February 10, 1970
Page 3055
AMERICA IN THE 1970'S
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. President, I invite the attention of the Senate to a crucially important set of recommendations for an agenda of national priorities which was adopted yesterday by the Democratic Policy Council. The council, a constituent agency of the Democratic National Committee, is a principal forum through which the National Democratic Party determines and publicizes its views on major questions facing the Nation. Former Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey serves as council chairman and Senator MUSKIE and I serve as vice chairmen.
The council forcefully stated its views on a number of issues which concern the Senate and trouble every American.
I am grateful for the effort put in on this important statement by members of the Democratic Policy Council and by its six committees.
I believe that what they have to say will be useful in helping move this Nation in the right direction. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[Report of the Democratic Policy Council, Feb. 9, 1970]
AMERICA IN THE 1970's
We, the members of the Democratic Policy Council, set forth in this first statement of policy our principal beliefs and hopes about the paths this nation should follow in the decade of the 1970's.
We believe the American people are capable of facing America's problems for what they are. We believe they are willing to initiate and sustain tangible efforts to meet these problems. We do not believe they will long be content with a national administration lacking any deep inner convictions about ourselves and our world ... a national administration highly skilled in public relations and television packaging, but demonstrably unwilling to come to grips with the necessities of the 1970's.
Our people are threatened by the prospect of an inflationary economy headed simultaneously toward recession. Rising prices are a cruel tax on the poor, the retired, on every owner of insurance policies, every contributor to a retirement system.
The strength of our economy, as our resources of human life and spirit, is drained by a war which has been prolonged unnecessarily.
Our humanity is assaulted by inadequate schools, by the crushing costs of available health care, by racial injustice and unequal opportunity, by a crisis in housing and transportation, by the foul air and water which pollute our environment, and by a rising rate of crime.
Our initial doubt about the Republican Administration's capacity to tackle these problems was changed to certainty when, in the same week, President Nixon vetoed as inflationary legislation providing an extra $1.2 billion for education and health and then announced a new multi-billion dollar spiral in the nuclear arms race.
We believe the American people deserve better from their national leaders.
In the months ahead the Democratic Policy Council and its committees will speak to these problems ... specifically and in detail. Some of what we say here today is general – for in certain areas we have yet to find solutions equal to the problems which confront us. Some of what we say is tentative – for in examining these problems we expect to learn much. But this document does express our deepest convictions about the purposes and goals which should characterize our national life in this decade of challenge and promise.
We offer these ideas and positions to the American people. And we challenge the Republican Administration to respond.
It is widely recognized that in this decade we must devote our greatest energies to securing the decisive shift of resources – human and natural – from pursuits which cripple or destroy man's capacity for life, liberty and happiness to those which enhance these qualities. Too often, however, such recognition is not accompanied by the realization that this task will require difficult and courageous political judgments.
Just to fulfill the nation's existing commitments to its citizens may require placing additional burdens on the American people. It may require further redistribution of our wealth and redirection of our human energies. It will require the elimination of obsolete Federal programs and subsidies that have long since lost their original purpose. It may require restructuring of our instruments of government. As a beginning it is essential to commit the billions now spent on Viet Nam to help solve our pressing domestic problems.
It is the Congress to which the American people must increasingly look for leadership in determining our national priorities and committing the resources – human and financial – to meet our urgent domestic needs. An initial step in any such determination is the creation of a Joint Congressional Committee on National Priorities.
These are but a few examples of the commitments which Congress already has made the law of the land:
The Housing Act of 1949 declared that the "general welfare and security of the nation require ... a decent home and suitable living environment for every American family . . .".
In the 1968 Housing and Urban Development Act, the Congress recognized that for twenty years the promise had not been kept, noted the failure as "a matter of grave national concern" and rededicated itself to "the elimination of all substandard housing in a decade."
In the 1966 Model Cities legislation, Congress declared that "improving the quality of urban life is the most critical problem facing the united States . . .".
The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 declared it "the policy of the United States to eliminate the paradox of poverty in the midst of plenty in this nation by opening to everyone the opportunity for education and training, the opportunity to work and the opportunity to live in decency and dignity."
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 made it the policy of the United States "to provide financial assistance . . . to local educational agencies serving areas with concentrations of children from low income families to expand and improve their educational program...”
To date these commitments remain unfulfilled and either ignored or underfunded by the Republican Administration.
Simply to ignore these acts of Congress and the national goals established by these acts is not acceptable; we must move decisively to accomplish them. But we must look simultaneously at other pressing needs:
Crime
The Republican Administration has talked a great deal about stopping crime. But the crime rate has continued to rise; indeed, crime increased by 11 percent nationwide in 1969. In the face of these facts, however, the Republicans have asked for only $480 million to implement the Safe Streets Act of 1968 in comparison to the $1 billion that was forecast for 1971 by the previous Democratic Administration. Effective use should be made of all of the resources that can be made available through this legislation.
