grants for broad purposes to states and localities, the money to be divvied up as they see fit. If Mr. Nixon's arguments for doing things the way he would like to do them fail to convince a hostile Congress, he holds in reserve the blunter weapons of further impoundments of funds for purposes dear to congressmen, and vetoes of new congressional spending schemes. In the present climate, even as the guns go silent in Southeast Asia, a pitched battle is more likely than a cease-fire on the next year's budget issues. [From the Evening Star and Daily News, Washington, D.C., Jan. 29, 1973] LETTERS TO THE EDITOR-CUT IN AMTRAK SIR: If the Nixon administration is allowed to make the publicized 40 percent cut in Amtrak funding, then the derailed, shortsighted traveling citizens deserve to walk! In a country of such advanced technology surely it is possible to aspire to and achieve mass transit with a balanced transportation system. Of course, every railroad passenger would like accommodations equivalent to the super-speed comfort of the Turbo-Train, but it is unrealistic to expect all rolling stock to be disposed of overnight and replaced instantly. It is well to remember railroad companies in or near bankruptcy have not presented Amtrak with efficiently maintained or improved engines, cars, tracks and stations. I believe it would be in the interest of the general public to learn of the very constructive, though time and money-consuming, efforts of Amtrak to maintain a semblance of reasonably comfortable passenger service while organizing their forces to achieve their ultimate goal of high speed, punctual, luxurious mass surface transportation. Those areas that have been first to receive such updated rail passenger service have found to their great satisfaction that "the trains are, indeed, worth riding again." FINDS IT INCOMPREHENSIBLE As one of the many who put forth great effort to obtain the direct Amtrak rail passenger service between Washington and Montreal through New England, I find it incomprehensible that President Nixon could sanction route abandonment predicated on how much a train loses per passenger unit. The passenger potential for this New England route has hardly begun to be appreciated, much less realized. Thousands of New Englanders greeted the return of the Montrealer and Washingtonian with a display of grassroot support and enthusiasm unmatched elsewhere in the United States. Plagued by equipment scarcity, unsatisfactory scheduling in relation to logistic problems confronting the New England traveler, Amtrak officials are preparing many improvement plans, although the route has already exceeded the initially projected passenger utilization. I shall be very interested to learn if the formula now being developed by the Department of Transportation for March disclosure is predicated on the longterm needs of the people rather than the short-term needs of a president. DIVERTING FUNDS DIFFICULT Of course it is easy to understand the difficulty of tapping highway funds or diverting a few million dollars from bombers to provide the necessary rail passenger service in the United States. After all, if one presumes to have a mandate from the people explanations are unnecessary. However, those of us that can still manage to think and reflect on all that has come to pass since our forefathers pioneered this country in covered wagons, linked its people from shore to shore by highways, trains and planes, must now again demand that this government respond constructively to the needs of the people. If we cannot hear what the conservationist, the ecologist, the future-oriented technologist have been trying to tell us regarding the transportation crisis then we deserve the demise of the passenger train. If we believe Amtrak should be given additional funds and time to play a significant role in a balanced transportation system, then we must immediately petition to prevent any cut in the Amtrak budget. ARLINGTON, Va. DOROTHY CHITTENDEN MILLER. [From the Evening Star and Daily News, Washington, D.C., Jan. 29, 1973] LETTER TO THE EDITOR LANCASTER, PA. SIR: Amtrak will soon be coming up for review, to decide whether it is to be continued, augmented, reduced or allowed to die. It has had less than two years, and in this time it was supposed to overcome the neglect (by railroad managements and the government) that the rail passenger service has suffered for many years; and to do this with very little financial help from the government, compared to that given air and highway transportation. Yet in this short time, it has actually reversed the more-than-20-year downward trend in passenger train patronage; and it has done this with an inadequate fleet of worn out equipment, operating over tracks often poorly maintained; and with some of the railroads less than cooperative. To allow Amtrak to die now; or to reduce its scope and funding (with the sure result of killing it) would be criminal. Amtrak has made a good beginning in refurbishing the worn out equipment it inherited. It has only begun to refurbish stations, or to replace them with smaller, more efficient, more attractive stations. It is in the process of establishing a nationwide reservation system, and simplifying the complex fare structure it inherited. It is