- Series
- A federal case II
- Air Date
- Duration
- 00:30:00
- Episode Description
- Series Description
- Subject(s)
- Creator(s)
- Contributors
- Genre(s)
- Geographic Region(s)
- regions
- Time Period
- 1961-1970
[00:40 - 00:44]
This is a federal case. From Washington
[00:44 - 00:49]
D.C. the National Educational radio network brings you want examination of
[00:49 - 00:54]
current issues facing our nation in its capital city. Here is an E.R.
[00:54 - 00:56]
and correspondent John.
[00:56 - 01:02]
A mixed bag that probably best describes in advance the 90 second
[01:02 - 01:07]
Congress from almost all standpoints the men the issues the emotions the
[01:07 - 01:11]
mechanics the very as they have in the past from the serious to the
[01:11 - 01:16]
frivolous from the realistic to the absurd. There will be two or three steps forward each
[01:16 - 01:21]
week along with one step backward. First let's look at the men who will be taking
[01:21 - 01:26]
those steps. It's difficult to see a great many changes overall. There are
[01:26 - 01:31]
and will be unresolved arguments over the House of Representatives did the administration
[01:31 - 01:36]
win because it didn't lose as badly as it might have a gain of nine seats for the
[01:36 - 01:40]
Democrats. But the Senate is another story. President Nixon and Vice President
[01:40 - 01:44]
Agnew have made very definite almost identical claims.
[01:44 - 01:49]
The most important result of the election from the standpoint of the administration and I think from the
[01:49 - 01:53]
standpoint of the world and the nation it is in the Senate
[01:53 - 01:59]
again was to a far more significant and again to
[01:59 - 02:03]
something that you ladies and gentlemen will remember when I pointed out that the reason I was
[02:03 - 02:08]
campaigning so hard over the country was that in the past two years the Senate has
[02:08 - 02:13]
been so evenly divided that a majority of one determine the big votes on foreign
[02:13 - 02:18]
policy and national defense. And I thought it was important to have more than a
[02:18 - 02:22]
majority of one in support of the administration's policies in
[02:22 - 02:23]
foreign policy.
[02:23 - 02:28]
National election for Buckley. And in
[02:28 - 02:33]
Texas the election of Senator Benson will give the president. A
[02:33 - 02:38]
clear. Additional support. For his policy.
[02:38 - 02:43]
As far as our foreign relations are concerned and for his policies as far as national
[02:43 - 02:45]
defense are concerned.
[02:45 - 02:47]
But then again there are disagreements.
[02:47 - 02:52]
I don't host Senator Frank Church told us I've heard the arguments I can't I can't make
[02:52 - 02:57]
them out when I look at the election results. It seems to me that at
[02:57 - 03:01]
best it's a standoff. And I think that some of the newly
[03:01 - 03:06]
elected senators are being too readily pigeonholed. It may very well be that when they
[03:06 - 03:11]
come to the Senate and begin to assume their responsibilities and and hear
[03:11 - 03:16]
the case and make up their own minds that they're not going to be as easily tight as
[03:16 - 03:20]
the president and the administration have so far indicated.
[03:20 - 03:26]
Furthermore the possibility is that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will be even
[03:26 - 03:30]
more disposed to question. American
[03:30 - 03:35]
policy in the coming Congress than in the past. I don't know
[03:35 - 03:40]
how many new vacancies will be filled because the question of the overall
[03:40 - 03:45]
size of the committee has to be determined. But it's possible that as many as
[03:45 - 03:50]
200 new Democrats and and two new Republicans could be appointed to the
[03:50 - 03:55]
committee. Among those that have been suggested on the Democratic side.
[03:55 - 04:00]
Senator Muskie and Senator McGovern it. Would seem to be likely choices.
[04:00 - 04:05]
And this certainly would tend to strengthen the committee's.
[04:05 - 04:09]
Independent role rather than to weaken it.
