Article in Nation's Business (Chamber of Commerce of the United States) ; branches. At the same time, because of the nature of the structure that our founding fathers created, we find that the parties themselves are not unduly disciplined and that majorities in the Congress are built in many cases on a bipartisan basis. So the process of policy formulation and decision-making in Washington depends on focuses of political power in both the executive and legislative branches. As a practical matter, for example, the President's program must be shaped to strike a working balance among the interests and views of actual and potential supporters in Congress. It is precisely because of this method of building majorities that the role of Congress in the decision-making process is such a significant one. The party mechanisms give to committee chairmen and such officials as the speaker of the House and the majority and minority leaders of both houses a major responsibility not only to review programs proposed by the President for enactment, but also to contribute to the final shape of these programs. Above all things, the House of Representatives is jealous of its special decision-making powers over taxing and spending. In an age of astronomical requirements for defense, this has significance in decisions on the budget. The President, helped by the Bureau of the Budget, proposes; the Congress disposes. I recall a comment by the late Congressman Prince Preston of Georgia that puts in a capsule the basic doctrine regarding this congressional control. We were standing outside the House Office Building when a car from the Pentagon disgorged a general with staff members carrying documents, all headed for an Appropriations Committee meeting. "The Republic has good foundations if this picture can be maintained," my colleague said. "The generals come to us to defend their figures and plead their case." The civilian - not the military - has the mandate to make the final judgment. And the civilian agency in control here is the Congress. All the conflicts of American society seem to converge on the House and Senate chambers. These conflicts in our culture and economic life are not all resolved by legislation, but they are reconciled to the extent that national policy makes reconciliation necessary. The congressional committees render the indispensable service of hearing all sides on behalf of the Congress
Article in Nation's Business (Chamber of Commerce of the United States) ; DECISIONS IN WASHINGTON continued from page 41 Lonely struggles with clashing advice often precede actions by the President the lag in developing professional standards resulted in individual hardships giving rise to complaints about our sprawling bureaucracy. Washington administrators have made some headway in dealing with the problem. One of our conservative friends, a critic of the concentration of authority, recently expressed admiration for what he termed "a new professionalism" in the federal departments. Even though Congress must often reach compromise and consensus, it can act very quickly when it needs to. This was demonstrated in the summer of 1963. On July 22, President Kennedy sent Congress a message calling for legislation to stop the threatened railroad strike. By August 28, Congress completed action on legislation to require compulsory arbitration on certain issues of the labor dispute and to prohibit the strike. One fact which makes this speed seem even more remarkable is that the Senate Commerce Committee, which had to act on the legislation, was at the same time considering the controversial public accommodations provision of the civil rights bill. Many of its meetings had to be held at night and on Saturday. Government growth The effect of government growth in Washington certainly is related to any appraisal of the President's problems, for the enormous increase in the volume of judgments which have to be rendered in departmental affairs eventually is reflected in the pressures upon the chief executive. What a change from the days of George Washington, who reportedly insisted that every letter from a federal office should bear his signature. It is axiomatic that only the tough decisions are made at the White House. "The easy ones are settled down the line," President Eisenhower told his successor. My former White House colleague, Ted Sorensen, a key assistant to President Kennedy, was in an excellent position to evaluate the procedures favored by Mr. Kennedy. He maintained that there was no systematic formula for Mr. Kennedy's decisions. This I believe to have been the case under most other presidents. The patterns have reflected the personality and intellectual qualities of the executive. Mr. Truman apparently took pride in assuming responsibility for decisions. I recall visiting him once as a member of a congressional delegation seeking to induce him to take a certain course. After saying "no," he added with a big, friendly smile-but in a tone that convinced us he meant it: "And this is my decision. Don't you boys go back up there on the Hill and say Dean Acheson did it." President Eisenhower was inclined to delegate questions to advisers, generally cabinet members. Presidential friends also have generally been available for help in special situations and have been used by modern presidents, who find specialized knowledge an indispensable requirement in this scientific age. Still the President, having the final responsibility for decisions, must become familiar with many intricate questions and must in a major crisis base his policy on judgments that extend beyond technical and specialized considerations. His personal knowledge of history and government, of the nation's economy, its people, the Congress-and indeed the world's life-must often be tapped. His meditations upon a multitude of complex matters must precede the final decision on questions of vital concern. He consequently becomes on occasion a lonely individual, struggling with conflicting ideas and advice. Assistance and advice for the President come from staff members with competence in a variety of fields, the cabinet members and a vast army of technical aides including independent sources who may not always regard their service solemnly since, as has been said, "their daily salt