Today in the United States we have no system for the enforcement of our criminal laws. We have instead only a faltering, inefficient process – police, courts, corrections – consisting of an amalgamation of fragmented and often hostile agencies. There are serious deficiencies in every part of this process, and as a whole it is not preserving order and keeping our people safe from the threat of crime.
Each year there are more than nine million serious crimes committed in the United States. Only half of these are even reported to the police. The police arrest a suspect in only one-eighth of the crimes committed and in only one-sixteenth is there a conviction obtained. The law enforcement process, as it presently operates, is not doing the job on crime that must be done, and it will never do the job unless we face up to the need for basic improvements in levels of funding and in management techniques.
We must swiftly and substantially increase the resources devoted to law enforcement and the administration of justice.
Federal, State and local authorities must work together to create central offices of criminal justice at the metropolitan level to make all parts of the law enforcement process – police, courts, corrections – function together as a fair, effective system.
Beyond this, however, we need major efforts in several areas almost totally overlooked by the Republicans: strict gun control legislation, prevention of juvenile delinquency and rehabilitation of young offenders before they become hardened criminals; rehabilitation of drug addicts; the reform of our court system to eliminate delays in the administration of justice and the reform of our correctional institutions to include greater stress on community-based rehabilitation.
Seventy percent of all crimes are committed by repeat offenders. In other words, to achieve real results in the war on crime, it is essential to provide the facilities and expert personal care to help stop persons convicted of one crime from committing another.
Education
Improving education and making it freely available to all our people is the surest way to break the cycles of poverty, crime, welfare, and blighted opportunity that prevent us from fulfilling our national destiny. Yet we have only begun to make the major commitment of resources, time and talent needed to secure this urgent priority. Existing programs, including the landmark Elementary and Secondary Education and Higher Education Acts, remain underfunded; there is almost no support from the federal government for research into new educational techniques; and we need to make greater efforts in areas of pre-school education, child development, facilities and methods for teaching disadvantaged children and farther education for adult Americans. Education must never be starved of funds or sacrificed for less essential needs. It must receive our continuing attention, commitment, and support.
Cities
The urban crisis was a prominent feature of the political landscape of the 1960's, but the Republican Administration already seems bent upon having us forget it in the 1970's. Despite the importance of national action to save our environment, this effort cannot become an excuse or rationale for diverting our attention and vital resources from the increasingly serious plight of American cities. The Eisenhower Commission has called for vast new expenditures on domestic needs, underscoring the earlier conclusions of the Kerner and Douglas Commissions about the urgency and dimension of the task of reconstructing urban life.
Above all, however, the effort to rescue our metropolitan areas requires a political decision, supported by all the American people. This, in turn, will require committed and articulate political leadership which calls upon our nation to make the sacrifices now that are essential if we are to insure the survival and development of urban America.
Medical care
Sharply rising medical costs and the lack of adequate health care for millions of Americans demand far better use of existing medical facilities, and their expansion to meet the growing needs of the 1970's. We must explore ways for all Americans to be insured against grave financial loss through illness and to have full access to preventive care facilities. The time has come to look particularly at ways for the federal government to help establish and support national programs of health insurance, in the private market where possible but through public action where necessary. The time has also come to correct immediately the outrageous abuses of Medicare and Medicaid as revealed by the Senate Finance Committee staff yesterday.
Welfare
Last year, the Republican Administration proposed a family assistance program that would begin reform of the present welfare system and provide a federal minimum payment of $1600 for a family of four whose income was under $1000. Although the Republican program contains some good elements, we should explore other proposals that would remedy shortcomings in the Administration's bill.
We need, for example, to implement the broader proposals of the Heineman Commission on Income Maintenance appointed by President Johnson and to increase the minimum payments to a figure that makes it possible for a family of four to survive in today's economy; achieved in stages this would bring each family's income to the federally-defined poverty line of $3600 a year. And we should look for ways to relieve the already overburdened budgets of states and localities.
Other needs claim our attention and action:
Workable mass transportation systems to eliminate the daily worsening traffic congestion of the highways in our metropolitan centers;
A total commitment by the federal government to eliminate hunger and malnutrition in this richest of nations;
A program for rural America which concentrates on development of rural communities and their human and material resources; which helps to relieve the already overcrowded urban centers; which more fairly compensates efficient producers of agricultural commodities while reducing gross overpayments to a handful of absentee, off-the-land farm "manufacturers."
