тизмият ЛАЯННЯ ант иІ ТИМЕРЛИАМ ЈАЮИДИІЯ FIS Mr. MCCLELLAN. I do not think there is any doubt about it. It is too obvious. bleiv I MAKOM M wMraMdonty Lams wondering if it would not be a wise thing to wait and see what happens to the McClellan bippine ther House To Ilid alleloM edt tqobs of stov 19die lliw H eMrotonpon. Mr Presidents will the Senator from Arkan sastyield? sea of trembems aidt to goiterebianos nemom MAMOOLELLAN Iields atqobs savoH edt 11 290b savoH -MedCORDONO Leshould like to ask the Senator from Arkanto sas whether the matteroe have at hand came to the teomt mittee will say in the first place, that I was hot in the committee when the matter came up diz boost od lliw ew Ilid

Mr. MCCLELLAN. I do not think the chairman knew the request had been made moitoeido on ever I AM M -MMCKEAR It was less than 3 minutes before we adjourned that the letter came. bleiv asans

MIT CORDONIf the request comes to the Senate committee as the result of the passage of a resolution by the House M b Mrd McCREDLANION of not by the Housedt of Tist bas Tselo MA CORDO NOThat is the information I desired to get and! up to which I was leadingrojbs Isait edt litau tista ati mort FM MOCLELLANThat is what the Congressional Record reflectsredt to Istevee tedt eldiazoq etiup ar Igainers ent eMit Cokbavi The action taken on the House floor, as indid cated on page 8976 of the Record where Representative Smith of Virginia objected to further consideration of the resolution vrepresents the last action of the House on thisd question, does itnoetembпems retut on test eveiled of eno MriaMcCuaiLiThat is correctemoo bib rettem edt ned W Mr. CORDON An objection was interposed on the House by Representative Smith of Virginias because headesired the House toixonsider the companion bill to that of the Senator frome Arkansasnem redto ent to emo2 anoitzeup emoa beaist eMEL MCCLELLAN, That is corrector has already been obtained for the consideration of that bill, and it was sched" uledodd come up yesterday in the House seroH owt edt neewjed JMr.ROBERTSONd Mr President the Senator from Aard kansassyieldedto edt yd beroitasup ton ai ti savoН sluitisq Mit MCCLELLAN dyields trioq edt dti eros etiup I & MEL ROBERTSONI& Does the Senatorsfromb Arkansas reall that shortly before 11 clock last night the Senator froma Oregon (Mre Cordon to the Senator from Arkansas (Med McClellan grand the junior Senator from Virginia left the meeting of the Appropriations Committee on the assumptions that we had finished all the money items a foot I 197970H Mr MCCLELLAN That is correct IMM) 99229пп9т mort TMFERGUSON. this amendment remains in the bill, the McClellan bill will be offered as an amendment to the pend ingubilh oWshall try to pass it and take it to conference, soit it wilbbelpart of this bill of beriesb I 99ttimmos eft of noie Mr. McKELLAR.I shall be perfectly. Willing to accept itM oMr. HAYDEN Mr. President, will the Senator from Arkand sas yield to bemeste9 о пo jaso ed пso dл189 no noiteler поlaarqmi ont rebau ttel au to emo? .borit 28W 9поу197

Mr. MCCLELLAN. I yield.

Mr. HAYDEN. As I understand the matter which is now under debate on the floor of the House at this moment, the House will either vote to adopt the McClellan bill or it will not. My suggestion would be that we pass over, for the moment, consideration of this amendment, to see what the House does. If the House adopts by a yea-or-nay vote or any other method the bill, then, clearly, the situation will be different from what it was when we adopted the amendment in the committee. If the House refuses to pass the McClellan bill, we will be faced with another situation. My suggestion would be to pass over this amendment.

Mr. MCKELLAR. I have no objection to that at all.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from Arkansas yield?

Mr. MCCLELLAN. I yield to the Senator from California. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, so that the Record may be clear and fair to the chairman of the committee, I should like to make a brief statement, because I attended the meeting from its start until the final adjournment. It is true that Senators were in and out of the room during the course of the evening. It is quite possible that several of them may have left, and it may have been their impression that there was to be no other amendment.

