this year as last year, had budgeted local matching funds as required by law and had made plans to use the total of $2.6 million for the purchase of science laboratory equipment, reading machines and programs and modern audiovisual equipment. By denying these funds, the budget office is causing the reduction or elimination of some of the most effective instructional programs being offered in the basic learning areas. Programs that were underway last year are being dropped or seriously curtailed because the systems cannot take them over with their limited resources. And certainly new programs that had been planned to meet the constantly changing needs of the school population will not be started. In addition, as best we can tell, Georgia school systems have not received the estimated $6.6 million that was to have been allocated under the federal Impact Aid program, P.L. 81-874. As you know, this money is intended to relieve the hardships caused by the location of federal installations in certain areas. The funds are granted directly to the systems; therefore we are unable to determine exactly the extent of the impoundment. However, we do know that last year 83 of Georgia's 188 school systems received funds under this act. In FY 72 they shared $11.8 million, and logically, if the terms of your Continuing Resolution apply, they should receive the same amount this year. The $6.6 million figure is an estimate based on the President's budget.

In gathering information for this presentation today, we talked with some of the school systems in the state most likely to be significantly affected. We found these specific instances in which programs would have to be drastically reduced and, in addition, an extra burden would be placed on the local agency to raise taxes in some cases.

In Columbia County, for example, military personnel at Ft. Gordon send 1700 students to the local schools. This amounts to 26 percent of the system enrollment. For the education of these children and to reimburse the school system for tax revenues lost because of the construction of the Clark Hill Dam, the system last year received $255,000 in impact aid; this year they have received nothing. If the funds are not restored the county school system will be required to levy an additional five mills on property or seriously curtail the educational program. The system faces the loss of teachers, particularly lead reading teachers, and probably a reduction in the Right To Read program.

A similar situation exists in Dougherty County, where the Naval Air Station causes an influx of children into the school system. The system has been receiving approximately $450,000 in impact funds, the loss of which would cause an increase in local taxes or the alternative of reduction in personnel in the highly successful Instructional Materials Center; reductions in transportation services and curtailments of instructional programs in reading; remedial mathematics; elementary physical education, art and music; and driver training and drug abuse education for high school students.

Public school enrollment in Liberty County is 3,619 this year, with 1,086 of the children coming from families of military personnel. The system received $297,000 in impact aid last year, an amount which made up 23 percent of the local budget for education. To replace these funds, if they are lost permanently, the system will be forced to levy nine mills more than it is already taxing. Or it must reduce library and transportation services, cut back on instructional materials and teachers' aides and eliminate a salary supplement now being paid to teachers.

One of Georgia's more populous urban counties is Muscogee, the location of Ft. Benning. The school system has been receiving $1.3 million in impact funds amounting to six percent of the total budget. To replace the lost funds would require a three mill tax increase, but this is impossible because the county is now levying 19.5 mills and the legal limit in Georgia is 20 mills. So, according to local officials, educational programs would be affected systemwide by the drastic curtailments that would be necessary if funds are not forthcoming.

The situation in Chatham County is just as serious. The system has been receiving $308,000, which amounts to one and one-half percent of the budget. This county is already taxing at the legal limit of 20 mills, so loss of impact funds will mean a reduction in the number of teachers, a higher pupil-teacher ratio, cutbacks in instructional materials and delays in building repairs. Exceptional children will be deprived of special programs, the program for children with Specific Learning Disabilities will be eliminated, and vocational education offerings will be reduced.

As we talked with school officials in these five systems we found that the problems are much greater than the mere loss of federal dollars. The situation is compounded by the fact that these and 78 other school systems, in anticipation of receiving impact funds as usual this year, had committed themselves and their boards of education by including the funds in the general education budget and contracting with personnel to fill positions. The systems must pay for the services for which they have already contracted and cut corners in other programs to make up the differences. So when I indicate certain programs will be eliminated if the funds are not restored, it may seem that no effect is being felt now. The problems do exist today, and they will be worse next year as the full force of these cutbacks is felt.