adjusting schedules to provide better connections, making the whole system more useful. It has improved food service and quality, and reduced food prices. It is in the process of re-educating the public that their business is wanted-the reverse the "public relations" of most of the railroads in recent years. But all this will take much more time than the two-year trial period provided for in the original Amtrak legislation. JOHN J. BOWMAN, Jr. [From the Evening Star and Daily News, Washington, D.C., Jan. 29, 1973] LETTER TO THE EDITOR-IMPOUNDING CLEAN WATER SIR: In light of the continued deterioration of our waterways in America, and the threat of usurpation of powers by the Executive Branch which are normally vested in Congress, the following senators and representatives of Maryland should be congratulated on their forthright stand opposing the President and his arbitrary and negative approach to cleaning up these waterways: Charles McC. Mathias Jr.; J. Glenn Beall Jr.; Gilbert Gude; Lawrence Hogan; Clarence D. Long; Paul Sarbanes; Goodlowe E. Byron, and Parren J. Mitchell. They stood together and collectively opposed his impounding of $6 billion out of $11 billion allocated by Congress for water pollution grants. JOLIN THORNBURGH, Chairman, Maryland Coalition on National Priorities. [From the Evening Star and Daily News, Washington, D.C., Feb. 11, 1973] Budget Director Roy Ash said yesterday that it is "certainly the intention" of the administration to pay for any economic assistance to North Vietnam by making further cutbacks in regular programs at home and abroad. In nearly four hours of congressional grilling in which one senator twice asked him to resign, Ash added, however, that "there's a long ways between where we now stand and the prospect for funds" for reconstruction of the North. Ash was repeatedly scolded by Democratic members of the Joint Economic Committee for domestic slashes already advanced by the White House. Sen. William Proxmire (D-Wis.) told him. "I think you should resign" because of "direct and palpable conflict of interest" with his previous job as head of Litton Industries. Ash denied time and again that his past affiliation with Litton would influence his decisions on defense appropriations. The stormy session followed Ash's appearance a day earlier before a Senate judiciary subcommittee, an equally heated affair in which he was accused of trying to spoon-feed Congress budget information and was warned not to cir cumvent a bid to force his confirmation by the Senate. Ash has been on the job only five days. When Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey, (D-Minn.) inquired as to what additional programs might be sacrificed to accommodate assistance to the Communists, Ash replied: "That decision has not been made." Ash frequently turned to aides and referred to budget documents as he attempted to field dozens of queries over spending matters. Once, when he hesti tated on a question about assistance in South Vietnam, Proxmire sprang forward in his chair and bellowed: "You're the budget director and you don't know what $2 billion is for." [From the Evening Star and Daily News, Washington, D.C., Feb. 11, 1973] A TOUGH LINE ON DOMESTIC SPENDING (Editorial) Nobody can say Richard Nixon failed to give warning. From Election Day through the inauguration and beyond, the President sent out repeated signals, spelling out the twin themes of "less government" and greater self-reliance. Only with the appearance of the fiscal 1974 budget, however, has the realization struck home that the President means business, that he is very serious about alerting in some major way Washington's role, and to some extent its basic commitment, in the arena of social-welfare policy. The cuts and deletions in the new budget, dozens of them piled on other dozens, are tangible testimony to the President's intent. So far, the evidence is spotty that Congress, too, must be taken seriously of the big issues of domestic priorities and spending. At this point, some two weeks after the budget appeared. Congress is riding in any number of directions. It has gone to war with the White House on the immediate issue of impoundments, holding high the banner of its constitutional spending authority but at the same time exerting much of its energy trying to preserve narrow, special-interest agricultural subsidies. Granted, very serious legal questions are involved in the President's sweeping use of the impoundment weapon. Yet Congress is giving the public the impression it is playing politics as usual. The impression goes farther, to suggest that should Congress win the overall impoundment battle. Mr. Nixon's warning will come true: no control on spending, inflationary deficits and the certainty of a tax boost. Meanwhile, special committees in Congress are moving in a responsible way to create what never has existed on Capitol Hill-the kind of machinery that would enable the Congressmen to discipline their spending decisions within an overall limit. That is good news. The bad news became clear last week. Even if that reform comes about, it cannot be functional in time for the decisions that have to be made on the 1974 budget. And so Congress is in something of a box, its schizophrenia plainly showing. All that is likely