Committees_Appropriations

Section 01 (9:30): Caouette, Brodmerkle, Phillips
=__Overview__= The Appropriations Committee's main purpose is to essentially handle the allocation of government funds to various branches of the government as well as other agencies and institutions, including education, defense, labor, highways, and agriculture. To do this, we have different sub-committees to handle these various sectors.

=__Current Issues__= As we begin to say goodbye to the Truman era and usher in the Eisenhower administration, our committee has continued its focus on regrouping after World War II. One of our primary goals at this time is to reinvent the way the country runs its military. First and foremost, the committee plans on greatly increasing the funds given for military purposes with the specific intent on expanding the protection of the country through the newly established Department of Defense which President Truman put into place effective of July 26, 1947. The primary objective of this department is to unify the main branches of the military (the Air Force, Army, Navy, and the Marine Corps). By doing this we hope to create a system where objectives, strategies, and troop organization based around the defense of the United States can be achieved in a more efficient and effective manner.

Another central issue being discussed encompasses all facets of the committee - How is money going to be raised to maintain current programs, to support new expenditures, and to revitalize weak policies? This is a difficult obstacle to overcome. The easy way would be for the government to drastically overspend and allocate money to every request. But we cannot do this for such expenses would create such inflation that our money would be severely devalued. So, we begin with the typical sources of wealth, privatized donations and donations from PAC's (Political Action Committees.) These sources of income will not alone cover all disbursements. Which means that the government, for a short time, will need to increase its spending in particular areas deemed important by our committee. At this time, these areas mainly include the military and defense programs.

=__Decisions made during the Early Years of Post-WWII America__= Previously the committee has worked on expanding various departments within the committee. We had planned on doubling our investment into scientific research, creating more jobs for Americans, especially jobs building towards energy efficiency, creating new Veterans services, creating new funding for law enforcement, particularly for the war against drugs, the FDC, and the CSPC, and tried to provide more grants to universities and other educational institutions.

=__History__= The House division of our committee was created in 1865. The Senate division of our committee was created in 1867. The committees were created to ease the work burden that the Committee on Ways and Means was dealing with. The Ways and Means committee was divided into three different divisions. Our division was given the specific responsibility to take the given government financial budget and divide it amongst our various sub-committees into areas we see fit.

Nixon Crap too many people involved by adding members from each committee to the judiciary investigation. hinders the abilities of the other committees to do their regular jobs because they lack certain members. the process should be, and could be, much more simple. As Mike put it, it's like we're voting on whose getting the coffee. We're throwing up further obstructions to the process. Nixon is already not cooperating and making the procedures overly difficult. We're compounding issues. Basically, the debate that went on today exemplifies one of the flaws of democracy, and that is that since everyone must have a say, the process can be frustratingly long and drawn out. Here we saw just how redundant some things can get.

Section 06 (10:30): Bourgeois, Froio, Dunn, Morris
**__Mission Statement __** The Congressional Committee on Appropriations is a board that determines government funding for the upcoming year and also controls funding limits for various government programs. These programs range from national defense and homeland security, to education and every day government affairs. The Committee itself is split between the Senate and the House of Representatives, and each appropriation committee evaluates and funds different government agencies.

The Congressional Committee of Appropriations accounts for 40% of all Federal spending among the fiscal year. The other 60% lies with the powers of the House and Senate legislative committee. **__History __** When it started: March 1867, Senator Henry B. Anthony of Rhode Island offered a Senate resolution providing for the creation of “…a Committee on Appropriations, to consist of seven members.” His purpose was “to divide the onerous labors of the Finance Committee with another committee” by separating the tax-writing and appropriating processes. It is located in both the House and the Senate.

**__Truman Era Issues __** In an attempt to re-assimilate returning veterans into a growing US economy, the Appropriations Committee will provide these men with higher educational advancements, through what will be known as the G.I. Bill. This legislation will offer vocational training and college opportunities as well as providing low cost housing, in efforts to prepare our soldiers for domestic life in the country for which they fought so bravely for. The Appropriations Committee will also back legislation to provide military aid to our European allies through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). It is the United States responsibility to set a precedent, and to provide protection for all countries seeking democracy and freedom, from any and all threats seeking to limit the freedom of mankind. Funding for this vital protection will be made through reductions in the Agricultural sector of Congress in an effort to rebalance the overproduction currently plaguing the department.

**__Great Society Funding __** The Appropriations Committee made questionable decisions throughout the 1960’s in an effort to reduce high spending limits by President Kennedy. In September 1962 the Committee slashed 1.5 Billion dollars from the foreign aid sector of Congress. Despite being considered "a threat to free world security" by President Kennedy, the Committee feels that it is necessary to reduce spending during a time of the __highest tax rates in history__, largely due to increased spending by the Senate.

During L.B.J.’s “Great Society” the Appropriations Committee increased domestic funding while reducing funds to the Vietnam War effort, as public and private opinion attempted to begin downsizing troop levels in the highly unpopular war. In May of 1966, the Committee passed a bill granting 489 million dollars to new funding for Labor and Health, Education & Welfare programs. In December 1969, the Appropriations Committee further reduced military aid by 5.2 billion dollars from the Defense Department’s 75.2 billion dollar budget.


