Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

Mr. CRAMER. Of course these things proposed under the $2 billion proposal, let alone under the $600 million proposal, are short range in nature.

Dr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. CRAMER. Your problems, your major problems, are long range. You need a well rounded long-range total program on resources. This is not that and you are not insisting that this is that, are you?

Dr. SMITH. I could not agree with you more but we are at a place after 30 years where we will grab at whatever we can grab at. This is an area of public land. We can split it up into 12 unit items all day long and split up any program on the national forests into 12 units. It does not make any difference. We have enough work for 50 years. We can splice off 1 year and qualify for this program, so we are all for it.

Mr. CRAMER. The only other thought I have to comment on your statement is I am disturbed about the whole approach on the discussion of the people and their decisions and the action by Congress. It is my position that the people represented through Members of Congress should insist upon, and I think most of them do, that the Congress is the legislative branch of the Government and it should retain its functions under the Constitution of appropriating money and authorizing the programs. I hesitate to turn that function over to the executive branch of the Government although I would agree with a standby inventory authority, but when it comes actually upon the President's request to put it into effect and determine how much money and what programs, that is the prerogative of the Congress, and I shy away from any suggestion that the people through their Congressmen cannot or are unable to, or are unwilling to make these decisions, when they certainly made them expeditiously in 1958, for instance. Dr. SMITH. The only thing I have to say is I would assume here this authorization would constitute an authorization that would be granted under law to the President to act in individual situations. I am not going to try to suggest when you do this that you do not give up some congressional prerogatives. Of course you do. The issue simply boils down to the fact is it necessary or is it significantly important enough to do it in this instance. Maybe I speak as being an economist, who are always worried about inflexibilities and not being able to act soon enough, but in this instance I think it might be more of a saving. I think many of these particular problems, if they are hit and hit hard and quickly and expeditiously in the very early stages in most instances you can blunt the serious effects of this. I am not saying-I guess what I am saying is this: If you have 5.2 percent of people unemployed I am not at all sure that you are going to get them up in arms to the same extent that the Berlin situation would, or that 10 million unemployed would. In our economy with our people there are so many of us at this time that before we get really cognizant of what happened we are well into the problem. I think I automatically assume we are going to have rational high integrity management of this program and I would assume in response to a statement I heard made to the witness who was on before me, that any President will not take precipitous action around election time when the economy does not require it. Maybe I am an idealistic

naive person to think that, but I cannot think that a President will go ahead and distort a situation and use public works.

Mr. SCHERER. Actually the President does not. You would not attribute it to the President himself, but the President does not make the decisions as to where public works projects should be placed. He does not make those decisions, but they are made by subordinates who are maybe not as altruistic as he is or you are.

Dr. SMITH. What I was thinking was in respect to the timing. I would assume he would make the decision as to timing-as to where it goes, I am sure this program is not going to be any different than any other program with the aspect of fitting it someplace. We would hope it would be in the area of greatest need, but if we have 10 different areas I leave this to the alchemy of politics to determine. I am sure it would be determined that way under any administration. Mr. SCHERER. Perhaps we should not use the name of the President when we mean the administration or the executive branch, because all of us have been around here long enough to know that many of these decisions we complain about many times are made by the professional bureaucrats and they are here all the time. They really run the United States. The President doesn't and Congress doesn't.

Dr. SMITH. You scare me.

Mr. McVEY. Dr. Smith, certainly everyone on this committee would agree with you that we should preserve our natural resources, but it seems to me we have another great resource and that is our freedom. We are talking about a matter of the delegation of powers and I think our forefathers were wise in having the balances and counterbalances of our system of government. This is the thing I object to-the delegation of powers and continually giving away of powers to the executive branch of the Government by the legislative branch of the Government.

Actually, when you talk about a need to act swiftly, isn't it true a dictatorship would act more swiftly than a democracy?

Dr. SMITH. Yes, you are right.

Mr. MCVEY. So we can't base it just on that consideration alone, can we?