to continue for a while, which is a shame. For what we need. right now, is a strong, self-confident Congress-neither totally acquiescent, totally obstructionist nor vacillating emotionally between the two-but willing and able to take on, and provide its own answers to, the tough, important questions the Nixon budget poses. Our own reaction to the budget is that for the most part it makes good sense. What we do not like is the symbolic coldness with which it so far has been advanced. All those White House early warning signals, along with much of what the President has been saying lately, can only be described as cold-long, (f course, on hard-headed discipline, short on good will and compassion. The President's rhetoric is meant to serve a tactical purpose. It is calculated to keep congressional Democrats on the defensive, reminding them that if they defy him on overall spending, he will not hesitate in pinning their ears back in the marketplace of broad public opinion. But he, and the country, we believe. are paying a price for it. We don't suggest that Mr. Nixon come on like a liberal. He need not worry about the deep-dyed Nixon-haters, nor the professional ideologues, nor the sizeble army of public-service dispensers whose espousal of government programs is never far removed from self interest in preserving or expanding their job base. We have in mind, rather, what Senator Mondale has called "the decency vote." the countless people in the broad middle spectrum for whom fiscal integrity is perfectly respectable but who also know that there are plenty of social ills to be redressed if our nation is to stand totally proud of itself. We believe the Presi dent should go farther to reflect the beliefs of these people, rather than, by inference, lumping them in with those voters who are chiefly angry at big government and high taxes. By so doing, he would be better positioned to shape their beliefs, to explain with conviction why it is high time for housecleaning among the bewildering array of domestic programs. Despite the image of parsimony, the 1974 budget is very big, still projecting a deficit, and with domestic expenditures predominant. Moreover, it is judicious. That is, proven programs, such as food stamps, will go on as before. It contains a number of increases, from support of the arts to energy research to minority enterprise and civil-rights enforcement. Many of the "cuts" actually represent the $6.2 billion narrow-purpose grants the President wants to fold into four broad grants called special revenue sharing. Other cuts are cuts, period. Some of them, such as Medicare benefits are quite deep, taking money out of the pockets of old people that was put there by last year's Social Security increases. Others affect programs which only wishful thinking could defend as contributing much to the most urgent needs of society. All that is to say that the 1974 budget cries out for the best Congress can provide in the way of dispassionate, distinction-making review. If one part of the domestic budget deserves special mention, it is the absolute hold that has been placed on subsidized housing for low and moderate-income families. In one sense, the housing program is in a class by itself, for it covers such a huge field, in which federal involvement is essential. And it is a program that has been asked to take not selective cuts but a blanket moratorium until something new can be devised. Yet this, too, is a program that illustrates so much of what went wrong with the domestic initiatives of the Sixties. Any honest review of it leads to instant humility, to be shared widely. Here was a program, much of it embodied in the 1968 Housing Act, that the Johnson administration considered a proud landmark. Much of the press, ourselves included, hailed it. The Nixon administration seized on it eagerly, and only recently has it stopped bragging about how many hundreds of thousands of homes and apartments were built, sold and rented under the program. And yet the failings grew, and wouldn't go away-bad management, and eventual deterioration, of whole apartment projects, real estate middlemen milking the home-ownership part of the program, other forms of scandal, bungling and waste, thousands of forclosures and, finally, the certainty of accelerating expenditures in the years ahead. And then it became reasonably clear that no matter how hard George Romney tried, no matter how hard anyone might try, better management could not pull the program together. The trouble lay in the program itself. What now? The pipeline of subsidized housing will run dry of its current commitments sometime in 1974. And so it is imperative that the administration and Congress get cracking on a housing program that reasonably promises a maximum of benefits and a minimum of bad side effects. That's quite a challenge. Meanwhile, on the whole domestic agenda, the White House might work into its public pronouncements more of the lubricant of warmth and good will. Congress, for starters, might try getting down to business. [From the Federal Times, Feb. 21, 1973] AMTRAK FOR ARKANSAS: FULBRIGHT SEEKING FOREIGN AID CUTS WASHINGTON-Sen. J. W. Fulbright, D-Ark., has made a move to get the administration on the right track and route some funds in the