CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE

April 3, 1973 

Page 10677

EFFECT OF UNEQUAL TELEVISION COVERAGE ON CHECKS AND BALANCES TO ASSURE COEQUAL BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, last Thursday evening President Nixon was granted 22 minutes by each of the networks for a simultaneous broadcast of an address covering matters that ranged from the war to the "battle of the budget" with the Congress. In that address, we will recall, he appealed to the American people to write to the spenders in Congress.

Last Friday, Speaker ALBERT and I addressed a telegram to each of the networks requesting coverage by them of a statement to be delivered at 9 p.m., Monday, April 2, on behalf of the majorities in the Congress. The statement was to be delivered by Senator MUSKIE at our request. We felt compelled to move quickly because of the impending vote today to override the veto by the President of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act.

The networks refused to cover this event live. One network even raised questions about what was to be said. This is a particularly interesting inquiry, especially in view of recent controversy on censorship of news broadcasts. No such questions are asked when a President seeks time to address the American people simultaneously on all networks. It has been estimated that almost 100 million people are watching television at 9 p.m. on winter weekday evenings similar to when President Nixon addressed the Nation and questioned the validity of congressional judgment. I believe that the attitudes of the networks as reflected by their refusal to grant Congress the opportunity to communicate on the same scale as the Executive are preventing the Congress from becoming again a coequal branch. They appear to be responsive to threats by members of the executive branch, but show no appreciation for an attempt on behalf of Congress to be responsible in shaping the public perceptions and determining significant national decisions. The issues of water pollution, vocational rehabilitation are perfect examples that the great differences of judgment between the White House and the Congress are not partisan. The overwhelming majority of Republicans, as well as Democrats, voted for these programs in contradiction to the President's opinion. What we are dealing with is a prevailing view of Congress – a prevailing view of 535 elected officials.

I believe it is time for the Congress to stand still no longer. It is time for Congress to determine who really should decide what is a fair input by a coequal branch of government into the perceptions of the American electorate.

I believe that any sensible interpretation of a notion of fairness requires that the American people have the input of the Congress on an issue of great vital importance especially when that issue was drawn into question by the President in an attack upon the Congress.

With the revolution of communications in this country, the whole notion of the separation of powers has been significantly diminished by the inordinate input the executive branch, through the President and the Cabinet officers, has on television. It is so much easier for the networks to cover the executive branch – it speaks with one voice. But ease of coverage is not effective coverage and especially where Congress differs from the White House is it difficult for the networks easily to present a balance. The designation by the joint leadership of the Congress of a spokesman to present a prevailing viewpoint was intended to meet the need of providing a viewpoint that accurately portrayed its input into national decisions.

I believe the networks should be made aware of the effects their decisions have on the doctrine of checks and balances so wisely incorporated into the Constitution.

I think it would be appropriate to incorporate in the RECORD the viewpoint of Congress as expressed through the designated spokesman, Senator MUSKIE, and ask unanimous consent that his statement be printed at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

SENATOR MUSKIE's RESPONSE TO NIXON ADDRESS

Last Thursday. President Nixon addressed the nation on matters of great importance to us all:

The status of the war in Vietnam;

The staggering rise in the price of food;

The size of the Federal budget and of your tax bill; and

The goals to which we should turn our attention in the post-Vietnam era.

I have been asked by the Democratic leadership of the Congress to respond to that address tonight.

My purpose is not to make a partisan, Democratic speech, attacking a Republican President, but to express our deep concern about his conduct of vital public business.

I speak as a Senator, a member of the lawmaking branch of government, which you have chosen to represent you in the Nation's capitol.

It is by no means a perfectly efficient and responsive branch; there are many ways in which it could, and should, be reformed. But it is, whatever its faults, your voice in government.

And when its counsel is not sought by the Administration in office; when its purposes, as expressed in law, are defied; when its right to question executive officials is rejected, then your voice is not heard in Washington.

We rejoice, with the President and with each of you, that our remaining military forces in Vietnam have been withdrawn and that our prisoners of war have been returned.