Dr. SMITH. I am not suggesting, Congressman, that we do. I do not think I am going to save any souls here on the other side of the aisle this morning, but I will say this. It just seems to resolve itself down to the argument on the relative merits on the one hand as to whether you think this is significant and important enough in and is of sufficient advantage over the congressional action in delegating to the President this power, or whether you deal with these other things you have stated. It is a question of understanding and the interpretation and basic philosophy, and that is as far as you go. I appreciate the fact that whenever Congress gives up power and delegates it to the Executive it obviously has that much less power. I am not trying to suggest it does not. I think the question is whether you feel it is worth the candle to do this. Either you do or you don't.

Mr. MCVEY. Every time we pass one of these programs we are chipping away at the pillar of our democracy. If this were the only program that would or had been presented to Congress it would be insignificant, but piece by piece and little by little we are chipping away at the very foundation of this country.

Dr. SMITH. I don't think it is quite like that. I can appreciate the fact that when the legislative is losing power quite naturally they are closer to the people. They are elected every 2 years. I heard the argument between Mr. Cramer and Mr. Carey. They review their record every 2 years and we have opportunity to review this with the President's office too. If the powers that the legislative delegated to the President were seriously misused, or acted upon in a highhanded fashion without due regard for the rights and privileges and liberties. then I suppose the people can speak and if they change back and forth-somebody has cast doubt and I understand it was projected not 2 months ago that the life of any party now as a result of the two-term election is probably two terms. The people don't particularly need a reason for a change at the end of two terms. There will be a cry of, "Throw the rascals out," on general principles.

Mr. McVEY. But that if overlooking the fact that the trend today is in one direction, toward a dictatorship if you please, and a people want a benevolent dictatorship here. They want somebody who will come in and say, "We will take care of you out in Washington, D.C., and solve all of your problems."

Dr. SMITH. Congressman, I would like to say that I like to lean very heavily on the statement of Lincoln. It is not incidentally supported as a dictatorship but on the basis that the Federal Government ought to do the things that the Federal Government can do and that the people, either through their elected officials, or through their own resources and through their local constituencies, cannot do for themselves. It is a matter of disagreement. Some people say how far do you let it go before you do act. do act. Some people say let it go completely and if they are not able to act for themselves it is their tough luck. I don't take that attitude. I appreciate and understand the reason for those who do, but I don't.

Mr. McVEY. I would prefer if the Federal Government does take action that it be by legislative action rather than executive.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Edmondson.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Dr. Smith, I have listened with considerable interest and appreciation to most of your statements. I was a little concerned about your remarks about the failure to establish a council on natural resources. I was not personally familiar with this commitment of our President, but I would like to know if you or your organization have sent up to Members of Congress any proposed legislation to effect something along that line.

Dr. SMITH. Oh, yes. It has been heard in the Senate. Legislation. was introduced in the Senate by Senator Engle and the bill was heard at great length.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Has the administration opposed it?

Dr. SMITH. The administration's spokesman came to many leaders of the conservation movement during the time of the campaign and urged us to look it over and see if we could accept it. When we, through all kinds of efforts hoped for legislation and did our best to introduce legislation, then much to our complete horror and great amazement, the administration came in and testified against it. I think there are times when Mr. Scherer's comment that the world is

run by the bureaucrats has great weight with us, because I can only say that we can only have hunches. Of course we can't say authoritatively what happened, but my hunch is the Bureau of the Budget talked the President out of it. My own judgment in natural resources relative to the Bureau of the Budget is they talk the President out of most things that are worth a darn as far as resources go.

Mr. EDMONDSON. I have some bones to pick at the same time with the Bureau of the Budget myself but I sit on two committees with jurisdiction over natural resources and I don't recall having seen anything from your committee on the subject of natural resources and a council on natural resources.

Dr. SMITH. Oh, yes.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Have you sent me a draft of the bill on this subject? Dr. SMITH. Congressman, I think back at the outset, in January, we circularized-you are speaking of the Interior Committee? Mr. EDMONDSON. Yes. And Public Works.

Dr. SMITH. We circularized the Interior Committee.