Where will we find the resources to meet these commitments and solve these problems?
First, we must insure that no favored interest group evades its obligation to contribute to the public sector. We must continue the fight to close tax loopholes which benefit a few politically powerful groups to the detriment of our society as a whole. Progress was made in 1969 by the Democratic Congress, but more must be done.
Second, we must make a serious and determined effort to reduce our military budget to the lowest level consistent with realistic national security objectives. We welcome the cuts announced on the Pentagon budget for fiscal 1971, even though the Administration's refusal to release figures on expenditures related to the Vietnam war makes it difficult to assess the nature and extent of the military reductions which have been proposed. But we are distressed to learn of the Administration's decision to return initial responsibility for military budgeting to the Armed Services instead of leaving it in civilian hands; allocation of defense dollars should not be determined through logrolling by competing services, but by people aware of and responsible for competing domestic needs of our society.
We know, for example, that the number of major new weapons systems initiated in the past year has been unusually large; when added to weapons programs previously under way, the cost-to-completion of 131 major systems has risen to over $140 billion, even if no further cost overruns occur.
We must understand that small initial down payments on major weapons systems can have enormous impact on future budgets, depriving the American people of urgently needed funds for schools, hospitals, clean air and water, and more livable cities and rural areas.
The Policy Council's Truth-in-Budgeting Task Force will soon release a more detailed report on the Republican Administration's budget for fiscal 1971.
Third, we must pursue responsible fiscal and monetary policies to insure real growth in our economy so that under existing tax rates, there will be substantial additional revenues for our public needs. Inflation must not continue to rob the poor, the retired, the small businessman, those on fixed incomes and so grievously inhibit our ability to meet our national needs.
Finally, we must face the difficult question and be prepared, if necessary, for the possibility that along with tax reform and Pentagon budget reductions we will have to make selective increases in tax rates so that those able to contribute most readily to the public weal will do so in true proportion to their ability.
This nation has the greatest per capita income of any nation in the world, but our citizens contribute less per capita than those in most industrialized, Western nations.
In sum, a decisive shift of resources will not be achieved with rhetoric or short-term budgetary gimmickry. It will take hold and imaginative commitments of resources and talents, worthy of a great and dedicated people. We have faith that given proper leadership, America will take these essential steps in the decade ahead.
II
Despite the Administration's claims of progress, Vietnam remains our most urgent overseas problem and our most divisive and bitter domestic one. Our national interests require that the war in Vietnam be brought to a close at the earliest practical moment. The loss of life, the diversion of resources from critical domestic needs, and the disunity of our country must be ended.
The withdrawal of some U.S. troops is a desirable first step and we support this decision. But future U.S. decisions, affecting American lives and resources, should not be dependent upon either North Vietnamese or South Vietnamese actions. Our schedule of withdrawal should not be dependent upon the progress of the Paris peace talks, the level of violence, or the progress of so-called Vietnamization. It should depend primarily upon the interests and policy of the United States. That interest and that policy require a firm and unequivocal commitment to the American people that all U.S. forces will be withdrawn from Vietnam in accordance with a definite schedule. We see no reason why this withdrawal should not be completed within eighteen months. Such a withdrawal can be accelerated by efforts to create the conditions necessary for a peaceful political settlement.
The resolution of the Vietnam tragedy cannot be found in military measures alone whether those of the United States or, through Vietnamization, those of South Vietnam. It can be found in political arrangements which broaden the South Vietnamese government to the point where it is truly representative of the people. Our continued unconditional support of the Thieu government as now constituted is not only unjustifiable but delusive. The U.S. should be interested in putting an end to violence in Vietnam, not prolonging it. And so long as the present government of Vietnam believes that it can count on U.S. military support for an indefinite period, we believe it will not take or permit others to take the domestic political measures in South Vietnam which are essential to peace.
There are, as well, unanswered questions regarding negotiations. It is puzzling that President Nixon stated in his November 3rd address that Ho Chi Minh's letter to him "flatly rejects" his approach. We had been faced with a North Vietnamese demand that a settlement "must be ... in accordance with the NLF program." But Ho Chi Minh's letter stated, "The ten point program . . . is a logical and reasonable basis for settlement . . .... Furthermore, his letter ended by stating, "With good will on both sides we might arrive at common efforts in view of finding a correct solution to the Vietnam problem." Was this a rejection, or, in fact, an invitation for further negotiation?
By failing to appoint a successor to Ambassador Lodge, the Administration has created the widespread impression that it has downgraded the Paris talks and "written off" negotiations. We believe that the President should immediately appoint a high level negotiator to head the Paris delegation and thus put pressure on the North Vietnamese to negotiate in good faith. Among the subjects that should be pressed are steps to reduce the level of combat and violence, leading to a cease-fire.
