Conte, Hon. Silvio O., a Representative in Congress from the State of Culver, Hon. John C., a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa Danielson, Hon. George E., a Representative in Congress from the State Eckhardt, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ervin, Hon. Sam J. Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of North Carolina__ Esch, Hon. Marvin L., a Representative in Congress from the State of Leggett, Hon. Robert L., a Representative in Congress from the State 179 Moakley, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State of 407 O'Hara, Hon. James G., a Representative in Congress from the State of 357 Pickle, Hon. J. J. (Jake), a Representative in Congress from the State of 87 Rhodes, Hon. John J., a Representative in Congress from the State of 122 Sarbanes. Hon. Paul S., a Representative in Congress from the State of 219 Whitten. Hon. Jamie L., a Representative in Congress from the State of Mississippi 297 PUBLIC WITNESSES Burt, Robert A., professor of law, University of Michigan.. Cooper, Poseph, professor of political science, Rice University. Maass, Arthur, Frank B. Thompson professor of government, Harvard Pollak, Louis H., professor of law, Yale University MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD GOVERNMENT WITNESSES Sneed, Hon. Joseph T., Deputy Attorney General, statement_. CONGRESSIONAL WITNESSES Page 359 426 408 380 253 Abzug, Hon. Bella S., a Representative in Congress from the State of New 499 Alexander, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the State of Arkansas, statement__ 493 Brotzman, Hon. Donald G., a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado, statement... 490 Evans, Hon. Frank E., a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado, letter to Chairman Madden__ 491 Ford, Hon. William D., a Representative in Congress from the State of 491 Harrington, Hon. Michael J., a Representative in Congress from the State of Massachusetts, statement_. 495 Hungate, Hon. William L., a Representative in Congress from the State of 489 IMPOUNDMENT REPORTING AND REVIEW MONDAY, MAY 7, 1973 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met at 2:15 p.m., pursuant to notice, in room H-313, the Capitol, Hon. Ray J. Madden (chairman of the committee), presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. Today we are resuming the impoundment hearings and we have Congressman Jones of Oklahoma. You may proceed, Congressman. STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES R. JONES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I realize your schedule is heavy and I will answer any questions after making a few brief opening remarks. I would say that based upon two things; my conversations with the people on the street, so to speak, back in my district, and with a number of legal scholars, both professors and practicing attorneys, I hope that this committee will act swiftly in reporting out a bill, and of course my choice would be the Mahon bill. I come from a district which President Nixon carried by over 100,000 votes and I was the first Democrat to be elected in 22 years from that particular congressional district. So it is not an antiadministration feeling in that district. I have talked to a number of people of both parties. They both look at this impoundment bill in the same light as I do. It is a very basic law and order question, the basic law of the land, the Constitution and who shall determine the spending and priority items, determining the priorities for the Federal Government. I think most of the people in my district, based upon my conversations with them and the responses to our television debate on the subject of impoundment, the feeling is that to do less than to statutorily set the limits as to what the executive and the legislative branches should do would be very detrimental to the future type of government we want to have. It may be that in my district 100 percent of President Nixon's impounding cuts are agreed to and are sympathized with. But what my district looks at is 3 and 4 years down the road when there is a new President, when we may have a different set of prior ities, and then they want their Congressman to have some power to be able to go back to Washington and have some influence in representing their viewpoints. They feel that if we don't pass legislation such as this impoundment bill that Congress will be reduced to second-class status without any power to represent the viewpoints of the districts. So I would urge swift approval. I would hope that the Mahon bill would be the one that would be reported out. I have talked to a number of scholars, as I say, on behalf of Speaker Albert who requested their opinions, and I think the majority of those that I talked to prefer the Mahon bill. I think it is important to build into the record that this legislation in no way gives the executive branch any constitutional license for impoundment, but this merely through statute sets limitations and some guidelines. So with those comments, Mr. Chairman, I would again request that this committee act as swiftly as possible, and I submit to any questions. The CHAIRMAN. We are very happy to hear those words from the Congressman. I might say that these hearings started several weeks ago, but on account of the pressure of the leadership wanting to get other legislation out before the Easter recess, we were unable to terminate the hearings or finish up the various witnesses that wanted to testify. We met about every day the week previous to the Easter recess. Of course, we were out a week during that recess. It is my desire and I think the desire of the committee to hear all the witnesses who want to testify and there will be several to submit statements. I have in my hand here requests from several distinguished scholars. One is from Prof. Robert A. Burt of the University of Michigan Law School. He has requested to come before the committee. Others are Prof. Louis H. Pollack of Yale University Law School, Prof. Arthur Maass of Harvard University and Prof. Joseph Cooper of Rice University in Texas. They have requested to be heard. I think the committee wants to hear them and eventually submit legislation to the House because there is a terrific demand that something be done on this impoundment question. I am glad to get the testimony that you just offered Mr. Jones. Mr. BOLLING. No questions. Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Jones, you realize in the previous hearings that a number of Members of Congress have testified that the Mahon bill will not work? Mr. JONES. I think there is some very legitimate disagreement. I think it has to be looked at in terms of what we can do, as far as what is possible. I would say the Mahon approach, from that standpoint, would be the best approach. Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Mahon, I believe, said his bill was a very narrow one. Others said, because it provides for a concurrent resolution which would not go to the President for approval, it would not be constitutional or indicated it might not be constitutional. I wondered if you realized that? |