direction of Amtrak to provide the train service through Arkansas. The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee announced plans to amend the foreign aid bill to "require release of funds for these important domestic programs if the administration wanted to continue foreign assistance," which expires this month. Fulbright reminded Senators Sam Ervin Jr. and Lawton Chiles, D-Fla., cochairman of the hearing on impoundment of funds, that such an amendment to the 1971 Foreign Assistance Act forced the release of funds. But since that time, the administration impounded funds for 1972 and now for 1973. Fulbright began his testimony by complaining that funds to provide Amtrak train service through Arkansas had been impounded by the Office of Management and Budget. "Now we confront the problem of impoundment, which goes to the very heart of congressional power-the power to appropriate. It is imperative that Congress reassert itself in this field where the Executive Branch is acting with increasing disregard for constitutional congressional authority," Fulbright said. At times, Fulbright tried to be concillatory toward the White House, noting that the "temporary stoppage of funds has been an acceptable practice since the beginning of the country. 'Must spend' is not a principle that I advocate." The 30-year veteran of Senate service was questioned by Sen. Charles Percy, R-Ill., concerning examples of earlier impoundment of funds. Fulbright said it was "okay" for President Franklin Roosevelt to stop funds for unnecessary construction in 1942, but believes that President Harry Truman "exceeded his authority" in 1949 when he refused to spend funds for an enlarged Air Force, and in 1951 delay work on the aircraft carrier Forrestal. If the President has a good reason not to spend, he should ask Congress to rescind expenditures, Fulbright said. With the cancellation of Amtrak funds, Mr. Nixon is using his power to set policy, the senator declared. And although the SST-supersonic transport-project was canceled by Congress less than two years ago, the President has asked for $28 million in the NASA budget and $14.5 million in FAA for SST research. "He is substituting his judgment for the collective judgment of Congress." Fulbright said. He noted that the Congress must often "take on faith" the proposals to build exotic weapons and aircraft. And he ticked off a few failures, including the TFX, now the F-111 swing-wing fighter opposed by Sen. John McClellan in extensive hearings and dubbed a "museum piece" by Fulbright. Earlier, Fulbright said the "President indicates that he no longer has confidence in the collective judgment of Congress." Through the device of impoundment, Fulbright said, "the President has moved to make his budget an inviolable document from which the Congress must not vary. But there is nothing sacrosanct about the presidential budget. It is, in fact, no more than a request or a proposed blueprint for Congress to consider. "Just as a client is not bound to accept everything an architect proposes, Congress can modify the blueprint in line with its views of national priorities. But in the case of President Nixon, if Congress makes changes in the blueprint which he submits, he proceeds to build according to his own plans regardless of congressional action.” Fulbright recalled how the Senate considered a $250 billion spending ceiling last October, but refused to give the President the authority to exercise an item veto which would have been implicit in such legislation. "The President would be in a better position on this issue if he were willing to see cuts made across the board." Fulbright said. But he said that many senaters knew where the cuts would be made-not in military spending but in social and educational programs. "Our fears have been borne out by the President's impoundment action and his proposed budget for fiscal 1974," Fulbright said. But Fulbright offered hopes of reconciliation, saying "I do not believe Congress is seeking a confrontation with the Executive. Indeed, at a time when I hope we are beginning to put one of the most divisive issues in our nation's history behind us, the moment would seem ideal for a new spirit of cooperation." [From the Evening Star and Daily News, Washington, D.C., Nov. 29, 1972] (By John Fialka) President Nixon's decision to impound $6 billion out of the $11 billion Congress authorized for water pollution control grants in the next two fiscal years is drawing strong fire from House and Senate environmental leaders. In a joint statement made shortly after the President's decision was announced yesterday, Sen. Edmund S. Muskie, D-Maine, and Rep. John Blatnik, D-Minn., charged that the action was in "flagrant disregard" of the intent of Congress, which overturned a presidential veto to approve the grant money. Referring to Congress' intended goal to clean up the nation's rivers and streams Sen. Muskie added: "The President's decision throws in the towel before the battle is begun." "NOT TO EXCEED" In announcing the decision, William D. Ruckelshaus, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, admitted that it "was not legally clear" whether EPA would ever get the impounded $6 billion in contract authority or whether the funds would simply lapse. |