[04:09 - 04:15]
So I I think that the predictions as to how the next Congress
[04:15 - 04:19]
is going to behave I prebuttal are Indiana Democrat
[04:19 - 04:24]
Birch by echoes that I noticed in talking to you about Senator
[04:24 - 04:26]
Benson.
[04:26 - 04:31]
Who's a Democrat from Texas. The president claims him as being in the Nixon
[04:31 - 04:35]
camp but Senator Benson or senator elect Benson was quick to point out that his
[04:35 - 04:40]
democratic credentials are good and by takes issue with the basic premise under which
[04:40 - 04:45]
some of that gathering was done I think there is there is nothing to gain by
[04:45 - 04:50]
trying to suggest that some of the important unfinished
[04:50 - 04:55]
business of America today breaks down on purely ideological grounds.
[04:55 - 05:00]
If you look at one of the major points of confrontation in the
[05:00 - 05:04]
last Congress the difference is that the Senate had with the
[05:04 - 05:09]
president the caliber of Supreme Court justice I was involved in that's
[05:09 - 05:14]
why I know a little bit about what I speak. Well the president has tried
[05:14 - 05:18]
repeatedly to. Suggest that this was just a
[05:18 - 05:24]
political vendetta. For. The vice president talked about the rabbi libs
[05:24 - 05:29]
and all of this type of business. I think it's rather unbecoming of
[05:29 - 05:34]
the office. That those who hold it
[05:34 - 05:40]
haven't done a better job of studying what was on the minds of the senators.
[05:40 - 05:45]
In this issue and in other issues for example in that battle written
[05:45 - 05:50]
Carswell. There were 20 members of the president's own party and one of the
[05:50 - 05:55]
votes all three of the leading Republican said no Mr. President we're going to Republicans but on this
[05:55 - 05:58]
issue our party loyalty will not permit us to
[05:58 - 06:04]
subject the court to this type of representation. Basically the things that are important to
[06:04 - 06:09]
America. Important to our people. I think are important to
[06:09 - 06:14]
Republicans and Democrats and most conservatives and liberals and moderates.
[06:14 - 06:19]
And to try to categorize everybody and put them in a nice neat little compartments I think is really not
[06:19 - 06:24]
going to make the country any better as long as we're examining what happened on November 3rd
[06:24 - 06:26]
and how it will affect the 90 second Congress.
[06:26 - 06:31]
We must also look at what happened before that voting the campaign. It was
[06:31 - 06:36]
long and bitter. Perhaps the most acrimonious midterm battle in years. Well
[06:36 - 06:41]
this carry over into the next year. Illinois Representative Leslie Aarons is the
[06:41 - 06:45]
Republican whip or assistant Republican leader in the House of Representatives.
[06:45 - 06:50]
These wounds will heal and this will be minimized as time goes on. I look back
[06:50 - 06:54]
on what happened in my own case years ago when I first got into politics and one of my good friends in Oakland.
[06:54 - 06:59]
Clinical old timer said to me Leslie said Just remember don't keep books in politics.
[06:59 - 07:04]
And I could and nothing could be more true than that statement. And those who go around and say that
[07:04 - 07:09]
this with these things will not be forgotten and we will remember this and we will do this and we will do that
[07:09 - 07:14]
in retaliation why this will go out of the way because you don't keep books and politics and
[07:14 - 07:19]
freedom are the things that were said in this campaign as I went back and reviewed some of the things
[07:19 - 07:23]
that have been said in other campaigns previous campaigns. I see nothing
[07:23 - 07:28]
much out of line with what was said during this campaign.
[07:28 - 07:33]
Tough things were said in other campaigns I've been in quite a while I've gone through many of them and I've heard these things that
[07:33 - 07:37]
when you forget these things and I think this will take place yet a fellow Republican disagrees with
[07:37 - 07:42]
Mr. Aaron's New York's Charles Goodell the GOP senator who fell before the acts
[07:42 - 07:47]
of a vice presidential purge won't be part of the 90 second Congress.