President Thieu has denounced and taken action against Vietnamese political leaders who have urged a negotiated compromise settlement. Yet there is evidence that a majority of the South Vietnamese desire such a settlement. Even in the 1967 elections, over sixty percent of the people voted for civilian candidates who ran on some type of peace platform. We believe the United States should now insist on the inclusion in the Saigon government of men who represent wider public opinion desiring a peaceful solution and who are prepared to negotiate such a settlement.
Furthermore, the United Nations should be used to the fullest extent practicable to speed a resolution of the struggle in Vietnam.
The Administration's failure to develop viable U.S. policies in other areas of the world is deeply disturbing.
Almost the only "new" policy of this Administration has been the so-called Guam or Nixon Doctrine. At first this appeared to mean that we would keep existing commitments in Asia but not expand them and that coping with subversion must be the responsibility basically of the nation threatened. Yet the policy has now become an accordion, contracted at home, expanded when the President or Vice President travel. President Nixon volunteered in Bangkok to stand with Thailand against threats "from abroad and from within," and Vice President Agnew spoke in Singapore of a "definite relationship" where there has been no commitment in the past. In addition, the President implied but did not define an American nuclear umbrella over Asia.
Finally, the President's State of the Union message seemed to apply the doctrine to the whole world, and without distinction. This may or may not be "policy," but it represents neither clarity nor a willingness to level with the American people.
We welcome the resumption of American-Chinese discussions in Warsaw and the initiatives toward relaxation of barriers to commerce and travel between the United States and China. We urge that consideration be given to further steps which will bring China into wider contact with the community of nations and encourage the end of her isolation.
We support the growing economic and social role being played in Asia by Japan. We should encourage the trend toward regional cooperation among Asian nations.
The objective of U.S. policy in the Middle East is lasting peace between the Arab nations and Israel – a peace that will assure independence and security to Israel and all other nations in the area. Today we are further away from that goal than we were 14 months ago.
As a matter of primary importance, the United States should undertake efforts to bring about face-to-face negotiations between the parties in the Arab-Israeli conflict, including efforts under the auspices of the United Nations. We should also press for restoration of complete compliance with the cease-fire. It is regrettable that the quiet statesmanship of the past has given way at times to public declarations by Administration spokesmen.
In the meantime, the Middle East arms race continues at an accelerated rate, spurred by increased shipments of arms to the Arabs from the Soviet Union and the recent French sale of advanced aircraft to Libya. The United States should make every effort to reduce the flow of arms into the area and press for Middle East arms limitation arrangements.
However, pending such an arrangement, the United States must remain prepared to correct or prevent an arms imbalance which might either threaten Israel's existence or contribute to a resumption of major hostilities.
We believe the United States should welcome and support the new German government's initiatives for improving relations with the nations of Eastern Europe and with the Soviet Union.
Furthermore, we believe that the proposed European Security Conference between the NATO and Warsaw Pact countries presents opportunities to reduce tensions in Europe now, and we are concerned by indications that the Administration considers that the conference should be postponed for at least a year. Rather than dragging our feet, we should assure our NATO allies that the United States is fully prepared to join in such a conference. Among the immediate issues should be the lessening of tensions in Europe and the mutual reduction of force levels. A Warsaw Pact-NATO agreement on balanced reductions in forces is the soundest way to reduce the number of American troops stationed in Europe.
Pending such an agreement, we call upon the Administration to obtain from our German and other allies in NATO an arrangement to take over some of the budgetary costs now carried by the American taxpayer.
In Latin America, this Administration has replaced the Alliance for Progress with a vacuum.
Governor Rockefeller's study trip of our already over-studied Hemisphere was completed months ago; the Latins presented their own joint proposals on U. S. policy to the President last year. Yet there has been no adequate Administration response. No policy on trade; no policy on aid – except to reduce it; no policy on inter-American reorganization; no policy on social and economic reform. Nothing to reflect a commitment to Latin America's drive for a better future.
However, there have been ample assurances that the political status quo will be respected; the Governor's embrace of Duvalier, and his advocacy of increased military aid, are only some notorious examples. Military governments and the erosion of individual liberty in Latin America seemingly are not matters of much concern to the Administration today.
This is not a policy to stir the hopes – and strengthen the commitment – of the democratic leadership in Latin America.
We must rededicate ourselves to the UN in order to insure that its role for peace – in mediation, conciliation, and in providing observers and peacekeeping forces – will be effective in those parts of the world in which the UN alone can act.
