February 8, 1968
Page 2767
Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute, to revise and extend my remarks, and to include extraneous matter.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection.
Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Speaker, on December 15, 1967, the National Educational Television Network, in association with the Eastern Educational Network, aired a wrap-up of the first session of the 90th Congress. The program was entitled "Congress, 1968" and featured the following distinguished guests: Senators THRUSTON B. MORTON and EDMUND S. MUSKIE, and Representatives MELVIN R. LAIRD and HALE BOGGS; Dr. Alfred de Grazia of New York University, and Dr. Robert L. Peabody of Johns Hopkins University, political scientists; Congressional Quarterly Reporters N. Prentice Bowsher, Joseph Foote, William B. Dickinson, Jr., and Neal R. Peirce, together with NET Correspondents Paul Niven and Dick McCutchen.
Discussion centered around four main topics: Vietnam and foreign policy, problems of the American cities, taxes, and congressional ethics and reform.
The transcript of the hour-and-a-half program is understandably somewhat long, but in view of the expertise of the assembled commentators and the significance of the subject matter to all of us, I would like to place the entire text in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.
CONGRESS, 1968
This broadcast of the National Educational Television Network in association with the Eastern Educational Network was aired at 9:40 P.M. E.S.T. on December 15, 1967. The program was an analysis of the 1st session of the 90th Congress.
PARTICIPANTS
From the Congress: Senator Thruston B. Morton, Senator Edmund S. Muskie, Representative Melvin R. Laird, Representative Hale Boggs.
Outside Experts: Dr. Alfred de Grazia, New York University; Dr. Robert L. Peabody. Johns Hopkins University.
NET Correspondents: Paul Niven, and Dick McCutchen.
Congressional Quarterly Reporters: N. Prentice Bowsher, Joseph Foote, William B. Dickinson, Jr., Neal R. Peirce.
ANNOUNCER. At 6:36 this evening the House of Representatives adjourned. The Senate followed suit fourteen minutes later. The 1st Session of the 90th Congress had come to an end. For the next 80 minutes, a report on that Congress, as seen by some of its leading members and outside experts.
In color, the National Educational Television Network presents "Congress '68." In the studios of WETA, in Washington, Dick McCutchen.
Mr. McCUTCHEN. Good evening. Tonight we'll take a look at the record of the 90th Congress and analyze that record in the light of the needs of the nation.
To take part in this program we have invited observers and critics of the Congress as well as four of its distinguished members. In Room S-207 of the Capitol, from the Senate, Thruston B. Morton, of Kentucky, former Chairman of the Republican National Committee and the Republican Campaign Committee; and Edmund S. Muskie, of Maine, current Chairman of the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee.
From the House of Representatives, Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, Democratic Whip of the House, and Melvin R. Laird, of Wisconsin, Chairman of the House Republican Conference.
From the studios of WNDT in New York, Professor Alfred de Grazia, Director of the Center for Applied Research of New York University and Editor of Congress, the First Branch of Government.
Speaking from Washington will be Professor Robert L. Peabody, Associate Professor of Political Science, Johns Hopkins University, and Associate Director of the American Political Science Association Study of Congress.
Here in the studio to provide an account of this congressional session are four staff members of the independent Washington research organization Congressional Quarterly: reporting on Vietnam and foreign policy, Prentice Bowsher; on the cities, Joseph Foote; on taxes, William B. Dickinson, Jr.; on congressional ethics and reform, Neal R. Peirce.
Now an up to the minute report on what happened in Congress today, on the mechanics of that annual last minute rush. For that report we switch to NET Washington Correspondent Paul Niven at the Capitol.
Mr. NIVEN. Congress more or less shattered precedents today by adjourning about when it expected to, with none of the last minute hassles which often add unexpected hours or even days to a session. It gave final passage to and sent to the White House four major bills: Social Security changes; $9.1 billion for school aid, an authorization; $2.3 billion for foreign aid, a record low; and just under $1.8 billion for the war on poverty, enough for most existing poverty programs but none for new ones.
The legislators also agreed to come back on January 15, giving themselves a rare full month in which to vacation or to mend fences back home.
The House of Representatives let out a whoop of joy when Majority Leader Carl Albert made the final motion. In the Senate, Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, a Vietnam dove, put in a plug for peace in 1968: and Minority Leader Everett Dirksen put in a plug for his television program tonight, urging his colleagues to rush home and see it.
Oregon Democrat Wayne Morse tut-tutted the Senate for quitting on Friday afternoon so as to get home for the week-end and served notice that he would object next year. But then even Morse had come to the Christmas spirit and said everybody should go away with a prayer on his lips.
Well, all of this at 6:36 in the House and 6:50 in the Senate; fifteen minutes later the place was deserted. Not a Senator in sight, the restaurant closed and thousands of people who have toiled in this building for the last eleven months are now on their way home, some to Georgetown, some to Hawaii, and Alaska.
Mr. McCUTCHEN. Before we list the important bills in the sessions we're going to try to describe the process by which a bill becomes law. Some members of the Congress have said that it takes them as long as five or six years to understand this process fully. We are going to try to do it in a couple of minutes.
Here are the essentials: Action on a bill may in most cases be initiated in either house, but let us suppose our lawmaker is a Senator. First, after sounding out other legislators to test their mood and line up support, the Senator draws up a bill and takes it to the Senate where the legislative metamorphosis begins. The bill is recorded by title, categorized by content and sent to the appropriate committee for a closer look. Here the merits of the measure are debated, hearings held, its possibilities of enactment weighed, changes made, either to improve the bill or to gain votes for it.
Now, returned to the Senate, it is read, debated and amended by members of the entire assembly and voted. If a majority of Senators are against it the bill dies there, but should the majority approve it is declared passed and sent to the House where essentially the same process is repeated. If the House changes the bill before passing it, it then goes to a joint conference committee made up of key committee members from both houses where the differences are resolved. The resulting compromise measure must then be passed again by both houses.
A bill which survives this long and rigorous procedure -- and many fall by the wayside -- is sent to the President. If he approves he signs it into law; if not, Congress can override his veto and pass it, if two-thirds of its members vote in favor of adoption. So much for the legislative process as such.
Now for the actual legislation which has survived that process in 1967. As of mid-afternoon today, the President has signed 202 bills, most of them, as for any Congress, were of limited significance, some of them indeed important only to one or two individuals. Even among major bills we're going to have to be selective and we've divided the measures we will consider among four broad categories: Vietnam, the cities, taxes, and congressional ethics and reform.
In foreign policy the Constitution places primary responsibility in the Executive Branch. The extent of a Congress' role has been the subject of debate throughout 1967, especially among dissident Senators, including Chairman J. William Fulbright of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
But there is no doubt that the Congress does have a role in foreign policy. For one thing, it has the power of the purse. A President could not fight a war without soldiers and weapons, and without congressional authorization and appropriation he could neither pay the men nor buy the arms. The lawmakers have other more subtle ways of influencing foreign policy, too.
This year on the Hill, as at the White House, Vietnam has over-shadowed the whole field of foreign policy, and beyond that has greatly influenced federal policy in the domestic field.
For a review of legislative action on Vietnam and foreign policy, here is Prentice Bowsher.
Mr. BOWSHER. Thank you, Dick.
There is no question about it, that the issue of Vietnam was a big issue in Congress this session. But it is important to remember that Congress dealt with Vietnam a lot more through committee hearings and through floor debate than it did through legislation as such.
In terms of legislation there really were two big Vietnam issues, and these were money -- $32 billion of it. It came in two appropriations bills, one for $12 billion early in the session and another that included $20 billion for Vietnam, this was the fiscal '68 defense appropriation bill.
