Domestic Issues in the Nixon Administration

From Paul Houston’s write-up (“New Nixon Papers,” Part I, Sept. 3), I get the impression that in order to evaluate the domestic affairs activities of the Nixon presidency our soon-to-be-published scholars and researchers rely exclusively on the papers of the President and his immediate associates. The article indicates that a number of these historians are now surprised to learn from these sources that there was major interest and significant accomplishment in the domestic field in that Administration.

All that they ever had to do was to ask. As a relatively minor official, assistant to the secretary of commerce for policy development, I participated in dealing with many domestic issues. Every department had a parallel office. The coordinating agency was always either the Domestic Council or the Office of Management and Budget, represented by very able, dedicated and hard-working individuals. It was a strongly pro-active environment, the major concern being that of meeting domestic needs while encouraging private economic growth. It was the most exciting and educational period of my life.

Without referring to any notes and in no particular order, among the major matters:

Establishment of the Environmental Protection Administration.

Establishment of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Development of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Establishment of general federal revenue-sharing support for local needs.

Development of support for the growth of minority enterprise and affirmative action programs.

Enactment of the Coastal Zone Management Act.

Establishment of the coastal fisheries 200-mile conservation zone.

Enactment of the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

Development of the Administration’s national health insurance program.

Development of the Administration’s “Model Cities” plan.

Installation of cost/benefit analysis and approved accounting systems for all federal agencies.

Proposed reorganization of the federal departments along functional lines.

Development of family assistance programs.

Minimum wage and labor-management issue resolution.

Assistance to domestic industries adversely affected by foreign competition.

Houston says: “. . . the (recently released) papers have led some scholars to revise their appraisals of Nixon’s record, particularly in the domestic policy areas. . . . “ This way of looking at 1969-74, as though it were some long gone period of history, is dismaying. The great majority of those of us who played a role in the domestic policy area are still active. We are readily identifiable from departmental organizational charts. If these scholars want to know what happened, all they have to do is ask.

STEVEN E. SCHANES

San Diego