February 27, 1970
Page 5233
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I rise with respect to the Cotton amendment, primarily to raise some questions to which I hope to call the attention of the Senator from New Hampshire.
I have before me some figures that I have been assured are reliable. They show the potential impact of the Cotton amendment on some of the items in the appropriation bill. They suggest some conclusions that I would want to modify if my basic information is incorrect. So I am happy to see the Senator from New Hampshire on the floor for the purpose of checking my figures.
As I understand the potential impact of the Cotton amendment, it is this: one, that impacted-aid programs will not be affected; and two, that the Hill-Burton hospital construction funds will not be affected.
Am I correct?
Mr. COTTON. That is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. That would appear to leave 18 other items – I do not know whether it is technically accurate to refer to them as line item appropriation matters – from which the 2 percent reduction is to be made.
As I understand the intention of the administration, the impact would be as follows. I would like to go through these 18 items. I think the Senator has on his desk a copy of the sheet which I have.
Mr. COTTON. Yes, I have. I would rather follow on my own, although there are in my own now three items that have to be corrected.
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me take the Senator through this sheet. In order to explain its organization, first let me say that there are 18 items, ranging from air pollution control to mental health facilities construction.
Mr. COTTON. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. There is a column of figures which is headed "Vetoed bill," representing the figures provided for the items in the vetoed bill. Another column has the House figure. The third column has the Senate figure without the Cotton amendment. The fourth column is the Nixon budget request. The fifth column has the Senate figure after the Cotton amendment is applied. Then in the last column is the percent of capitulation which the Cotton amendment would represent in the sense of reducing the Senate appropriations toward the Nixon budget.
If I am correct in the analysis which this chart represents, in 11 of these items there would be a 100 percent capitulation on the part of the Senate to the Nixon budget request. In those 11 instances, the effect of the Cotton amendment is to adopt the Nixon budget figure.
With respect to the other seven items, one would represent a capitulation of 70 percent, three others of 50 percent, and three others of 15 percent.
If any of these figures are incorrect, I shall be glad to have the Senator comment at this time. I understand, because of the computations involved, the Senator may not have been able to check accurately.
Mr. COTTON. I would like to call attention to two or three figures. The Senator is talking about a 50 percent cut in elementary and secondary education from the original budget. Is that correct?
Mr. MUSKIE. No. I am referring to a 50 percent reduction in the difference between the Nixon budget request and the Senate appropriation after the application of the Cotton amendment. In other words, these percentages are percentages of the difference between the Nixon budget request and the Senate appropriation after the intended application of the Cotton amendment, so that all of these figures are well within the 15 percent limitation.
Mr. COTTON. As a minor matter, I might point out that my sheet does not go from air pollution control to mental retardation. It goes from air pollution control to mental retardation to child welfare. In other words, I find some items missing on the distinguished Senator's list.
Mr. MUSKIE. I also have before me the sheet that the Senator has.
Mr. COTTON. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Which represents a total reduction.
Mr. COTTON. Some of them are bunched.
Mr. MUSKIE. I see. I had only these.
Mr. COTTON. May I see the sheet? No, I do not have that sheet. May I take the Senator a copy of my sheet? This contains the appropriations as the budget officer went over them with me, and we worked on them.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I continue with what I started to say? I have another sheet.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the chart to which I have been addressing :myself and another chart be printed in the RECORD at this point in my remarks.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, reserving the right to object – and I shall not object – I note that the distinguished Senator has made no reference at all to the items in title 1 in this bill or in title 3 in this bill other than those that are exempted from the Cotton amendment, and all of which are subject to the cut. Was that by intention, or what was the purpose?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, may I give the Senator the basis of the information I am discussing here and asking questions about?
The second chart which I have asked to be placed in the RECORD, and which I shall be glad to show to the Senator, is one I obtained from the committee staff when I inquired if the staff had any information as to the items which the administration planned to cut if the Cotton amendment were to become law. This is the summary that I was given as the probable impact of the Cotton amendment if it were applied.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, reserving the right to object – and I shall not object – I want to make it clear that I think the Senator has still overlooked the fact that the Cotton amendment applies to titles 1 and 3 of the bill, as also to title 2. All of the reductions do not have to be made out of the HEW appropriation. That is the point I am making.
