We tried to foresee what you said on page 11 of our bill. We do recognize that we are not reaching some areas, but we do leave it open so we can include them under the controls as appropriate.

Subsection four provides as follows pertaining to the terms that can be covered in the concurrent resolution:

(4) such other matters relating to the budget as may be appropriate to carry out the purposes of the Act.

So we have left leeway there to reach out and include other expenditure areas as appropriate. I agree with you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Anderson?

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I certainly congratulate each of the gentlemen for the contribution they have made this morning and the work they have done in connection with this legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. Pardon me. I might say we will continue on until the quorum call and we will come back at 2 o'clock.

Mr. ANDERSON. I think, Mr. Schneebeli, you mentioned in your testimony a speech that Dr. Burns gave before a group at George Washington University.

I am familiar with that speech and in it he sugggested that perhaps program evaluation was one element of the whole budgetary process that was not really being considered on the Hill as it should be.

In the legislation that I have prepared, I have made a specific recommendation that at least one-third of this staff which is referred to in your bill be devoted to program evaluation. Would any of you take any violent exception to that particular guideline?

It seems to me that program evaluation is just an absolutely essential part of the budgetary process and, of course, is what goes on in depth today in the OMB in their preparation of the Presidential budget.

Mr. ULLMAN. It is my feeling just as one of the sponsors that in fact a third of the effort should be in that area. But I always believe that these kinds of things ought to be handled in a report and not in the legislation. I think there should be some leeway.

But certainly program evaluation, the establishment of priorities, especially the people should be

Mr. WHITTEN. Could I answer on this? In this proposal I am sure everybody involved was trying to do it, but I know I speak for myself when I say I was trying to personally limit myself to the possibility. Unless we get this passed and enacted into law, we have just had an exercise in hard study and some facts to be released. I think it would depend on how we define program evaluation.

There are a lot of things that are not in this bill that with time could be included in an explanation of the operation.

But at the outset if we try to set up a committee that passes judgment upon the soundness of a new proposal by a committee, we just are taking on a little extra something that I doubt that we can carry at this time.

When we gain experience we will learn to modify the plan. But I do think that when we get into the perfect situation we couldn't pass the time of day. If we can get a start on a sound basis we hope we can grow into the things that the gentleman suggests.

Mr. RHODES. I agree with the gentleman's point. I certainly don't see how it is possible to set priorities without a staff which is devoted to study of appropriation evaluation. I think this is part of the setting of priorities and certainly would be taken care of.

I agree with the gentleman from Oregon, I would hope that the legislation would decimate or vulcanize the staff to the point of saying one-third does this and something else does that. But certainly in the report that would be a very welcome addition as far as I am concerned. Mr. SCHNEEBELI. I think the priorities which would come from the budget committee would be general in nature. But the specifics would rest with the subcommittee.

I also might say, Mr. Chairman, if I may, that a lot of work has been put into this report and the specific recommendations. Our staff has done an excellent job.

I would suggest that as your staff proceeds in its study, it might consult with our staff who have been over this ground before. I think they can give you excellent background and the reasons why certain specific conclusions were reached.

I think it can be a well coordinated activity in which we can give you the benefit of our experience on a continuing basis.

I would like to make that suggestion.

Mr. ANDERSON. Before my time is up, Mr. Chairman, I have consistently felt that, despite the hackles that have been raised on the backs of congressional necks over the impoundment crisis, that, in effect, this crisis has been the cutting edge that has stimulated the movement for budget reform; the plight of the dollar and all of these other things have contributed, but I think this is the immediate thing. I wonder if any of you would disagree with me in my further belief that we ought to couple any impoundment legislation with budgetary reform legislation, that we don't want to give up that tool at this time by proceeding with that and then I think seeing some attrition in the interest that now exists in getting real budget reform legislation through the Congress this year.

Mr. WHITTEN. I personally wouldn't see the necessity to tie the two together. I would agree that the impoundment situation has helped the cutting edge that might have brought this to the surface. I think the continuing inflation is what gained the public support for this.

It might not have initiated it. But I think it is what has given it the public support we have.

On the impoundment, I speak as an individual. I have always said the President didn't have the moral right to impound, but he certainly has the power. I don't think any statute we pass, since he is equal to us, can effectively control his actions in this regard.

It will certainly influence the public. It might have the effect of causing a change in attitude by any executive. But that is an individual opinion.

Mr. RHODES. I would certainly hope that this bill would be passed first and then I would imagine that if it were in effect a year or so, you wouldn't have to worry about anti-impoundment legislation.

Mr. ULLMAN. Might I say, Mr. Chairman, that the one most important thing, though, that we should recognize, is that while impoundment legislation would in no way replace the need for this, they are closely associated.

This might very well relieve the need for impoundment. But impoundment, if it proceeds further, and it probably will, would in no way-and as I indicated before, I think we need to move in the impoundment area because I think there has been infringement-but it would in no way replace the need for congressional budgeting. Mr. YOUNG. If the gentleman would yield?

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes.

Mr. YOUNG. I certainly want to endorse what the gentleman from Illinois said on impoundment legislation. I think this is the essence of the whole thing which brought the need here over the long run, the manner in which the Bureau of the Budget arrives at priorities.

Had they shown any cooperation with the Congress in arriving at priorities, they wouldn't be nearer the need for this legislation that we have.

But I challenge you to try to find out how the Bureau of the Budget arrives at their priorities. They not only won't cooperate, but they hold it in absolute secrecy.

I have never attended a meeting of the Democratic leadership on this subject that those two questions were not brought up: the question of impoundment and the question of fiscal responsibility.

There is no question in my mind that they are just as closely related as they can possibly be. If you are going to have one you ought to have the other with it.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sisk?