The total for this bill was something like $70 billion; of that, $20 billion was for Vietnam.
Debate in Congress on Vietnam surrounded these bills, it surrounded other bills. It surrounded new casualty totals, new troop commitments to Vietnam, new bombing targets in Vietnam, and almost any time a Senator or Congressman had a new idea that he wanted to express.
Let's take a look at this legislation. First, the symbols here. We've put an "X" for bills that have cleared the congressional process you saw described. We put a "plus", as you see here, if the administration favored the bill. We put a "minus", as you see here, if the administration opposed the bill. And we put a "zero", as you see here, if the administration took no position on the measure.
All right. The top two, those are the appropriation bills, $20 billion in this one for Vietnam, $12 billion for this one. Veterans aid, they simply extended it to GI's fighting in Vietnam. Poats’ appointment, this was a chance for Congress to vote on the American aid program in Vietnam. Poats was a foreign aid official, he was up for a new appointment. Congress -- the Senate, rather, came within one vote of defeating the nomination. It ultimately was confirmed.
National commitments, this was Fulbright's resolution, just recently reported by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, it's important. It raised broad constitutional questions; didn't get full consideration by the Senate this session; might next session.
U.N. action -- everybody liked it. This was Mike Mansfield's resolution. But there is little doubt that the U.N. Security Council really could take much substantive action on the Vietnam war.
The next three, really minor measures; as you can see, they didn't get far.
Foreign aid, Congress cleared it this afternoon. There was an unspecified amount of money in that bill for Vietnam. Draft law revisions, the question here was educational deferment. Negroes, supposedly, according to critics, could not get them; more affluent youngsters, mainly whites, could get them. This was a problem here and, as you can see, Congress did pass it and the administration favored it.
Mr. McCUTCHEN. Prentice, getting back to that first item, this is the third year in a row that the administration sought additional funds for Vietnam. What is the outlook for another request for even more money next e year?
Mr. BOWSHER. I'd have to say the outlook is pretty good, Dick. President Johnson, in his tax surcharge message back in August, said that Vietnam money requirements had gone up something like $4 billion beyond what had been estimated. So there is the need for the supplemental next year.
In addition, Chairman George Mahon of the House Appropriations Committee has said that it is correct that additional funds will be needed, and that is the man who should know.
Thank you.
Mr. McCUTCHEN. If the subject of Vietnam overshadowed all other foreign policy problems this year, the subject of the cities towered over the domestic field. Even before the summer the Nation was increasingly preoccupied with the problem of the big increasingly ghetto-ized metropolitan centers. Then came Newark, Detroit and other explosions.
The fact of the crisis was clear, but there were different diagnoses and different prescriptions.
Joseph Foote.
Mr. FOOTE. Yes, Dick, the seriousness of the riots this summer, I think, impressed upon everyone, including a good many Congressmen, just perhaps what was going on in the American cities. And yet no comprehensive scheme for dealing with either the riots, with urban problems, with air pollution, transportation, any of the problems emerged.
The President has several programs, however, and let's discuss a little bit how they fared.
The model cities program was one directed at coordinating efforts to strike at social ills, at the physical blight of urban areas. Now the President asked for $662 million for that; he got $312 million.
The rent supplements was another program of this nature. It was designed to help low-income families -- not welfare families, but people who were making an income -- to obtain better housing. The President got only a quarter of his funds on that.
In the poverty program he did far better than anyone expected, really. He won passage of his final bill today with $1.7 billion. The rat control was one of the surprises of the year. The House, on July 20, laughed the bill off the floor, literally; but came back two months later, quietly, to reinstate the $40 million program.
Crime was a big issue, one I am sure will be substantially bigger next year. I don't know what the President will propose. Perhaps we could talk about that in a moment. The President this year did propose a $50 million program to help communities update their law enforcement; the bill went down to defeat, that is, by the Senate.
Let's take a look at the scoreboard for just a moment. Model cities and rent supplements both went through but with the President getting about half a loaf.
The poverty program did well, $1.7 billion. Rat control has yet to be funded, perhaps next year.
Food stamps, extension of an existing program.
Air pollution, a rather weakened bill went through this year.
Anti-crime didn't amount to anything this year.
Anti-riot was passed by the House. This was the bill that was aimed at people who crossed state lines and tried to incite to riot. It died in the Senate.
Civil rights simply didn't get off the ground this year.
Teacher corps, one of the President's pets; it was finally funded this year and it will be interesting to see what the results of that program are.
Elementary education, a big bill, cleared late this afternoon, one of the last bills to go out this session.
Truth-in-lending, one of the consumer bills, was not passed this year. Meat inspection was; flammable fabrics was. Consumer bills will probably be big next year.
Finally, last but not least, the Public Broadcasting Act, which we considered a genuine landmark piece of legislation, particularly important to bring non-commercial television to many of the major cities of the country.
Mr. McCUTCHEN. You said that crime was a big issue this year and is going to be substantially bigger next year. What is the outlook for action there?
Mr. FOOTE. Well, I think that both parties will be pushing this. It is an election year and perhaps not the best year to pass crime legislation in, in an emotional atmosphere, but I think the President is going to go after this in a big way. He is going to try to take that issue away from the Republicans, so both parties will be pushing crime legislation next year. I am quite sure, Dick.
Mr. McCUTCHEN. Thank you.
An expensive array of Great Society programs, plus an expensive war, plus a balance of payments problem gave President Johnson a year-long fiscal headache in 1967. The Congress was not very sympathetic.
William B. Dickinson, Jr.
Mr. DICKINSON. Dick, the Constitution says that Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes. In the year when its power to shape foreign policy was at low ebb, the Congress seemed to jealously guard its constitutional rights in the fiscal field.
Twice this year a Democratic-controlled Congress turned down a Democratic President in his request for a 10 per cent surtax on personal and corporate income. The rejection has come against the best advice of both government and private economists. They say that higher taxes are essential to stem inflation, protect the dollar, hold down interest rates, limit budget deficits, and, last but not least, pay for the war in Vietnam.
If lack of action on taxes brings the economy to a bad end, there will be plenty of blame to spread around. President Johnson himself is faulted. His critics say that he failed to ask for a tax increase early enough in 1967 and then that he failed to push hard enough for its passage. It was not until August 3rd that President Johnson actually sent his special message on taxes to Capitol Hill. Any sense of urgency in the message seemed to be lost on the Congress.
The tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee held a month of hearings and then put the whole business aside. Prospects for action revived in November when Britain devalued the pound sterling. Cabinet officials hurried to Capitol Hill with specific promises of spending cuts and with a second anxious plea for passage of an anti-inflationary tax increase.
Meanwhile, at the White House, President Johnson warned publicly of a budget deficit that might reach $30 billion, even $35 billion. Where he got this figure remains somewhat of a mystery. Under close questioning on Capitol Hill, administration officials conceded that the actual budget deficit for this fiscal year would be no more than $22 billion. That would still be a record deficit since the end of World War II but far below the President's estimate.
Apparently the red ink possibilities don't terrify members of the Congress. Chairman Wilbur Mills clearly spoke for most of them when he turned down the idea of higher taxes in 1967.
Today, however, only this afternoon Mr. Mills announced that the House Ways and Means Committee would reconsider the tax bill on January 22. His decision was apparently prompted by the run on the dollar through the gold purchases on the London and Paris gold bullion exchanges.
In other words, the tax debate must be regarded for 1967 as President Johnson's greatest legislative failure of the year. Congress simply didn't fear inflation or big budget deficits as much as it feared the wrath of tax-weary voters back home.