Mr. COTTON. And also Labor.
Mr. HOLLAND. Title 1 is Labor. Title 3 is related agencies, such as OEO and many other which are in title 3.
It would be completely improper to assume that all of the cuts would be made out of HEW. That is the point I am making.
Mr. COTTON. I will say to the Senator that, so far as the information furnished me is concerned, and apparently the information furnished the staff of the committee, it indicates that all the cuts will be made out of HEW.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, may I get approval of my request that these sheets be included in the RECORD?
The PRESIDING OPPICER. Is there objection?
There being no objection, the sheets were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[TABLES OMITTED]
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, may I first respond to the Senator from Florida? My understanding is exactly as stated, that the Cotton amendment could apply to all those sections of the appropriation bill to which the Senator from Florida has referred, and it is not my desire to misinform the Senate with respect to that. But I speak here this afternoon to try to get as much information as I can as to the impact of the Cotton amendment, because the kind of discretion it gives to the President creates a concern on the part of the Senator from Maine as to what the application of that discretion might be – if we can ascertain any intention at all on the part of the administration.
It was on that point that I approached the committee staff and was given the second chart which I have put in the RECORD, and of which the Senator from New Hampshire, I am sure, will say conforms pretty closely, if not identically, with the information he received from the same sources and for the same purposes.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, it has some items bunched. They are not separated by items, and in view of the change in the amendment a few moments ago, at the suggestion of the Senator from Missouri, they have to be separated even more. I can deal with them in the detail which I have and with which I am familiar, and the cuts, but I find myself a little at a loss to deal with them accurately as they are bunched together.
Mr. MUSKIE. I think we may discuss the chart in detail just to point out a few illustrative examples which might be helpful.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield again, I think the second list represents the statement made to the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, if I understood it – and I listened quite attentively in the meeting of the Appropriations Committee – which was made up by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare as representing the recommendations and suggestions that he would make to the Executive for cuts, if he were requested to do so.
It never entered my head that this was to represent the total of the cuts to be made, because I think that, coming at this time in the year, with 8 months already behind us, there are various items in title III, of related agencies, and also various items in title I, which deals with the Labor Department, which are susceptible to being cut in relatively small amounts, that would add to the total of the reduction as against this bill.
We have no information at all, at least the Senator from Florida has no information, as to what may be the expectation of making any cuts as against those items.
Under the Cotton amendment, permission would be given, in making the total reduction, to cut up to 15-percent against all of those items in title I and title III, except those that are exempted under the Cotton amendment, specifically by its terms, such as the Railroad Retirement Board and other matters. I shall not name them; the amendment shows what they are.
So it was never within the mind of this Senator, nor I believe of the committee, that the second list, placed in the RECORD by my distinguished friend from Maine, covered anything else than recommendations which were to be made by the Secretary Of Health, Education, and Welfare in the event he was requested by the executive to apply this amendment to his department, and by no means would the executive be bound to look solely to this Department for the making of the total reduction.
That is the point I wanted to make.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator's comments are very helpful to me in explaining what was in his mind with respect to this bill. Nevertheless, what concerns me is that the 18 items to which we are referring now have been in particular controversy as between the administration and Congress. There has been some indication, certainly – how strong it is, how definitive, or how binding I do not know – in the committee and perhaps elsewhere, that these are the 18 items which may be targeted for cuts if the Cotton amendment were agreed to. Those of us in the Senate who are concerned about the potential impact of the Cotton amendment can and I think should appropriately look at what we have been told with respect to the possible impact on these 18 items.
For example – and this may be one that is lumped together in the list of the Senator from New Hampshire–
Mr. COTTON. No; mine were not lumped together. I have 30 items on my list.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have 18. For example, it is indicated here that higher education would be cut $100 million if the Cotton amendment were adopted. That would be a cutback to the original Nixon budget request, or, in other words, a 100-percent capitulation on the part of the Senate to the President – if this information, which is the basis of my question, is correct.