We should also look to the UN as an important forum for the control of the arms race, helping to bring more countries into the growing consensus against the use of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, through instruments such as the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and for the control of the population explosion which threatens the human environment of the rich nations and the very existence of the poor. Furthermore, its affiliated agencies can serve an expanding role in cooperative action for human progress and should have our enthusiastic support.
While economic progress is no guarantee of peace, we believe that economic development of the emerging nations can make an essential contribution to a peaceful world. The United States, together with the other industrialized nations, has a responsibility to increase and make more efficient its participation in development, particularly through multilateral organizations and through a liberalized trade policy.
The Committee on International Affairs is preparing detailed policy papers which will examine and make recommendations in each of these critical areas.
The success of our efforts in the 1970's to use the resources of America wisely for the benefit of all depends on maintaining a strong and sound economy. Today, this goal is threatened by the cruel reality of inflation and the growing threat of recession.
Most Americans, particularly those of modest or fixed incomes, have suffered under the 6.1 percent rise of consumer prices which occurred in 1969. Sky-rocketing grocery bills and an enormous increase in the cost of basic health services bring home the fact that inflation has been more rapid in the last year than in any since 1951.
Interest rates, meanwhile, have soared to the highest levels in over a century, small business has been denied fair access to credit, and the housing industry has entered a full-fledged recession. The economy's expansion has come to a halt, and unemployment is a reality for a rising number of workers in major industries.
While some have benefitted from skyrocketing interest rates, strategic control of sources of credit, or the ability to push prices or income up faster than costs, most Americans have been caught up in a fruitless attempt to keep up with a spiraling cost of living or of doing business, and many have suffered severe economic disability.
How has the Republican Administration brought us to this state of economic crisis? The Republican Administration has failed to give us strong, balanced and affirmative leadership to deal effectively with our developing economic crisis. It has rejected a policy to give leadership to private price and wage decisions, and has even repeatedly advertised that it had no concern with such decisions. This announced renunciation of Presidential leadership told the responsible and the irresponsible that the sky was the limit. And the results were predictable: prices in those industries previously responsive to Democratic wage-price leadership rose an average of 6 percent in 1969, compared to the 1.7 percent annual increase that occurred in these industries from 1966-68.
However, the Administration has shown no interest in considering the use of credit control authority granted it by the Congress. We can expect little relief until the Administration decides to stop fighting inflation with one hand tied behind its back.
There have been other failures. A year ago the Administration was unable for months to decide whether or not it favored extension of the income tax surcharge, or whether it wanted tax reform and, if so, what kind. More recently. it has been unable to make up its mind about monetary policy, standing helplessly by, alternately wringing and clapping its hands while interest rates have soared.
We have heard nothing more effective than a series of repeated hopes by the Administration – repeatedly disappointed – that its policies would soon bring a slowing down of inflation. Now we are told that this is all the fault of the Democrats and that the projected budgetary surplus for fiscal year 1971 will do the job. But the Administration forgets to tell the American people that this budget – if it does turn out to be balanced – will not be the first balanced budget in recent years, but the third in a row; and it is only the first for which the Republicans are fully responsible.
If a balanced budget, therefore, was the solution for all economic ills, then surely the inflation both of the cost of living and of interest rates, like the drying up of credit for housing and small business, would have long since begun to ease, and American workers would not now be fearing the loss of several million jobs from a potential recession.
We learned long ago that a balanced federal budget in itself is no panacea for a sound and balanced economy – yet this is all the Republicans have offered in the past year. A sophisticated economic policy adequate to the needs of the 1970's must have many concerns: among them, stable prices, jobs for all, reasonable interest rates, the fair availability of credit, adequate economic growth, and a sound dollar internationally. It must seek equity for all sectors of society – producers and consumers; small businessmen, farmers, homebuilders and home buyers; workers, the self-employed, the unemployed, the unemployable and the retired; as well as big business and the banks. All these concerns cannot be met by the simple prescription of a balanced budget.
We are forced to this conclusion: the rhetoric of the Republican Administration's concern about inflation is directed at the so-called silent majority. But the reality is that the Republican economic policy has endangered the economic welfare of the great majority of the American people. The history of Republican economics supports the fear that – as in 1954, 1957, and 1960 – a Republican Administration may once more plunge us into recession. The American people are entitled to something better.
In the coming months, the Committee on Economic Affairs will release policy studies in the following areas and possibly others: economic goals for America; fiscal and monetary policies, and tools for their execution; inflation; tax structure; federal-state-local fiscal relationships; the concentration of economic power; and international trade and the balance of payments.
IV
We welcome the negotiations with the Soviet Union looking toward the limitation of offensive and defensive strategic nuclear weapons. This is a critical time. Both the United States and the Soviet Union are continuing to move forward in the arms race – moving in reaction to one another and in a direction which can only leave both nations less secure than they are today and with fewer resources to devote to domestic needs.
