Hearing and Believing

By James Kelly

The Senate begins surveying Reagan's Cabinet choices

He anticipated at least two days of tough grilling from the Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, if not on his foreign policy views, then on his actions as Richard Nixon's chief of staff during the final months of the Watergate crisis. So four days before the hearing opened, he met privately with Republican Senators on the committee to work out what Californian S.I. Hayakawa delicately called "friendly" answers to the expected hostile questions. But when Alexander Meigs Haig Jr., Ronald Reagan's nominee for Secretary of State, finally sat down last week at the green baize covered conference table in packed Room 1202 of the Dirksen Office Building and faced the committee's 17 members, no sharp exchanges materialized.

Instead, like the eight other Reagan Cabinet nominees who testified at other confirmation hearings last week, Haig underwent mostly gentle questioning, even from the Democrats. Not one of them disputed Chairman Charles Percy when he told Haig: "As of now, I personally have no information that would justify an adverse conclusion, or which suggests that this nomination should be delayed."

With Republicans in control of the Senate, the Democrats never stood much chance of blocking the approval of any nominee, not even that of perhaps the most controversial, Denver Lawyer James Watt, whose selection as Secretary of the Interior was stoutly opposed by environmentalists. The nominees breezed through their hearings with hardly a contrary question or comment from the Democrats. Yet though the hearings provided no fireworks, they did offer some insights into the views of the Reagan team.

The premier appearance was. of course, that of Haig. At his own request, he testified under oath. Behind him sat Wife Patricia, Son Alexander, 28, and Brother Francis, a Jesuit priest. The former four-star general began by reading, in forceful tones, a well-reasoned, 20-page statement, in which he reminded the Senators that he had given sworn testimony on eight occasions about his actions during Watergate and other controversial events during the Nixon Administration, and that "none of these investigations has found any culpability on my part."

Indeed, Watergate was scarcely mentioned by Haig's Democratic questioners, whose attempts to gain access to still secret Nixon tapes in the National Archives were stymied--first by procedural delays in locating them and then by Nixon's threat, voiced through his lawyer, to fight in court against letting the committee hear the tapes.

A> a result, the hearing concentrated on Haig's view of the world and the U.S. role in it. In an exchange with Majority Leader Howard Baker, he emphatically declared that he believes "there are things worth fighting for." Recalling that the U.S. was "spawned by armed conflict" and that the U.S. fought in World War II "to prevent dictatorship and genocide," Haig added: "We must structure our foreign policy on that credible and justifiable premise." He warned that the steady Soviet military buildup since World War II has produced "perhaps the most complete reversal of global power relationships ever seen in a period of relative peace ... Unchecked, the growth of Soviet military force must eventually paralyze Western policy altogether." Haig told the Senators that the evidence of danger "is everywhere"--in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, its forces ringing Poland, its shadow over the Persian Gulf region and its efforts to stir up trouble in Africa and Latin America.

To meet the challenge, he said, the U.S. must build closer ties to its allies with a policy stressing "balance" and "reliability." Taking a swipe at the Carter Administration's handling of foreign affairs, Haig said, "It must be clear that effective policy cannot be created anew daily, informed solely by the immediate need."

Haig pledged to resurrect Henry Kissinger's policy of "linkage" in foreign affairs, meaning that U.S. relations with the Soviet Union will be directly affected by Moscow's behavior anywhere in the world. Haig promised that he would be the principal shaper of the Administration's foreign policy, not incoming National Security Adviser Richard Allen. This statement led Democratic Senator John Glenn of Ohio to observe wryly that Allen has been saying too frequently on TV interview shows that he will keep a low profile. "You have your work cut out for you in that area," Glenn told Haig, as laughter rippled through the room.

The committee is expected to vote to confirm Haig this week, even without access to the tapes. However, the Senators plan to continue to seek any tapes relevant to Haig as part of their continuing oversight function, a process likely to take months.

Caspar Weinberger, the prospective Secretary of Defense, contended before the Senate Armed Services Committee that a "gap" existed in the U.S.-Soviet balance of nuclear weapons. He endorsed Reagan's plans to boost defense spending, but rejected proposals to hike the budget by a fixed percentage each year, as some conservative Senators have suggested.

Said Weinberger: "I've never been what is called in the budget business a percentage man. I've never felt that if you had an automatic percentage you were all right, and if you didn't you were all wrong."

At the same time, Weinberger steered clear of committing himself to specific defense policies; for example, he refused to say whether he backed the proposed mobile MX missile system or favored abolishing draft registration. Weinberger did, however, also aim a blast at the outgoing Administration. Refusing to endorse the Carter doctrine that the U.S. would go to war to protect its vital interests in the Persian Gulf, he charged that Carter's failure to consult with allies before proclaiming the doctrine was "extraordinarily clumsy and ill-advised."

At Watt's hearing, before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, environmentalists tried to strike sparks with bitter statements against the nominee, who as president of the Denver-based Mountain States Legal Foundation has battled to open up more public lands in the West for development. National Audubon Society President Russell Peterson charged that Watt's "actions and statements identify him as an aggressive, shortsighted exploiter rather than a far-sighted protector of the nation's air, land and water." But the Senators found the criticism easy to disregard. Moreover, Watt seemed to impress them with his conciliatory tone and forthright expressions of love for the land that he will manage. Said he: "I was born, raised and educated on the plains of Wyoming at the foot of the Rocky Mountains. I know the grandeur and beauty of open space and mountains."

He called the conservation laws "good" and said he had no reservations about enforcing them. In fact, he said, he is more concerned that the purpose of the laws, and the West's ecology, might be damaged should an energy emergency in the future spawn "crisis-oriented, unreasonable" programs to develop the region's coal, gas and oil resources. Said Watt: "All too often, the Federal Government moves in a crisis, not with the precision of a surgeon's scalpel but with the force of a meat ax. We want the right kind of development to come over time, not the wrong kind of development to come in a crisis."

By the end of his testimony, Watt had clearly defused the opposition and won a few more votes for his confirmation. Indeed, none of Reagan's nominees is expected to run into trouble in winning confirmation before Jan. 20. As Liberal Massachusetts Democrat Paul Tsongas told Watt, "You are going to be confirmed, and that will not be my doing. I am speaking mathematically. You have the votes." --By James Kelly. Reported by Gregory H. Wierzynski/Washington

With reporting by George Wierzynski

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