University of Virginia Library

Sen. Scott Defends Fund Impoundment,
President's Use Of Executive Privilege

By SUZY LAWSON
and ROBERT HUSBANDS

Quoting what he termed
"Scott's Law," Senate
minority leader Hugh D. Scott
(R-Pa.), defended the
President's recent
impoundment of funds, saying,
"If Congress can't add, the
President has to subtract so
that taxes don't multiply."

Speaking to an overflow
crowd in Newcomb Hall
Ballroom Friday night; the
Pennsylvania senator also
explained Mr. Nixon's use of
"executive privilege."

According to Mr. Scott, the
opposition's objection is "not
against the impounding, but
the amount. Actually, he
continued, "the impoundment
this year is eight per cent, and
in previous years it has been
more."

The problem, Mr. Scott
said, is that Congress set the
current budget ceiling at $250
billion and then appropriated
$261 billion. Because Congress
cannot enforce the limit it
imposed on itself, the President
must impound certain funds to
meet the budget. The Senator
said, "If Congress won't throw
the net on, the President will.
He says he won't increase
taxes."

"You can't say that
Congress has the right to set a
debt ceiling and then demand
that they spent more than that
ceiling," the Senator explained.

Congress In Trap

Mr. Scott said Congress is
"doing this because they're
caught in a trap, in a bind.
They promised too much to
the people. It's easier to say
that they voted it and the
President won't let them spend
the money. So they'll go to
court and try to get it back."

"Congress is going to lose
this round," he said. "They're
on a sticky wicket and a losing
one. They they will blame the
Supreme Court. Congress is
going to lose because the
people would rather see the
President stick to his guns and
do what he has promised."

When later asked why the
President has impounded funds

designated to help the
environment, Mr. Scott said
there are substantial funds for
environmental protection.
"The President feels that the
amount appropriated is more
than needs to be spent in one
year. He hasn't canceled or
destroyed the program," he
claimed.

Mr. Scott does not agree
with some of the priorities
which the President has set for
impoundment of funds. "I
would have tried to get close to
$2 billion from the defense
department and I protest the
two per cent feature in rural
electrification."

The Senator defended the
President's use of executive
privilege saying it "can only be
asserted by the President in
writing; it can't be delegated
by custom." Mr. Scott said the
President has exercised this
privilege only three times in
the past four years. In
comparison, President
Kennedy utilized executive
privilege six times in three
years.

Presidential Appointees

Mr. Scott used the example
of Presidential appointees
testifying before a
Congressional committee.
Several of Mr. Nixon's
appointees have refused to
testify, claiming to fear a
breach of confidential
relationship established with
the President through such
means as memoranda and
conversation. In such cases, the
President has been consulted
first.

Now, according to the
Senator, every witness
appearing is asked to sign a
statement that he will testify
willingly "if given reasonable
and seasonable notice."

Separate Senate Power

Referring to Senate power,
Mr. Scott claimed that "if the
Senate is not constitutionally
and politically endowed with
separate power, it will
inevitably decline; first, to the
overriding discipline that
prevails in the House and
second, to the dramatic
intensification of power and
emergency fiat that seems to
surround the Presidency."

"Perhaps," the Pennsylvania
senator concluded, "The
Senate's great contribution in
the next few years may be the
restoration of comity and
civility to public debate in
America."