And we wholeheartedly agree with these words of the President: "Let us, therefore, put aside those honest differences about the war which have divided us and dedicate ourselves to meet the great challenges of peace which can unite us."

But in meeting those challenges, the President has asked for a free hand – a blank check – so that he can decide – and decide alone–

When the war will really end;

What our spending priorities are:

Who will shoulder the heaviest tax burdens;

How to halt inflation; and

When we will hear the truth about Watergate.

We in Congress fear, as all Americans fear, the threat of one-man rule. We in Congress distrust, as all Americans distrust, any President who would suggest that only he knows what is best for America.

That is why many members of Congress disagree not only with the policies the President has proposed, but also with his rejection of Congress' role in developing those policies.

We are concerned that the continued daily bombing by our B-52's in Cambodia prolongs division at home and the risk of our continuing military involvement abroad.

The bombing is no longer necessary for the safe withdrawal of our troops.

The bombing does not have the approval of the Congress, nor has the approval been sought by the President.

We believe that Americans want a complete and final end to our military involvement in Southeast Asia, and that it is the responsibility of Congress to insist upon it.

Only then can we truly turn to the tasks of reconstruction and peace.

We agree with the President that one of the first of these tasks is to provide those Americans who have served in this tragic war "with veterans benefits and job opportunities they have earned."

We do not agree that the way to do this is to veto the Veterans Administration health care act passed by the last Congress – as the President did; or to reduce physical disability benefits to Vietnam veterans, including amputees – as the President did; or to reduce the number of positions open to Vietnam veterans in Federally supported employment and job-training programs – as the President did.

We do not agree that the way to do this is to veto aid to the deaf, the blind, the disabled, the mentally handicapped – as the President did just last week, because he thought it cost too much.

And tomorrow, an effort will be made to override that veto.

The President said: "Let us honor them with the respect they deserve." We agree.

It becomes our challenge then to insure that our country – its policies and its promise – reflect the values and the hopes the sought to advance by their sacrifice.

Surely, that means a resumption of the war against poverty, ignorance, and disease, those ancient enemies of all mankind. Surely it means a commitment to end the discrimination and deprivation too many of them knew back here at home.

Surely, it means a commitment to provide the opportunities so many of them were seeking when they were called upon to fight for their country.

Surely, it means a commitment to provide educational opportunity for them and their children, and all children.

It means a commitment to make possible decent housing. fruitful job opportunities, a healthy environment.

It means a commitment to make possible retirement years of dignity and security. To the President who has accused us of being irresponsible in fighting for those commitments, we in Congress say that they are our highest responsibility. We intend to fight for them, and we insist on helping to decide how to fulfill them.

In order to meet these commitments, it is essential that we have a strong and growing economy. Inflation is the greatest danger to strength and growth. Last Thursday, President Nixon put a ceiling on meat prices. But a ceiling on meat prices at their highest level in history does not control inflation. We are all painfully that our whole economy seems out of control.

Since President Nixon ended Phase II price controls in January, food prices, rents and interest rates have all skyrocketed. Wholesale prices went up faster in February than in any month in the last twenty years. The price of the food you buy went up at an annual rate of 23%.

Meanwhile, the stockmarket has plummeted, and the dollar has been devalued again for the second time in 14 months.

Inflation consumes the standard of living of every American. It eats up savings, cuts into pensions, washes cut wage gains and destroys every man's hope that tomorrow can be a little better than today.

The President's response does too little and comes too late. What good does it do for American families who cannot afford meat at today's prices? And what about the rest of the American market basket?

What is the President waiting for? Must all food prices reach intolerable levels before he will act to protect your pocketbook?

And not just groceries, but almost everything Americans want and need – clothing, lumber, medicine – has jumped in price since the President abandoned effective price controls three months ago.

In his speech last Thursday, the President attempted to shift the blame to Congress for the runaway inflation since he lifted price controls. The President's attempt to blame Congress for inflation is unfair and untrue.