[07:47 - 07:51]
But he says a lot of the bitterness of the campaign may be I think the
[07:51 - 07:55]
administration particularly Vice President Agnew struck such a
[07:55 - 08:01]
discordant partisan note and personal note from the viewpoint of the
[08:01 - 08:06]
Democrats and some Republicans that it's likely to
[08:06 - 08:10]
be a. Real confrontation on many
[08:10 - 08:15]
issues and this will inevitably involve some personalities. I
[08:15 - 08:20]
think the Democratic senators that I have talked to who went through the fires
[08:20 - 08:25]
of the campaign and survived. Are. Somewhat resentful
[08:25 - 08:31]
of the tactics that were employed. That creates an atmosphere in which
[08:31 - 08:36]
you're likely to have some real fireworks between the president and Congress.
[08:36 - 08:39]
Goodell does say the president can do something about this.
[08:39 - 08:44]
I think there is among a great many of the senators right now real
[08:44 - 08:49]
resentment their real unhappiness at the tactics of Vice President
[08:49 - 08:53]
Agnew and the president's intervention in the manner he did in
[08:53 - 08:58]
some of the races particularly his failure to support some Republicans not only
[08:58 - 09:03]
myself but others. Given that situation the
[09:03 - 09:08]
president I think can heal the wounds if he turns to these senators
[09:08 - 09:13]
and says OK now the campaign is over. We've got major problems.
[09:13 - 09:18]
I need your help I need your constructive suggestions. We have two
[09:18 - 09:23]
years to govern before the next presidential election and we've got
[09:23 - 09:28]
to govern effectively because this country has very desperate problems. If
[09:28 - 09:32]
he does that I think the wounds will heal quite quickly.
[09:32 - 09:36]
Senator but I also hold out hope for a constructive reconciliation.
[09:36 - 09:41]
I think most people after the battle is over will bury the hatchet
[09:41 - 09:46]
until the next election at least I hope so. I think the best interest of the
[09:46 - 09:50]
country is more important than political pique or political vindication
[09:50 - 09:55]
frankly. I think most members of Congress are going to follow this
[09:55 - 09:56]
rule.
[09:56 - 10:01]
I'm hopeful the president will also nonetheless that obviously is going to be a measure of
[10:01 - 10:05]
discord between the White House and Congress. But Senator Church says that's not
[10:05 - 10:07]
necessarily bad.
[10:07 - 10:13]
On the contrary I think that this is a symptom of democracy at work.
[10:13 - 10:18]
I don't take it to be the symptom of a lively democracy that the Congress should roll over
[10:18 - 10:23]
and play dead and act the way parliaments in total Italian countries do
[10:23 - 10:26]
and merely rubber stamp every executive proposal.
[10:26 - 10:31]
But when we get to that we can.
[10:31 - 10:37]
We can kiss democracy goodbye in this country.
[10:37 - 10:42]
I think that last year the Congress showed that
[10:42 - 10:47]
it was more determined to play its own role under the Constitution
[10:47 - 10:52]
than at any time in many years. And this is all to the good. This
[10:52 - 10:57]
was what was intended by the separation of powers.
[10:57 - 11:02]
And yet. The president would would have us believe that
[11:02 - 11:07]
the Congress is here just to play a ritual role to
[11:07 - 11:13]
endorse and approve whatever proposals he makes.
[11:13 - 11:18]
Of course that is and so we're here to exercise our own judgment and to represent the people
[11:18 - 11:22]
according to our best. Best judgement
[11:22 - 11:29]
and we have done that. I think. In the past session
[11:29 - 11:31]
and I expect we'll do it in the next session.
[11:31 - 11:36]
There will be one overriding factor in the next two years. Senator Goodell told
[11:36 - 11:38]
us it will be most evident in the Senate.
[11:38 - 11:43]
I think the major problem that you're going to have in the 90
[11:43 - 11:48]
second Congress. Throughout both sessions will be that under our
[11:48 - 11:53]
system we are now starting a presidential campaign again.
