Maass, Cooper Find Fault With LBJ's 'Constitution'

Two members of the Government Department have criticized President Johnson for "a civics book interpretation of the Constitution" in a statement he issued last fall.

In a recent article in the Washington Post, Arthur A. Maass, professor of Government, and Joseph Cooper, assistant professor of Government, urged that Johnson "withdraw or simply ignore" unjustifiably strong objections he made to a provision in the Omnibus Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965.

As passed by Congress, the Act gives the Secretary of the Army (and the Corps of Engineers) authority to construct small water-resource projects costing less than $10 million, but requires that the Public Works Committees of both the House and Senate approve specific projects by resolution before money can be spent.

When he signed the bill into law, Johnson declared that this provision "would dilute and diminish the authority and power of the Presidency" and that he had not been elected "to preside over its erosion." The President said he had directed the Secretary of the Army to ignore the provision and that he would seek its repeal.

Maass and Cooper defend the measure as effective use of the legislative veto, "a new and promising mechanism of legislative oversight." They point out that it is used when the President submits plans for the reorganization of agencies and functions in the executive branch, which do not go into effect until Congress has 60 days to study and perhaps veto them.

After listing all the President's possible objections to the water-resources procedure, Maass and Cooper conclude that "it is hard to find the dangers the President fears."

The projects before the committees, they explain, will already have been considered by the President, since the Bureau of the Budget reviews the Corps of Engineers' plans for him, as well as the recommendations of state and federal agencies.

Presidential objections will be "well known and documented" under the new procedure, according to Maass and Cooper. But beyond that, the President can later "veto the appropriations bill if he is displeased with Congress's changes, or he can impound funds for a project that he considers undesirable."

Rivers-and-harbors bills are sometimes referred to as "pork-barrel bills," since Congressmen often attempt to have a pet project included. But Maass and Cooper contend that "the bill is more the President's bill than is much legislation, for almost all the projects in it have been recommended by him."

"The principle problem with the procedure for authorizing water resource projects," they continue, "is not that Congress has whittled away Presidential power, but that the President has failed to use his power."

No criteria exist to guide the Corps of Engineers in planning projects or Congress in reviewing and authorizing them, Maass and Cooper point out. "Since World War II, no President has initiated legislation to establish a consistent set of standards," they complain.

Until the President puts to use "the leadership powers that are unquestionably his" and submits standards, he has "no good reason" to object to the new committee-action procedure, Maass and Cooper insist.