Mr. COTTON. Well, the information is not correct. It is my fault, I suppose; but that item could not be cut to that degree. It can be cut, probably, by $100 million, but not in accordance with the information afforded by HEW to me, because there was a misapprehension about the line items.
So, may I say to the Senator from Maine–
Mr. MUSKIE. Incidentally, these figures are figures given to me before the Eagleton amendment was agreed to. So it may need some clarification on the basis of the Eagleton amendment.
Mr. COTTON. That is right. Perhaps I used poor generalship, whether we were in combat or in controversy, by shooting straight from the shoulder; but I felt the Senate was entitled to every bit of information I had as to where these cuts were likely to be applied, as recommended by the Department, and I gave that information.
It is perfectly true that what I have before me as a chart has first the amount originally in the House bill and second the proposed reduction under the present House bill. It is certainly relevant, and it is certainly proper, that the Senator from Maine should go back and compare it with the original budget request of the President. That is highly proper, but I do not know that I can – I do not share that information on my chart.
Mr. MUSKIE. I see. Well, the Senator may have an opportunity later
Mr. COTTON. But I have the amounts here – not the percentages but the amounts – and I take it that the chart prepared by the distinguished Senator from Maine is fairly accurate, although it appears that certain items may be grouped differently than on mine.
I have to answer the questions from my information rather than on his basis, and perhaps we will be working at cross purposes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me first list the 11 items in this chart which show a 100-percent capitulation on the part of the Senate to the budget request. They are the National Institute of Arthritis and Metabolic Diseases, the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, general research and services, health manpower, dental health, education professions development, higher education, vocational education, and education for the handicapped.
Mr. COTTON. May I interrupt the Senator a moment?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. COTTON. If the Senator wishes to call it a capitulation on the part of the Senate as to the particular items the Senator has read so far – at least, I have followed him through the various Institutes of Health – the President could apply the reduction and come out with exactly the same figure which he had offered the Senate as to those particular items in his compromise offer to Congress of February 2, after the veto, when he wrote to the Speaker of the House and said how far he is prepared to go.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct; I am glad to have that clarification.
Mr. COTTON. I would hasten to add, however, that before the Senator terms that a capitulation on the part of the Senate, there are other items in the Institutes of Health. He does not touch heart, stroke, and cancer research, and so on. So as to those individual items the Senator is perfectly correct, so far as he has read them, that the President could apply 2 percent, so that he would be back to his February 2 offer. On the other hand, he has got to find a lump sum of $232 million over his offer that he has to leave untouched.
Mr. MUSKIE. I understand. Perhaps we ought not to go into details until the Senator from New Hampshire has had a chance to check other items for accuracy. There were 11 items that added a total reduction to the President's February 2 figure; one that represented a 70-percent reduction from the February 2 figure, three that represented a 50-percent reduction from the President's February 2 figure; and three that represented a 15-percent reduction from the February 2 figure.
Inasmuch as the impacted aid provision will not be affected by the Cotton amendment; and inasmuch as Hill-Burton funds will not be affected; inasmuch as 11 of the 18 items that appear to be areas of cutbacks under the Cotton amendment represent increasing the President's figure of February 2; it seems to me the Senate would be well advised to make an educated guess from this chart. Rather than adopting a formula which leaves the Senator from Florida (Mr. HOLLAND), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. COTTON), the Senator from Maine, and other Senators in doubt as to where cuts will be made and what the impact will be, the Senate would be well-advised to exercise the appropriation function that is ours and either approve the cuts or insist on the Senate figure, and let the President work his will on the total package? In other words, an amendment that purports to give the President discretion when applied to the facts as we understand them at this moment involves no discretion at all.
We have 13 items that we can predict are going to stand in accordance with figures now in our possession, and the others will stand pretty close to that.
So it seems to me that we would serve ourselves better, we would solve the cause of public information better, and we would give the country a better picture of the impact of what we are doing, if we were to refuse to deal with a formula of this kind, with cloaked results – and I do not use the word "cloak" in any way invidious with respect to the Senator's motivation. What the Senator is trying to do is to work out a formula to avoid an impasse between Congress and the President.