I am quite sure, and can testify, that no statement was made by the chairman of the committee which would have led anyone to believe that no further amendments would be offered. When the matter did come to the attention of the committee, the chairman had the letter from Mr. Cannon read in full. It was discussed. The ranking Republican member of the committee was present and joined in the discussion, and raised some questions. Some of the other members joined in the discussion, and had some doubts. But finally I think the weight was given to the general theory that there is comity between the two Houses, and that normally, when one House has asked that something be included in a bill affecting that particular House, it is not questioned by the other House.

I quite agree with the point raised by the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Cordon) and some other Senators, that this is a slightly different situation, because instead of the provision having been put in the bill by action of the House, it came to us by way of a letter from the committee, rather than by action of the House.

However, I feel, in fairness to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee (Mr. McKellar), that I should personally testify that he certainly gave no impression that no further amendments would be offered. The matter was handled entirely in the above-board manner. It was subject to discussion to the committee. I desired to make that perfectly clear. Mr. MCCLELLAN. Mr. President, I join in every statement the distinguished Senator from California has uttered. No reflection on earth can be cast on our esteemed chairman. Everyone was tired. Some of us left under the impression

that the meeting was concluded. I know that when I left I
thought the meeting was adjourned. But as the chairman has
said, the matter was called to his attention 5 minutes before
adjournment. He himself did not know the letter was there.
I did not know it was there. No other member knew it was
there.

I take the position that the circumstances are most unusual.
It is doubtful, in my mind, that the rule of comity should
apply, as a matter of equity and right.

Mr. ROBERTSON. I wish to take exception to what the Sen-
ator from California has said. The Senator from Virginia
never has said that the chairman of the committee said there
were no further amendments to be offered. I never intended
to imply that the chairman had even intimated that to us.
All the Senator from Virginia wished to say, without any
reflection whatever upon our distinguished chairman, was
that three of us left under the impression that we had finished
all the money amendments, because there were no more writ-
ten out in the bill. That is what the Senator from Virginia
said.

Mr MOODY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MCCLELLAN. I yield.

Mr. Moody. I have been conferring with my colleague, the
senior Senator from Michigan, and I should like to join with
him in favoring the McClellan bill as a rider to the pending
bill, unless we follow the suggestion made by the junior Sen-
ator from Michigan, made a few minutes ago, and made also
by the senior Senator from Arizona; namely, that we hold the
matter up until we learn what the House does about it, be-
cause it seems to me there is clearly an effort to bypass the
McClellan bill. There was an overwhelming vote in the Sen-
ate in favor of the McClellan bill. I do not believe the Senate
should permit this sort of thing to occur. It seems to me that
the Senator from Arizona has made a very constructive sug-
gestion-that we lay the matter aside until the House has
had an opportunity to act.

Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be temporarily passed over until such time as we know definitely whether the House will vote for or against the McClellan bill.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the request that the amendment be temporarily laid aside. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. Both of these amendments were subsequently adopted by the Senate and sent to conference. In conference, the bill was further amended, upon the insistence of the House conferees, by striking out the provision creating a Joint Committee on the Budget and substituting a further amendment to provide each of the two Committees on Appropriations with a total of $250,000 annually for additional staff. The action did not in any way change existing law, since the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 authorizes both Appropriations Committees to employ as much personnel as is needed, without limitation as to

61157-61--15

number or cost, and each House has always accepted without question the committee staff proposed by the other House of Congress. Prior to the introduction of H.R. 7888, Representative Battle had introduced on January 15, 1952, H.R. 6029 containing identical provisions of S. 913 as reported by the Senate Committee on Government Operations. This bill was also referred to the House Committee on Rules which reported H.R. 7888.