Mr. EDMONDSON. With a draft of the bill?

Dr. SMITH. There was a companion bill to Senator Engle's bill. We accepted Senator Engle's bill originally with the proposal that this would be somewhat patterned on the Council of Economic Advisers and there would be a Council of Natural Resources Advisers with a Joint Committee on Natural Resources. There was some considerable discussion on the advisability of setting up another joint committee of the Congress on Natural Resources. So the general attitude was they would remove that stipulation and try to retain the Council of Natural Resources Advisers. It went to hearing and we thought there was some good opportunity for us to get out of hearings, but it never came out.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Was there legislation to effect the appointment of a Council on Natural Resources either in this committee or the Interior Committee of the House?

Dr. SMITH. I do not think it was ever introduced in the House. My memory is foggy on it now. It is one of the things we throw up our hands and give up on.

Mr. EDMONDSON. I am personally amazed at my own lack of information on that subject as a member of that committee and on several subcommittees which deal with natural resources. I am amazed that you have not shown a little more personal missionary spirit on your own right in contacting some of the members of the House committees to push it, because I think it is a good idea and I would like to go along with it.

Dr. SMITH. On natural resources matters there are so few of us, it reminds me of a boy hunting rabbits in Iowa with a gun. He does not have enough barrels and shells to shoot them all, and this is one we obviously lacked our missionary zeal on. I think one of the reasons why it did not take off in the House, or get full consideration, was the attitude of the administration at the time of the Senate hearings. Had they come in with administration support and the bill was reported out, at that time there would have been two or three other measures introduced in the House. I think probably the experience in the Senate was what precluded any further action in the House.

Not that the Senate's action necessarily guides us, but the administrative position might have guided the leadership.

Mr. SCHERER. You felt you might have difficulty in the House too. Mr. EDMONDSON. I have a little bit of the feeling that your work on most of your resource ideas and proposals, like dams, originate on the House side, and why you folks haven't paddled your boat a little harder on the House side on this I don't know.

Dr. SMITH. I am glad to get this admonition and wake our people up that here is an opportunity for missionary work to take place. We are usually somewhat dissuaded from this.

Mr. EDMONDSON. If I have ever received a request from your organization to introduce a bill like this it has certainly missed my attention.

Dr. SMITH. You may not have personally, Congressman, but I did think—and my memory may be faulty on this and I will have to check-I did think the Council of Natural Resources Adviser proposed legislation was circulated to the House membership of the Interior Committee sometime in January, but I cannot be positive on it. I will have to check and see. However, we have plenty of copies left and I will be very happy to see you later.

Mr. EDMONDSON. I suggest you pass them out in this committee and you might get some takers on it.

Dr. SMITH. Thank you very much.

Mr. CRAMER. If the discussion with this witness is ended I would like to make a request. Mr. Bell, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, in testifying before this committee on Monday last, evidenced in discussing the financing of the program that the President's standby bill would provide an interim financing source for authorizing the President to transfer unobligated balances and other types of obligational authority up to an aggregate total of $2 billion. The amount of the unobligated balances available for transfer differ according to the time within the fiscal year, but in all cases they far exceed $2 billion. It was suggested that in 1961, for example, the unobligated balances were $80 billion in December, almost $57 billion in March, and a little over $40 billion at the end of the year in June 1961.

I would like to request that the committee ask Mr. Bell to submit for the record of this committee a list of the unobligated balances in the Federal budget, appropriated funds, and obligation authority that could be used for the purpose of carrying out the objectives of this $2 billion proposal on an appropriation item by appropriation item basis.

Mr. BLATNIK. You mean, to specify

Mr. CRAMER. The specifics as to what unobligated balances.

Mr. BLATNIK. And in what categories the unobligated balances could be available?

Mr. CRAMER. Yes.

Mr. BLATNIK. Without objection it is so ordered.

(The information requested is as follows:)

MAJOR UNOBLIGATED BALANCES

The following table shows the total unobligated balances of the Federal funds (that is, excluding trust and deposit funds), as printed in the budget for fiscal year 1963:

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »