Drawing Up a Balance Sheet on the 93rd

Nelson Rockefeller's men had guessed that 15 votes might be cast in the Senate against his nomination for Vice President. Senate Republican Leader Hugh Scott had predicted "a baker's dozen." But only about half those votes materialized last week when, after scarcely three hours of superficial debate, the Senate voted 90 to 7 to back him. The House was expected to vote a similarly lopsided endorsement this week, thereby giving the U.S. its third Vice President in little more than a year.

The confirmation vote was the last major act of the remarkable 93rd Congress, which adjourns this week. It will be remembered chiefly not for landmark legislation but for dealing with the greatest constitutional crisis in U.S. history and for taking steps to restore the Legislative Branch as more nearly coequal to the Executive in power and public respect. Such an outcome seemed wildly improbable when the 93rd took office on Jan. 3, 1973, for then even some of its members questioned whether the seemingly docile body could ever rouse itself and shake off domination by the increasingly powerful White House. But the excesses and crimes of the Nixon Administration prodded the Congressmen into aggressively reclaiming some of their powers. In the end, they helped force the resignations of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew and ultimately voted to replace Agnew with Gerald Ford and Ford with Nelson Rockefeller.

Close Scrutiny. Rockefeller underwent three months of close scrutiny and sometimes acrimonious questioning of his fitness for the job. The exhaustive hearings sharply contrasted with the Senate's final speedy and overwhelming vote in his favor. Many Senators who voted for him had some reservations. Even one of his strongest supporters, Republican Senator Marlow Cook of Kentucky, acknowledged that in Rockefeller's appearances before the Senate and House committees, "there were certainly some areas in which he did not reflect credit on himself." But most Senators concluded that Rockefeller had adequately answered their questions. Moreover, there was a widespread feeling in Congress that if Rockefeller was rejected, Ford's next nominee might not be nearly so well qualified.

The seven who voted against Rockefeller included three Republican conservatives (Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Jesse Helms of North Carolina and William L. Scott of Virginia) and four Democratic liberals (James Abourezk of South Dakota, Birch Bayh of Indiana, Howard Metzenbaum of Ohio and Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin). Their opposition centered chiefly on Rockefeller's wealth and his use of it. Goldwater had never really forgiven Rockefeller for failing to support him for President in 1964 but still endorsed the nomination originally. Explaining his change of mind, Goldwater said: "It is now apparent to me that Mr. Rockefeller did in effect use his own personal money to accomplish the purchase of political power." Senator Nelson concluded that the Rockefeller fortune "permeates" and "infiltrates" the U.S. political and economic system and warned: "Giantism in all its manifestations threatens freedom in all its forms."

Two days later, a minority of the House Judiciary Committee expressed similar reservations; yet, by 26 to 12, the committee recommended that the House confirm Rockefeller. Liberal Democrat Charles Rangel of New York predicted: "Rockefeller can and will provide strength, imagination and purpose that is lacking in our leadership."

The votes on the nomination took place amid a frenzy of final activity as Congressmen rushed to end their lame-duck session and go home for Christmas. Among other things, Congress last week voted to provide public service jobs for the unemployed, to authorize $2.6 billion for foreign aid, to make Nixon's Watergate tapes and documents public property, and to increase penalties for antitrust violations. The lame-duck session had previously approved $800 million for aid to urban mass transit.

Respectable Record. Even allowing for the members' preoccupation with Nixon and Watergate for much of its tenure, the 93rd Congress amassed a respectable record and left behind durable achievements. They include:

> A war-powers law that prohibits a President from committing U.S. troops overseas for more than 60 days without the approval of Congress. Earlier, the House and Senate had voted to cut off funds for U.S. bombing of Cambodia and, in a more arguable intrusion in foreign policy, to suspend U.S. military and economic aid to Turkey because of that NATO ally's invasion of Cyprus. Pressure from vocal Greek Americans and irritation with the Turks for resuming poppy growing (a major source of illegal heroin flowing into the U.S.) led to the action, even though Ford warned Congress that the aid suspension would hinder U.S. efforts to resolve the Cyprus dispute.

> A system for financing presidential campaigns that provides up to $20 million in public funds for major candidates. Last week, however, Conservative Senator James Buckley and Liberal Democrat Eugene McCarthy, the former Minnesota Senator, announced that they would challenge the law's constitutionality in the courts because it discriminates against third parties.

> A joint congressional budget committee that gives the House and Senate better control over the budget and enables them to produce more responsible alternatives to the President's spending proposals. Congress also prohibited a President from refusing to spend funds that have been appropriated.

> Minimum standards for private pension funds, including an insurance system to guarantee 30 million workers that they will not lose their pensions because of bad management of assets.

> A four-year extension of federal aid to public elementary and secondary schools of more than $25 billion.

In addition, Congress authorized $2.3 billion to find new sources of energy, extended minimum-wage coverage to an estimated 10 million workers and gave citizens of the District of Columbia the right to elect local officials. In a break with bad precedent, the House and Senate enacted most appropriations legislation before Labor Day.

For all the activity, the 93rd Congress ducked or postponed several crucial problems. Most important, it failed to deal effectively with inflation and recession. Democratic members roundly faulted Ford's economic program as inadequate, yet enacted no alternative. The President recommended spending cuts totaling $4.6 billion; Congress enacted none of them. Ford urged a one-year 5% income tax surcharge; Congress postponed until next year consideration of all major changes in income tax laws, including a bill that would end the oil-depletion allowance, raise taxes on oil-company profits and reduce the taxes paid by the average U.S. wage earner.

Similarly, Congress postponed acting on no-fault auto insurance, a consumer-protection agency, a national health-insurance program and measures to deal comprehensively with energy conservation. These matters will head the agenda when the 94th Congress--more Democratic, more liberal and expected to be more reform-minded--takes office next month.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.