Representative Colmer again introduced bills for a Joint Committee on the Budget in the 83d (H.R. 1710) and 85th Congresses (H.R. 2416) which were identical to H.R. 7888. These bills were referred to the House Committee on Rules where no further progress was made. As set forth in the report, legislation proposing the creation of a Joint Committee on the Budget, approved by the Senate in four Congresses, has been vigorously opposed by the House Committee on Appropriations. During discussion of the resolution to allow debate on H.R. 7888, Representative John Taber of New York, ranking minority member of the committee, stated that

*** it is one of the most reactionary and destructive bills I
have ever seen, and it would prevent the Committee on Appro-
priations from seeking and getting information because we
would have to go to a joint committee who would not have the
approach that the House Committee on Appropriations might
have * * *5

It was also contended that the joint committee would take away some of the time-tested rules or privileges of the House and destroy the power of the House of Representatives to initiate appropriation measures. On this subject Representative Henry J. Latham of New York had this to say when discussing H.R. 7888: 6

I would like to say first what I think this bill will not do. In my estimation this bill will not destroy in any respect the power of the House of Representatives to initiate appropriation measures. Nor will it whittle away any of the timetested rules or privileges of the House of Representatives. But, what will this bill do? I believe that this bill will give to the hardworking Committee on Appropriations and to the other Members of the House a complete set of legislative tools to perform better the increasingly difficult task of making the huge appropriations which we must make. I believe that this bill is one short step toward returning the purse strings of the United States to the Congress. I believe that this bill will parallel the work of the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue which has been working successfully for the last 25 years. This bill, if adopted, will parallel the action of the other body, which voted a companion measure which is in some respects different from this bill, by a vote of 55 to 8. The measure in that body had wide, bipartisan cosponsorship.

5 Congressional Record, July 3, 1952, p. 9223. Ibid., p. 9221.

PAST EFFORTS TO TIGHTEN FISCAL CONTROLS

The creation of a Joint Committee on the Budget would continue the many efforts of the Congress during the past 30 or 40 years to develop more adequate fiscal controls over Federal spending. Among the first of these was the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, which established the same kind of executive budget in the Federal Government as had been successfully developed in State and local governments. That statute reflected a fairly rapidly expanding pattern of Federal activities, for those days, which had been subjected to the heavy stresses and strains, financial and otherwise, during and after World War I.

Among the basic changes since the 1921 enactment of a national budget system was the transfer of an expanded Bureau of the Budget to the Executive Office of the President under the Reorganization Act of 1939. Subsequent years brought various fiscal problems, notably the recurring deficits in the Federal budget, particularly during the years of World War II. The Employment Act of 1946, with its accompanying creation of a new Council of Economic Advisers immediately under the President, started to weave studies of national economic development and trends into annual budget deliberations. The various fundamental aspects of the 1921 budget law were supplemented and modernized by the Budget and Accounting Procedures Act of 1950, which promote better coordination of Federal accounting and fiscal procedure.'

ADDITIONAL EFFORTS TO STRENGTHEN THE COMMITTEE ON THE

LEGISLATIVE BUDGET

As has been set forth in part II of this report, the vital need for a congressional counterpart of executive budgeting providing for better congressional analysis and consideration of the appropriations proposed in the annual executive budget was recognized by the Congress in enacting section 138 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. This section of the act made an unsuccessful effort to tighten congressional control of the purse strings. It created a joint committee, composed of the members of the four taxing and spending committees of the two Houses of Congress and directed that committee (a) to compare the estimated total receipts and the total expenditures proposed in the budget for the ensuing year, and (b) to recommend a ceiling on total expenditures to serve as a control on the total amount of appropriations, in line with what the Nation can afford to spend. Although every competent authority agrees that the purpose of this provision is eminently desirable, it proved unworkable in the 80th and succeeding Congresses. This failure was largely attributed to the cumbersome committee setup involved, and to the lack of necessary staff.8

In 1949 another attempt was made, without success, to revise the legislative budget committee on a smaller scale than that contemplated in section 138 when Senate Concurrent Resolution 38 was con

See pp. 6 and 79 for complete details regarding the provisions of the 1921 and 1950 acts, and app. A for full text, as amended. See p. 29 for further details.