April 4, 1973
Page 11053
Mr. HATHAWAY. Mr. President, I would like to ask a question of my colleague from Maine.
On page 17, line 10, the word "program" is used with respect to the proportional cutting back by the President, as explained in that entire section 202.
The question I would like to ask of my colleague is whether or not the President, under section 202, could in making a proportional cut, we will say in OEO, actually cut out an activity within OEO, such as legal services, and still not be in violation of the provisions of section 202; or did the authors of this amendment intend that such a cut could not be made?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the committee undertook to avoid that possibility in two ways; one, by the language on page 16 in section 202(b) which requires that "the President shall reserve amounts proportionately from new obligational authority and other obligational authority available for each functional category, and to the extent practicable, subfunctional category (as set out in the United States Budget in Brief)."
Those functional and subfunctional categories are found on pages 63, 64, 65, 66, and 67 of the Budget in Brief.
However, these categories do not specify by name the programs to which the Senator refers, so we added the language on page 17 of the amendment, which states, on line 7–
In no event shall the authority conferred by this section be used to impound funds, appropriated or otherwise made available by Congress, for the purpose of eliminating a program the creation or continuation of which has been authorized by Congress.
In my judgment, that would cover OEO and the legal services program under OEO. This amendment is not intended to give the President, in effect, a veto over programs of any kind. So the language in those two respects is designed to avoid that possibility. The Comptroller General is given authority to apply that language to any action taken by the President.
Mr. HATHAWAY. I thank my colleague from Maine for his information.