Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains statements by Representative Gerald Ford and Senator Everett Dirksen.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
12130721
label
Joint Press Releases Senate-House Republican Leadership, 1967
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
12130721
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Joint Press Releases Senate-House Republican Leadership, 1967
description
This file contains statements by Representative Gerald Ford and Senator Everett Dirksen.
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Press Releases Chronological Files
subjects
Republican National Committee (U.S.)
U.S. House of Representatives. 3/4/1789-
U.S. Senate. 3/4/1789-
Republican Party (U.S. : 1854- )
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
12130721
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1967-12-31
month
12
year
1967
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-02-01
month
2
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
aec3beab0be6dae4
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D5, folder "Joint Press Releases Senate-House
Republican Leadership, 1967" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and
Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box D5 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Everett M. Dirksen
of Illinois
Gerald R. Ford
Thomas H. Kuchel
OF THE CONGRESS
of Michigan
of California
Leslie C. Arends
Bourke B. Hickenlooper
of Illinois
of Iowa
Press Release
Melvin R. Laird
Margaret Chase Smith
of Wisconsin
of Maine
John J. Rhodes
George Murphy
of Arizona
of California
H. Allen Smith
Milton R. Young
of California
of North Dakota
Bob Wilson
Hugh Scott
of California
Issued following a
of Pennsylvania
Charles E. Goodell
Leadership Meeting
of New York
PRESIDING:
Richard H. Poff
February 2, 1967
of Virginia
The National Chairman
Ray C. Bliss
William C. Cramer
of Florida
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN
Every American family knows the meaning of the word "budget".
Every American family knows what it is to try to make ends meet --
especially these days. Every American family knows that, while it
can perhaps for a little while live beyond its means, it cannot do
so for very long without finding itself on the short and rocky road
to the poor house.
A government -- any government -- is no exception for a govern-
ment is, after all, nothing more nor less than a collection of
families. Like a family, a government cannot rely on hoped-for
income nor can it endure economically for very long if needless
expenditures which it can't afford are permitted. I suggest, there-
fore, that rather than dealing in countless billions of dollars and
confusing ourselves with endless strings of zeros, we think hereafter
of the operation of this government in family terms.
As has been emphasized already by the news media throughout the
country and as has been emphasized already by members of the Congress,
this Administration's budget for the coming fiscal year is difficult
to comprehend. It contains sums that are astronomical. It contains,
to be sure, provision for necessities -- especially as regards the
fearful conflict in Viet Nam -- but it contains also a large number
of absolutely non-essential items which, in aggregate, can and should
and will be eliminated if the still-heavy Democratic majorities in
the Congress will cooperate with us.
The budget of the United States, as submitted to the Congress by
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-(202) 225-3700
Consultant to the Leadership-John B. Fisher
Senator Dirksen
- 2 -
the Johnson-Humphrey Administration, is as big as a metropolitan
telephone directory and every page contains print just as small. The
Republican members of the Congress will, without exception, in the
days immediately ahead, be examining every line and item of this
budget with clear and knowledgable eyes. We are determined to vote
to retain every item of necessity both in domestic and defense
programs but are equally determined, if the Democrat majorities in the
Congress can be so persuaded, to eliminate every single item, large,
middling or small, that should be cut. Our recommendations in the
days ahead will be specific, clear and unmistakable. In this area
of non-essential expenditures, we are prepared to wield a swinging
meat-cleaver or use a delicate scalpel as the operation may require.
From our school-day reading we have ever more occasion to recall,
from Dicken's "David Copperfield", the timeless and timely lesson in
budgeteering given young Copperfield by the seasoned and sensible
Mr. Micawber:
"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure
nineteen nineteen six, result happiness. Annual
income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty
pounds ought and six, result misery, The blossom
is blighted, the leaf is withered, the God of
day goes down upon the dreary scene and you are,
in short, flat."
If the Johnson-Humphrey Administration and its still dominant
Democratic majorities in the Congress persist in the course they have
now mapped cut for the American people we too will be "in short,
flat". This the Republican members of the Congress will do every-
thing within their minority power to prevent. Let those in the
seats of majority and authority be advised.
STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE FORD
The "Big If" budget of the United States for the coming fiscal
year, as presented to this Congress by the Johnson-Humphrey Adminis-
tration, is a bad budget. It should be returned to the President by
the Congress immediately, with the demand that it be reviewed and
revised into a document that makes sense to the Congress and to the
American people.
This budget is misleading. We don't believe in it. The people
don't believe in it. At a time when the living costs of every
American family have never been higher -- at a time when family
income just can't keep up -- at a time when we are fighting the
third largest war in our history -- this budget tries to provide
for both guns and butter. It actually contains a great deal of lard.
The American people will not tolerate such fiscal manipulation.
They will no longer permit such insults to their intelligence and
raids on their pocketbooks. The budget is agonizing table-talk in
every American home. The press is already echoing the same angry
feeling. One illustration -- shown here from a recent column in
the Washington Daily News --- makes the point dramatically. By any
estimate hundreds of dollars will be added to each family's burden.
This budget should be labelled the "Big If" budget. It is
the biggest and the "iffiest"in American history:
if the Administration's estimate of the cost of Viet Nam is
anywhere near accurate;
if the Congress votes a postal fee increase;
if the Congress approves an income tax increase;
if the Congress approves the various tax measures the
Administration recommends;
if the program cutbacks promised actually occur;
if the economy, despite the Administration's manipulations,
proves healthy.
Rep. Ford
-2-
We cannot as a people, gamble on so many and such big "ifs".
If a business were operated with a budget like this, it would
go bankrupt in a week. If a family budget depended on any such
reasoning, the family would be cold, hungry and without a roof
almost overnight.
What must be done can be done by this Congress to make this
bad budget a good one. What must be done can be done by the Congress
if the Democrat majorities in the Congress will heed the people's
demand for economy. The Republican minorities in the Congress are
determined to act. Let the Democrat leadership take heed.
FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
Everett M. Dirksen
THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
of Illinois
Gerald R. Ford
Thomas H. Kuchel
OF THE CONGRESS
of Michigan
of California
Leslie C. Arends
Bourke B. Hickenlooper
of Illinois
of Iowa
Press Release
Melvin R. Laird
Margaret Chase Smith
of Wisconsin
of Maine
John J. Rhodes
George Murphy
of Arizona
of California
H. Allen Smith
Milton R. Young
of California
of North Dakota
Bob Wilson
Hugh Scott
Issued following a
of California
of Pennsylvania
Leadership meeting
Charles E. Goodell
of New York
PRESIDING:
February 24, 1967
Richard H. Poff
of Virginia
The National Chairman
Ray C. Bliss
William C. Cramer
of Florida
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN:
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
For more than three decades now, since the onset of the New Deal,
our Federal system, upon which this nation was founded and because of
which it has grown strong, has been steadily eroding, despite the
strenuous efforts of the Eisenhower Administration to prevent it.
This erosion, which had its origin in those days has now grown to the
point where, with excessive concentration of power and control in
National Government hands, the destruction of our Federal system
could be imminent.
As the National Government has, increasingly, become the source
of near-absolute authority, the principal collector and spender of
the people's money, and a central point of control over much of our
lives, the position and the strength of the individual states has
been steadily undermined and enfeebled.
Because we fear this destruction of the Federal system and because
we are so determined to prevent it, we urge again, as we did in our
Appraisal of the State of the Union in January, that there be
instituted and established by this 90th Congress some principle for
the sharing of tax revenues or for tax credits between the National
Government and the individual states. By such means, among others,
we believe that the erosion of our Federal system can be arrested,
that strangling National Government controls can be loosened and the
rights and responsibilities of our people in our states and local
communities can be restored.
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-(202) 225-3700
Consultant to the Leadership-John B. Fisher
The principal device through which National Government power and
control over the states has become established has been through the
torrent of Washington largesse and regulation known as "grants-in-
aid". The chart shown here today illustrates in simple and fearful
form the speed with which this Federal club over the states and
local communities has grown in a shockingly short period of time.
The hearings of the Senate Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations
reveal that a projection of this chart would indicate a grants-in-aid
total in excess of 50 billion dollars by 1975. Current examples of
this are legion:
The Department of Health, Education and Welfare alone has pub-
lished a book containing some 527 pages. It is entitled "Grants-in -
aid and Other Financial Assistance Programs Administered by the
U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare". This 527-page
book merely lists and describes briefly the grants-in-aid programs
administered by this single department of the Federal Government.
The Office of Economic Opportunity -- the War on Poverty head-
quarters -- has published a book entitled "Catalog of Federal Programs
for Individual and Community Improvement." The book is 414 pages
long!
Very recently the Office of Education prepared a single table
for the use of Congressional offices. This table outlines the
programs available from this bureau alone. There are 112 separate
grant-in-aid categories in this table.
It might be noted also that the most recent edition of "The
Encyclopedia of United States Government Benefits", a volume of
1,010 pages lists more than 8,000 Federal Government aid items.
Those in bureaucratic authority proudly refer to this as
"Creative Federalism".
It ought to be called "Cremative Federalism", likely to consume
us all.
To these illustrations many others can and will be added by the
Republicans in Congress as we urge the Democrat leadership and
majority to schedule legislative hearings on this now vital subject
of sharing of tax revenues between the Federal Government and the
50 states and local communities.
Let me emphasize -- just as strongly as I can -- that we do
not believe such a policy and program to be ideal by any means. The
truly ideal form of tax revenue sharing would consist of a reduction
in Federal spending and in Federal taxes, tax reform, and a selective
phasing-out of some Federal grants-in-aid. We face, however, a
reality and not an ideal. We confront a fact and not a theory. We
therefore urge -- no, we demand -- that this next best approach be
made -- and be made now -- by this Congress and by the prompt action
of the Democrat leadership and majority in scheduling public and
thorough hearings on this important matter.
Representative Ford
February 24, 1967
Let me repeat and emphasize the vital point Senator Dirksen has
just made -- that we believe the truly ideal form of tax revenue
sharing between the Federal Government and the states would consist
of a reduction in Federal spending and in Federal taxes, tax reform,
and a selective phasing-out of some Federal grants-in-aid. Only by
this means can we truly hope to restore the Federal system to strength
and balance. Only in this way can we restore to our people in the
states and their local communities the rights of decision, histori-
cally theirs, to solve far more effectively than can be done from
Washington the problems they know best.
Let me emphasize also that we do not now endorse any particular
plan for tax revenue sharing that has been offered to date. In the
89th Congress 53 bills on this subject were filed, from both sides of
the aisle. In the 90th Congress, again more than 50 bills have been
filed thus far from both sides of the aisle. Governors, mayors,
county supervisors and other public leaders have made specific
recommendations. Economists and leaders from the academic community
have done likewise. By thorough and extended public hearings and
through the established legislative process we can achieve the best
possible tax revenue sharing plan. We now demand, therefore, that
the Democrat leadership and majority move promptly to schedule such
hearings.
We are aware of the several important factors which must be
taken into account in the preparation of a sound tax revenue sharing
plan. We realize that allocation of tax revenues to the states
might be done on any one of several bases, that those states with
smaller population and modest state revenues must be individually
provided for, that the authority of the governors of our states must
be respected, that the revenue-raising responsibilities of the states
must be re-inforced, that tax credit proposals must be carefully
weighed, that the needs of our urban centers and the seasoned opinions
of their mayors must be taken into full account. These are but a
few of the necessary considerations that must be given this proposal.
No one of them can be treated lightly nor can any thoughtful opinion
be left unheeded.
The most recent Gallup poll reveals that 70 per cent of our
people endorse the finding of a sound tax revenue sharing plan. The
voice of the people is being heard -- loud and clear. Our people
resent fiscal plenty at the Federal level and fiscal poverty in
their communities. They resent the labelling of Federal tax money
as "free money", for they know every penny and dollar, comes from
their own pockets. They resent and will no longer accept remote,
arbitrary dictation from Washington. Local officials know best
how to solve the problems with which they live each day.
FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
Everett M. Dirksen
THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
of Illinois
Gerald R. Ford
OF THE CONGRESS
Thomas H. Kuchel
of Michigan
of California
Leslie C. Arends
Bourke B. Hickenlooper
of Illinois
of Iowa
Press Release
Melvin R. Laird
Margaret Chase Smith
of Wisconsin
of Maine
John J. Rhodes
George Murphy
of Arizona
of California
H. Allen Smith
Milton R. Young
of California
of North Dakota
Issued following a
Bob Wilson
Hugh Scott
Leadership Meeting
of California
of Pennsylvania
Charles E. Goodell
of New York
March 17, 1967
PRESIDING:
Richard H. Poff
of Virginia
The National Chairman
Ray C. Bliss
William C. Cramer
of Florida
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN
For Release
Noon, March 17, 1967
The Kennedy Round negotiations at least reach crisis point. Our
negotiators in Geneva rightly confess alarm over the magnitude and complexity
of the issues still unsolved after nearly three years of effort.
These. prolonged negotiations -- still fruitless even at this late date --
evidence the urgent need for a comprehensive reassessment of America's
foreign trade policy by the 90th Congress.
Republicans in Congress strongly favor truly reciprocal trade. But for
years the United States has not benefited reciprocally from its trade agree-
ments. For seven years straight our commercial balance of trade has declined.
Its alarming state has been misrepresented to Congress and the nation.
A number of basic domestic industries have suffered grievously under
unwisely "liberalized" customs and tariff practices and ineptly administered
trade agreements legislation. Foreign-produced goods have prospered in our
markets. But foreign markets have not reciprocally responded to our products
of America's mines, farms, forests and industry.
We welcome the pledge of Chairman Long of the Senate Finance Committee
to conduct an early review of the nation's foreign trade operations and
particularly the administration of the trade agreements program. This pledge
is in accord with our own earlier recommendations. Our appended statement
outlines areas and problems which the national interest requires be included
in the Committee's investigation and hearings.
Let the Administration understand clearly the import of these remarks:
a simple extension of the present law just will not do. We must proceed ---
and in good time -- to give adequate attention to this nation's basic economic
needs, and amend the law accordingly.
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-(202) 225-3700
(More)
Consultant to the Leadership-John B. Fisher
GERALL
REPRESENTATIVE FORD
March 17, 1967
If this nation's foreign trade position is not to decline further,
a first order of business must be the creation of a House Select
Committee on Export Controls, a move that has continuously been blocked
by the Johnson-Humphrey Administration. This Committee should maintain
a continuing evaluation of all related developments, including trade in
strategic goods.
We have long recommended urgent solution of our deteriorating
balance of payments position -- a solution constructive for the rest
of the world as well as for ourselves. The problem must be solved.
In this critical area the Johnson-Humphrey Administration has failed utterly.
Like sensible export controls, our balance of payments directly affects
jobs for the American people and the health of American industry. We
therefore urgently advocate these studies. The studies to which I refer
are outlined in our appended statement.
We urge also, in the light of present world conditions, an
objective reappraisal of the size and character of America's world-wide
military and economic commitments. This recommendation is neither new
nor partisan. It is urged by military experts and leaders of both parties.
Its urgency is underscored by the sharp disagreement over it among the
leaders of the President's party.
The Administration and its Democrat majorities in Congress cannot
avoid responsibility for their continuing failure to act decisively on
these problems so vital to every American citizen and family.
THE NEED FOR INVESTIGATION AND PUBLIC HEARINGS BY THE SENATE
FINANCE COMMITTEE BY WAY OF LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT OF
THE ADMINISTRATION OF U. S. CUSTOMS, TARIFF,
AND TRADE AGREEMENTS LEGISLATION
On January 18, 1967, the Chairman of the Committee on
Finance, United States Senate, the Honorable Russell B. Long, delivered
an address before the Economic Club of New York in which he declared
that "our trade policies need a thoroughly new look and some hard-headed
American businessmen are needed to devote a great deal of independent
thought and study to the overall program."
The Chairman also made a statement on the floor of the
Senate on February 3 concerning our Nation's foreign trade policy in
which he declared that the developments thus far in the Kennedy Round
and dissatisfaction with the Antidumping Act and other customs and tariff
matters "are dramatic evidence of the necessity for a thoroughgoing
inquiry into our foreign economic policy during the 90th Congress."
