Evening star., 1952-04-20

aimed at locking the barn door be-
fore the horse is stolen.
Originally, Senator Mcclellan
wanted congressional Investigators
to go directly into the agencies and
examine work sheets while the
budget was in process of compila-
tion. He later withdrew that provi-
sion OF the bill. The agencies own
figures really don't mean a great
DEAL" he explained. 1T is the
Presidents budget that counts"
A Bulky Committee
A step toward the running audit
idea was taken by the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1916. But
that laws provisions were not put
into effect. One difficulty with the
earlier law, as pointed out by Sem
ator Mcclellan. was that it would
have created huge, unwieldy COM
mittee of 102 ENTHUSIASTICALLY 20
per cent of the membership of Con-
gresS.
The proposed joint committee on
the budget, however, would have
only 18 members-five from each
houses Appropriations Committee.
four from the Senate Government
Operations Committee and four
from the House Committee on Ex-
penditures in the executive depart
mentS. A permanent staff of as
many as so professionals would as
sist the group in its supervision of
appropriations and expenditures.
Senator McClelland suggests. He
enviSions an investigative staff of
IS to 20 men working with IS to 30
experts in various fiscal fields.
A properly organized committee
OF this sort, it is contended, could
examine presidential budget esti-
mates and advise the appropria-
tionS committees when non -eSsen-
tial projects seemed to be showing
their heads. The Appropriations
subcommittee no longer would
have to rely on what Mr.. Meader
called the one-sided testimony Of
executive branch officials.
Entirely different from Senator
McClellan's plan, but aimed at the
same target of economy in Govern
ment, is the omnibus bill" plan Of
Senator Byrd. This idea calls for
. the Jumping of all appropriations
of the Federal Government into a
single measure, so that Congress
can have before it all the time a
running total of the amount Of
money it is spending.
Not Reel Tyout
1t is generally believed that the
Byrd plan received tryout in 1850.
Senator Byrd's office says. however,
that the 'single-package" method
used then is not what the Virginian
mas III Hllnu.
The Byrd plan, in addition to
having single appropriation bill,
would place limitation on expen-
ditures. The Mcclellan plan does
not envision such a limitation, but
Senator Mcclellan says there would
be nothing to prevent the joint
committee on the budget from rec
ommending appropriations and ex-
penditure ceilings.
There is, in the view of some off,
cialS, one trouble with ceilings:
They can be at once troublesome
and unenforceable. A current
example is the SAG billion limitation
on Defense Department eXpendi-
lures, recently voted into the De-
fense appropriations bill by the
House. This rider prohibits the De-
fense Department spending more
than SAC billion in the next fiscal
year, even though direct congress
Sional appropriations now stand at
5000 million above that figure.
Administration officials assert
that the effect of this limitation
will be to level off the rising curve
of the Nations defense program
during fiscal 1858. For on June 80
the end of this fiscal year-the
Pentagon will be spending at daily
rate equivalent to $40 billion a year.
This will mean that there can be
no further speedup in prepared
ness unless the Secretary of De-
fense is willing to disregard the con-
gressional limitation and try to get
a supplemental appropriation later
in the year-or unless he chooses
to save money with which to
buy material by laying off the man
power that would use that material.
That, at least, is the view of op-
ponents of the rider. The question
is whether, in the face of this stu
alton, Congress could ever make eff
fective the ceiling it had set.
11 NAn