We are convinced that the national interest of both countries demands a stop in the "mad momentum" of the strategic armament race. A policy designed to bring about reciprocal restraint will create the most favorable conditions for bilateral agreement on arms limitations, without endangering our security through unilateral disarmament or indefinite unilateral postponement of strategic weapons programs. Some have argued that negotiations will succeed only if we achieve a position of increased strength. But this argument would distort the promise of disarmament talks into a rationale for continued escalation. It would be a tragic error to jeopardize the prospects for reducing the terrible risks and heavy costs of the arms race by precipitate decisions to proceed with new nuclear weapons not urgently needed for our national security.
Specifically, we question the need and the wisdom of going ahead now with a new manned strategic bomber and expanded plans for anti-ballistic missile defenses. In an abrupt change from last year's justification of the Safeguard system as necessary to protect our land based missiles and hence our second strike capability, the Administration now proposes an enlarged system which purportedly would protect our cities from a Communist Chinese nuclear threat which may exist a decade or more in the future.
Past experience surely demonstrates the futility of resting present security decisions primarily on speculation about the future. The risks of accelerated ABM deployment far outweigh the highly conjectural value of an anti-ballistic missile system using today's technology against the threats we may or may not face in the 1980's. We oppose further ABM deployment.
Expansion of the Safeguard system from missile defense to area defense will cast doubt on our intentions and seriously prejudice the prospects for the SALT talk. The underlying assumption of protracted Chinese hostility and irrationality can also preclude real progress in improving relationships between China and the United States. The nuclear striking force on which we rely to deter a major Soviet attack surely will deter the relatively insignificant nuclear strength attainable by China or any other power in the foreseeable future.
Moreover, steps should be taken now to bring about reciprocal restraint in testing and deploying new nuclear missiles with improved warheads, such as MIRV; only by such steps can we keep open the option of negotiating an effective and verifiable agreement on nuclear arms control. This should be made the first order of business when the SALT talks reconvene in Vienna in April. In taking the initiative to stop atmospheric nuclear testing, President Kennedy advanced the cause of peace and our own security. The Soviets responded affirmatively to U.S. initiatives and the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was agreed upon shortly thereafter. The United States should further seize the initiative and take another step toward a safer world by deferring MIRV testing and further deployment of offensive and defensive missile systems while calling on the Soviet Union for similar restraint.
We are concerned by the Administration's failure to relate the defense budget for fiscal year 1971 to probable threats to U.S. national security in the 1970's. No rhetoric about meeting our treaty commitments and promoting partnerships, while reducing our involvement and our overseas military presence, can substitute for detailed analysis of where and how our security may be threatened and what level and mix of military power is needed to deter or deal with those threats.
The Arms Control and Defense Policy Committee will shortly release a more detailed report on these and other matters, together with recommendations for further reforms of the selective service system.
V
Americans, living in a democratic society, have never wholly failed to ask: How can government at all levels serve all the people with greater justice and effectiveness?
In the decade of the 1970's, however, the American people will ask this question with greater urgency than at any other time in our history and they will expect answers.
They properly will expect just and effective government in the wealthiest, most powerful nation of the world. Such a nation, Americans will say, must have governments – federal, State and local – which can secure equality of opportunity for all citizens, move decisively against the tremendous human problems besetting our society, particularly in its urban areas, and preserve our national inheritance of liberty and individual initiative.
To secure these goals of just and effective government will demand more than rhetoric and reassurance. We need national leadership ready to give moral force and practical support to the law of the land, the law that says all children, black and white, rich and poor, are to learn and live together. We need national leadership ready to walk in dark urban ghettos and forgotten rural sprawls, ready to search them out, eliminate them and build in their place communities of dignity and opportunity.
Having been warned two years ago by the National Advisory Commission in Civil Disorders that "our nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white – separate and unequal," we need national leadership that does not polarize opposites but that reconciles differences, one that helps heal the wounds of generations of oppression and inequality.
We are told to judge the Republican Administration on the basis of deeds. But it is the record of Republican deeds which concerns us:
The Administration's failure to support the extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which had secured the most essential political right for more than 700,000 previously disfranchised blacks, despite considerable support for extending the law.
The nomination to the Supreme Court of two jurists, who, at best, have demonstrated no understanding of the nation's commitment to full racial justice;
The Administration's efforts to delay the process of school desegregation which had been promised an earlier generation of school children by the Supreme Court in 1954; and the Administration's opposition to legislation strengthening the enforcement powers of the Equal Employment Opportunity commission.