The Minority Leader of the Senate, in an address delivered in New York
on December 3, also called attention to the need for Congress to "restore
some semblance of fairness and balance to our foreign trade policy and
procedures."
The principal Congressional attention to foreign economic
policy in recent years has been centered on the delegation or extension
of authority to the President to enter into trade agreements providing
for a reduction in U. S. rates of duty.
A study of U. S. foreign trade data for recent years prompts
the conclusion that the United States has not received actual reciprocity
in trade benefits in trade agreement negotiations conducted under the
auspices of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Worse, it seems
2.
clear that the Congress has been misled as to the actual status of
our merchandise balance of trade.
Misleading Reports of the Executive Branch
Concerning the U. S. Balance of Trade
According to reports released by the Department of Commerce
on January 25, 1967, the Nation's balance of merchandise trade for the
year 1966 showed an export surplus of $3.4 billion, based on the follow-
ing figures:
Exports of domestic merchandise
(excluding defense shipments)
$28,958.6 million
General imports of merchandise
25,550.3 million
Balance of merchandise trade
$ 3,408.3 million
A substantial part of the exports, however, were noncommercial,
being financed by the U. S. Government. For the first 9 months of 1966,
exports financed by the U. S. Government totaled $2,214 million.* Esti-
mating the fourth quarter of the year at the same rate as the first 3
quarters, the total of Government-financed exports for 1966 was approxi-
mately $2,952 million. This compares with $2,768 million Government-financed
exports for the year 1965.
If these Government-financed exports are subtracted from
the total exports reported by the Department of Commerce, the favorable
trade balance, on a commercial basis, shrinks to $456 million.
The United States balance of trade on a commercial basis
in 1966 was the lowest of the past seven years. This is shown by the
following chart:
*
Merchandise exports financed by U. S. Government grants and capital
outflows as reported by U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Survey of Current
Business, December 1966, pp. 24, 25 (cf. line A 28, p. 25).
3.
$ Billions
$ Billions
30
U.S. MERCHANDISE TRADE
28
Exports
Total Trade Surplus
Aid-financed
26
Commercial
Exports
Excl. Aid
Imports
24
Merchandise Exports and Imports
22
8
Merchandise Trade Surplus
20
6
18
4
16
2
14
0
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966*
*For 1966, data are averages for the first three quarters converted to annual rates. Aid-financed exports are those entailing
U.S. government grants or loans.
SOURCE: Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York, The Morgan
Guaranty Survey, January 1967.
Even the $456 million commercial export surplus figure is
misleading. The practice of other nations is to record the value of
their imports on a c.i.f. rather than an f.o.b. origin basis. Thus,
if we are to compare the commercial balance of merchandise trade of the
United States with that of other nations, our import figures should be
converted to a c.i.f. basis.
On February 7, 1967, the Tariff Commission released data
based on an analysis of import entry documents for the year 1965. As
reported by the Commission, these data show that U. S. imports when
4.
reported on a c.i.f. basis would be equal to 110% of the value as
reported by the Department of Commerce. If this adjustment is made
to the data for the year 1966, the true commercial balance of trade
of the United States for comparison with that of other nations would
appear to be as follows:
U. S. merchandise exports as reported by
the Department of Commerce
$28,958.6 million
Less U. S. Government-financed exports
2,952.0 million
Commercial exports, net
$26,006.6 million
Imports, c.i.f. (110% of the value as
reported by the Department of Commerce)
$28,105.3 million
U. S. balance of commercial merchandise
trade
-$2,098.7 million
Thus, it would appear that the net result of the years of
trade agreement negotiations conducted by the Executive Branch of the
Government is a steady worsening of our commercial balance of trade and,
for the year 1966, an actual deficit in the order of $2 billion.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that our trade agree-
ment negotiations in the past have not been reciprocal. The results
appear contrary to the representations which have repeatedly been made
by the Executive Department to the Congress in connection with foreign
trade legislation. It would seem to be a matter of serious concern
that the type of sweeping across-the-board reductions in duty being
pursued by the United States in the Kennedy Round could have an even
worse effect on the trade position of the United States in future years.
5.
*****
Domestic industries have increasingly sought the inter-
vention of the Congress in recent years against the disruptive effects
of rapidly increasing imports, and they have called attention to the
balance of payments consequences to the Nation of the trends of increasing
imports and declining exports. The situation of these industries,
including several of the Nation's basic industries, may indicate that
in the administration of the customs, tariff, and trade agreements
laws of the United States, there has been a lack of balance and a
one-sidedness in judgment which has reduced the protective effects
of our domestic customs, tariff, and trade agreements legislation for
domestic industries while exaggerating or "liberalizing" the administra-
tion of these laws for the benefit of importers of foreign-produced
goods.
A careful investigation of the administration of the laws
in each of these vital areas, which in totality make up the legislative
expression of our foreign economic policy, should be conducted and
completed prior to any consideration of a renewal or enlargement of
the President's authority to enter into trade agreements for the modifi-
cation of U. S. duties or other customs provisions.
It would appear that the Committee on Finance may have
an exceptional opportunity during the next several months to devote
extended consideration to these topics. While corrective legislation
6.
in the area of customs, tariffs, and trade agreements normally
originates in the House of Representatives, an extremely useful
service would be rendered to the Senate and the House if the Committee
on Finance could take advantage of the present opportunity to carry
out its responsibility for legislative oversight of the customs,
tariff, and trade agreement laws of the United States by hearing,
investigating, and reporting on the administration of these laws
and the necessity or desirability, if any, of administrative reform
including appropriate changes in the basic legislation itself.
Such a report should prove to be of exceptional value to
both Houses of Congress in connection with any attention which the
Committees and the Congress are called upon to give an extension of
the Trade Expansion Act or replacement of the program defined by that
Act with some other program responsive to the present and anticipated
situation in the foreign commerce of the United States.
Accordingly, it is recommended that the Committee on
Finance schedule public hearings on, and authorize appropriate staff
investigation of, the following topics:
7.
1. THE PRENEGOTIATIONS SAFEGUARDS OF THE TRADE
EXPANSION ACT (19 U.S.C. §§ 1814-1845): Repeal
of Congressional Policy by Administrative Fiat.
The Trade Expansion Act repealed the "peril point" provision
of the trade agreements legislation under which the Tariff Commission
as a prerequisite to trade agreement negotiations prior to the Kennedy
Round investigated, determined, and reported to the President the extent
to which the rates of duty on articles to be considered in the negotia-
tions could be reduced without causing or threatening serious injury
to domestic industries.
To allay the concern of domestic industries and members
of the Congress concerned with their welfare, there was set forth in
the Trade Expansion Act an elaborate procedure for public hearings
and Tariff Commission advice to the President concerning the probable
economic effect of modifications in U. S. duties. The President was
required to receive and consider such advice prior to entering into
trade agreement negotiations.
Notwithstanding these provisions and the assurances which
accompanied their enactment, the Administration participated in a
meeting of the Ministers of the GATT member countries in May of 1963
and agreed to a resolution providing for linear (across-the-board)
reductions in duty of 50% on all industrial products subject only to
a bare minimum of exceptions, which exceptions were subject to confronta-
tion and justification, and excusable only on the grounds of overriding
national interests.
8.
This commitment was made by the Executive Branch approxi-
mately one year prior to the date upon which the Tariff Commission's
report of the probable economic effect of reductions in duty was sub-
mitted to the President. This commitment was renewed at the meeting
of Ministers in May of 1964 at about the time the President received
the Commission's report, but clearly well in advance of the date on
which he or his delegates could have seriously studied and evaluated
the Commission's advice.
U. S. negotiators have publicly stated that the U. S.
"exceptions" list was indeed kept to a "bare minimum," and that the
United States expected to reduce this "bare minimum" even further
in the course of the negotiations. Evidently, therefore, the policy
of careful evaluation and selectivity in the determination of articles
to be placed in the negotiations, understood and intended by the
Congress as a prerequisite to negotiations, has been ignored, or taken
so lightly as to amount to a virtual dead letter in the Trade Expansion
Act.