[11:53 - 11:57]
We go two years without a presidential campaign early in
[11:57 - 12:02]
1071 you will see the speculation growing Democrats will be vying with
[12:02 - 12:08]
Democrats for position in getting the nomination for the presidency.
[12:08 - 12:12]
Some of them will be announcing and this will affect their relationship to each other and
[12:12 - 12:17]
to the Congress. And then of course as the Congress
[12:17 - 12:22]
proceeds the issues will be focusing or
[12:22 - 12:27]
use in the 72 campaign. So this is the backdrop that is most significant in the
[12:27 - 12:32]
next in the 90 second Congress. Is that going to hurt or help the work
[12:32 - 12:37]
of the Congress. Well you know it always has a mixed effect. People often
[12:37 - 12:42]
say that's bad. But. You know when people are looking ahead when
[12:42 - 12:47]
congressmen and senators are looking ahead to what the people are going to want and vote for in
[12:47 - 12:51]
1972 that's healthy too. It can make them more responsive
[12:51 - 12:57]
to the currents that are running in our society. It can make
[12:57 - 13:01]
them understand a little bit more. The need for drastic measures when
[13:01 - 13:06]
they might normally sit back on their haunches. So I think there will be some very healthy
[13:06 - 13:11]
aspects to this. Obviously there will be some bickering there will be some straight
[13:11 - 13:16]
politics that will. Impede the legislative process too.
[13:16 - 13:21]
But you get a mixed bag on that. Hopefully Congress will respond enough to
[13:21 - 13:26]
meet some of our problems that are really reaching explosive proportions in this
[13:26 - 13:27]
country.
[13:27 - 13:32]
Of course this presidential race won't be as pronounced in the House Representative everyone
[13:32 - 13:37]
says from the standpoint of politics I'm a little bit inclined to think that probably we will have substantially
[13:37 - 13:41]
less dose of politics doing this year when we had during the previous year because as you know I remembered
[13:41 - 13:46]
our chance to run every two years just make sure we have time to draw breath and not be so bothered about
[13:46 - 13:51]
politics. And I would like to see really in a unified way and
[13:51 - 13:56]
and in a sincere and honest effort to try to try to pull together on both sides of the aisle
[13:56 - 14:01]
here to sow somebody's basic problems no one of course. Outstanding I think it's a
[14:01 - 14:05]
matter of inflation and slowing it down and getting it to the place where it's manageable.
[14:05 - 14:09]
Which leads us to the issues which will face the 90 second Congress and Senator
[14:09 - 14:14]
Goodell certainly qualified as an expert on the Congress even though he won't be there
[14:14 - 14:15]
tells us.
[14:15 - 14:21]
I would guess the overriding issue in 1971 at least is going to be the economy.
[14:21 - 14:25]
Continued inflation. Unemployment. The
[14:25 - 14:28]
dislocations in the economy.
[14:28 - 14:33]
I think the slowing down of growth. In the economy.
[14:33 - 14:37]
And these are things to which the Nixon administration must addressed itself in
[14:37 - 14:42]
1071 because potentially it can be the major
[14:42 - 14:46]
issue in the 72 campaign for the presidency.
[14:46 - 14:50]
The battle lines are drawn on this one. In the past year the administration has hammered
[14:50 - 14:55]
away at what it calls the spendthrift attitude in Congress.
[14:55 - 14:59]
And Representative Aaron says to look for more of the same I would like to believe and hope that the
[14:59 - 15:04]
Congress in the 90s in the 90 second Congress would be more careful
[15:04 - 15:09]
in their approach to the problem of info. Inflation. In other words if we could
[15:09 - 15:14]
try to tighten our belts a little bit on the matter of government spending and the amount of money that we
[15:14 - 15:19]
include in the budget for this coming year. This to me is basic
[15:19 - 15:24]
and something that the Congress must be little more responsible about. And I think this is going to be one
[15:24 - 15:29]
of the big issues in the next Congress. Now there are a lot of people who still think you can cure problems by spending
[15:29 - 15:31]
money and I don't happen to belong to that school.
