find in order to get out from under the nuisance aspects of democracy. But Congress is maintaining the integrity of the power of the purse so that we can assure that taxpayers' dollars are never spent for any purpose other than that for which they were appropriated. That is a core value that we cannot compromise away.

Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, if I could just take 30 more seconds. I will tell you that in a lot of our conversations, when we are talking about responsibilities and authorities and the Constitution, we are not talking about the Appropriations Committee or only those of us who are appropriators. We are talking about the Congress of the United States.

The Constitution doesn't say a darn thing about the Appropriations Committee, but it does say a lot about the Congress, and that is what we are trying to do-to represent the prerogatives and the responsibilities of the United States Congress.

Chairman ARMEY. Thank you. I thank you again, gentlemen, and the witnesses are excused.

The committee is now very excited and anxious to hear from the Armed Services Committee. I see that Ranking Member Skelton is here.

Mr. Skelton-the Chair may introduce Ike Skelton. One of the wonderful pleasures we have in Congress is always introducing one another to people who already know one another, but we all do know Ike Skelton, that you are an acceptable spokesman for this committee to Republicans and Democrats alike. The collegial relationship and mutual dedication to the Nation's defense that you share with the chairman is clearly recognized throughout the House, and I believe I daresay, on behalf of the Armed Services Committee and this committee that in the absence of Chairman Stump, that Ike Skelton, as ranking member, can speak for the entire committee; and we should receive your testimony without doubt or reservations.

So, Mr. Skelton, it is my pleasure to welcome you before the committee. Our procedure is to give you, and we would hope for, a 5minute opening statement. Also we would encourage you that your recorded statement will be entered in the record, your formal statement; proceed to the 5-minute rule, where we will anticipate the