9.
2. TARIFF ADJUSTMENT (19 U.S.C. §§ 1901, 1902,
1981, 1982) : The Total Inoperativeness
of the Escape Clause.
At the urging of the Executive Branch, the Congress repealed
the escape clause provision of the trade agreements legislation under
which Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy had made a few highly
selective withdrawals of tariff concessions found by the Tariff Commis-
sion to have caused or threatened serious injury to domestic industries,
and substituted in its stead the so-called "adjustment assistance"
provision of the TEA.
Under the 1962 Act, such assistance might take the form
of tariff adjustment, assistance to workers in the form of extended
periods of unemployment compensation and retraining and relocation
allowances, or tax incentives or loans to firms requiring such help
in order to transfer their activities to other lines of endeavor. The
criteria for relief in any case was the same, a finding by the Tariff
Commission that due in major part to a tariff concession imports had
increased and were a major factor in causing or threatening serious
injury to a domestic industry, group of workers, or firm.
Thus far in nineteen cases, involving nine industries,
five groups of workers, and five firms, the Tariff Commission has
uniformly refused to make the necessary findings and Administration
officials have acknowledged that the criteria of the Act impose too
severe a standard.
10.
3. CANCELLATION OF PAST ESCAPE CLAUSE RELIEF
[19 U.S.C. § 1981(c)(1)(A)]: Has Administrative
Policy Made a Sham of Fact-Finding?
When the Trade Expansion Act became law, there were in
effect a handful of cases in which tariff concessions had been wholly
or partially withdrawn to correct the serious injury which domestic
industries had suffered under rising imports. The Executive Branch
has now canceled in whole or part all of these escape clause actions
except two textile cases as a part of or prelude to the negotiations
in the Kennedy Round.
The following industries are the victim of decisions which
appear to have been based solely on negotiating policy rather than an
objective consideration of the economic merits of the industry's case:
clinical thermometers, stainless steel flatware, lead and zinc, flat
glass, and jeweled watches.
4. THE NATIONAL SECURITY AMENDMENT (19 U.S.C. § 1862):
The Total Inoperativeness of the Finance Committee's
Particular Remedy.
In the Trade Agreements Extension Act of 1955, the Committee
on Finance fashioned a particular remedy to permit the regulation of
imports affecting basic industries in a manner consistent with the
national security. This amendment was carried forward in the subsequent
Extension Act of 1958.
More than 20 cases have been brought before the Office of
Emergency Planning (and its predecessor agencies), made the investigating
agency by the statute. In only one, petroleum and petroleum products,
11.
acted upon during the Eisenhower Administration, has relief been granted.
Though import competition has been found to be significant in the case
of a number of industries suffering economic distress, the Office of
Emergency Planning has in each instance "explained away" either the
national security importance of these basic industries or of the imports
as a contributing cause of the industry's distress. One case, textiles
and textile manufactures, remains undecided after nearly six years.
In some instances the Director of the Office of Emergency
Planning has cited the opinion of the State Department that import
restrictions would affect the national security interests of the United
States as seen in the international relations of the United States
as a reason for denying relief.
Whereas the Finance Committee intended the national security
provision as a remedy applicable to a number of basic industries, it
has been converted through the policy imperatives of the Executive
Branch into virtually a dead letter of the law.
5. TARIFF COMMISSION INVESTIGATIONS AND REPORTS OF THE
CUSTOMS LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, TARIFF RELATIONS
OF THE U. S. AND OTHER COUNTRIES, COST OF PRODUCTION
AND OTHER FACTS PERTAINING TO COMPETITION BETWEEN
DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN PRODUCTS IN THE PRINCIPAL MARKETS
OF THE UNITED STATES (19 U.S.C. § 1332).
The Tariff Commission was established as a quasi-legislative
body which would, through its investigations and reports, inform and
assist the Congress in its consideration of tariff and trade legislation.
To this end the Congress directed the Commission in Section 332 of the
12.
Tariff Act of 1930 to carry out on a continuing basis a variety of
investigations and to make reports thereon to the Congress on a variety
of topics.
These relate to the effect of customs laws on the industry
and labor of the United States, practices of foreign countries through
commercial treaties, preferential provisions, economic alliances,
export bounties, and preferential transportation rates, and dumping
which affect competition between U. S. and foreign industries; costs
of production of U. S. and foreign-produced articles including the
import costs of articles competitive with U. S. production, and other
facts bearing on competition between articles of U. S. and foreign
origins in U. S. markets.
There has been little attention by the Commission to these
responsibilities in recent years. As a result, the Congress has been
disabled in considering customs, tariff, and trade agreement legislation.
Not in recent years have the Chairman or members of the Tariff Commission
been interrogated by the Committee on Finance of the Senate or the
Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives. Information
submitted in the name of the Commission to these Committees has frequently
been in the form of unsigned memoranda which may not in fact represent
the carefully considered judgment of the Commission's staff of industry
specialists and of the Commissioners themselves.
In particular, the Commission's continuing responsibilities
to investigate and report on the topics specified in Section 332 as a
means of keeping the cognizant Committees of the Congress fully informed
13.
of developments in customs, tariff, trade agreements, and foreign
trade practices and competitive conditions between U. S. and foreign
industries relating thereto have not been carried out. This makes
it difficult for the Committees to become knowledgeable in these
matters and to keep abreast of significant changes in the relationship
of U. S. and foreign industries and the position of the United States
in world trade.
The Congress has been placed in the position of reacting
to initiatives from the Executive Branch or foreign countries and
industries rather than being forehanded with legislation which would
enable the United States to deal effectively with developments in world
trade. The acute disparity between the growth rate of U. S. imports
and U. S. exports and the sharp decline in the balance of trade of
the United States, especially in trade conducted on a commercial basis,
is one consequence of this situation.
*****
The rules for and manner of administration of customs valua-
tion and of the basic remedies, such as antidumping and countervailing
duties which are designed to prevent the circumvention or avoidance of
the amount of duties intended by the Congress as revenue and domestic
protection measures, have fully as great an impact on total duties
collected as the numerical level of the rate of duty itself. Problems
of administration in the customs valuation, antidumping, and counter-
vailing duties areas match the seriousness of the negative record of
14.
administration of the tariff adjustment provisions of the Trade Expansion
Act in recent years.
1. THE ANTIDUMPING ACT (19 U.S.C. § 160 et seq. ) :
The Quality of Its Administration and Appropriate
Amendments To Make the Act a More Effective Deterrent
Against Unfair Practices in the Import Trade.
Under the leadership of the then Senator Humphrey, a large
number of the members of the Senate have in recent years requested
substantial amendments in the substance and procedure of the Antidumping
Act. In the 89th Congress, S. 2045, introduced by Mr. Hartke for
himself and 31 other Senators, is representative of this effort.
2. THE COUNTERVAILING DUTIES STATUTE (19 U.S.C. § 1303):
Its Nonadministration and the Need for Legislative
Direction to Restore the Act as a Check Against the
Subsidization of Exports by Foreign Countries.
The principal way in which foreign countries now pay or
bestow, directly or indirectly, bounties or grants upon the production
or export of articles imported into the United States is through the
remission of the so-called value added or turnover taxes used by those
governments as a principal means of raising tax revenues. By interpreta-
tion the Treasury Department is refraining from imposing countervailing
duties in such instances contrary to the ruling of the United States
Supreme Court in Downs V. United States, 187 U.S. 496, which held that
a tax imposed upon the production of a commodity which is remitted upon
the exportation of this commodity is, by whatever name the practice
may be disguised, tantamount to a bounty upon exportation subject to
countervailing duties.
15.
3. CUSTOMS VALUATION (19 U.S.C. §§ 1401a, 1402):
Eleven Years' Experience Under the So-Called
"Simplification" of Customs Valuation Rules;
the Need to Reëstablish Valuation Rules Designed
to Check Undervaluation.
Eleven years ago the Congress enacted the Customs Simplifi-
cation Act of 1956 on the urging of the Executive Branch. Two basic
changes were made: the use of the higher of foreign [home market ] or
export value was eliminated as the primary valuation basis, export value
becoming the principal valuation base; and the terms used in defining
the various valuation bases were themselves defined.