[15:31 - 15:36]
The administration hopes the economy will disappear as an issue. But on both sides of
[15:36 - 15:41]
the aisle leaders fear that's not to be. Senator by expounds the Democratic
[15:41 - 15:44]
viewpoint an echo of the campaign theme.
[15:44 - 15:50]
Well I hope it won't but I think it will become a continuing issue between.
[15:50 - 15:52]
Some of us who are concerned about.
[15:52 - 16:00]
Very slow rate of the economy high rate of unemployment and the president and his advisors
[16:00 - 16:04]
doubt the White House who apparently aren't concerned. I say I hope it won't because
[16:04 - 16:09]
frankly I don't think. The matter of unemployment should be partisan. I
[16:09 - 16:14]
think that all segments of our society ought to be concerned and we have a we're four and a half
[16:14 - 16:19]
million Americans out of work. And when even the president's political experts our economic
[16:19 - 16:24]
experts tell us that this is going to be 5 million. I think it's a very sterile policy to
[16:24 - 16:29]
suggest that before you can control inflation you have to have five million Americans unemployed.
[16:29 - 16:34]
I don't buy that philosophy. And I think with the right kind of leadership in the Congress and
[16:34 - 16:39]
in the executive branch if the president will use the tools that are available we can control
[16:39 - 16:44]
inflation without all this human suffering and misery that comes from from no paychecks on
[16:44 - 16:44]
Saturday.
[16:44 - 16:49]
If the economy will be the overriding issue certainly defense defense
[16:49 - 16:54]
spending and foreign relations will be running as close seconds and thirds.
[16:54 - 16:59]
And the fight already is shaping up on those Defense Secretary Melvin Laird in a New
[16:59 - 17:04]
York speech in November said that in the next year the administration will ask for more
[17:04 - 17:09]
money for defense. After two budgets with lower Pentagon requests How will this one
[17:09 - 17:13]
fare representative Aarons is on the House Armed Services Committee.
[17:13 - 17:17]
I agree with Secretary lead that this is something that that we may well have to
[17:17 - 17:22]
do. As you know we wrote into the procurement Bilis last nation that Santa
[17:22 - 17:27]
put some money in there for a beginning to rebuild our Navy which has been becoming obsolete over
[17:27 - 17:32]
the past years and we have let some things fall away shall we say in our defense position
[17:32 - 17:37]
and we're going to have to take a good hard check and look and the idea that everyone who wants this or
[17:37 - 17:42]
wants that can say take it out of defense I think that day is gone. I think we're going to have to be very careful
[17:42 - 17:47]
in the troubled upset in discovery world such as we presently have. We just simply cannot let
[17:47 - 17:52]
down our defenses at this particular time and we must remain modern and we must remain up to
[17:52 - 17:57]
date in our defense posture. And I think realistically the Congress has to face up to this during the
[17:57 - 18:02]
next mission of Congress. I would believe you and I would like to think there are places where we
[18:02 - 18:07]
still can save money without taking everything out of national events. I think this is one of our great problems
[18:07 - 18:12]
is to convince the country and to convince the members of Congress that there's just a limitation to what we can do
[18:12 - 18:16]
in cutting down on the on defense expenditures because Very frankly I'm I'm somewhat
[18:16 - 18:21]
disturbed about the continual reductions in amounts for
[18:21 - 18:26]
our national defense. And because we have to keep abreast and we have to
[18:26 - 18:31]
keep a military posture in this country second to none. And this cost cost money.
[18:31 - 18:36]
But on the other hand the opposition will be as determined as ever. Again Senator Church.
[18:36 - 18:41]
I think that the Congress does its job in the right way. We can at least manage
[18:41 - 18:46]
to hold the line on military spending after all.
