CONFIRMATION OF THE DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

MONDAY, MARCH 5, 1973

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

LEGISLATION AND MILITARY OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE

OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Chet Holifield (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Chet Holifield. Benjamin S. Rosenthal, Jack Brooks, Jim Wright, Fernand J. St Germain, Don Fuqua, William S. Moorhead, Frank Horton, John N. Erlenborn, John W. Wydler, Clarence J. Brown, and Richard W. Mallary.

Also present: Herbert Roback, staff director; Elmer W. Henderson, general counsel; Miles Q. Romney, counsel-administrator; Douglas Dahlin, counsel for military operations; Paul Ridgely, investigator; James Lanigan, consultant; and Warren Buhler, minority professional staff, Committee on Government Operations.

Chairman HOLIFIELD. The committee will come to order.

The hearing today is concerned with bills which would require Senate confirmation of the Director and Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget. The Committee on Government Operations, by rule of the House, has jurisdiction, among other things, over budget and accounting matters other than appropriations—and that is why various bills on confirmation of these officers have been referred to our committee.

The Senate already has taken action on this matter. On February 5, 1973, the Senate passed S. 518, Senator Ervin's bill-cosponsored by 27 other Senators-with a floor amendment by Senator Byrd of West Virginia. The bill now is before our committee, in conjunction with a number of House bills including H.R. 3932, introduced by Mr. Brooks, the ranking member of our committee, and cosponsored by 20 other members of the committee, including the chairman.

Evidently, there is strong sentiment in the Congress for legislative action on this subject. This attitude bespeaks a deep concern for strengthening the Congress as an institution to maintain the proper balance of power in Government. The President, by impounding actions, by zero budgeting, and by far-reaching reorganizations of the executive branch not specifically authorized by the Congress, has precipitated what many believe is a constitutional crisis in this country. I am not an alarmist and I do not believe that the Congress is so fragile an institution that it will be crushed by the recent assertions

(1)

of Presidential power. Nevertheless, we have a serious problem of Executive-congressional relationships, and the Congress is making varied responses to protect its constitutional position and affirm its importance in public policymaking.

The requirement that the Budget Director and his Deputy be confirmed by the Senate is one of these responses. It is not an earth-shaking proposal. It is not an unusual one. Numerous heads of offices or agencies in the Executive Office of the President now must be confirmed by the Senate. The Office of Management and Budget stands preeminent among these agencies and, in my opinion, deserves Senate confirmation of its top officers even more than the others, considering its vital role and far-reaching influence in governmental affairs.

There will be those who say that the Director of the Budget, by that very same token, is the President's man and that the Senate should not have any say in the matter. I do not agree with that position, and that is why I am cosponsoring the legislation before us today.

One basic fact ought to be kept in mind. Historically, the Bureau of the Budget was created so that the Congress could be better served in exercising its constitutional power of the purse. The Budget Director serves the President only because the President serves the Congress in making budget recommendations. And the Budget Director himself serves the Congress. It is not too much to ask that he be confirmed by the Senate.

We should not lose sight of this basic fact: that central budgeting was developed for the convenience of the Congress in the exercise of its constitutional powers. The OMB is not some mystical or magic instrument reserved exclusively for Presidential use. In the final analysis, the yearly budget document, despite its awesome weight and wealth of detail, is a set of recommendations to the Congress. The President seems to have lost sight of this fact in his impounding actions.

There will be differences of opinion and judgment on this legislation-differences which are both political and technical. As I see it, the larger issue at stake is the prerogative of the Congress, its power and prestige as an institution. This does not mean power and prestige for their own sake, but for effective exercise of constitutional responsibilities to the American people.

(The bills, S. 518 and H.R. 3932, follow:)

To provide that appointments to the offices of Director and Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall be subject to confirmation by the Senate.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 That, effective on the day after the date of enactment of this 4 Act, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 5 and the Deputy Director of that Office (originally established 6 by section 207 of the Budget and Accounting Act, 1921, and 7 redesignated by section 102 of Reorganization Plan Num8 bered 2 of 1970) shall be appointed by the President by and 9 with the advice and consent of the Senate, and no individual

10 shall hold either such position thirty days after that date

I

2

1 unless he has been so appointed. The Director and Deputy 2 Director shall each be appointed for a term of four years, 3 except that

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

(1) the terms of the individuals first appointed in accordance with this Act, after the date of enactment of this Act, to hold such positions shall commence on the date of their appointment and end immediately prior to noon January 20, 1977;

(2) any individual appointed to fill a vacancy occurring before the expiration of the term for which his predecessor was appointed shall be appointed for the remainder of that term; and

(3) nothing contained in this Act shall impair the power of the President to remove the occupants of such offices.

Passed the Senate February 5, 1973.

Attest:

FRANCIS R. VALEO,

Secretary.

93D CONGRESS 18'T SESSION

H. R. 3932

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 7, 1973

Mr. BROOKS (for himself, Mr. HOLIFIELD, Mr. FOUNTAIN, Mr. JONES of Alabama, Mr. Moss, Mr. FASCELL, Mr. REUSS, Mr. MACDONALD, Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania, Mr. RANDALL, Mr. ROSENTHAL, Mr. WRIGHT, Mr. ST GERMAIN, Mr. CULVER, Mr. FUQUA, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mrs. ABZUG, Mr. DONOHUE, Mr. JAMES V. STANTON, and Mr. RYAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Operations

A BILL

To provide that appointments to the Offices of Director and Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall be subject to confirmation by the Senate, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 That, effective on the day after the date of enactment of this 4 Act, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 5 and the Deputy Director of that Office (originally estab6 lished by section 207 of the Budget and Accounting Act,

7 1921, and redesignated by section 102 of Reorganization

I