The use prior to 1956 of the higher of foreign or export
value as the primary valuation base accomplished three important results:
it was an automatic check against undervaluation; it provided the Customs
Service with a continuous body of foreign price information, thereby
facilitating the administration of the Antidumping Act; and it prevented
foreign exporters from achieving a measure of control over the actual
amount of duties collected in the United States since the price they
charged for exports to the U. S. became the basis of valuation for customs
purposes only where such price was higher than the internal market price.
(In other words, prior to 1956 it was more difficult for
foreign exporters to manipulate both the home market and export price
in order to predetermine U. S. duty collections than the situation which
obtained after 1956 in which the exporter's actual price on goods sold
to the United States tended to become the principal basis for customs
valuation.)
16.
When the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 was considered
in the Senate, the then Majority Leader, Senator Lyndon Johnson, in
presenting and explaining the bill, stated that "Treasury representatives
advised the committee that there would likely be more effective enforce-
ment of the antidumping law" under the new Act because "foreign value
information would continue to be required on customs invoices" so that
there would be available "the information needed to initiate full-scale
investigations whenever dumping was indicated." (Congressional Record,
July 18, 1956, p. 12064)
Unfortunately, following the enactment of the Customs
Simplification Act of 1956, the administration of the Antidumping
Act appears virtually to have collapsed inasmuch as there have been
very few instances in which antidumping duties have been imposed
notwithstanding many hundreds of complaints. In fact, there have
been less than a dozen cases in which antidumping duties have actually
been imposed out of several hundred complaints filed since 1956.
Equally disturbing in the opinion of domestic industries is
the probability that customs personnel at the ports have, under pressure
of the mounting workload of the sharply rising number of import trans-
actions, settled into an administrative practice in which the price
appearing on the commercial invoice covering the goods imported is
accepted as evidence of the export value for customs valuation and duty
purposes. This value is oftentimes significantly lower than home market
prices which, under the definition of foreign value applicable prior
to 1956, would as evidence of "foreign value" represent the basis for
customs valuation for duty purposes.
17.
Thus it is strongly feared that domestic industries are
being injured not only by the nonadministration of the Antidumping
Act, but also by the reduction in the amounts of duties collected as
a result of the acceptance of deflated prices as a basis for customs
valuation under the export value rule.
For the past eleven years domestic industries have suffered
a reduction in duty as a result of the change in customs valuation
rules (in addition to the reductions in duty flowing from the tariff
cuts carried out under the trade agreements program), without any real
protection from dumping which a differential in price between home
market and export prices classically entails.
FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
Everett M. Dirksen
THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
of Illinois
OF THE CONGRESS
Gerald R. Ford
Thomas H. Kuchel
of Michigan
of California
Leslie C. Arends
Bourke B. Hickenlooper
of Illinois
of Iowa
Press Release
Melvin R. Laird
Margaret Chase Smith
of Wisconsin
of Maine
John J. Rhodes
George Murphy
of Arizona
of California
H. Allen Smith
Milton R. Young
of California
of North Dakota
Bob Wilson
Hugh Scott
of California
of Pennsylvania
Charles E. Goodell
of New York
PRESIDING:
Richard H. Poff
of Virginia
The National Chairman
Ray C. Bliss
William C. Cramer
of Florida
April 20, 1967
BY THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP OF THE CONGRESS
Less than an hour ago, as you know, Representative Widnall of
New Jersey and Senator Percy of Illinois held a press conference to
present their jointly sponsored housing bill, which will be filed
in the House and Senate today.
This bill, wholly Republican in origin, is co-sponsored by 50 93
36
Republican Representatives and Republican Senators. It offers
an original and admirable approach to the solution of one of America's
most pressing problems -- that of fair, low-cost housing for both
urban and rural areas through the application of private enterprise
and government resources.
The principles represented by this measure have the full and
enthusiastic endorsement of the Republican Leadership of the Congress.
We urge the Democrat Leadership and its majorities in the House
and Senate to join us in pressing for the earliest possible
consideration and enactment of this vital housing program.
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-(202) 225-3700
Consultant to the Leadership-John B. Fisher
FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
Everett M. Dirksen
THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
of Illinois
Gerald R. Ford
Thomas H. Kuchel
OF THE CONGRESS
of Michigan
of California
Leslie C. Arends
Bourke B. Hickenlooper
of Illinois
of Iowa
Press Release
Melvin R. Laird
Margaret Chase Smith
of Wisconsin
of Maine
John J. Rhodes
George Murphy
of Arizona
of California
H. Allen Smith
Milton R. Young
of California
of North Dakota
Bob Wilson
Issued following a
Hugh Scott
of California
of Pennsylvania
Leadership Meeting
Charles E. Goodell
of New York
PRESIDING:
April 20, 1967
Richard H. Poff
of Virginia
The National Chairman
Ray C. Bliss
William C. Cramer
of Florida
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIPKSEN
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The term "creative Federalism" was expressed in 1962 by a Repub-
lican governor, Nelson Rockefeller of New York. It was appropriated
by the Johnson-Humphrey Administration and voiced by the President in
a speech at Ann Arbor, Michigan in 1964 -- the same speech in which
he first publicly uttered the impressive words, "Great Society". The
gap between the Democrat and Republican concepts of "creative Federal-
ism" is as wide as that between the poles.
It was another Democrat president, Woodrow Wilson, who wrote,
"The question of the relationship of the states to the Federal govern-
ment is the cardinal question of our constitutional system". It is
indeed!
Unless and until the people and the Congress are given more
practical and persuasive evidence of performance-in-partnership with
the states by the Federal government, they will continue to view the
Johnson-Humphrey concept of "creative Federalism" as nothing but
"words, words, words". In this, as in so much else that relates to
the credibility of this Administration, we are all from Missouri.
The main feature of this so-called "creative Federalism" appears
to be a determination to establish direct Federal-local programs, by-
passing the states and their governors and dealing, under Washington-
controlled terms, with local authorities. This is neither "creative"
nor is it "Federalism". It is instead cremative and is likely to
consume us all.
Unless and until the Johnson-Humphrey Administration is prepared
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-(202) 225-3700
(more)
Consultant to the Leadership-John B. Fisher
Senator Dirksen
- 2 -
to prove the sincerity of its use of the word "partnership", we
will be skeptical.
Unless and until the Johnson-Humphrey Administration proves its
willingness to cut non-essential Federal spending drastically and so
to ease both the Federal and state tax burden on our people, we will
be doubtful.
Unless and until the Johnson-Humphrey Administration is prepared
to insist that its bureaucrats not only faithfully carry out the wishes
of the people's representatives in Congress but, in doing so, co-
operate fully and freely with State and local officials, credibility
will remain in short supply.
We ask, in short, that the Johnson-Humphrey Administration stop
voicing classic cliches. Instead, it should reduce spending. It
should share revenues equitably with state and local governments. It
should rein in its bureaucrats more tightly. It should release rigió,
unnecessary controls.
Instead of promoting the "more perfect Union", the Johnson-
Humphrey Administration's brand of "creative Federalism" will impair
and imperil the "more perfect Union".
(more)
REPRESENTATIVE FORD
April 20, 1967
Federal financial assistance to state and local governments has
more than doubled since 1960. It has risen from a total of nearly 7
billion dollars per year to nearly 15 billion dollars per year. The
end of this "creative Federalism" is not in sight. The President him-
self has unabashedly predicted an expansion to $60 billion in 5 years.
The ruthless extension of Federal authority, financing and con-
trol grows with every day that passes. With it grow $ the increased
and corrosive dependence of our people on Washington. With it comes
a corresponding shrinkage in thair self-reliance, their freedom and
their funds. "Spend and spend, borrow and borrow, control and control"
appears to be a true definition of the Johnson-Humphrey Administrations
"creative Federalism". As Senator Dirksen has said, this phrase is
nothing thus far but "words, words, words".