These acts by the Republican Administration have served to polarize the people of this country on the basis of race, and have understandably diminished the confidence of black citizens in the commitment of government to the achievement of equality for all citizens.
We believe that the Haynsworth and Carswell nominations to the Supreme Court should not have been made; and we urge the Senate to reject Judge Carswell as it did Judge Haynsworth.
We believe further, that this administration must state unequivocally where it stands on the question of the elimination of dual systems of education based on race.
The Committee on Democracy and Government is charged with developing the specific plans that, when implemented, will reestablish a relationship of trust and common purpose between the American people and government at all levels. In the 1970's this will require of access, structure, and governmental effectiveness.
We report periodically on these matters to the American people.
At this juncture, however, several specific directions have already become clear and demand comment now.
In a democracy, access to government can be no greater than access to the political process itself.
For this reason, the 1970's must be a time of far-reaching reform of the American political system, including, among others:
The elimination of the vestiges of voting discrimination on the basis of race, a goal which can best be served at this time by reenacting and enforcing the Voting Rights Act of 1965;
The amendment of the Constitution of the United States to lower the voting age for all state and federal elections to eighteen;
The amendment of the Constitution to permit the direct election of the President and the Vice President of the United States;
The establishment of a Universal Voter Enrollment Plan to register all qualified voters through a government canvass of every election jurisdiction, as called for by the Democratic Party's
Freedom-to-Vote Task Force under the chairmanship of former Attorney General Ramsey Clark;
The creation of a National Election holiday to permit everyone the opportunity to vote and a
National Election Commission to keep an accurate and comprehensive current record of all election rules and results, a duty which no agency, public or private, now performs;
Procedures for permitting all citizens, regardless of where they happen to be on election day, to vote through a simplified process for casting and verifying ballots; and
Some system of public support to alleviate the growing financial burdens of running for political office – whether by tax credits, public subsidies, donations of time or services, including television time – thus allowing poor and middle-income citizens, as well as the rich, to represent their country in public office.
The benefits of full participation and access to the political process can be thwarted nevertheless by an outmoded governmental structure incapable of dealing with the complex demands of contemporary society and the economy.
For this reason the federal government must offer the states and localities powerful incentives to redesign the fragmented, unresponsive, underfinanced structure of local government itself is an evolutionary process toward governmental units that encompass metropolitan areas capable of dealing with metropolitan-wide problems. At the same time we must also give attention to developing a lower tier of neighborhood political units, "little city halls," to which appropriate municipal offices and services would be decentralized, and through which elected representatives of the neighborhood would exercise authority over the provision of neighborhood services.
Increased effectiveness of government will require numerous reforms in the 1970's. There are few things more destructive of effective government action than the overlapping and confusion of administration of domestic programs. The executive branch urgently requires the decision-making and command mechanism that would be provided by a National Domestic Policy Council. Such an instrumentality would serve not only to increase effectiveness within the federal bureaucracy but also to carry forward the equally vital task of developing more efficient delivery systems of federally-supported services.
To assist in making these decisions, the executive should have the information and guidance flowing from a system of social indicators – measures of factors such as reduction of racism, and educational and health deficiencies – prepared and evaluated by a Council of Social Advisors, analogous to the annual Economic Report prepared by the Council of Economic Advisors.
In our quest for the good life we have put enormous pressures on our natural resources, disrupted delicate biological balances, fouled our cities and the countryside, and endangered our lives and the planet. Our challenge is to restore a balance between men and his environment and to make life more meaningful and attractive in the largest cities and in the smallest towns.
Consider these facts:
Almost every American lake, stream or river is now blighted by pollution.
As a nation, we discard yearly more than 195 million tons of solid waste, and industrial smokestacks spew over 175 thousand tons of noxious fumes into the air.
The exhaust pipes of 85 million cars create more than 60 percent of the air pollution that blankets major cities.
Thoughtful and respected scientists have warned that unless the tempo of ravaging our national environment is checked, life itself may hang in delicate balance by the year 2000.
This problem touches everyone – the poor, the middle class, the wealthy. Not only is it an urban phenomenon but the forces of blight threaten life in rural America as well.
Now, our goal for all citizens must be a safe and sane environment for man – the right to clean air, to clear waters, to open spaces and to a beautiful America – not a bulldozed America.
We have made a small and modest beginning. The apathy of the 1950's turned to awareness and action in the 1960's. Through Democratic leadership, a nation's commitment was embodied in such landmark legislation as:
The Clean Air Act of 1963;
The Clean Air and Solid Waste Disposal Acts of 1965;
The Clean Rivers Act of 1966;
The Water Resources Planning Act of 1966;
The Air Quality Act of 1967; and
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
We welcome the President's expressed concern with the problems of the environment. Now we must hope that this concern will be translated into a serious and sustained commitment to attack these problems.