Let's take a quick look at some of the other legislation in the tax field.
This morning the Senate managed to complete action on the Social Security bill. This will provide across-the-board 13 per cent increases for 22 million Americans beginning in March, with the March check on March 3rd. The cost -- $3.5 billion. The bill contains controversial new restrictions on welfare payments to families with dependent children, and these will provide fuel for further debate in 1968.
The other thing I might mention is an investment tax credit, actually a tax cut for business; and the debt limit which was raised to a permanent limit of $358 billion.
Mr. McCUTCHEN. Bill, thank you very much.
One subject that looms larger in every session loomed larger than ever this year, the question of congressional ethics. There were several triggers this year in the form of specific irregularities on the part of specific members. But, as usual, there was more talk than action. Both houses pondered codes of ethics but neither House adopted one.
In the related fields of campaign finance and legislative reorganization, the Senate acted but the House did not.
Neal Peirce.
Mr. PEIRCE. The nationally publicized cases of Thomas Dodd and Adam Clayton Powell this past year forced Congress to delve into a subject that it likes to keep behind closed doors, the ethics of its own members. The House voted last winter to exclude Adam Clayton Powell from the 90th Congress after investigations disclosed that he had misused House funds, House committee funds, falsified travel accounts and had apparently cashed his estranged wife's Congressional paychecks. Powell is still trying to get a court order to regain his seat. As for Thomas Dodd, the Senator from Connecticut, he was censured by his colleagues for using some $16,000 out of proceeds from testimonial dinners which were purportedly for political purposes for his own personal use instead. Congressional ethics got a further airing this year when the Senate Ethics Committee felt obliged to investigate press allegations that Missouri Senator Edward Long had used his position in the Senate to aid James Hoffa, the imprisoned boss of the Teamsters Union and also shared legal fees with one of the lawyers for the Teamsters Union.
Long was exonerated of wrongdoing by the Senate Ethics Committee in October, but Life Magazine then charged a whitewash and Senator Stennis agreed to reopen the case.
Finally, one might note that early this year Bobby Baker, who had a few years ago been the secretary of the Senate Majority in the Senate was convicted in Federal Court on seven counts of income tax evasion, theft and conspiracy to defraud the Federal Government.
Mr. McCUTCHEN. Well, you certainly would think so, Dick, that is the climate we expect to get out of this but certainly the events of this past year pointed up the lack of any kind of clear guidelines now for Congressmen or members of Congress to give them some idea of what they should and should not do in regard to outside income, gifts, honorary and campaign contributions and the like, but Congress did not seem to be in any kind of a hurry to set guidelines for the future. In the House, for instance, an ethics committee was set up by unanimous vote last spring, but it has very severely restricted powers. It's packed with old timers with pretty much a don't rock the boat philosophy and we don't expect too much out of that group.
In the Senate, Senator Stennis' Ethics Committee promises to have a code of ethics up quite early next year and there is a good possibility according to Senator Stennis that there may be a code of financial disclosure for members of Congress in that measure when it comes to the floor and this could be an important breakthrough because many experts believe that unless there is some kind of across-the-board disclosure of outside income and activity by members of Congress, this ethics problem will always be a very troublesome one. In September, as a matter of fact, there was a vote in the Senate in which disclosure only came four votes short of passage, indicating that the idea which used to be rejected out of hand may have a chance in the future. Also in September, the Senate did pass a comprehensive campaign spending reform law, the most far-reaching measure of its kind ever to reach or ever to be approved by one of the chambers of Congress. This bill would tighten up the archaic and loophole ridden provisions of the Corrupt Practices Act to require complete spending reports of all the candidates for President and for Congress. But a similar bill, one even stronger, has been stalled in the House Administration, full House Administration Committee since last summer and we don't see too much hope for its passage, at least no very good hopes right now.
Finally, we should note that the Senate last year passed early in 1967 the Legislative Reorganization Act, the first in 20 years, to tighten up committee procedures and also to tighten up the woefully inadequate lobby registration laws, but that bill got snarled up in the House Rules Committee where it still is.
Mr. McCUTCHEN. Neal, thank you and gentlemen, thank you all for those reports on what Congress did and failed to do in 1967.
Let's switch now to our four guests from the Congress with Paul Niven at the Capitol.
Mr. NIVEN. Senators Morton and Muskie, Congressmen Boggs and Laird, I would like to ask each of you in turn to give your personal verdicts on the work of the Congress in 1967 in relation, I suppose, to the needs of the country in 1967.
Senator Muskie, will you begin?
Senator MUSKIE. Paul, after the rundown we have just heard, I think anything any of us could add would be superfluous. I suppose you want now from us the partisan rhetoric. We did or we didn't. I think that it is fair to say from my point of view that it has been a Congress of solid accomplishment. A lot of things we didn't do, a lot of things we should have done that we didn't do, but I think that the achievements are real and meaningful.
Let's take the last day of the session today. We completed action on the biggest social security bill in the history of the country. We sent the President a poverty bill which at some points in this session looked to be on its deathbed and finally sent him a bill that was a continuation at the present level of spending.
In addition, we finally passed a foreign aid bill considerably reduced from the President's request but nevertheless a continuation, and I think the reduction is simply in the context of reducing congressional support for this program over a period of years. So I think there has been an effort on the part of this Congress to come to grips with the problems but its ability to do so I think has been compromised, by some very real political realities.
There is the political reality that in 1966 in the House over 40 additional Republicans were elected. This was a reduction in the strength of the President's party and it made itself felt. And interestingly enough, the impact of this increased Republican representation in the House seems to have been on the conservative side.
On the Senate side there were additions on the Republican side of young senators who seemed to give the Republican side of the aisle a more moderate look than it had had before, and both of these injections of new blood from the Republican side I think are reflected in the voting records in this Congress. The result is that there were two strong pressures in this Congress as I see it, one from the conservative side, the pressure to reduce spending, reduce new programs, including those that the other side regarded as essential from the point of view of the cities and so many domestic problems and then on the more liberal side, the pressure for more effective action in dealing with the problems of the cities and in dealing with racial unrest and so on. And as a result of these two pressures, we got something down the middle between the two.
Mr. NIVEN, Your colleague, Senator Kennedy of New York, said tonight that the Congress, the Executive nor the Legislative Branch had done what needed to be done this year. That is what he said in effect. I gather you don't agree with that.
Senator MUSKIE. I expect you get that point of view from the conservative side represented by people like Congressman Laird, too, that we didn't do what we should have done, as well as from the liberal side represented by Senator Kennedy. I think from each of these points of view the Congress didn't do what it should have done, so the result is we did something down the middle that did a little for the city but not what should have been done, that did a little to reduce spending from Congressman Laird's point of view, but not what should have been done, that we did a little in the tax field but not what should have been done, and I think this is the product of the strong pressures, each of them I think a little stronger than normal.
Mr. NIVEN. Senator Morton?
Senator MORTON. First, let me say that I am years older than any of my colleagues who are appearing on this program but am junior to my friend, Congressman Boggs, in service in the Congress. This to me has been the most frustrating year from a personal standpoint that I have ever had in the Congress of the United States and I speak not as a partisan Republican. I am a pragmatic politician. I have held extracurricular jobs in my party, but I speak personally.
First, I think that the breakdown of communications between the Administration and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is a tragedy.
Mr. NIVEN. Whom do you blame?
Senator MORTON. I don't know whom to blame, but the breakdown is there. It is specific and it is there. And under our Constitution the Senate has a greater role in the conduct of foreign affairs than does the House. I will admit that our role in the Senate is somewhat negative. It is the veto power. But this disturbs me as a citizen and as a grandparent.