[18:46 - 18:53]
Seventy five billion dollars is a great deal of money. And I
[18:53 - 18:57]
think there's room within that kind of a spending limit for the
[18:57 - 19:02]
military to live and to to take care of the
[19:02 - 19:06]
security the real security interests of the United States. So
[19:06 - 19:11]
I would hope that despite what is clearly a
[19:11 - 19:16]
calculated campaign to influence both public opinion and congressional
[19:16 - 19:21]
opinion commenced as you say well in advance of the session. To
[19:21 - 19:25]
pave the way for an enlargement of the military budget. I would hope that Congress
[19:25 - 19:31]
resists this and at least manages to hold the line on military
[19:31 - 19:32]
spending next year.
[19:32 - 19:37]
Part of the defense debate will be around a three year battle the fight for the life
[19:37 - 19:42]
of the safeguard anti ballistic missile system. We asked Senator Goodell for a
[19:42 - 19:42]
prediction.
[19:42 - 19:47]
It's likely the ABM will be continued but there will be sustained
[19:47 - 19:52]
pressure on the administration to justify further expenditures. And
[19:52 - 19:57]
if the administration wants to expand the ABM they will probably have another
[19:57 - 20:02]
major confrontation with the Congress. I would expect a
[20:02 - 20:06]
limited expansion Congress would approach over the objections of a bipartisan
[20:06 - 20:12]
group of senators particularly the Senate would be standing up on this issue.
[20:12 - 20:17]
I don't think the president will have the votes for a major expansion of ABM at this
[20:17 - 20:17]
time.
[20:17 - 20:22]
Does depend somewhat on developments in the SALT talks and developments
[20:22 - 20:27]
in the world. If. Further confrontations
[20:27 - 20:31]
occur with the Soviet Union. That always gets the blood
[20:31 - 20:37]
boiling and American patriotism rises and
[20:37 - 20:42]
then my vote for defense systems even if they aren't justified.
[20:42 - 20:46]
Let's stay with Senator Goodell for a few moments for some crystal ball rolling on some of the other
[20:46 - 20:51]
issues with which the Congress will continue to grapple. The Supreme Court. President
[20:51 - 20:56]
Nixon in the campaign said he intends to try again to get Senate confirmation of a
[20:56 - 21:01]
Southern conservative as a justice. Assuming there is a vacancy in the next two years
[21:01 - 21:06]
admittedly Senator Goodell expresses what was the opposition viewpoint in the debate in the 90
[21:06 - 21:08]
first but he holds the door open.
[21:08 - 21:13]
Well I think that is such a nomination would have. Been approved by the Senate
[21:13 - 21:18]
in the last two years if it had been. A man of.
[21:18 - 21:23]
Great judicial stature. And a man who understood
[21:23 - 21:28]
and was sensitive to the civil liberties issues in this country. There are many men of
[21:28 - 21:33]
that nature that you might call a conservative from the south. The president
[21:33 - 21:37]
happened to choose two men Aynesworth And Kyra as well who were
[21:37 - 21:42]
from the view of many of us totally insensitive to the civil liberties issues
[21:42 - 21:48]
particularly civil rights and of course Mr. Aynesworth had additional problems with his conflict of
[21:48 - 21:53]
interest. But Mr. Carson had the additional problem of not having
[21:53 - 21:57]
a reputation as a jurist of real
[21:57 - 22:02]
repute and stature. And if the
[22:02 - 22:07]
president chooses a Southern conservative who. Has a good record
[22:07 - 22:12]
on the bench and has no problems of conflict of interest. And
[22:12 - 22:16]
is. Reasonably updated in his thinking. I think you'd be approved.
[22:16 - 22:20]
Oh there's welfare reform and you know there's an interesting point there because you talked
[22:20 - 22:25]
about in the administration's talked about getting an ideological majority.
[22:25 - 22:30]
It's the conservatives in Congress who oppose welfare reform. My successor Mr
[22:30 - 22:35]
Buckley campaigned against welfare reform I campaigned for it.