Let's look at the record.

President Nixon has never submitted a balanced budget to Congress. The budget deficits he has proposed during the past five years exceed the deficits of the preceding twenty-five.

Congress, on the other hand, has cut every budget the President has submitted – for a total of $20 billion in savings in appropriations during the President's first term.

And, President Nixon waited for nearly three years – until the wage-price freeze in August 1971, to do anything effective about inflation.

Congress acted against inflation in 1970, when it enacted the wage-price control law. The President opposed that law.

That law was on the books for more than a year of rising prices before the President used it. And that law was on the books when the President abandoned Phase II wage and price controls this year and gave the green light to price increases.

No, Congress is not to blame for inflation. It was Congress which cut the budget and gave the President the wage-price law he has refused to use effectively. Congress will continue to use its power to set sensible economic policy.

The Congress will continue to use its power to limit Federal spending.

The Congress will continue to use its power to control inflation.

The Congress will continue to use its power to hold taxes down.

The President has told us that the Vietnam war is over and that we are entering a new generation of peace with the Soviet Union and Mainland China.

And yet he has requested that we spend $7.5 billion more for non-Vietnam defense items this year than we did last year.

Congress asks: Why must we spend more on defense than we did during the last year of the Vietnam war?

Congress is committed to a strong national defense. But there is a difference between adequate defense and wasteful military spending.

At the same time that the President proposes increasing military spending, he boasts in his budget message that he is cutting $14 billion from programs for the elderly, the poor, the education of all children, our health and the environment.

Congress and the President do not disagree on how much we should spend at the Federal level. We disagree on what our spending priorities should be.

The issue is not whether we will spend more than $268 billion but rather, for what purposes that $268 billion should be spent.

The President chooses to put the emphasis on military spending. Congress will shift that emphasis to domestic problems giving adequate attention to our defense needs and primary attention to our human needs.

Congress and the President also disagree on who should pay for government programs.

The President, by cutting $14 billion of Federal support from needed programs, is shifting much of the burden to state and local governments ... and to state and local taxpayers.

And the Congress does not believe it is right to create pressure to raise regressive property and sales taxes at the local level. They take the biggest bite from the smallest incomes, while the Federal tax laws continue to shelter the affluent and the powerful.

Implicit in all of this and in the President's unremitting attack on the Congress is the notion that only one man has the wisdom and the judgment to make decisions about the Federal budget.

This notion of one-man rule – over the budget, over inflation and over the Watergate case – constitutes an abuse of the President's power.

It is the same notion which prompts him to withhold from the Congress information about his war policies.

It is the same notion which prompts him to decide by himself to relax Phase Two controls when we needed them most.

It is the same notion which in the Watergate case prompts him to withhold testimony of members of his Administration from the Congress and the people.

In his speech, President Nixon quoted a famous statement by President Truman about his office – "The buck stops here." What the Congress says to the President on the Watergate incident is that the buck indeed stops there.

The people expect the President to make every effort to ensure that the whole story – whatever it may be – is made public.

It is in the nature of presidential power that it can be exercised more directly and more effectively than legislative power.

It is in the nature of legislative power that it is more cumbersome, and – because it is more representative – more fragmented and divided.

It is also in the nature of presidential power, however, that it can be more arrogant and more easily abused. The Founders of our nation understood that fact and for that reason they created in the Congress powers necessary to check such abuse.

The most important of these powers is the power of the purse. The President has challenged this power directly. We in Congress have no right to surrender it to him. It is not ours to surrender because it belongs to you. We intend to protect it and preserve it by exercising it – as the Constitution requires that we do.

We Americans now have an opportunity to begin the work of reconstruction in peace – work we have been yearning to do for eight long, agonizing years.

To do it effectively requires unity of purpose ... shared by the President, the Congress, and all Americans.

The Congress stands ready to accommodate itself to that objective – not by surrendering to Presidential power, but by acting as a responsible, independent, but cooperative branch of the government of the United States.