Second. I think that we didn't face up quickly enough to the terrible situation that developed last summer, and I hope it never develops again, but I am afraid it will in connection with the so-called riots, the civil unrest, and so forth. We must find a way to accomplish law and order.
Now, the President set up a commission of fine people, no question about that. We all know as members of Congress the long-range causes and the long-range solutions to this problem. But we have got to have sort of a fire brigade.
Now, I ask that we take -- put in transferability -- take 10 percent of that which we have already allocated to the cities so it doesn't have to go through Congress, give the President transferability so that he can set up a fire brigade.
Senator Kennedy came along with a similar idea. Nothing was done about it. Here we are going into another year, another long hot summer, complicated by a presidential election, which may indeed make it even more complicated.
But I say frankly this has been a frustrating session. When I came -- when we came here in January and I heard my majority leader, who is one of the greatest guys I have ever known, Mike Mansfield, get up and say, "Now we are going to review these welfare programs objectively, these things that we hurried through the 89th Congress," I had great hope. I thought we were going to do that. And then we end up with a committee, Subcommittee of the Labor Committee, headed by the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, and we whitewashed all of them.
I, for instance, was very much against the Head Start program in its inception. I have changed my mind. I think it is a good program. In most places it is a good program. And I think we ought to examine and analyze all these programs. I think we are encouraging the breakup of the family. We are encouraging people not to go to work. I think we have got to objectively -- I don't care whether they are Republicans or Democrats, objectively go to work on these things and I hoped we were going to do it.
So for me this has been a frustrating year.
Mr. NIVEN. Congressman Boggs, have you found this session as frustrating as Senator Morton has?
Representative BOGGs. No. As a matter of fact, my mood is quite different from that of Senator Morton's. I feel very gratified this evening. We have just adjourned Congress. What we have done from my point of view is a miracle, remarkable. We lost 47 Democrats in the House, all of whom were supporting programs such as the ones that Senator Morton said we should do, and we had to operate without those 47, and sometimes it was very difficult.
I listened to these high level men giving these analyses. They didn't even mention the fact that we had to pass the debt ceiling three times and on each occasion we didn't get a single Republican vote. So that we had to get votes for the very basic thing of maintaining the integrity of the government of the United States from some members who had never voted for it before. In all of these programs I think we have done a great deal. I disagree with the remark that you attributed to Senator Kennedy.
I think that if you look at what we have done in education, in the poverty program, in social security, in health, the session will go down as one of the really constructive sessions of Congress. And none of these things come easy. Congress by its very nature is controversial and you only move after you have great controversy. But, if anyone had said just six weeks ago that tonight we would have a viable poverty program, preserved and administered as a separate agency of the government, wherein the poverty people, the poor people are actually participating, they would have said, well, that was impossible. As a matter of fact, one of my dear friends on the Republican side, Congressman Goodell, started the debate on the subject by saying the bill was one dedicated to bosses and boll weevils. By bosses he meant the people who are elected to run our towns and cities, the municipal officials of our country, and by boll weevils it ultimately got down to defining boll weevils as southern members of Congress, which some of us didn't exactly appreciate. But in any event, despite all the controversy, and I am not intimating for one moment that we didn't have bipartisan support on many of these programs, but despite all of that, despite the atmosphere that is created by Vietnam, despite the partisan atmosphere that always develops prior to a presidential election. I think anyone who looks at this session objectively will come to the conclusion that it has been a constructive session of Congress.
Mr. NIVEN. Congressman Boggs, you clearly feel that it was much more constructive than Senator Muskie or Senator Morton do.
Representative BOGGS. Let me say this to you. I am one of the fellows who has to get
votes. It is my job as the Democratic whip to put these votes together.
Mr. NIVEN. You see now -- excuse me.
Representative BOGGS. I think what we have done is quite remarkable really, and I can understand the frustration Senator Morton expressed because there are frustrations all over the country. But I don't see why the frustrations should be attributed to Congress. The frustrations come from Vietnam. They come from the great migrations into our cities, from elsewhere, of poor people. They come from a change in the population pattern in our country and all these problems that we have. I think that Congress has tried to face up to them and with the resources that we have at our command, while we are fighting a war, I think it has responded very adequately.
Mr. NIVEN. Congressman Laird, do you share Congressman BOGGS' verdict?
Representative LAIRD. No, I don't. I would have to say that this Democratic controlled Congress with its better than two to one majority in the United States Senate, its three to two majority in the House of Representatives, will have to go down as a deficit Congress because it has made possible the highest deficit that this country has ever experienced at any time since World War II. And this deficit is going to have its effect upon the cost of living, the tax of inflation is going to be levied upon all our people. The housewife in the home, the worker in the factory, the farmer in the field is going to feel the effects of deficit financing to the extent that we have embarked upon in this first session of the 90th Congress. We have had no new ideas coming from the Executive Branch of the government. True, the poverty program was reenacted. Twelve new grant in aid programs were asked for by the President.
Grant-in-aid programs using the old model of the 1932's. Instead of moving into a new model of the 1970's and beyond, and the Republicans with our 47 new members still in the minority made an all-out effort to institute tax credits for human investment, for training, tax credits for state and local taxes paid, revenue sharing so that when the war is over in Vietnam, we would have a new approach to these problems of our cities and our states. We in the Republican party believe that we have problem solvers in our cities and in our states and we believe that the creativity of each individual can be brought to its fullest effect by returning the resources to the local communities instead of setting up this project by project grant application basis that was suggested again in this session by President Johnson.
No, I think this Congress will be deficient in many ways. The fact that it didn't institute any new approaches to the problems of our cities, to the problems that our states face, and also because we are going to have this tremendous deficit of from 23 to 25 billion dollars this year and a possible deficit of some 40 billion dollars in fiscal year 1969, the next fiscal year.
Mr. NIVEN. Thank you, Gentlemen. It is clear that we have four rather distinct viewpoints on the work of the first session of the 90th Congress.
Our discussion will be joined at this point by two outside political scientists who will question the four of you from afar. First, speaking from a studio in Washington, Professor Robert Peabody of Johns Hopkins University.
Mr. PEABODY. Well, Paul, I guess the first question I would have would be something like this. Congress has just adjourned. We have seen a wrap-up by four experts from Congressional Quarterly; four of the most able and distinguished members of Congress have given us four quite distinct views of what the record of the 90th Congress, 1st Session, was all about.
I had an unusual opportunity to watch the 1st Session of the 89th Congress, 1965, at firsthand.
Democrats called that one a great Congress. It certainly passed a large number of very important pieces of legislation. Now the 90th Congress, 1967, has been completed. I guess the question that I am left with is something like this: How do you evaluate the output of a Congress? Is it in terms of the numbers of bills passed? Clearly not. Is it the kind of bill that is passed, what it does for certain kinds of people? Well, that is probably more important. I happen to have heard the Senate minority leader Dirksen and the House minority leader Gerald Ford of Michigan a little earlier this evening, and they were talking about how constructive the 90th Congress, 1st Session, was, only they seemed to disagree with President Johnson in his speech down in Miami last Monday where he said Congress was no good because of the status quo Republican attitude. Dirksen and Ford, on the other hand, seem to be arguing that this Congress was a good, constructive Congress precisely because they had 47 more Republicans in the House and four more Senators than they had before.
So before the program is over, I guess what I would like to know is how do you evaluate the output of a Congress? How do you determine whether it is truly representative of the needs of the American public? And so far I guess I am still up in the air.
Mr. NIVEN. Thanks, Professor Peabody. We will get to some of those questions in a few minutes. First, however, an analysis from your colleague on this program, speaking from New York, Professor Alfred de Grazia of New York University.