We would be in neglect of our duty as the loyal opposition, how-
ever, if we were not to admit that there are no rights without respon-
sibilities. This is true for a state and a community as for an
individual. The Republicans in Congress will continue to exert every
possible effort, despite the Democrat majorities here, to reduce non-
essential spending, promote a program of revenue sharing, tax credits,
or functional bloc grants to free the energies of state and local
governments, improve bureaucratic practices, eliminate unreasonable
Federal controls and restore to our people in their homes, their towns
and their cities the rights and the funds of which they are steadily
being deprived.
Responsive and responsible state governments are essential to the
working of a truly creative Federalism. From the 25 Republican
governors now in office wonderfully encouraging evidence of this can
be seen. No state, however, will deserve freedom from the Johnson-
Humphrey Administration's cremative Federalism unless it provides the
same proof of performance.
We insist, in short, that "creative Federalism" be just that,
where Washington is concerned. We expect, at the same time, that our
people at home will re-assert their ability to take over in their own
best interest. The Republicans in the Congress will continue to set
the pace.
FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
Everett M. Dirksen
THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
of Illinois
Gerald R. Ford
Thomas H. Kuchel
OF THE CONGRESS
of Michigan
of California
Leslie C. Arends
Bourke B. Hickenlooper
of Illinois
of Iowa
Press Release
Melvin R. Laird
Margaret Chase Smith
of Wisconsin
of Maine
John J. Rhodes
George Murphy
of Arizona
of California
Issued following a
H. Allen Smith
Milton R. Young
of California
of North Dakota
Leadership Meeting
Bob Wilson
Hugh Scott
of California
of Pennsylvania
May 25, 1967
Charles E. Goodell
of New York
PRESIDING:
Richard H. Poff
of Virginia
The National Chairman
Ray C. Bliss
William C. Cramer
of Florida
STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE FORD:
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Russian guns, Russian bullets, Russian surface-to-air missiles,
Russian MIGS, Communist machine guns and Communist mortars continue
to kill and maim American fighting men and innocent civilians by
the thousands in Viet Nam. Nevertheless, the Johnson-Humphrey
Administration continues to urge that we trade with the enemy by
"building bridges" between us and these Communist dealers in death.
There may be some who find it wholly consistent that Americans
should fight for freedom and survival against Communist aggression on
the one hand, while trading and dealing for Communist enrichment on
the other. We do not. We will continue to oppose economic aid to
an enemy whose global goal is the extinction of freedom.
Trade can be an instrument for world peace but only when applied
in the hard-nosed tradition of the Yankee trader, not with the soft-
headed hope that it will somehow sway dedicated Communist governments
from their stated international goals. The extension of most-
favored-nation tariff treatment to Communist East Europe in existing
circumstances is unwarranted and unwise.
The reduction of export controls on East-West trade in so-called
"non-strategic items" is dangerous, and Congress should carefully
review this whole subject. It may well be that present controls
should be tightened and certainly they should be more clearly defined
by the elected representatives of the people.
Guaranteeing commercial credits to Communist governments is a
form of economic foreign aid heretofore reserved for our friends.
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-(202) 225-3700
(more)
Consultant to the Leadership-John B. Fisher
Rep. Ford
May 25,1967
Such a policy compels our own people, against their will, to encourage
and strengthen Communism. It is illogical to do this while committing
American lives to a Communist-supported war in Viet Nam.
The May Day order of the day issued by the Soviet Defense Min-
ister, Marshall Andrei Grechko, accused the United States of "hatching
sinister plots to spread aggression"in other parts of the world
beyond Viet Nam. Anyone who has studied Soviet tactics knows that
Moscow always accuses its adversary of doing what the Kremlin itself
is plotting to do.
Since last May 1, violence and trouble clearly instigated by
Communists have erupted almost on signal in widely scattered parts of
the world -- in the Sea of Japan, along the 38th parallel in Korea,
in Hongkong, and the Middle East. The open threat of intervention by
the Soviet Union to support Nasser's reckless gamble in the Gulf of
Aqaba gravely threatens world peace and gives little evidence of any
Russian desire for "building bridges" to the Free World.
In my judgment the Soviet bloc has embarked on a bold and con-
certed effort to divert the attention of the United States and Western
Europe from the grim struggle in Southeast Asia at a time when the
NATO shield is softer than at any time since it was raised by former
Presidents Truman and Eisenhower.
Surely it is no time to WOO the Communist world with trade con-
cessions. Let the Soviet Union and Eastern European Communist govern-
ments first convince us that they truly seek peace in Viet Nam, the
Middle East and elsewhere. Until then we should refuse to be party
to any mercenary deals in which the main advantage is with our avowed
enemies.
We will support mutually-beneficial, really reciprocal political
and economic agreements with Communist governments only when they
prove beyond question, as they easily can, that their policies and
actions are aimed at lasting peace, honorable settlement of the
war in Viet Nam and the crisis in the Middle East, and abandonment
of their support for so-called "wars of national liberation" against
free and independent peoples.
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN
MAY 25, 1967
Have you heard of a single Russian, who was reported as a
casualty in Viet Nam? You haven't and you won't. What you see
reported are American and South Vietnamese casualties. On May 18th,
the U. S. Command reported that total American casulties were in
excess of 70,000. This included 9,916 dead. South Vietnamese troop
deaths exceed 46,000.
Here is the dreadful, current tabulation of our losses:
U.S. DEATHS
U.S. WOUNDED
6237 6,101 Army
36,428 Army 37,370
307 286 Navy
1,523 Navy
3372 3,189 Marine
20,039 Marine
340 Air Force
1,153 Air Force
9,916 Total
59,143 Total 61,425
10,252
Non-combatant
2,040 2,058
South Viet Nam deaths
46,626
How were they killed? For the most part by Red Russian weapons
and Red Chinese weapons in the hands of the Red Viet Cong. It's
that simple. And there are more weapons to come.
Our airmen have shot down 71 Russian-built MIGS. It is esti-
mated that another 350 MIGS are available for replacements. Our
military reports that 2,450 Russian-built missiles have been fired
at our planes. Tens of thousands of Russian-built and Chinese-built
rifles and mortars have been found by our troops in the jungles,
fields, and Viet Cong supply dumps. The weapons come from the
Russians and their wretched Red allies. The victims of these
weapons are young Americans and South Vietnamese. The instruments
of death are Red-built. The dead, the amputees, the armless, the
legless are Americans and South Vietnamese.
These are the people with whom we are asked to set up a partner-
ship to "build bridges". These are the people to whom we are asked
to turn the cheek of compassion and embark on a policy of East-West
(more)
Sen. Dirksen
- 2 -
trade. Is trade so sweet and profits so desirable as to be purchased
at the price we now pay in death and agony? The volume of trade
which might be developed would be a pittance compared with our gross
national product. And how durable would such a bridge be when the
trade-and-traffic which flows over it carries the taint of blood?
Whenever the ghastly business in Viet Nam comes to an end and
the Reds are prepared to become reliable partners in peace, there
will be time enough to talk about "building bridges".
HOW strange that the Reds are so interested in the American
buck that they are ready to venture into the bridge-building
business even with Yankee imperialists! We doubt however that the
American people are so interested in a few rubles that they are
willing to "build bridges" with American credit, American loans,
American machine tools when the death cries from Viet Nam ring
daily in their ears.
FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
Everett M. Dirksen
THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
of Illinois
OF THE CONGRESS
Gerald R. Ford
Thomas H. Kuchel
of Michigan
of California
Leslie C. Arends
Bourke B. Hickenlooper
of Illinois
of Iowa
Press Release
Melvin R. Laird
Margaret Chase Smith
of Wisconsin
of Maine
John J. Rhodes
George Murphy
of Arizona
of California
H. Allen Smith
Milton R. Young
of California
of North Dakota
Issued following a
Bob Wilson
Hugh Scott
Leadership Meeting
of California
of Pennsylvania
Charles E. Goodell
of New York
PRESIDING:
July 13, 1967
Richard H. Poff
of Virginia
The National Chairman
Ray C. Bliss
William C. Cramer
of Florida
REPRESENTATIVE FORD:
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The guessing game continues over higher Federal income taxes
sought by the Johnson-Humphrey Administration. But meanwhile, there
2omillion@mericansane
isn't the slightest doubt that we are going to have higher invisible
taxes -- the silent sales tax on everybody's paycheck and pension
which economists call inflation.