[22:35 - 22:40]
And so Mr. Nixon has lost a vote on welfare reform in the case of New York and
[22:40 - 22:45]
he has elsewhere in the country. I think welfare reform is
[22:45 - 22:50]
inevitable whether it comes in the rump session here next year or
[22:50 - 22:55]
perhaps after the seventy two elections the welfare system is such a mess it's got to be
[22:55 - 23:00]
reformed. It may not be along the lines of the Edmund Nixon
[23:00 - 23:05]
administration as proposed. I would expect what will happen in the next session if not
[23:05 - 23:10]
in this particular rump session is we will pass some kind of an
[23:10 - 23:14]
experimental program a trial period to see how the new incentives
[23:14 - 23:19]
work and then using that experience to attempt
[23:19 - 23:24]
a major reform. Frankly I think we've come to the point in this country where
[23:24 - 23:29]
we should have an income maintenance program with building incentives and replace the entire welfare
[23:29 - 23:32]
system must be much more efficient and health care.
[23:32 - 23:36]
Goodell says this one really depends on what the White House proposes.
[23:36 - 23:41]
I understand they're going to make a major health care proposal early in the year.
[23:41 - 23:45]
And I think there's a good chance that Congress would respond to a
[23:45 - 23:50]
major health care proposal that would clean up Medicare and Medicaid these have been
[23:50 - 23:54]
helpful programs but very inefficient. And we certainly need an
[23:54 - 23:59]
overall approach that would involve the insurance industry and some kind of a
[23:59 - 24:04]
prepaid to national insurance health care program. I think the Congress would
[24:04 - 24:09]
enact it if the Nixon Administration recommended it. If they don't recommend it I think it will be
[24:09 - 24:14]
a political issue in 1992. But any real major advance
[24:14 - 24:19]
will wait until after the presidential election of 72 consumer protection. I
[24:19 - 24:24]
think you're going to see further bills passed and consumer protection. With or
[24:24 - 24:29]
without administration support. This is a matter of deep concern to the American
[24:29 - 24:34]
people it's an issue that affects everybody. And that
[24:34 - 24:39]
you have many leaders in the Congress on consumer legislation. So I would
[24:39 - 24:44]
hope the administration will make further proposals here and give
[24:44 - 24:45]
leadership on this issue.
[24:45 - 24:50]
But whether they do or not I think you're going to see a great many more consumer bills passing
[24:50 - 24:54]
Congress on all of these issues and the myriad others inevitably under congressional
[24:54 - 24:59]
scrutiny all of the members of both houses will want to act responsibly but
[24:59 - 25:04]
obviously they'll have several different viewpoints as to just what responsible action
[25:04 - 25:09]
means to some of the day to day process of getting bills passed. To
[25:09 - 25:13]
others it's a crusade of sorts. Senator Church is one of the Crusaders.
[25:13 - 25:17]
I would hope that the Congress continues to search
[25:17 - 25:22]
for a rearrangement in priorities so that
[25:22 - 25:28]
we can better attend to the problems that are plaguing our own society here at home.
[25:28 - 25:29]
And.
[25:29 - 25:36]
This is a quest that began last year.
[25:36 - 25:40]
And I hope that it continues next year. This is the most
[25:40 - 25:46]
important single question facing government today.
[25:46 - 25:51]
Where are we going to spend our money. Where are we going to focus our
[25:51 - 25:55]
interest. To what extent will the foreign policy table
[25:55 - 26:00]
continue to wag the American dog. This is the the
[26:00 - 26:05]
basic question. And if the executive does not indicate a
[26:05 - 26:09]
willingness to change these priorities efficiently. Then I think
[26:09 - 26:12]
it's up to Congress.
[26:12 - 26:16]
To do so. Realistically can the Congress do that. Back to Senator
[26:16 - 26:17]
Goodell.
[26:17 - 26:22]
I think there will be an alteration of the priorities to a degree by Congress.
[26:22 - 26:26]
But Congress so thus far has shown itself incapable to make any major
[26:26 - 26:32]
reallocations of resources and priorities in this country.