Mr. DE GRAZIA. I guess Professor Peabody and myself are thinking along the same lines. I meant to make several comments about method of evaluating the work of Congress, not only for this past year but in terms of the past and of the future, because I think when you evaluate Congress, you have to have some kind of historical standard.
This Congress, it seems to me, has been fairly typical. Perhaps the disposition of many of the congressmen because of the Vietnamese war and the situation in the cities has been a little meaner, but the output has not been more or less radical or conservative, I would say, than a typical Congress.
I don't want to comment on the performance of the two parties. I would leave that pretty much up to the experts who are bored already and who have preceded me.
I think that one might find good and bad bills have been passed and I might also mention that a lot of bad legislation has been screened out. Some of it has -- some good legislation has gone out as well. The tax proposal probably must be passed. Regrettably, as Congressman Laird has said, there are many reasons for regretting that the country should have come to this point. On the other hand, there is a lot of work that the Congress has done that is not reflected in its bills that we have been scoring here. There has been this every day scrutiny of agencies going on, a half a thousand very active people, experts in their own rights, going about examining the work of the bureaucracy. There has been a lot of financial watch-dogging. There have been inspection trips of all kinds. Congressmen have been found all over the world. These so-called junkets are actually for the most part very useful practices and should be encouraged because we want to know and the people in the field around the world want to know that the Congress as well as the Executive Branch and Department of Defense is watching.
Mr. NIVEN. In this program please stay in place.
Mr. DE GRAZIA. Then the Congress has had a number of most interesting hearings and these, too, add up to a very busy period of time, for the most part highly constructive, for which the Congress has to be commended.
If Congress is a little bit like the husband who is not able to bring his wife a fur coat for Christmas time, at least it is also like the husband who has done a good job most of the year.
Mr. NIVEN. Thank you, Dr. de Grazia. Gentlemen, we are now going to have a free for all discussion. All mikes will be open at all times. Questions will be directed to you as individuals but any of the four may comment on the answers of another. May we have a question first, from Professor Peabody?
Professor PEABODY. Do you want to start off with Vietnam, Paul? Would that make sense?
Mr. NIVEN. Yes, please.
Professor PEABODY. Then, I would like to ask Senator Muskie and Morton, given the fact that the President clearly has initiative in the area of foreign policy and rightly so, he is one man, he can act quicker than Congress can to emergencies and crises, do you believe Congress has done a good job, has done all it could do to inform the American public as to the reasons why we are in Vietnam and to clarify or make more sense out of what we are trying to accomplish there?
Senator MUSKIE. I suspect, speaking for myself, that every member of the Senate feels that he has in his own way done what he can to enlighten his constituents as to the issues involved in Vietnam, but the total effect of 100 Senators with a 100 different views is not likely to be especially enlightening. Really, on a subject such as Vietnam, as the analysis of what the Congress has done in this field earlier in the program indicated, takes place in committee hearings, takes place in floor debate, takes place I suppose in votes on defense appropriations bills, but we can not speak as one voice on Vietnam, and we are usually separated into two groups, the hawks and the doves, and sometimes a third group variously called owls or eagles is introduced. I don't think any of these labels is one sufficiently accurate to encompass more than a handful of Senators. I think there are probably a 100 views on all aspects of the Vietnam policy.
Basically, of course, we have to decide whether or not to support the President's policy or not.
The basic question which was asked of me was has there been a contribution from the Senate to an understanding by the American people of why we are in Vietnam. My answer is I suspect that each of us has done his best to answer that question, but I am not sure that all of our constituents are satisfied they have had a sufficient answer.
Mr. NIVEN. I know these labels sometimes are resented but whatever Senator Morton was at the beginning of the year on Vietnam, he is something else now. You have changed your view, haven't you, Senator Morton?
Senator MORTON. I have changed my view merely because I think what we are doing and more of the same isn't going to accomplish our mission there. I think that we failed to recognize that we are engaged in two wars. There is the question of aggression. There is our moral obligation. I am not talking about the morality of it. I have never questioned that. I am talking about the reality of it. I think that when we get into South Vietnam with the civil disturbance there we are just opening up Pandora's box. If we are going to try to stop every civil disturbance all over the world, whether we say it is inspired by communists or not, I just think we are going far beyond our means even though we are the most wealthy and the most powerful country in the world. I think we get into a hopeless dilemma and I am afraid we are getting on that wicket in Vietnam and I must say that the constant talk of victory, victory, victory that we hear from the administration and from the military commanders in Vietnam, well, from my own state -- the 101 Airborne just went over there and they are the greatest outfit in the world, I think, the greatest fighting men in the world, and every Republican, every Republican in the House and Senate has supported the troops in Vietnam and we will continue to do so. Those lads aren't there because of any policy decision. I hope the Democratic Party can achieve that same sort of unity in support of these gallant men, but I must say that I think that it is time for some of us to question the policy which I don't think is going to in any way solve the problem that exists there.
Professor PEABODY. Can I break in here, Paul?
Senator MORTON. Yes, sir.
Professor PEABODY. I just would like to kind of question that last statement about the unity of the Republican Party. It does not seem to me that they are any more unified than the Democrats.
Senator MORTON. No, we are not. No. I didn't mean to imply that.
Professor PEABODY. Right.
Senator MORTON. We are not. I grant you that. We have differences as to Vietnam in our party as indeed do the Democrats. My point was that when it comes to appropriations for those boys who are fighting so well in Vietnam, I have yet to see a Republican who didn't vote for them.
Mr. NIVEN. Professor de Grazia, do you question
Professor PEABODY. It's a problem, though, that I–
Professor DE GRAZIA. No question about–
Mr. NIVEN. Excuse me just a moment–
Representative LAIRD. The Vietnam situation, I think this is one of the areas where the whole question of Congressional oversight can be brought into focus. I don't believe that we in the Congress have done the job of oversight as far as the war is concerned that we should do. I take the question of financing the war. At the present time serving on the Defense Appropriations Committee I know that we are using O&M, operation and maintenance money for the third and fourth quarter. We are borrowing against the third and fourth quarter of fiscal 1968 to finance the second quarter of this fiscal year. We are operating on a deficiency basis in the Department of Defense to finance this war. I think the American people have the right to know what the war is costing. The President continues to talk about $23 billion.
Those of us on the Defense Appropriations Committee know the war is costing closer to $30 billion. And I think here is a responsibility that the Congress has under our Constitution to do a better job of oversight, a better job of informing people as to what these costs are. Earlier in the program you talked about the two votes we had on the one supplemental, some $13 billion. There wasn't much anybody could do but vote for that supplemental because the Executive Branch had already obligated the funds.
Mr. DE GRAZIA. Well, don't you think, Congressman Laird and Senator Morton, it is about time for the Congress to draw a line, maybe set a date after which the Congress will take rather decisive action with respect to the Vietnamese war? I mean by that either introduce a kind of resolution that would bring us into a state of hostilities on terms that Congress might define with objectives that the Congress might define.
I think the matter has gone along too far. Perhaps the Republican Party should introduce such legislation.
Representative BOGGS. I think the gentleman should be more specific. What does he mean? He wants Congress to take over the war?
Mr. DE GRAZIA. Commander in Chief.
Senator MORTON. I don't agree with what he is doing, but I still don't see how the 537 of us up here on Capitol Hill–
Representative BOGGS. You really would have pandemonium if you followed that suggestion.
Representative LAIRD. I am sure that must be what he is talking about, though, must be throwing out the idea that Senator Fulbright and we have several over on both sides of the aisle in the House that introduced a similar resolution so that we will have open debate on this particular question.