Mr. COTTON. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is a perfectly laudable objective. But I do object seriously that we use this means to do it. First of all, it leaves the result uncertain. Second, I think it is an abdication of an appropriations function that is ours and that we ought to exercise one way or another.
If we know, for example, that the result of this amendment will be to reduce these 11 items to the budget figure, why do we not here say that the budget figure is good enough for us, that we will adopt it, and that we will send those down to the White House without further controversy? If we do not agree with that – and, having understood it, we may not – then let us say so. Why cloak as a discretionary matter something the result of which is pretty far gone, as I see it at this moment?
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. COTTON. There is much logic and cogency to what the distinguished Senator has just observed, as there always is to his observations in this body.
However, as a practical matter, in the first place, these are not cut-and-dried figures. As I recall, there are approximately four or five items indicated that are not going to be touched. The only two that are cut and dried are the impacted areas and the Hill-Burton funds. That has been agreed to, and we have that guarantee.
May I say to the distinguished Senator from Maine that there were members of the Appropriations Committee on both sides of the aisle who in discussing my amendment said exactly what he has said: Let us go ahead and make our own reductions. Let us decide. If there is a possibility or reasonable likelihood that this would be reduced by 2 percent, the overall bill, with the exception of social security, railroad retirement, and such funds, that the President would then sign the bill, and that we would get action, that is fine. And, rather than leave it for the President and HEW to dicker around and see what they will do on it, let us do it ourselves.
That is precisely what the Senator from Maine is saying.
That sounded logical, but difficulties were involved. We could not even get to the bottom of all the difficulties; and I can assure the Senator that, for my part, I have worked harder over a period of the last few days than at any other time since I have been on the Hill – far into the night – with the aid of budget officers.
In some cases, the expenditures in certain items – and it is even more so since we got the thing tied up with the suggestion of the Senator from Missouri – are funded already. They cannot be cut. They are obligated. Other items are in an entirely different category. As a matter of fact, HEW has gone all over this. I asked them if they could live with the 15 percent limitation in my amendment, so that no single item could go below that.
They got it all worked out, and I now find that it is faulty, because in three instances they were group appropriations, and this goes to line items.
The point is that with this distinct limitation they still will have to do some refining and careful and painstaking analysis before they can apply the 2 percent. So that the figures I have are as near as possible – and they are presented honestly – to what they are striving to do, but they may not be able to do it. If we attempted to do on the floor of the Senate what we utterly failed to do in the Appropriations Committee, when we were trying to bring about exactly what the Senator from Maine has suggested – I think the result would be chaos.
The Senator might well come back and say, "Then, drop your amendment, because your amendment is so impossible that if it is passed on to the President and to the department this task cannot be accomplished, either in the Appropriations Committee or on the floor of the Senate, there is no validity to the amendment." But there is validity to it because, one, it makes the President concede from his own programs the sum of $232 million, in order to meet us somewhere near halfway; and he has to concede and add to what he offered on February 2, $347 million. He has to add to his appropriations, and he also has to reduce; and it requires some long painstaking work, even when we are trying to correct three places in here that turned up since the change from appropriations to items. My answer is this, and then I will get out of the Senator's way so that he can make his case, which is a strong case.
My answer is: As the Senator said, the problem of the Senator from New Hampshire is trying to get something that would not cripple any of the programs, at the same time that we could get the House to be satisfied with and have it signed into law. There is a good chance my amendment would do this.
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield to me for a moment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. McINTYRE in the chair). Does the Senator from Maine yield to the Senator from Montana?
Mr, MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I was trying to see whether it would be possible to set a time limitation to vote at a time certain on the pending amendment. How much time does the Senator from Maine desire to speak further?
Mr. MUSKIE. I think just 3 minutes more would do.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Does anyone else wish to speak?
Mr. HOLLAND. I wish to speak for 15 minutes.
Mr. MAGNUSON. The Senator from Wyoming wishes to speak.
Mr. HANSEN. Yes, 4 or 5 minutes will do.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a vote on the pending committee amendment occur at 3:30 o'clock today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cook in the chair). Is there objection?
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to be sure that everyone here who wants to talk will have that opportunity.
Mr. MANSFIELD. The Senator from Maine wishes to speak for 5 minutes, the Senator from Wyoming 4 minutes, and the Senator from Florida 15 minutes. We have been in session since 10 o'clock this morning.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, there were a goodly number on the Appropriations Committee who voted for the Cotton amendment who are not now in the Chamber. I do not know whether they want to speak or not. I voted for it. I want to speak on it for around 15 minutes, but there may be others that may wish some time to speak. I do not wish to hold up the Senate. I am as anxious to get through with this thing as anyone else; but I want any Senator who wishes to be here to have that same opportunity.
Mr. MANSFIELD. They will have that opportunity. Senators know that a time limitation or a time certain to vote has never been given without that opportunity first being considered. It has always been understood that Senators who could not be here but want to speak on a subject would be given an opportunity. That will always be the case.
Mr. SCOTT. I am sure that the joint leadership can give that assurance.
Mr. MAGNUSON. With that assurance, I have no objection.
Mr. COTTON. Could we not be assured that they will come in at 3:30?
Mr. MANSFIELD. The Senator can be practically assured of that, yes.
Mr. COTTON. But if we go through to 4 o'clock or 4:30 o'clock, I know that we are going to go a lot longer than that. The proponents of my amendment have not taken up all the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent request to the Senator from Montana?
The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) such time as he desires.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, following the colloquy I have had with the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, I should like to state my objections to the Cotton amendment in these terms:
First, I think it is an undesirable technique for delegating or surrendering some part of our appropriations responsibility to the White House.
Second, as it is presently framed, its results will be uncertain, even if we accept the opinions of the most optimistic who support the amendment. To those who are pessimistic about it, its results are all too certain.
Third, the distinguished sponsor of the amendment himself is so concerned about its application to those programs in which he had a special interest, that he undertook to get the administration's assurance with respect to those programs; namely, impacted aid and hospital construction – two worthy programs.
But the uncertainty of his own amendment and its application prompted him to get assurance.
May I say, Mr. President, that the results of that assurance to him leads to my next point; namely, that the full impact of his amendment will inevitably force cuts in the 18 items which I have described this afternoon – the very areas of human need, health and education, which have been in the area of controversy as between the President and Congress since this issue first arose in December of last year.
That issue is clear cut. It has been out in the open since that time. I think that the place to decide it now is out in the open, on the Senate floor, and not in the President's office in an anonymous, not fully revealed exercise of the Executive pen.
These very programs that are likely to be cut back fully to the Executive's recommendations are the programs that seem to be in the direct line of fire of the Cotton amendment.
That issue should not be decided in any ambiguous way. It should be decided clearly here on the floor of the Senate.
For that reason, Mr. President, I oppose the Cotton amendment, with all deference to the motives of the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, I appreciate the presence of the Senator from Missouri in the Chamber. I wish to respond, in part, to some observations he made a little while ago.
First of all, if my memory serves me correctly, I think that the Senator from Missouri was one of those who voted to increase aid to impacted areas. I ask my distinguished colleague from Missouri if I am not correct about that.
Mr. EAGLETON. Yes. I so stated in my remarks. I said that I followed the leadership of the Senator from Colorado (Mr. ALLOTT) who led the charge for more money.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, I appreciate the fact that the Senator from Missouri recognizes the wisdom of following the lead of my distinguished colleague from Colorado (Mr. ALLOTT).
Let me say that I was somewhat surprised over the remarks made by my very good friend from Missouri, that the President of the United States not only vetoed the bill, not only availed himself of nationwide television coverage to veto the bill, but even went so far as to use props – and that one of the props he used to sign the veto bill was a pen.
I can assure the Senator that I appreciate the fact that the President was going to some lengths, with props, to use a pen to sign the veto message.
Mr. President, the President of the United States was also characterized as one who was forced to take this tack, kicking and screaming – I think those were the words used by my distinguished colleague from Missouri.
