Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1921-02-06
BY WILL p. KENNEDY.


threatened fight against reorganiza-
tion of the super-appropriations COM
mittee in the next Congress as an
integral part of the federal budget
system was noted in the House dur
ing the last two weeks. 1t is not.
however, as important as ii has
seemed. and will not seriously imper,l
the prospects tor early enactment Oh
the DuuSet bill. AS matter OF TACT.
the more reports OF attempts 10
Illustrate or monkey wrench the bud
get legislation get back to the people
throughout the states the stronger is
the backfire against such tactics
Attacks now being made on the
appropriations committee of thirty
hve could just as well have been
made on the appropriations commit
tees of former years. and their bills
riddled on points Of order in the
same way as Is now being done by
disgruntled members of legislative
committees that have been shorn of
their appropriating authority or by
individual members who have failed
to get something they sought. The
f1libustering in the House on the
appropriation bills has been based on
personal matters-opposing the gem
eral interests and welfare.
A large proportion of appropria-
tions for support of the government
are subject to points of order. and
always have been. The Department
of Agriculture, for example. is sup
ported almost entirely without sub
stantive legislatfon-that is, without
legislation creating the new agency
or office-the appropriations commit
tee usually just made the appropria-
ton for the desired work.
Mondell Makes Plea.
House Leader Mondell has pleaded
with his colleagues to show at least
the same consideration for the new
committee of thirty-five as the House
has always shown for the other COM
mittees.
This new committee-the SUPER
committee of thirty-f1ve started
with handicap, because 1t was as
sumed that the budget bill would
have become a law before the COM
mittee was called upon to take action
on the appropriations. In fact, it
was supposed that the first work of
the committee would be the consid-
Grafton of the Presidents budget.
This budget would have come to the
committee already revised by the
President and would have been much
less of burden to the committee
than the consideration Of the four
teen appropriation bills on the old
basis of estimates.
Then. too, under the budget plan it
was the expectation that the COM
mittee would be assisted at it's hear
ings by the expert from the budget
bureau in charge of framing the bud
get for each particular bureau or
activity. 1t was also contemplated
that the committee would be as
sisted by the expert from the con-
troller generals office. who would
have jurisdiction over the audit of
expenditures Of that particular APP
preparation.
With this new element brought into
the hearings the committee would
have been able to gain much fuller
and more accurate information rela-
tive to the estimates. Consequently,
the work of the committee Of thirty
five for this short session of Congress
cannot be taken as the normal work
of the committee. and it Is hardly
fair to PREJUDICE the case on the basis
of the present session.
Real Test ON First Budget.
The real test of the work Of the
committee will come when they have
reported out the first budget of the
President.
This reform was in the interests of
economy. 1t was a return to the
original practice of the House. The
grant of jurisdiction over appropria-
lions to several committees was
made in 1885. not with a view of
helping the financial procedure Of
the government, but was the result
of a political controversy between
the chairman of the appropriations
and other members of the
House. During tariff dispute Rep
resentative Randall, then chairman
of the appropriations committee,
tions unless the House passed a tariff
bill in which he was interested. The
was then made on the
floor of the House that this would
lead to financial disintegration, waste.
extravagance. duplication. etc.
The reason why pressure was not
brought to bear for a return to the
there was no revenue problem. Our
income exceeded our expenditure and
the people of the country were not
in theoretical financial re-
form.
1t was an entirely different story
when the House at the close OF the
war looked back upon a recent ex-
penditure of $32.000,0 100000. The de-
mand for centralized supervision of
and for unity of re-
from the country was
tremendously strong, and when the
action was finally taken by the House
to return to the one-committee sys-
tenn there was little or no opposition
from the members.
Complaints in Error.
Some members are complaining that
the Intention was to have the super
committee on appropriations appor-
ton out a maximum amount to each
Of the old specialized committees, but
they are in error. The theory of hav-
ing the appropriations committee ap-
portion lump sums to the various
legislative committees was consid-
cred by the budget committee and
rejected. It will be rememberd that
this was the plan of Swager Sherley.
former chairman of the appropria-
lions committee. but it met with very
strong opposition in the House.
The budget committee decided that
the best plan would be to take away
all Jurisdiction over appropriations
from the legislative committees and
center it entirely i'm the approprfa-
lions committee. This was the pian
of Representative John J. Fitzgerald,
formerly chairman of the appropria-
tions committee. who had aireaoy
introduced a resolution to TINS enec.,
as did also Senator Medill -McCormtck
of Illinois. while he was MEMBER
of the House. as part OF ms puaget
plan. This was the plan aoopteo Dy
the House.
A,ya no "a nl<in0 ma