I think we have had very few opportunities in the House. I think you have had more opportunities in the Senate, but in the House there is a frustration on the part of many Members, and I think some 70 Members now have introduced a resolution along that line. Whether that kind of a debate would be helpful or not I really can't say.
Senator MUSKIE. I must say I am not under the impression that there has been an insufficiency of debate in the Congress on Vietnam.
Senator MORTON. Certainly not in the Senate.
Senator MUSKIE. Not in the Senate. I don't think in the House. As a matter of fact, it seems to me that each of us has an obligation here and a responsibility here that we don't always respond to. Sure, all of us can raise questions as to how we happened to get there in the first place. All of us can ask questions, and legitimate ones, about whether or not we are hitting the proper targets, all of the targets we ought to be hitting.
It is proper to consider the question of whether or not a cessation of the bombing in the north would expedite or slow down progress towards a settlement of the war, but at some point we have learned the lesson in 180 years that after you ask all the questions, after you debate the alternatives and the options, you exercise a little self-restraint and a little steadfastness to support your policy.
Mr. DE GRAZIA. You mean it is improper for the Congress ever to raise the question about the top command of a war?
Senator MUSKIE. It seems to me I spent about three minutes saying first that it was proper to do this, so I think your question is hardly proper. I have said it is proper to raise all these questions. It is proper to do it from time to time, but at some point, as we have in previous wars -- and this is the point that apparently you refuse to cross -- that at some point we ought to exercise that restraint.
Mr. PEABODY. Let me make–
Senator MUSKIE. Don't break in on me yet -- not restraint imposed by someone else. Restraint imposed by ourselves in the light of the importance of steadfastness behind our policy.
Mr. PEABODY. Sir, let me break in here. I am sorry, I probably picked a controversial subject like Vietnam to open this one with. Let's go to a less controversial one.
Representative LAIRD. I think Vietnam is a good thing to talk about in connection with this Congress because it is the overriding thing.
Mr. PEABODY. But we could stay here with Vietnam for another half-hour.
Representative LAIRD. But it does affect so many things. It has to do with our whole spending program and everything about this -- I can understand why it would be brought up.
Mr. NIVEN. One more minute from each of you.
Representative BOGGS. I think it has to do with opposition in the world as well as our spending policies. Somebody should mention that. But go ahead, Professor. He was about to ask a new question.
Mr. NIVEN. I think we ought to move on to domestic problems and especially the problems of the cities.
Representative BOGGS. What is the question? Go ahead, Professor.
Mr. PEABODY. This one is on tax policy. You are a member of the Ways and Means Committee, a very important member of that committee.
Representative BOGGS. Thank you.
Mr. PEABODY. How come it is when the Administration, the President, the House leadership right down the line, wants a tax bill it can't get out of the Ways and Means Committee?
Representative BOGGS. Well, I would suggest that you direct that question to Congressman Mills, the chairman of the committee. He would be better able to answer the question than I can. I can only speak for myself and say to you that any time that I am given an opportunity to vote for a tax bill I shall do so because I think that what is happening now is that the burden is being felt unequally. The idea that the American people get off by not having a tax bill, particularly one as modest as this one, is one that doesn't bear inspection.
Congressman Laird talked about inflation and said no inflationary trend is in the economy. And if they continue they could be much more devastating than a 10 percent surcharge. In addition to that
Mr. PEABODY. I wonder–
Representative BOGGS. Excuse me. Let me go ahead.
In addition to that, certain sectors of the economy are bearing a tremendous burden. The interest rates have gotten very high, and this means the housing industry, the building and loan associations, the small savings associations and so forth, building suppliers, and so on, are bearing a much greater burden than other sectors of the economy.
So that I think that come January, when we look again, and I think that Congressman Laird is undoubtedly correct, that the war in Vietnam is costing closer to $30 billion than $23 billion, and that we are going to have to have a tax bill. And the idea that we won't have one is something that I reject. I have never made any bones about being for one, and I said to the members of the Ways and Means Committee the other day that there were only three members of that committee who ever voted for a tax bill. Congressman Byrnes of Wisconsin, Congress Mills, and me. All the rest of them have enjoyed that fine luxury of just voting against taxes but every now and then you have to vote for them. We had to vote for them in Korea, we had to vote for them in World War II, and we are going to have to vote for them now.
Representative LAIRD. Already, I would just like to say I told the President he would get eight of the 15 Democrats to vote for that tax bill.
Representative BOGGS. I remember that statement. I applauded you for it.
Representative LAIRD. But I was sure there would be enough Republicans in the minority that would get–
Representative BOGGS. I think that is true.
Representative LAIRD. The Democratic majority that wouldn't give the votes to report out the President's bill, isn't that correct?
Representative BOGGS. Well–
Senator MORTON. As a member of the Finance Committee, I can only say when the President comes out and tells us in February it is an $8 billion deficit and in October it is $35 billion, it makes it very difficult to approach this thing objectively.
Now, I agree with my friend, Congressman Boggs. I think that, especially in the light of what has happened to the pound, the secondary reserve currency as we call it, that we are going to have to do something to put confidence back in the dollar and I am afraid that we are not doing it, and I hope we will take action in January, but it is very difficult in view of the apparent switches that are going on by the leader of your party.
Representative BOGGS. Let me recall a little history here, Senator. I was on the committee and you were a member of the House back in the beginning of the war in Korea.
Senator MORTON. Yes.
Representative BOGGS. And we had instituted a tax bill in the House and as you know, under the Constitution the House has that prerogative, and it was a tax reduction bill. We had taken a look at the World War II tax schedule and the House had actually passed a tax reduction bill, both in individual income taxes, corporate taxes, and excise taxes. Between the time that the House passed the bill and the time that the Senate Finance Committee, your committee, acted on it, Korea came, June 1950.
Senator MORTON. And that changed the whole picture.
Representative BOGGS. Right, and by the time the bill got back to the House it was a tax increase, rather than a tax decrease and it -- compared to what is proposed here, it was unbelievable. It upped the rates tremendously. It imposed an excess profits tax. It increased all the excises and also compared to the gross national product, the take, so to speak, the amount of money you take out of the economy, was tremendously more than is proposed in this tax bill.
Mr. NIVEN. Gentlemen, I would like to pose a question which is really more about the mores that prevail in this building than it is about taxes. Why is it that when the President of the U.S. with 30-odd million votes behind him, wants a tax increase he has to approach more or less as a petitioner a Congressman from Arkansas who is elected by 200,000 people perhaps? What is the source of Congressman Mills' great power? Is it the seniority system? Is it that–
Representative LAIRD. No one has power in the Congress unless he has votes on the committee backing him up and Congressman Mills had a vast majority of the members of his party supporting him.
Mr. NIVEN. Does that mean a majority of the members of the House supporting him, do you think?
Representative LAIRD. I think it developed into a position here quite frankly that the minority party is the Republican Party and it shouldn't be our responsibility to pass the President's tax bill.
Now, all we asked was that a majority of the 15 members on the Ways and Means Committee vote out a tax bill.
Senator MORTON. 15 Democrats.
Representative LAIRD. 15 Democrats and 10 Republicans. Now, Congressman Mills has his power because he is supported by members of the committee.
Mr. NIVEN. Congressman BOGGS?
Representative BOGGS. Well, you know, I am always reluctant to try to delve into the mind of another man, and–
Mr. NIVEN. Does Congressman Mills represent the mood of the House on taxes?