There is another program that has been affected by the impoundment of funds, and that is the business of Indian education. Although Georgia is not directly involved in this program, I know that major problems have occurred in many states-including North Carolina, Mr. Chairman-because of the loss of these funds.

The foregoing statements recount some of the ways in which the Executive impoundment of education funds is hampering the states in their efforts to carry out your clearly stated intention that public school programs be continued in 1973 at least at the same rate as they were conducted in FY 72.

This action by the President and the Office of Management and Budget, so obviously contrary to what you, the Congress, intended in the Continuing Resolution, raises a serious question as to whether the Executive or the Congress has the best interests of the people at heart. I know the President has said that "the Congress represents special interests," and that he "represents the nation's general interest." I suggest that the President's impoundment of these particular funds is testimony that the opposite is true.

It is awesome to contemplate the power inherent in the Executive's refusal to spend lawfully appropriated funds that are so desperately needed and so clearly mandated by the Congress. By such action the Executive may, at his discretion and without accounting to anyone, retaliate against his opponents, reward his supporters, establish his own priorities and repudiate the power of Congress. The Constitutional issues involved in this question have been thoroughly presented to this subcommittee by many well-qualified persons, and I would not presume to suggest that I could add to the impressive testimony on this matter. I will, however, comment briefly on the bill you are considering and offer some suggestions along that line.

I understand that the Chairman's bill, Senate Bill 373, would require the President, within ten days after the impoundment of any appropriated funds. to notify the Congress of his action and to release the impounded funds after sixty days unless the impoundment is approved by the Congress during the interim.

This Bill is certainly a step in the right direction. It would relieve the present crisis in which we find ourselves. But if you will, consider the possibility of this alternative. Instead of allowing the impoundment of funds before notification of Congress, would it not give you more authority to require that the Executive notify you prior to impoundment so that hearings could be held on the potential effect of the proposed impoundment? Such a procedure would eliminate the kind of hostile confrontation between the Congress and the Executive we are now experiencing.

There is another proposal for your consideration that would greatly increase your knowledge and power over the establishment of priorities and the allocation of funds.

Current provisions of the Budget and Accounting Procedure Act require that the Office of Management and Budget notify the agency of monies granted within a very specific time frame after funds are appropriated. In order that Congress be kept equally informed of the current status of its appropriated funds, I suggest that the Budget and Accounting Procedure Act be amended to provide for the notification of Congress at the same time, or certainly soon after, the notice of available funds is sent to the federal agency. Such a procedure would at least make it possible for you to determine whether or not funds had been impounded by comparing your appropriation against the notification of availability.

The practice of Executive impoundment of funds is by no means unusual, but it has reached new and astounding proportions in recent months. The issue can be construed as a showdown over who is to determine how much funding programs are to receive. At the very least it is an obstacle to effective planning for and administration of federal funds for public elementary and secondary education. It is also a very large part of a bigger problem that can be solved only by the complete overhaul of the federal budgetary process.

The states and the local school systems need your help. We need immediate relief for the current tenuous situation created by the uncertain availability of funds and conflicting federal priorities. We also earnestly seek your support for a more reasonable, less capricious approach to the whole business of planning and carrying out federal education programs.

Federal aid to education has been a significant factor in raising the overall level of public education in Georgia and in other states. We would like to see the momentum continue, not have it completely scuttled. I believe that public education is among the most effective, rewarding uses of federal, local or state tax dollars. Certainly we cannot allow military hardware to take priority over the needs of individual human beings; surely we have not come down to a choice between guns and books.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this distinguished committee. I will try to answer any questions you may have.

Senator CHILES. We will now recess our hearings until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m. the joint hearing was adjourned to reconvene on Wednesday, February 7, 1973, at 10 a.m.)

IMPOUNDMENT OF APPROPRIATED FUNDS BY THE

PRESIDENT

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1973

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEPARATION OF POWERS, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, AND THE AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMPOUNDMENT OF FUNDS, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:10 a.m., in room 3302, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Lawton Chiles presiding.

