Statement on a House of Representatives Amendment to the Philadelphia Plan.

THE House of Representatives now faces an historic and critical civil rights vote.

Tucked into the supplemental appropriations conference report is a provision vesting the Comptroller General with a new quasi-judicial role. The first effect of this proposal will be to kill the "Philadelphia Plan" effort of this administration to open up the building trades to nonwhite citizens. It is argued that the administration seeks to restrict the role of the General Accounting Office and the Comptroller General. This is a false issue.

I wish to assure the Congress and the public of this Nation that I consider the independence of the Comptroller General of the United States of the utmost importance in the separation of powers in our Federal system. The amendment now under discussion by the Congress will not and should not be permitted to bring this principle into any doubt.

Of course, in the conduct of his independent review of all executive actions, the Comptroller General may raise, and has often raised, questions about the legality of Federal contracts and whether funds, according to the law, should be spent under such contracts. The executive has always, will always, give the fullest attention to his recommendations and his rulings.

When rulings differ, however, when the chief legal officer of the executive branch and the chief watchdog of the Congress end up with opposing views on the same matter of law, the place for resolution of such differences is the courts just as it is for the resolution of differences between private citizens.

The amendment as presently written makes a court review extremely difficult, even questionable. For example, 14 contracts have been let under the Philadelphia Plan. If the amendment passes, these contracts will have to be canceled. If the contractors should not elect to sue, the executive branch of the Federal Government could not--and the matter would not reach the courts unless a member of my Cabinet were intentionally to violate the law.

The position I am taking is, therefore, that the amendment need not be stricken but that it should be modified to permit prompt court review of any difference between legal opinions of the Comptroller General and those of the executive, and to permit the Comptroller General to have his own counsel (rather than the Attorney General) to represent him in such Cases.

To be quite candid, I share the Attorney General's serious doubts as to the constitutionality of this amendment and may have to withhold my signature from any legislation containing it.