I would suggest that as he reads back the record, I suspect he may think his characterization of the President's action was his own interpretation and not literally a reflection of the actions of the President, because I do not believe very many people saw the President actually being forced to acquiesce to this program kicking and screaming.
The Senator from Missouri speaks of the "hypocrisy of the President." I think we can disagree on issues, and most certainly the distinguished Senator from Missouri has every right to disagree with our President, but I think it is one thingto disagree and another thing to launch a personal attack upon the president.
I suggest that when he refers to the "hypocrisy of the President," it seems to me that he is characterizing the President's actions as he would like to interpret them and not as I think they deserve to be interpreted in the light of what thePresident said.
Let me read, in order that the record may be set fully straight, what the President of the United States said in his message of yesterday, February 26. This is a message to the Congress from the White House:
I propose reduction, termination or restructuring of 57 programs which are obsolete, low priority or in need of basic reform. These program changes would save a total of $2.5 billion in the fiscal year 1971. Of this amount, $1.1 billion saving require Congressional action – roughly the equivalent of the amount by which the 1971 budget is in surplus.
No government program should be permitted to have a life of its own, immune from periodic review of its effectiveness and its place in our list of national priorities.
Too often in the past, "sacred cows" that have outlived their usefulness or need drastic revamping have been perpetuated because of the influence of special interest groups. Others have hung on because they were "too small" to be worthy of attention.
At a time when every dollar of government spending must be scrutinized, we cannot afford to let mere inertia drain away our resources.
These are the words of the President of the United States in the message he sent to Congress yesterday.
I continue reading from the message of the President of the United States:
Some of these programs are the objects of great affection by the groups they benefit. But when they no longer serve the general public interest, they must be repealed or reformed.
No program should be too small to escape scrutiny; a small item may be termed a "drop in the bucket" of a $200.8 billion budget, but these drops have a way of adding up. Every dollar was sent to the Treasury by some taxpayer who has a right to demand that it be well spent.
I suggest that what the President tried to say here is, while some people may say these words reflect the hypocrisy of the President, he is being forced to make an accommodation on the bill. He was not kicking and screaming.
He is aware of the concern of the people over the inflationary pressures. The people want very much to have our budget brought as nearly in balance as it can be.
The President continues:
I propose that we reform assistance to schools in Federally-impacted areas to meet more equitably the actual burden of Federal installations.
In origin this program made good sense: Where a Federal installation such as an Army base existed in an area, and the children of the families living on that installstion went to a local school, and when the parents made no contribution to the tax base of the local school district, the Federal government agreed to reimburse the local district for the cost of educating the extra children.
But this impacted aid program, in its twenty years of existence, has been twisted out of shape. No longer is it limited to payments to schools serving children of parents who live on Federal property; 70 % of the Federal payments to schools are now for children of Federal employees who live off base and pay local property taxes. In addition, the presence of a Federal installation (much sought-after by many communities) is the entire economy of a district. As a result, additional school aid is poured into relatively wealthy communities, when much poorer communities have far greater need for assistance.
One stark fact underscores this inequity: Nearly twice as much Federal money goes into the nation's wealthiest county through this program as goes into the one hundred poorest counties combined.
The new Impact Aid legislation will tighten eligibility requirements, eliminating payments to districts where Federal impact is small. As it reduces payments to the wealthier districts, it will re-allocate funds to accord more with the financial needs of eligible districts. Children whose parents live on Federal property would be given greater weight than children whose parents only work on Federal property.
When the President submits a program, and says what he is willing to do, I think he is being honest and fair and forthright with the people of this Nation. We must get some bill passed. And if he has been willing, as he has indicated, to go above the limit he first suggested, it is not to imply that he is hypocritical. Rather, it would imply that he recognizes the fact we must make some accommodation to get essential legislation enacted.
I am not talking only of Federal-aid, but of all other aid. We must get a bill passed. Those who cry out against the President of the United States ought to ask themselves whether they are the obstructionists, or whether the President of the United States is the obstructionist.