Now we hear about an 8% instead of a 6% income tax surcharge.
Under the steady escalation of consumer prices over the past year a
family of four earning $10,000 already has paid an invisible tax three
times the Johnson surcharge. Most housewives realize this -- even if the
bureaucrats do not!
The most recent official Price Index figures, those for the
month of May, reveal the sharpest increase since last year. The Labor
Department's own Bureau of Labor Statistics sees no likelihood of
relief in the months to come. The chief of that Bureau predicts an
too
additional two and one-half per cent price increase before long.
Does the Johnson-Humphrey Administration know what is happening
to us? Does the Johnson-Humphrey care? Does the
Administrationally
Johnson-Humphrey Administration plan to take the steps necessary to
protect the American people from these rapidly rising living costs,
which will cancel out any wage increases, drain family budgets and
shrink the pensions of the aged agung even further?
Mr. Ackley, the President's chief economic advisor, sees as
solutions only a tax increase or what he calls "responsible use of
(con't)
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-(202) 225-3700
Consultant to the Leadership-John B. Fisher
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
MR. FORD
July 13, 1967
private wage and price restraint." On the latter point, Mr. Ackley
appears to be an Alice in an economic wonderland.
still
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration incredibly refuses even to
town
test-fire the best weapon for fighting inflation it holder
common-sense cutting and prudent postponement of non-essential
Federal spending. To this Administration, more domestic spending
is the sure cure for everything, including its setbacks in last
November's elections.
Higher inflation is here. Are higher income taxes just around
the corner?
Therefore, our Question-of-the-Week:
Mr. President: More Inflation - - More Debt - What Next?
SENATOR DIRKSEN
July 13, 1967
To spend beyond income means to go into debt. To go into debt
means to borrow. To borrow means to add to the money supply. To
increase the money supply means to add to the cost of goods and
services. There is but one real answer --- to keep spending within
income -- to live within our national means.
Very closely related to ballooning inflation is the national debt,
which has now risen, with the approval of this Democrat-controlled Con-
gress, to 326 billions. To call it the national debt is accurate.
Equally accurate and much clearer is its right name -- the public debt ---
for this is without any question whatsoever a debt the American public
owes and, one day, must pay.
Next time you walk into a bank, take from the display rack at
the counter a copy of that bank's balance sheet and statement of
condition. You will immediately find listed among its principal items,
"U.S. Government Bonds". How did the banks acquire these U. S.
Government Bonds? They did it with the money deposited with them by
you and by me! Make no mistake about it --- you and I, American citizens
all, owe this incredible public debt!
The interest alone on this debt will soon be more than 14 billions.
You and I -- the owers of the public debt -- will be paying over a
billion dollars. per interest on it for years and years to come.
month in
Can you picture our grandchildren facing this debt, which they too will
have to pay?
Unless and until the Johnson-Humphrey Administration is brought
up short by the American people, inflation will stop creeping and will
begin galloping!
Therefore, our Question-of-the-Week:
Mr. President: More inflation - More Debt - What Next?
FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
Everett M. Dirksen
THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
of Illinois
Gerald R. Ford
Thomas H. Kuchel
OF THE CONGRESS
of Michigan
of California
Leslie C. Arends
Bourke B. Hickenlooper
of Illinois
of Iowa
Press Release
Melvin R. Laird
Margaret Chase Smith
of Wisconsin
of Maine
John J. Rhodes
George Murphy
of Arizona
of California
H. Allen Smith
Milton R. Young
of California
of North Dakota
Issued following a
Bob Wilson
Hugh Scott
Leadership Meeting
of California
of Pennsylvania
Charles E. Goodell
of New York
August 3, 1967
PRESIDING:
Richard H. Poff
of Virginia
The National Chairman
Ray C. Bliss
William C. Cramer
of Florida
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN
RELEASE ON DELIVERY
No person has a right to act. against the public safety, anywhere,
any time. There is no excuse -- ever -- for riot, arson and murder.
On this Americans are agreed.
Americans also agree that:
When near-anarchy exists in this nation --
When trouble-makers defy the law, incite rioting, burning, pillaging
and murder --
There must be action. Its urgency is extreme.
Punishment of those who break the law must be swift and decisive --
no matter who they may be.
The protection of life and property must be primary and total.
The re-enforcement of every arm of the law everywhere must be
maximum. There can be no compromise with crime -- and crime is exactly
what this is.
Republicans in Congress and across America call for firm, certain
action at all levels and in total strength.
Explanations for this war in America's streets are many. Some may
be well-founded. Others are not. To find the right answers is our first
duty.
The Administration has named a "blue ribbon" commission to work to
this end. This is not enough -- not nearly enough. Congress itself must
act to determine promptly the causes and the cures of this frightful
situation. The Congress -- for the people -- must provide the solutions.
(con't)
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-(202) 225-3700
Consultant to the Leadership-John B. Fisher
Senator Dirksen
Page Two
Our people must be made safe in their homes, at their jobs and on the
streets.
Mr. Ford and I, with many of our colleagues, have filed a
resolution calling for immediate creation of a Joint Committee of
the Congress to investigate riots and violent civil disorder, with full
powers necessary to this purpose.
Additional measures having similar objectives have been filed by
others in Congress. The Government Operations Committee of the Senate
may be named to take initial investigative action. Whatever is done must
be done promptly, without partisanship. We are all in this boat together
and the winds are raging.
We repeat, punishment must be swift for those who break the law --
whoever they may be. There must be no reward for those who riot and
destroy.
BUT --
There must be found workable solutions to this unrest and violence
that will permanently assure eradication of these evils.
There must be achieved a restoration of that strength-in-unity that
has made America great and will keep America free.
STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE FORD:
August 3, 1967
The statements just made by Senator Dirksen have my complete and
wholehearted support.
This war in our streets must be brought to the earliest possible end
for the safety and benefit of every American citizen.
I am wholly confident that the Congress and, hopefully, the Adminis-
tration, will promptly and accurately determine the root causes and
enduring cures for this malignant social cancer.
The Republican Leadership of the Congress believes that there are
immediate steps to be taken by all of us -- now. In our January appraisal
of the State of the Union we urged several of these:
A total re-vamping and re-direction of the Poverty War -- where
waste has been astronomical and administration ineffective. We said then
and we repeat:
"We want an Opportunity Crusade that will
enlist private enterprise and the States as
effective partners of the Federal Government
in this fight. We would give the children of
poverty the very highest priority they deserve.
As Republicans have urged for two years, Head
Start requires follow-through in the early grades."
Creation of a new Industry Youth Corps "to provide private
productive employment and training on the job".
The passage of a Human Investment Act "to induce employers to expand
job opportunities for the unskilled".
The enlargment of "opportunities of low-income Americans for private
home ownership".
Support for a system of tax sharing to return to the States and local
governments a fixed percentage of personal income taxes without Federal
control.
The elimination of the poverty of realistic ideas among Poverty
War officials.
We believe that in vastly expanded educational opportunities and
productive job training the earliest and best of these solutions will be
found. A closer application of Federal resources to local needs is clearly
necessary.
In help -- and self-help -- for this generation of Americans, in help --
and opportunity -- for the next generation -- we will find the answers we
seek and must have.
FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
Everett M. Dirksen
THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
of Illinois
Gerald R. Ford
Thomas H. Kuchel
OF THE CONGRESS
of Michigan
of California
Leslie C. Arends
Bourke B. Hickenlooper
of Illinois
of Iowa
Press Release
Melvin R. Laird
Margaret Chase Smith
of Wisconsin
of Maine
John J. Rhodes
George Murphy
of Arizona
of California
Issued following a
H. Allen Smith
Milton R. Young
of California
of North Dakota
Leadership Meeting
Bob Wilson
Hugh Scott
of California
of Pennsylvania
Charles E. Goodell
August 29,1967
of New York
PRESIDING:
Richard H. Poff
of Virginia
The National Chairman
Ray C. Bliss
William C. Cramer
of Florida
REPRESENTATIVE FORD:
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The War at home -- the war against crime -- is being lost. The
Administration appears to be in full retreat. The homes and the streets
of America are no longer safe for our people. This is a frightful
situation. Our people will no longer tolerate it. In the past six
years the population of the United States has increased by 9% while crime
has risen by 62%. The end is not in sight.