The time has passed for rhetorical pronouncements or admonitions. Nor is this the time to call for a "do it yourself" environmental clean-up program. The central and irreducible fact is that the federal government must assume major responsibility and assert national leadership in this effort.
We must demand more than sleight-of-hand financing and the mere reshuffling of governmental bureaus and agencies. Indeed we must be acutely aware of the danger of superficial reforms that divert the growing public support for far-reaching and effective action.
There must be no misunderstandings – a serious and sustained effort to achieve, and then to maintain, a quality environment for Americans is an undertaking of major proportions. It will require significant readjustments in our national priorities. It will entail the examination and possibly the rejection of certain national beliefs and practices. It will involve greater citizen participation. But, most importantly, it will demand new governmental tools at all levels and the enormous commitment of public resources.
President Nixon devoted much of his State of the Union message to the environmental crisis. He committed his Administration to this battle, but regretfully his budget does not square with the promise to propose "the most comprehensive and costly program in this field in America's history." In fact, his budget represents for many programs a retreat from the goals already set by Congress and for others no more than a commitment to achieve existing levels. And deeds, not words, will be the ultimate measure of this Administration's commitment.
Pollution takes its greatest toll among those who live in the urban environment. Americans who live in the central cities should not be asked to put up with uncollected garbage, crippling poisons in the air, rivers which are fire hazards, contaminated water supplies, or relentless urban noise. These Americans who have been forgotten in the past must not be forgotten now in this battle to reclaim our environment.
We suggest a program of action – action that is urgently required.
An appropriations request for the full $1.25 billion authorized for expenditure in fiscal 1971 for grants for water pollution control.
A program for continued and greatly expanded assistance to municipalities for the construction of waste treatment facilities after 1971.
Stricter and more rapid enforcement of both air and water pollution control standards, and greater public participation through the commencement of class actions against violators of the standards.
A requirement that all existing factories will have the best available anti-pollution equipment and technology installed and applied as quickly as possible.
A requirement that places the burden of proof on proposed industries, before they are built, that they will not add to air or water pollution.
Accelerated research to develop exhaust free motor vehicles.
Development of state-wide air pollution control programs so that no polluters can evade or escape control and compliance schedules, with stand-by authority in the Federal government to act if the states do not.
The development of rational systems of user charges that place the burden of the cost of cleaning up public waterways upon those who are the source of the pollution.
Greatly increased Federal outlays for research and development in all areas of environmental control.
Adequate funding for acquisition of lands for park and open space needs but in a manner designed to avoid speculation and excessive land payments.
Strong Federal strip mine control and land reclamation laws.
A new program for noise pollution abatement and control.
The complete elimination of harmful environmental contaminants and pesticides.
A national policy and plan for growth, population distribution and land use.
Development of a major Federal environmental education program.
Development of new methods to cope with the problems of solid waste disposal.
Strong regulations promptly implemented against pollution by Federal installations.
The decade of the 1970's will be equally decisive in our efforts to protect the American consumer. Under the leadership of Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, the Democratic Party has:
The National Motor Vehicle and Traffic Safety Act of 1966;
The Child Protection Act of 1966;
The Wholesome Meat Act of 1967;
The Wholesome Poultry Products Act of 1968; and
The Truth-in-Lending Act of 1968.
Experience has shown that much of the consumer legislation of the 1960's needs strengthening. Beyond this, however, the 1970's must be a time of expanding the consumer's right to choose and his right to be heard. And, as in the case of environmental policy, we must be particularly alert in the 1970's to the dangers of consumer proposals which offer only paper rights and fake reform – a highly sophisticated brand of mislabeling and deceptive packaging.
In this spirit of vigilant action, we advocate this program:
A consumer protection agency, one vested with independence, power and authority, to consolidate the scattered consumer research and investigative activities of the federal government and mechanisms outside the government to help the consumer achieve satisfaction in the market place, such as the Consumer Action Plan recently announced by the Democratic National Committee;
A freedom of consumer information law that would authorize the release of consumer product information collected by federal agencies, particularly the information related to product performance;
A federal class action law to permit consumer lawyers to bring class actions in the federal courts without having to await prior action by the Attorney General or the Federal Trade Commission;
A consumer products guaranty bill that would require the maker of any guarantee to repair or replace malfunctioning parts within a reasonable time and without charge;
A fish inspection law that would provide full-time federal inspectors in the fish processing plants, essentially the same system now used in the meat and poultry inspection program;
Comprehensive automobile insurance reform; and
Comprehensive product safety legislation. These are the essential next steps in consumer protection as we enter the 1970's. Further recommendations will be made.