Representative BOGGS. Congressman Mills is one of the ablest members of the Congress. I would say to you that in my judgment that if Congressman Mills in January takes another look and reports -- if the committee reports a bill, that the House would pass it. These things don't happen overnight. Do you know it took us two years to pass a tax reduction bill? People were complaining about that.
They said my goodness alive, what is wrong with you fellows? And it took us a long time to pass a tax investment credit which was a terrific help to business in our country. These matters don't happen overnight. You journalists in both electronics and the press generally, you like to keep these controversies going. You like to say, well, Mr. Mills is fighting the President. As far as I am concerned, if there was any fight it is over with now. We are looking to the second session of the Congress.
Representative LAIRD. Well, Hale, isn't it true, sometimes these political scientists fail to realize the simple mathematics of this thing. It is a question of votes and you are more familiar with that than anybody else, being the Democratic Whip.
Professor PEABODY. I would say you are both pretty good vote counters.
Mr. NIVEN. Professor de Grazia, did you have a question?
Professor DE GRAZIA. I was listening to some lessons in political science. But I did have a question of Congressman Boggs. If he is so concerned about inflationary tendencies I wonder why he was so enthusiastic about raising the debt twice in the last year.
Representative BOGGS. Well, certainly enthusiastic is a word that doesn't fit the situation. I face the fact that unless we raise the debt ceiling the credit of the government of the U.S. would be nil and any person who would take a contrary point of view to me is ridiculous. We voted as Democrats eight times, a clear majority of the Democratic Party to raise the debt ceiling under President Eisenhower because we thought it was responsible government. The question of raising the debt ceiling was something that came after the fact. This is a result of what Congress had done previously, not what it was doing that minute, and the notion that you would cut down expenditures by not raising the debt ceiling and not paying off the obligations of the government of the U.S. is just something that I can't buy and I don't believe you do either.
Mr. NIVEN. Gentlemen, let's turn now to the urban problems on which a great deal of this money has been spent in 1967. Professor Peabody, have you a question?
Professor PEABODY. Yes. I do.
The question is something like this, I guess. Is Congress doing all that it could do to solve the problems of the cities? Here I am talking about the -- we had an anti-poverty bill passed. Some people liked it. Some people thought it had a lot of problems to it. We have done something about riot controls. We had a lot of fun and some grief and a lot of party maneuvering on the rat bill so-called. What is being done looking ahead now to what could be a very hot and very unfortunate kind of summer next year, particularly since it is just before Presidential election?
Mr. NIVEN. Professor, Congressman Laird reacted a little violently to your assertions about party maneuvering on the rat bill.
Professor PEABODY. All right.
Mr. NIVEN. Let's direct your questions to him.
Representative LAIRD. I don't know of any party maneuvering on the rat bill. I know the majority of my party, minority party, which doesn't have the votes in the Congress, were against putting it over in the housing administration and, but we did favor it and I voted for putting in the Public Health Service because we already had an existing program.
Professor PEABODY. As I recall, you were in a distinct minority in that position.
Representative LAIRD. Well, I might have been in the minority but we put together a coalition that became the majority on that issue and it is now in the Public Health Service. The only thing about it is that the President handed out all those pens last week when the bill was signed to everyone but he failed to ask for a single dollar to fund the program. And I think that should be pointed out, that it is nice to make these fancy speeches about the programs and what has been accomplished, but it also takes an appropriation. It takes a request through the Bureau of the Budget and there has been none forthcoming on that issue.
Professor PEABODY. I think I would like to say–
Representative BOGGS. Just for the record, you know, I greatly admire Congressman Laird. I consider him one of the really attractive members of the House, certainly one of the ablest. But he will admit that on the first go-around that his party was not quite so enthusiastic as particular for that bill. That is an understatement really.
Representative LAIRD. But they were against setting up a new categorical aid program and it is–
Representative BOGGS. Sorry, Mel, I won't–
Representative LAIRD. When we already had an existing program in the Public Health Service in HEW. We wanted to use–
Representative BOGGS. You know, it reminds me of some fellow who said you Republicans are never for anything the first time.
Representative LAIRD. Well, we are not for the categorical aid approach on any of these programs today.
Mr. DE GRAZIA. Senator Morton -- I would like to ask a question of Senator Morton. He did mention that there was no agonizing reappraisal of the poverty program.
Senator MORTON. No.
Mr. De GRAZIA. And I wonder whether the Congress actually has the machinery for making such an appraisal.
Senator MORTON. Yes, I think Congress definitely has.
Mr. DE GRAZIA. I would like to hear your opinion.
Senator MORTON. I think the speech made by my leader, Senator Mansfield, the leader of the Senate, indicated that last winter when we came back to the 1st Session, beginning of this long session, and frankly I had high hopes -- I personally think that our whole welfare programs, all of them, need reexamination. I don't say that we can do the job any cheaper. It may cost us more.
But I say we have to instill in people a desire, a will, to create, a will to produce, to instill in them a desire to be productive members of society. Many of us had very serious misgivings about the social security bill, the welfare features of it, which we passed only today in the Senate, but we of course had -- there was little choice. I mean 24 million people were going to benefit and 800,000 were going to be perhaps hurt, and, as a pragmatic politician I knew what we were up against and this was brought out clearly in the debate, and I hope that we will be able to do something about it.
But frankly I think that we are looking at this thing, we are going at this thing in the wrong way, and I hope that the next Congress, whether they are -- next session of this Congress or the next Congress, whether there are more Democrats or Republicans is not so important, but if we get this thing back on the track, I think we will have rendered a great service to the people of this country as members of Congress.
Senator MUSKIE. I would like to make a comment.
Representative BOGGs. I would like to make one, too, when you get through.
Senator MUSKIE. I have been listening with a great deal of interest to Congressman Laird from time to time and Senator Morton just now making an argument that is all too familiar around here, that the purpose we seek to serve, the particular piece of legislation is worthwhile but this isn't the right way to do it and until we find the right way to do it we are not going to get support.
Mr. DE GRAZIA. Yet they don't come up with the means for finding the right way, is that right, Senator?
Senator MUSKIE. Well, they offer suggestion from time to time, but then, as Congressman Laird distinctly said tonight, not being in the majority, he disclaims responsibility for getting the votes necessary to get action. Now, I am all for responsible action and I am all for getting the best idea that we can, but when you deal with problems as urgent as the problems of our cities you have got finally to come to grips with the best idea that the majority can agree to and go forward with it.
Now, there are a number of programs that have been developed in the last two years.
Congressman Laird asked for new ideas. The Model Cities Program is new, as new as last year. The Rent Supplemental Program is new.
Representative BOGGS. The poverty program is a new program.
Senator MUSKIE. Poverty program is a new program. It isn't exactly as he would tailor it, but I say to him, with all urgency, and I say to the country with all urgency, that these are the programs at hand. And they are addressed at the very critical urban problems with which we must deal, so why not let us try them?
Representative BOGGS. Let's go on a little further there, Senator. The education bill which we passed today, which we finalized today, is secondary and elementary education for all practical purposes is a new program. For the first time we passed this program just a couple of years ago. Today we experimented with it for two years with almost $10 billion authorization. Now, most of this money will be spent in the cities. They talk about urban programs. When you take education, health, poverty and social security, you have an enormous contribution, and housing.
Senator MUSKIE. And pollution.
Representative BOGGS. And pollution -- to the problems of the cities -- I want to go on one thing, the Social Security thing.
Representative LAIRD. Then I would like to break in.
Representative BOGGs. I served on the committee that wrote the Social Security bill, and I served on the conference that ironed out the differences between the House and Senate and, as a matter of fact, Senator, we did write in a work program, a training program which it was anticipated -- under which it is anticipated that 750,000 people now on welfare will be trained for gainful employment within the next two years.