Mr. SISK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There are many questions we could ask, which we certainly don't have the time for this morning. I appreciate the comments you gentlemen made. I think all of us are concerned and hopeful that we will be able to pass a bill of some kind that will be of help.

Let me discuss one actually small aspect of what you proposed. I note you discussed at length the idea of a joint staff. I notice in the report you refer to a legislative budget director.

Did Allen Post happen to appear? Was he a witness before your committee?

Mr. ULLMAN. No. But Tom Rees testified on the California system. It entered rather strongly into our consideration of the establishment of this independent, high level, joint staff with a top level budget analyst.

California has certainly an excellent example of that kind of thing. Mr. SISK. I would like to point out that just because I am from Canfornia does not mean that we have all of the answers to the questions in a divine system. But I do know for a fact that because of the nonpartisan nature of the way they have this legislative analyst, that they have done an outstanding job in giving to the legislative branch information and the opportunity to match expenditures vis-a-vis revenues to a much greater extent; in fact, far superior than what we are doing.

I was curious to know as you discussed some of this joint staff, as I say you refer in here to a legislative budget director, whether or not in fact there would be any comparison or likeness though not neces

22-871-73-6

sarily identical, but something similar to that kind of setup where we could actually have a bipartisan, more or less independent budget director who could furnish us the information.

I don't care how intelligent the Members of the Congress may be and how much time you may spend, unless we have the input of the information, the hard facts from people who are trustworthy, on a bipartisan basis, you aren't going to be able to do the things that are necessary. Isn't that a fact?

Mr. ULLMAN. You are absolutely right. In our report we deal rather extensively with and we refer to the California system because it happens to be one of the better systems in the country.

States have obligations to balance their budget. So they have to be responsible. The Federal Government has never had that obligation. But California has done an outstanding job. The staff has to be high level. It has to be bipartisan. It has to be professional, highly skilled, in-depth staffing and it has to have a budget director that stands, rides tall above politics.

California, I think, has done that. The budget analyst survived both Democratic Governors and Reagan, and has been able to responsibly meet the budget problem under all administrations.

Mr. WHITTEN. That is covered on page 39 of the bill, not only the thought came from California, but our suggestions were patterned strictly on the success of the California experiment.

Mr. SISK. I appreciate very much your comments there.

In the 1970 Reorganization Act, as you know, one of the things that our committee dealt on more substantially I suppose than almost anything else was the creation, the upgrading, beefing up, and so on, of what we now refer to as the Legislative Records Service or Legislative Research Service, Congressional Research Service.

It seems to me that that is still not being utilized by committees of the Congress and particularly-this is not being critical of the Appropriations, Ways and Means or any other committee, some committees are making great use of that-there is no question that if, in fact, we did make the resources available through that service that to a large extent the backup people for this kind of a budget committee under some supervision from, say, a legislative budget director, a man somewhat in the position as like in California would be of great help.

Mr. WHITTEN. May I respond? To bring it back home, a lawyer who sets out to write everything original instead of using that which is true and tested and tried is wasting his time. We assume this staff would fully utilize the GAO, the President's budget, the Library of Congress and legislative committee staffs.

It is contemplated they would bring together the available information and start with that. That is what we contemplate, not something separate and apart and proud of its independence, but something that coordinates and brings together all of these resources.

The CHAIRMAN. This is a quorum call. The electronic system is working, the counsel says.

We will be back at 2 o'clock sharp.

[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m., the same day.]

AFTER RECESS

[The committee reconvened at 2 p.m., Hon. Ray J. Madden, chairman of the committee, presiding.]

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

Congressman Ullman and the other witnesses, please take your places. Congressman Quillen?

Mr. QUILLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I want to congratulate each and every member of the committee, especially those who brought this bill before us. I have one or two quick questions. Is the administration in favor of this bill?

Mr. SCHNEEBELI. As far as I know, they are very enthusiastic about it. They are certainly in favor of the principle. I don't know about all of the details. They are in favor of the general thrust of this legislation. They have been exercising this control more or less on their own and they would like us to take some of the fire.

Mr. QUILLEN. Will this take part of the responsibility in the operation of the Office of Management and Budget and place it in this new committee or will they work together?

Mr. ULLMAN. I think here we are not attempting in this bill to curb OMB. It is my feeling personally that the President should have an OMB to put together his budget, and that we have our own budget operation to put together our budget, but that our joint staff coordinate with the OMB and, I think, we can accomplish this and get the necessary input that we would have to have.

We certainly don't want to duplicate their efforts. They start way down there in the grassroots. Personally, I don't believe that their method of building a budget is sound. They start by getting the recommendations way down there where everybody wants to enlarge a little bit and build up and build up. When they finally get it to the top, they say that is too much, and they start chopping it off willy-nilly.

I don't think it is a responsible mechanism. I would expect the budget staff and committee to coordinate closely with OMB on input. I would expect it would be a computerized operation, that we would be able in managing our computers to feed in the right kind of information on the basis of OMB information, so that we could get the right answers at this end to the questions we want to ask.

Mr. WHITTEN. To add to that, insofar as this proposed bill is concerned it wouldn't touch that in the least. We make no effort to repeal it. We make no effort to strengthen it. It would be the President's Office of Management and Budget under existing law.

In this, we would attempt to eliminate the reliance we now have to impose on it. We would have our own budget staff to supplement the assistance we now get from the OMB.

This bill doesn't repeal a section, nor add a section to existing law dealing with the OMB.

Mr. QUILLEN. But this would give the Congress an opportunity through this committee to set our priorities.

Mr. ULLMAN. That is right, and to formulate a whole congressional set of priorities which could differ materially from the OMB priorities.