Opening of the Showdown Session

THE Democratic Congress will give the Republican President a standing ovation when he arrives to deliver his State of the Union address this week. Richard Nixon will wave, smile broadly, radiate friendliness, probably even compliment the lawmakers on their high dedication to the common good. Yet the ceremonial show of civility, demanded by custom, will scarcely conceal the fact that this is an election year, and that relations between the Hill and the White House are at a peak of partisanship unmatched since Harry Truman ran against a "do-nothing" 80th Congress in 1948.

As the 92nd Congress returns for the second session, its Democratic leaders face a delicate task. They share a visceral determination, strengthened by the personal presidential ambitions of half a dozen Senators, to knock Nixon out of office. Even such usually cooperative politicians as Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, House Speaker Carl Albert and House Ways and Means Chairman Wilbur Mills resent what they consider Nixon's highhandedness with Congress. They want to do him in. But they dare not appear merely as obstructionist, and must give their party a positive congressional record on which to run. They know only too well that Nixon, like Truman, is the kind of gut fighter who would relish giving them hell.

Hit on the Head. Nixon's own legislative problem is just as difficult. His overblown "new American revolution" in domestic affairs is stalled, partly because of the recession, partly because he is preoccupied by global politics, and partly because he has failed to generate enough popular enthusiasm for his programs to overcome Democratic opposition. Except for his belated moves to control the economy, his performance in addressing the problems at home has been weak, and this is his greatest political vulnerability.

To protect himself Nixon must either convince the nation that his proposals were sound but were sabotaged by Democrats, or he must seek compromises with Congress and claim credit for the resulting legislation. At the outset of the new session, compromise seems to be Nixon's tactic. Says one of his legislative aides: "Our strategy will be to change if necessary, get the President's name on legislation and share the credit rather than fight totally and be hit on the head with it during the campaign."

As the President secluded himself at Camp David to work over drafts of his address with his top speechwriter, Raymond Price, other White House aides indicated that Nixon would propose few new major programs. Taking a conciliatory tone, he is expected to urge Congress to complete action on his previous proposals, including welfare reform, revenue sharing and environmental protection. He will seek new incentives to stimulate scientific and technological research, check drug abuse and increase U.S. exports. He may endorse a national program of mandatory health insurance.

Nixon undoubtedly will report optimistically on the effectiveness of his economic controls, and ask Congress to act swiftly on the devaluation of the dollar. He is not expected to suggest any immediate tax changes, although the Administration is studying the possibility of a value-added tax. Probably earmarked for support of schools, this tax would be used to check the continual rise of local property-tax rates. But it is certain to be assailed by many Democrats as a regressive national sales tax that is unfair to low-income groups.

As the campaign heats up, the interest of the political antagonists in self-protective compromise may fade. New issues may also arise. But at the moment, the specific questions likely to dominate the session are:

THE WAR. Despite Nixon's announcement last week of a slight increase in the rate of U.S. troop withdrawals from Viet Nam--a rise from the current 22,500 a month to 23,300 a month in February, March and April--the renewed U.S. bombing of North Viet Nam and an impending new Communist offensive (see THE WORLD) will keep the war half alive as an issue. Senate doves will again press for a fixed date on which U.S. involvement will end; they are also expected to try to limit U.S. aerial warfare in Indochina.

WELFARE REFORM. Passed by the House and now in Russell Long's Senate Finance Committee, Nixon's longstanding No. 1 priority program is caught in a bind: conservatives oppose the notion of a guaranteed income for every family, and liberals think the proposed $2,400 annual base for a family of four with no outside income is too low. Liberals may win an increase in the annual base to something near $3,000, while conservatives may gain a concession that the program will begin only on a short-term experimental basis.

REVENUE SHARING. The financial agonies of the cities and states have become so obvious that both parties have a political interest in providing some federal relief. It is a complex issue that could become mired in partisan demagoguery. First, any revenue sharing plan must clear Mills' committee. He prefers his own bill, which retains congressional control of how the money --roughly $5 billion in the first year --is to be spent. An agreement seems likely. Predicts White House Legislative Counsel Clark MacGregor: "It will be a little bit Richard Nixon, a little bit Wilbur Mills and probably even a dose of Russell Long." Long originally opposed revenue sharing but now says he has an "open mind."

BUSING. Mined with explosives that could badly wound even a careful politician, this field is being approached warily by both parties--especially until the ramifications of the lower-court decision in the Richmond school case are clear (see EDUCATION). Nixon has opposed busing but has conceded that court orders to bus must be enforced. Antibusing amendments will be offered on an aid to education bill, probably will again be accepted by the House but rejected by the Senate.

THE BUDGET. Nixon is expected to present an unbalanced budget of some $246 billion with a large planned deficit. That budget, as well as this year's immense deficit--now estimated at more than $30 billion--will be attacked as unsound by fiscal conservatives in both parties, and by Democratic candidates tired of seeing only their own party labeled spendthrift. Congressional Democrats will aim some of their fire at the defense budget, expected to be about $4 billion more than this year's $76 billion.

WATER POLLUTION. An interesting political fight shapes up over a water pollution bill passed unanimously by the Senate last year at the urging of Edmund Muskie. Although pollution control was a major part of Nixon's revolution, the Administration is fighting the $20 billion Muskie bill, which sets 1985 as the date by which all discharge of pollutants into waterways should end. Complains a White House aide: "We do not want to have U.S. Steel come to us and say they are closing one of their plants because of the economic impossibility of meeting these standards." Yet the drive against pollution is so popular that some kind of bill seems certain to emerge.

In this election year, a determined Administration and an increasingly stubborn Congress will spar for political advantage in the high-stakes struggle for survival. The desire to score debating points can overcome the need for compromise to get the public business done. Each side may seek an issue instead of a solution. Yet sometimes good legislation can be the best politics; that, at least, is the best hope as the Congress and the President begin the showdown battles of 1972.

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