Senator MORTON. Mothers of one- or two-year-old children.
Professor PEABODY. Can I break in here a minute?
Representative LAIRD. I would like to rebut sometimes these four categorical aid programs that were brought up because we have a better way.
Mr. NIVEN. Professor Peabody tried to set you up for that.
Professor PEABODY. Just wait a minute.
Representative BOGGS. Pretty hard when professors and politicians are on the same program.
Professor PEABODY. Equal time.
The question I have is this. It seems to me Republicans have come up and now let's say it is hard to say who has come up with the idea, but the notion simply is one of tax sharing.
Now, I think it is fair to say that Walter Heller has a plan, Joe Pechman at Brookings has a plan, but if my memory serves me correctly, Mr. Laird is the first Congressman to introduce a bill calling for some form of block grants, and I wondered if you might want to explain that approach as an alternative to some of the programs that the Democrats have been proposing.
Mr. LAIRD. I appreciate that question very much because that really is the alternative. That is a better way to do things than the way of the categorical aid approach.
Senator Muskie mentioned several of the programs that were first enacted in the 89th Congress, four of them, to be exact. These programs aren't of a massive nature.
Take, for instance, the water pollution, sewer construction aid program, another categorical aid program that was set up. You know, we have $160 million authorized and appropriated in that program. Over in HUD right now there is $5,100,000,000 worth of applications. They are holding up sewer construction all over the United States
Senator MUSKIE. May I say that we authorized $6 million and the House would not increase the Senate appropriation.
Mr. LAIRD. The President's budget–
Senator MUSKIE. By $23 million. I know, but we gave you a chance to go above it.
Mr. LAIRD. It is $160 million and the President asked for that. There is $5 billion–
Senator MUSKIE. $203 million.
Mr. LAIRD. We gave every penny that the President asked for.
Senator MUSKIE. Which was $203 million.
Mr. LAIRD. Every penny
Senator MUSKIE. We gave you a chance to go up another twenty-three and you didn't. So why should you complain about the authorization?
Mr. LAIRD. I am just telling you -- the President -- take 223–
Senator MUSKIE. But you have indicated this was a Congressional idea–
Mr. LAIRD. Right.
Mr. NIVEN. Gentlemen, this argument could go on all night.
Mr. LAIRD. $5 billion worth of applications
Mr. PEABODY. A good example of what happens in Congress all the time.
Mr. LAIRD. The trouble here is–
Mr. PEABODY. This is fascinating.
Mr. LAIRD. That is why we need another approach of a massive nature.
Mr. NIVEN. I would like to listen to–
Mr. LAIRD. The problems of our city–
Mr. NIVEN. We are in our last five minutes and I would like to move along to a last subject which is one that you don't always like but which did get a great deal of attention early in the session especially, and that is the question of Congressional ethics.
Mr. PEABODY. Can I start that one out with a quote?
Mr. NIVEN. Yes, sir.
Mr. PEABODY. I will have to rework it a little bit because it is not directly Congressional ethics but it is really Congressional reorganization. It is the problem of the image of Congress. I mean you are all dearly loved in your districts but collectively Congress is kind of a whipping boy. It is, you know, mistreated in the New York Times and the Washington Post and most journalists don't seem to understand. They understand the Senate, Paul Niven particularly, but not too many of them seem to understand what goes on in the House.
Let me just read this quote:
"It is reported an agreement has been entered into by the leaders of the United States House of Representatives to have the votes of the House recorded by an electrical apparatus beginning with the opening of the next session. The device which will probably cost $20,000 to install is intended to simplify and shorten the roll call."
This is John Matthews, the News and Note section of the American Political Science Review, August, 1914.
Mr. NIVEN. What is your question, is that a good idea?
Mr. PEABODY. No. My question is how come you don't -- how come you are not dealing with these problems of Congressional ethics? How come you are not introducing electronic data processing techniques? How come you are not coming into the 20th Century more than you are?
Senator Morton would like to tackle that one.
Senator MORTON. Well, I would like to comment on that.
I don't see how a computer or a vote machine is going to change ethics.
Now, you are smarter than I am but I don't see how that has anything to do with ethics, frankly.
I think we have got to do something about ethics. I think we ought to do something and I think that we ought to have a code of ethics, but putting in a vote machine doesn't change it. They still steal as many votes in Chitling Switch, Kentucky, with a voting machine as they used to with the ballot box.
Mr. NIVEN. Senator, aren't there occasions when all of you would have preferred for one good or another political reason to avoid being counted on an issue?
Mr. BOGGS. No.
Senator MORTON. No, no. We get there but we are in committee meetings, we are all over the Hill, we are downtown seeing somebody, doing something for a constituent, I mean, this thing of putting voting machines in the House–
Mr. DE GRAZIA. I don't think that is very important, really. Certainly not much of an ethical question.
Senator MORTON. I think a full disclosure of our income.
Mr. NIVEN. But you came out for it the first time this year. You changed your position.
Senator MORTON. Oh, no. I came out -- I published -- I put it in the Louisville papers, what I was worth, what I got, what my income was.
Mr. NIVEN. Didn't you for the first time this year come out for a bill for compulsory disclosure by all?
Senator MORTON. No, I came out for that several years ago.
Mr. NIVEN. Why hasn't it happened?
Mr. LAIRD. I think it is about to happen. The Ethics Committee of the House has a recommendation that is about ready to come out. We set this committee up this year and I think they are very close to some kind–
Mr. BOGGS. I do, too. Again, let me, somebody said, be the devil's advocate. I don't think there is an opposition in the House to a code of ethics. I am sure these gentlemen can speak for the Senate.
Senator MUSKIE. I am sure it is about to come.
Senator MORTON. Well, the thing is, the thing rubs off on all of us. You have got 537 people up here and you get a sour apple in the barrel–
Mr. BOGGS. Right.
Senator MORTON. And it rubs off on every one of us.
Mr. BOGGS. Right.
Senator MORTON. And I think the gentleman who asked the question is right. I think we are in ill repute about it and I think the Congress ought to do something about it.
Mr. LAIRD. And perhaps the Congress should move more rapidly on it. But I think we are about ready in the House. I think the Election Reform bill may get out of the House early in the next session.
Mr. BOGGS. I think Mel Laird made a very significant statement. A lot of people -- one of the professors mentioned the tedious committee work that goes on. Most of the work necessary to draft a code of ethics and do it properly has already been done and we should be ready to act early in the second session of this Congress.
Mr. NIVEN. Gentlemen, thank you very much. I think whatever one may think of the results of the first session of the 90th Congress, anyone who has been here at all knows that all of you have worked very hard. It remains only to issue bon voyage as you go home, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Thank you so much for joining us.
Now back to Dick McCutchen.
Mr. McCUTCHEN. For the last 80 minutes you have seen a report on the first session of the 90th Congress as seen by some of its leading members and outside experts. That session came to an end shortly before 7 o'clock this evening. The Congress will reconvene in one month on January 15.
Our thanks to, in Washington, Professor Robert Peabody of Johns-Hopkins University, in New York, Professor Alfred de Grazia of New York University.
On Capitol Hill, Senators Thruston B. MORTON of Kentucky and Edmund MUSKIE
of Maine. And Congressman Hale BOGGS of Louisiana and Melvin LAIRD of Wisconsin. Reporting on the legislative record of the Congress from the staff of Congressional Quarterly, Prentice Bowsher on Vietnam, Joseph Foote on Cities, William Dickenson on Taxes, and Neal Peirce on Congressional Ethics.
This is Dick McCutchen for National Educational Television.