[26:32 - 26:37]
We did cut back on some of the military expenditures. We had major confrontations
[26:37 - 26:42]
on some of these big weapon systems. We did add some money for
[26:42 - 26:47]
housing and for education and for manpower training and
[26:47 - 26:51]
programs of this nature for urban problems but not very much.
[26:51 - 26:56]
And I doubt if there's going to be the much difference in the next Congress as far as
[26:56 - 27:01]
this is concerned. Unless the president gives leadership in this
[27:01 - 27:06]
area. Because it takes a two thirds felt. To make any major.
[27:06 - 27:10]
Reallocation if the president opposes it.
[27:10 - 27:15]
And so unless the president does change his view I don't think Congress is going
[27:15 - 27:16]
to be able to do it alone.
[27:16 - 27:21]
There is unanimity on at least one point in the 90 second Congress there will be some
[27:21 - 27:26]
changes in the way business is conducted on Capitol Hill. In October both houses
[27:26 - 27:31]
agreed to the first congressional reorganization bill since 1946.
[27:31 - 27:35]
Most of its provisions will affect the house. It will make public some important votes that
[27:35 - 27:40]
hitherto could have been kept anonymous. It will open some House committee hearings to radio
[27:40 - 27:45]
into television and there's more in the way of some House members are successful.
[27:45 - 27:48]
Representative Aarons explained the GOP efforts.
[27:48 - 27:53]
Republicans already have indicated as a result of a study by a task force on our side of the aisle
[27:53 - 27:58]
that we intend this as a positive action by on our side to bring before our
[27:58 - 28:03]
conference a possibility of doing something about the seniority system into fire as it pertains to our side
[28:03 - 28:08]
of the aisle. And this will take place I'm sure right after we have a
[28:08 - 28:13]
meeting in the first part of the year. And this would indicate that we're concerned
[28:13 - 28:17]
about the seniority system to some degree the objective being that.
[28:17 - 28:23]
We say that they're the membership of the House have a right to vote in secret ballots as to who they
[28:23 - 28:28]
would like to see be the ranking member of the committee we again will be the ranking member not the chairman as we head out
[28:28 - 28:33]
and let the body itself. The members and I cited one hundred eighty I think
[28:33 - 28:37]
specialist who would like to see be the ranking members we think this is a step forward.
[28:37 - 28:42]
But the Republicans don't have the reform feel to themselves by any means.
[28:42 - 28:47]
Michigan Democratic Congressman Charles Diggs told us we were able to effectuate some
[28:47 - 28:51]
some changes. During the 94 US Congress and lay the foundation
[28:51 - 28:56]
for some further changes. Particularly with
[28:56 - 29:00]
respect to the automatic assumption of
[29:00 - 29:04]
chairmanships the person who has the
[29:04 - 29:10]
greatest amount of seniority also the frustrations which have been
[29:10 - 29:14]
generated because the rules of the House have permitted.
[29:14 - 29:20]
Chairman to exercise or rather out of credit control and in
[29:20 - 29:25]
several instances of the of the committee these new members are just
[29:25 - 29:27]
not going to stand still for that.
[29:27 - 29:32]
But in spite of all the indications predictions and speculation an accurate
[29:32 - 29:36]
profile of the 90 second Congress won't emerge until it's well underway until its
[29:36 - 29:41]
members have recorded votes on some of the key issues and have taken a stand in debate.
[29:41 - 29:46]
Until then the questions of priorities personalities responsibilities
[29:46 - 29:51]
and ideological majorities will remain questions for the national
[29:51 - 29:56]
educational radio network this is John Auto Show on in Washington.
[29:56 - 30:01]
You've been listening to a federal case weekly examination of a national issue
[30:01 - 30:06]
from the perspective of our nation's capital. A federal case is produced with
[30:06 - 30:10]
funds provided by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This is the national
[30:10 - 30:12]
educational radio network.
🔍