Present: Senators Chiles, Ervin, Metcalf, Muskie, Percy, and Javits. Also present: Robert B. Smith, Jr., chief counsel and staff director, Committee on Government Operations; Rufus L. Edmisten, chief counsel and staff director; Prof. Arthur S. Miller, staff consultant; and George Patten, legislative assistant to Senator Chiles, chairman of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Impoundment of Funds.

Senator CHILES. We will convene the hearing.

Senator Ervin.

Senator ERVIN. Mr. Chairman, the first witness that I understand we will have today is my long-time friend, Brooks Hays.

In my book Brooks Hays is one of the finest Americans I have ever known. I had the privilege of becoming well-acquainted with him during the brief time I served in the House of Representatives in 1946. I have had many contacts with him and have watched his career ever since then. He has been a great public servant. He is a man who has engaged in many civic activities and, among other things, he has the distinction-I do not think I know of any other person who ever served in Congress who has held the honor of being elected president of the Southern Baptist Convention, and that office is the nearest thing to the papacy that the Baptists have. So I used to refer to him in those days as the Baptist "Pope."

It is a great pleasure to have the Baptist "Pope," or ex-Baptist "Pope," to appear before the committee today.

Senator CHILES. Mr. Hays, we are delighted to have you before the committee.

STATEMENT OF BROOKS HAYS, CONSULTANT, WAKE FOREST

UNIVERSITY

Mr. HAYS. Thank you, Senator and Mr. Chairman. You embarrass me, particularly as to my Baptist papacy. I am reminded as to what one of my fellow Congressmen said when he had an audience, along with some other colleagues of mine, with Pope Pius XII. When he

came out of the Vatican, the newsmen gathered around and asked this Congressman, "What is your impression of the Pope?"

The Congressman said, "Well, he seems to be a very religious man. I do not come as a religious person, though I certainly was proud of the Baptist office. But I am proud of the Presbyterians, too, if you will allow me to say it without patronizing.

When I tried to brag on the form of government one time as a student

Senator ERVIN. You just remember you are predestined to do that. Mr. HAYS. That sort of strained my Baptist theology. He said, "Dad, you do not do it very well when you brag on my church." He said, "You sound like the owner of a Ford speaking to the owner of a Cadillac." He said, "You have a good car, too."

But what I would like to say, it seems to me, and I do exercise my thinking along this line.

You know, Thomas Jefferson believed, as few men did in his time, in complete separation of church and state, and yet I think it is a valid observation that in some of the feelings of those days, there is some. trace of Presbyterian in his philosophy, and since he was not a Presbyterian, it excited some research student to find a reason for it. He found that, in fact, that Jefferson sat at the feet of George Wythe at William and Mary College, and he came up with a beautiful statement about it, which I have an idea you can anticipate, since you have an idea of what that anticipation means.

He meant that since Jefferson was not a man whom the Lord did not predestine by birth and ancestors, he did so by Presbyterian instructors. There is some relevance then, in the very appropriate reference you have made in a man's interest in state relations, and on constitutional doctrines in this manner.

There is certainly no difference between Presbyterians and Baptists. Mr. Chairman, if you do not mind, I am going to read this. I am not as modest as Senator Barkley, and being your constituent I can get by with almost anything, but remember Senator Barkley? He wanted the speeches read, and the next morning he wanted the impression of the public. Once he asked me, "How did I do in this little town?" I said, "Well, I have three things to say about it:

"First, you read it; second, you do not read very well; third, what you read was not worth reading."

Mr. Chairman, what I have to say I really believe is worth reading, so if you will bear with me--I know you are pressed for time, but I have given some thought to this.

As one who has served in all three departments of the Governmentexecutive, legislative, and judicial-I am tremendously interested in the broad sweep of the timely studies this subcommittee is making. I believe these hearings will be highly significant in the continuing and unfinished effort to improve the mechanisms of the Federal system.

Since 16 years of my public service were in the Congress, I confess, to a certain bias in favor of the legislative branch. However, my 7 years in the Department of Agriculture prior to my election to the House of Representatives, my 2 years as a director of the Tennessee Valley Authority, almost 1 year as Assistant Secretary of State, and 2 years as special assistant to the President of the United States, give