Having It Both Ways

THE Republican congressional leaders were waiting at the Cabinet table when President Nixon walked in. He took his center seat, looked them over and went straight to the point: "Is there anyone here who thinks I ought to veto the education bill?"

They had advised him earlier to let this bill slide into law without his signature and now he was asking them about a veto --a veto on education funds, with school opening just weeks away in an election year. They laughed. But Mr. Nixon persisted, "Does anyone?" Presidential Counsellor Bryce Harlow raised his hand. "He's not up for re-election," one of the men from Capitol Hill said, but that was the end of the joking.

For the next two hours, the President and his legislative leaders thrashed out a double-barreled veto--of the education bill and the bill providing appropriations for HUD and other Government agencies. The vetoes would open up Administration loyalists to at least one certain override vote in Congress, endanger the future of desegregation funds the President desperately wanted in order to keep the South in his c amp, and run the risk of labeling electioneering Republicans "anti-education." These were high stakes. Minority Leaders Gerald Ford and Hugh Scott warned Nixon.

Impossible Position. But Mr. Nixon believed there were other stakes. Together, the bills added up to $1 billion more in expenditures than he had requested. How could he maintain his anti-inflation stance if he allowed the education bill to become law and, as some advised, vetoed the HUD funding bill? He could not, the President insisted, pick and choose among Congress's overruns and keep his "credibility."

Republicans in Congress, the leaders reminded him, were not in a very good position either. It would be almost impossible to raise the votes necessary to sustain the education veto. "I know a veto will put our Republican friends in a box," Mr. Nixon said, but they could vote against him, override the education veto, and he would still have his "maximum impact" on the inflation front.

The chances of overriding the veto of the agency funding bill looked slim, so Republicans in Congress could have it both ways on the record -- for education, but against inflation. So it was decided, and hours later the President ve toed the two measures, explaining that "in both cases, the level proposed by Congress is a threat to the American pocketbook."

Certain to Carry. Reaction on the Hill was swift and precisely as pre- dicted: two days later, the House voted 289 to 114 to override the education veto. The Senate was scheduled to vote on the veto this week, and since the bill had passed there without a dissenting vote, the override was certain to carry. Equally predictably, opposition leaders were unable to raise the two-thirds majority needed to surmount the HUD veto; it died with the vote. The two vetoes and the votes to over ride were the highlights of one of the busiest weeks in Government during the Nixon Administration. Other important actions:

Bargaining ABM for SALT

The most significant continuing test of will between President and Congress involves the development and deployment of an anti-ballistic missile system. The chief opportunity for the President's opponents last week was the Administration's request for ABM expansion to two additional sites. The Senate de bate turned on neither the cost nor the efficiency of the system, but on how important the ABM is to the success of the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks in Vienna.

New Hampshire Democrat Thomas J. McIntyre reported a telephone con- versation with a "highly placed source in Vienna [who] made it very clear to me that the success of the SALT negotiations rests almost exclusively on our not remaining static in our ABM pos ture." Just before the vote, Republican Whip Robert Griffin bore down hard er on the issue: "If this amendment should carry and if the SALT talks should thereafter collapse, I would not want to be in the position of those who will vote today against the President of the U.S."

Even habitually anti-Pentagon Senators found it difficult to vote against the "bargaining chip" theory if it might one day yield a limitation of the arms race. So the Cooper-Hart anti-ABM amendment was defeated 52-47, and over the weekend opponents marshaled for a vote this week on an amendment offered by Senator Edward Brooke that would spend the full request but limit site expansion.

Reforming the Post Office

President Nixon signed the Postal Reorganization Bill into law at elaborate ceremonies at the Post Office Department. In attendance were all living former Postmasters General, including James Farley, and the President passed them the pens that marked the end of the job they once held. Under the reform, the Post Office becomes an independent agency, establishing rates and appointing a staff free of political patronage. A 2-c- increase in the first-class mail rate is expected during the first year of operation, as the agency takes steps toward putting itself on a breakeven economic footing. The reformers hope the law will end the past inefficiencies of the Post Office. To symbolize the change, the new agency shed its old Pony Express emblem for a stylized eagle.

Curbing TV Campaigning

Congress dealt with an inflation problem of its own--the spiraling cost of television campaigning. A House-Senate conference committee reported out a bill that would set a limit of 70 per vote cast in the most recent general election on funds that can be used on radio and television advertising.

The measure had enjoyed bipartisan support when it was first drafted, but when Senator John Pastore imposed a provision on the conferees that would make the act effective in time for the fall campaign, Republicans from both houses refused to sign the report, claiming that it was a ploy intended to help the Democrats, whose party coffers are considerably depleted. The Republicans had their way; the bill will not be voted on until too late to affect the fall campaigning.

The week brought another development that may radically change presidential broadcast habits. The Federal Communications Commission handed down an order that networks must give responsible critics of Mr. Nixon's Viet Nam policies a free prime-time forum to rebut his views. The FCC memorandum invoked the fairness doctrine and said that President Nixon's series of five speeches on Viet Nam during a seven-month period tipped the fairness balance by giving undue exposure to "the leading spokesman of one side."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.