National Affairs: Overriding Smell of Pork

• Share

Dwight Eisenhower's 146th veto message whirred through the White House Mimeograph machine one morning last week before Congress had even sent him the bill to be rejected: the $1.2 billion rivers and harbors appropriation, almost exactly the same old vote-catching "pork barrel" smashed by the 144th veto two weeks earlier. This time, Ike knew, Democrats were dead certain that they could muster the necessary two-thirds to override—and end—the remarkable string of unbeaten Eisenhower vetoes.*

Perfect record or no, the President did not consider signing the bill, which still contained down payments to start 67 new civil-works construction projects not in the budget (eventual cost: $800 million) that he had objected to the first time. The only congressional change: a 2½% across-the-board cut in funds for all projects. This cynical gesture at economy, the President pointed out, would only impede "orderly work on going projects and result in an increase in costs instead of a saving."

Bouncing the bill back to the Hill half an hour after it arrived, the President called House Republican Leader Charlie Halleck of Indiana to insist upon another last-ditch stand such as Halleck staged to sustain the previous veto by one vote (TIME, Sept. 14). That upset victory had won Halleck a bottle of presidential Scotch; another, joked the President, would win a second bottle. Halleck swore to do his all, dutifully got off wires and cables to absentees, cracked the G.O.P. whip. But since their support of the first veto, a critical number of his hard-pressed Republicans and antipork Democrats had become convinced that a second antipork vote would bring defeat in next year's elections. Result: 280 (260 Democrats, 20 Republicans) to 121 (5 Democrats, 116 Republicans), a lucky 13 votes more than the Democrats needed to override.

Speaker Sam Rayburn, vindicated in his promise to "lick 'em" on the pork barrel, beamed broadly. Same day the Senate gleefully followed the House with a 72-23 vote to override, eight extra, and the bill became law.

Whooping it up, Democrats savored their first, sweet victory over "Government by veto." Some, however, detected a sour aftertaste. The President is not required to release funds for new projects, will probably start few of the obnoxious 67 projects. More important, in a strictly partisan decision, congressional Democrats dipped into the narrowly balanced budget to fund the oldest, most obvious form of political spending in federal politics. Cracked White House Press Secretary James Hagerty in a rare reflection of presidential cynicism: "The lure of the pork barrel was a little too much for Congress to avoid."

Last week, rushing toward adjournment, Congress also:

¶Warded off a third housing-bill veto by accepting White House direction on where to make further cuts (the $50 million college-classroom program, a spread-out in the spending of $650 million urban renewal funds), but retained some of the Ike-disliked features (a $50 million program to build homes for the elderly, extra public-housing starts) in a $1 billion bill that is still high ($200 million above budget) but less than half its original Democratic size.