 * Issues to present to Congress:**

In this time of economical stagflation, even the president recognizes the importance of concentrating our nation's energy and funding on the problems at home. For that reason the Committee on Appropriations feels it is neccasary to apoint a greater amount of our budget towards programs that will directly improve the American living situation. Though most would agree that this is a noble idea, the controversy arises when deciding where this extra money will come from. We feel since we are trying to focus our efforts at home, as opposed to overseas, it makes since to drastically reduce the amount of funding being provided to forign affairs. Since we are decreasing our fighting and troop count in Vietnam it does not make since to still be providing the same amount of funding towards this endevour. Also, we propose to appropriate the bulk of this money towards new labor, healthcare, edducation, and welfare funding here at home.

How shall we pay for the debt accumulated during the war? How shall we pay for increased military and defense spending? How will we pay for aid to veterans? Shall Congress grant military aid to NATO? Which of the "Fair Deal" domestic policy programs are of highest priority? Which are the most costly?
 * For 2/10 - consider the following Truman-era issues:**

Memorandum Response Tess Froio I definately agree that there was suspicious activities by Nixon that would lead one to believe that he should be further questioned, and if proven quilty, prosecuted in a court. I do not agree with the third factor in which mandate against his indictment and prosecution are proposed. It says that Nixon's prosecution might aggravate political division rather than recrimination, but wouldn't everybody in politics and in society as a whole benefit if their leader, who was acting out of order, was put rightly to justice? I also agree with every one of the factors in which mandate in favor of indictment and prosecution becuase they are ones in which prove that we have taken this act very seriously, and that we can not try to justify his actions.

Memorandum Response by:Lindsay B. I agree with the reasons for persuing legal action against the Nixon. It shouldn't make a difference what job he had, all people must be held accountable when they have broken the law. In order to maintain faith in our legal system and future presidents, it is neccasary to convict Nixon. Otherwise, future presidents will think they can break the law and get pardoned as well; this will only further America's loss of confidence in our government. I certainly do not believe that his resignation is sufficient punishment. Lets face it, if any other member of society broke the law at work, we would still have to answer to the law, even if we quit our job before we got arrested. Also, it is a weak argument to suggest that prosecution of the president could further political divisions in our country. While that fact may be true, one could also argue that not prosecuting the president could also cause political division. The only thing I do agree with as far as not prosecuting the president is that, it would be difficult to offer Nixon a fai trial. I do believe though that it would not be immpossible to achieve a fair trial, just difficult.

Response to Jaworski memo Mike Brodmerkle

The situation of having to deal with a president begin accused and found guilty of crimes is incredibly troubling. What can the American people feel if their highest and most hallowed public offices are so tarnished? May it be better to not sweep this under the rug and try to "heal"? My answer is no. When a citizen, the former president should, although the neccessity of such an action is painful, be punished in accordance with the law. While the high office is indeed so revered, it cannot be forgotten that he is a man, and as such "created equal." It can alos not be demonstrated that he is above the law. Power should not have an inverse relation with punishment. Further, as Jaworski also noted, there cannot be a dangerous precedent set by allowing a sitting president can act unlawfully to achieve power or maintain it in a near megalomaniacal and paranoid fashion.

Memorandum Response Peter Caouette I think that it would be simply ridiculous not to officially charge the now former president. As a citizen of the United States of America, everyone is treated fairly, and we made sure of that. So to decide not to indict someone based on the grounds that they //used to be// president is just absurd. Even so, he should be charged to the fullest extent of the law //because// he was president. He knows what he did was wrong, he knew the ramifications, and now he should face the music like everyone else.

Here are instructions on what to do with those questions and how to prepare for Wed 2/10.

Kyle Morris: Should Nixon be Pardoned? --No In my opinion the controversy with Nixon’s party could be one of the longest and most in depth debates in our nation’s history. Both sides can hold their own in the argument, but in my eyes Nixons should almost absolutely not of been pardoned for his actions. His actions deserved severe consequences, and it seems unfair that he did not receive them. A well known aspect of our country is it’s equality for all citizens. After Nixon’s Watergate scandal where he sent men who worked under him the white house into the Democratic headquarters to steal documents and files, he should have been executed to the fullest extent. Also, the largest black spot of the case in court was when the recordings of his office phone calls were seized. The problem with the tapes were that there was something like 17 minutes missing or erased from them. This leaves reason to believe that Nixon knew he was doing something suspect. Overall, just because Nixon was the president does not mean he should have been pardoned from being executed for his actions in Watergate. Finally, all testimony pointed fingers at Nixon as well, but he was never convicted. Bernard Barker was said to give testimony directly against Nixon and revealing absolute involvement in Watergate. Also, Woodward and Bernstein were two reporters for the Washington Post who uncovered information showing his involvement in Watergate. All evidence put Nixon on the verge of being convicted as he should be, and the fact that he was set free of all charges by Gerald Ford goes against everything our country is run by.