did not come from the presidential table." Even in day-to-day routine the President carries insuperable burdens. Without help given by aides who surround him and determine when, how and by whom the protective wall is penetrated, he would scarcely find any satisfactions in filling the world's pre-eminent office. He must look at scores-sometimes hundreds-of documents every day and must be sure that the appropriate initials are in the proper place before affixing his signature. Congressional decisions From the point of view of the member of Congress, decisions on legislative matters usually involve a great deal more than the wishes of the President. Even the President's warmest friends and closest party cohorts may be unresponsive at times. Attitudes of the folks at home must be taken into account if the member of Congress is to continue in office. The congressman's task-balancing the local and regional interest with that of the nation-must be sympathetically viewed by presidents, particularly those who have served in Congress. A president represents the national interest and must picture the national goals. But the congressional leader has the map-he knows what will be required to reach them. This requires the President to negotiate-a procedure that has political and ethical guidelines which both sides must respect. A good example of its use was the handling of the Senate action on the 1964 civil rights legislation. Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen was committed to civil rights, but he was concerned about some of the mechanisms proposed in the measure as submitted. He asked for and received the modifications that reflected minority party participation. This action helped to give the bill a bipartisan flavor - Congressman William M. McCulloch, ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, had helped significantly in the House-and virtually made the final results a classic example of government by consensus. We pride ourselves, and rightly so, on the system established by our founding fathers which called for separate executive, legislative and judicial branches. But it should be noted that no cognizance was taken of the role of political parties in this dynamic process. James Madison in Federalist Paper No. 10 talks of the new Constitution being designed to eliminate the need for parties. In practice, however, we have found that to make our governmental institutions function properly, the party system is essential. It is through the party system that we bridge the gulf between the executive and legislative 64 NATION'S BUSINESS - JANUARY 1965
Until 1952 neutralism or nonalignment (NA) was not a signif factor in foreign policies of Arab gov's. Only the Syrian social'ts had articulated a policy of NA, but they had little pol'al prestige. After the 1952 Egyptian revolution & the rise of Nasser as an influential figure, his policies affected all the Arab world. When Nasser adapted Ehyptian foreign policy to NA, other Arab radical gov's also became neutralist. Revolutionary Egypt's neutralism was held by Arab nationalists to free the Middle East from Western domination, though to Western diplomats Nasser's policies often seemed to be moving precariously close to those of the Soviet bloc. Increasingly, Nasser & his Arab supporters have articulated neutralism as a positive doctrine which gives the Arabs a major voice among nonaligned or neutralist gov's in Asia & Africa. The revolutionary Arab gov's, together with other nonaligned or neutralist gov's in Asia & Africa, have become an influential pol'al factor in internat'l affairs by virtue of their nonaligned policies. HA.
In this press release the author assures constituents that Hanford will be considered for a high energy accelerator. One can assume that in this instance May is attempting to place pressure on the Atomic Energy Commission due to the fact that diversification efforts at the Hanford site had previously been bogged down in political quagmire. See Sterling Nelson's confidential letter for more detail.
This press release details Catherine May's additional efforts to ensure Hanford's consideration for a high energy accelerator. May submits a report listing the advantages of Hanford for the record.
In this press release Catherine May announces the contract execution between Douglas United Nuclear, Inc., and the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). May sites this as an important step for diversification efforts at Hanford.
Catherine May writes to Glenn C. Lee regarding their frustrations with the Atomic Energy Commission's slow site selection process for a high speed accelerator. Lee is the secretary of the Tri-City Nuclear Industrial Council, Inc., the publisher of the Tri-City Herald, and a close confidant and political ally of May's.
Catherine May discusses two significant events: an authorization of a third power plant for Grand Coulee Dam, and the first successful operation of the Hanford Nuclear Steam Plant.
Catherine May discusses the upcoming July 4th anniversary and expresses her hopes that the recently passed Civil Right Act of 1964 "will lead to the solution of a profoundly complex and critically important problem that has put the character of American life on trial."
Catherine May writes to personal friend and constituent Stuart Semon in regarding her contact with Seymour H. Kaplan, the Pacific Northwest Regional Director of the Anti-Defamation League of B'Nai B'rith. May writes to Kaplan at the request of Semon, in order to defend some comments by Emma Guffy Miller, the Chairman of the National Woman's Party, which many construed as anti-Semitic and racist. In her personal letter to Semon she says,".this National Woman's Party is really a kookie outfit." and she says she is "stuck with this battle to get equal rights for women, though I'm not so darned sure we would want them if we got them!" She goes on to joke with Semon, asking him to "burn this letter because I would rather have the Teamsters' Union on my neck than the National Woman's Party.!" Though these comments may be interpreted as anti-women's rights, it is an example of one of many causes May fought fervently for when she perceived the greater common good to be at stake--sometimes in opposition to her own personal views and her constituents.