The Republicans in Congress demand that this Administration take
the action required to protect our people in their homes, on the streets,
at their jobs. To this end, we have proposed--and vigorously pushed --
bills which will provide the Administration with whatever tools it needs
to do the job. We will continue to press this Administration and its
top-heavy majority in Congress relentlessly, day after day after day.
There can be no further Administration excuse for indecision, delay or
evasion.
When a Rap Brown and a Stokeley Carmichael are allowed to run loose,
to threaten law-abiding Americans with injury and death, it's time to
slam the door on them and any like them -- and slam it hard!
In the 89th Congress, Republican efforts produced:
Reasonable extension and improvement of the Law Enforcement
Assistance Act, to assist local and state law enforcement
officers;
New thinking regarding means to improve probation and parole
service and defeat of Administration efforts to remove supervision
of probation officers by Federal judges;
Creation of a Commission to fully revise and reform our
Federal criminal laws.
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-(202) 225-3700
Consultant to the Leadership-John B. Fisher
Mr. Ford:
In the 90th Congress, Republican efforts have resulted in:
The rewriting through imperative amendments of the
Administration's crime control bill, to further strengthen
the hand of state and local governments in crime prevention,
detection and prosecution;
Passage by the House of an Anti-Riot Bill, for prosecution
of those who use the facilities of interstate commerce with
intent to incite a riot;
Passage in the Senate of a bill to strengthen and clarify
the review by Courts of Appeal of criminal sentences of Federal
courts;
Introduction of a bill, the Criminal Activities Profits Act,
to prohibit the use of illegal funds in legitimate business;
Introduction of a bill providing for electronic surveillance
control, in order that the right of individaul privacy might
be fully protected while the national security is equally
preserved;
Introduction of an Omnibus Criminal Procedures bill, to
strengthen the hand of law enforcement officers and judges;
Introduction of a bill to establish in Congress a Joint Com-
mittee on Organized Crime.
These are only a few of the actions already taken by the Republicans
in Congress for the protection of our people against organized crime,
group violence, and individual crime.
In addition, there has been created a House Republican Task Force on
Crime and a Republican Coordinating Committee Task Force on Crime.
Each has been hard at work.
Finally, the 25 Republican governors across the nation have activated
their "Action Plan", to inaugurate a new era of creative state leadership
to meet the national crisis of social injustice and lawlessness.
No one has a right to shout "Fire!" in a theatre. No one has a
right to incite riot, looting, destruction and murder. There is no such
thing as the right to act against the public safety by any one, anywhere,
any time.
Our people are frightened by the rampant crime of all types that is
overwhelming the nation. The Congress can, if it follows Republican
leadership, provide the tools for fighting crime that the Administration
must use. We demand that the Congress and the Administration act -- now!
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN
August 29, 1967
Not a day passes without hundreds of reports of individual crimes
against our people. Not a week passes without evidence of the vicious
successes of organized crime from coast to coast. Never in our history
have our people been so threatened. Never before has civil discipline
been so lax. Never before has leadership been so lacking.
The law must be enforced. The law must be obeyed. The law must
be respected. The great failure of our society is its inability to
maintain law and order.
Respect for the law is the duty of the people. The enforcement of
the law is the responsibility of the Administration. The means it
requires for the purpose is the responsibility of the Congress.
We demand that this Congress, with its overwhelming Democratic
majority, take immediately the steps we have proposed for Administration
use.
We demand also that the Administration:
Apply without further delay the major recommendations of
its own, hand-picked Crime Commission;
Cease to restrict our law enforcement officers in
their proper use of the investigative tools they have at
hand;
Furnish our law enforcement officers with the investiga-
tive tools they still require and which Republican-proposed
legislation would provide;
Establish, as Republicans have long urged, a National
Law Enforcement Institute, for research and training in
prevention and prosecution of organized and individual
crime and for the dissemination of the latest techniques
in police science.
Sen. Dirksen
Finally, as presented in our Appraisal of the State of the Union
in January of this year and earlier, we remind America's judges to
uphold the rights of the law-abiding citizen with the same fervor as
it upholds the rights of the accused.
By unanimous resolution, the recent Conference of Chief Justices,
attended by jurists from 45 states, reasserted this principle and
necessity. We applaud their action and commend it without reservation
to every judge in the land. The protection of the good citizen is
paramount and compelling. I submit that the strengthening of a good
society is more important than the creation of a so-called "Great Society".
On an earlier day, in his war against an international criminal,
a redoubtable Englishman besought the United States to "Give us the
tools and we'll finish the job". In this hour, the Republicans in
Congress are prepared to provide this Administration with whatever
tools it now needs to grind organized and individual crime into the
dust that our people might be safe.
We demand that it delay no longer.
We demand that it finish the job.
FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
Everett M. Dirksen
THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
of Illinois
OF THE CONGRESS
Gerald R. Ford
Thomas H. Kuchel
of Michigan
of California
Leslie C. Arends
Bourke B. Hickenlooper
of Illinois
of Iowa
Press Release
Melvin R. Laird
Margaret Chase Smith
of Wisconsin
of Maine
John J. Rhodes
George Murphy
of Arizona
of California
H. Allen Smith
Milton R. Young
of California
of North Dakota
Issued following a
Bob Wilson
Hugh Scott
of California
of Pennsylvania
Leadership Meeting
Charles E. Goodell
of New York
PRESIDING:
Richard H. Poff
of Virginia
The National Chairman
Ray C. Bliss
October 26, 1967
William C. Cramer
of Florida
BY THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP:
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The demonstrations that have taken place in Washington and
across the nation in recent months have given the American people
increasing and even frightening concern for the future. We share
that concern, since never before in our history has lack of
confidence in America's leadership been so evident.
We believe, very strongly, that the hour has now passed when
firmness must continue to yield to tolerance in dealing with these
violent few. They are unwilling to demonstrate peacefully. They
are unwilling to debate without violence. They are permitted, never-
theless, to disturb the public peace, to endanger their fellow-citizens
in their lives and property, and to undermine the very well-being of
the nation itself by giving aid and comfort to our enemies.
We are well aware, as all Americans must be, of the Constitutional
rights of freedom of speech and peaceable assembly which are so great
a part of our treasured heritage. We are equally aware, however,
that there is no right to act against the public safety by anyone,
anywhere, any time -- for any reason.
This nation had its origin in dissent. We have always believed in
unlimited criticism -- in time of war and in time of peace. Free
speech -- without violence -- must always be permitted and approved.
But law-breaking and violence can never be condoned. Our country
has prospered and survived as a democracy, in great part through
peaceful, even if at times heated, discussion among men of good-will.
Its future will be equally dependent upon the maintenance of this
great tradition.
(con't)
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-(202) 225-3700
Consultant to the Leadership-John B. Fisher
- 2 -
Oct. 26, 1967
It is our conviction that it is the malcontent, the misguided and,
yes, the malicious, who form the greatest part of these demonstrations.
Fortunately, they represent only a very small fraction of our
population. That there may be many others who share their views on
particular issues is very possible. But it is these, and these alone,
who see fit to breach the public peace, break the nation's laws, defy
established authority, and destroy public property.
These wretched few can no longer be tolerated. They must be held
in check hereafter and, when necessary, be brought to justice, legally
but firmly by the scruff of their collective necks. The safety and
the peace of mind of all decent, hard-working, law-abiding millions of
other Americans must be preserved.
The first duty of those in authority -- in Washington and in every
community throughout the land. is the preservation of public order
and the firm enforcement of the law. The rights and the privileges
of those countless millions of good Americans who obey the law and
keep the peace must be given priority above all others, at all times.
Tolerance of marchers and demonstrators is all very well -- up to the
point at which they defy the law and endanger the public safety. We
call upon those in authority everywhere to enforce the law, with our
full backing, in the public interest. We urge them to do so without
undue concern hereafter as to the protests and whinings of these law-
breakers, who have no regard whatever for the good of the community and
who in our view, seek only publicity and selfish personal privilege.
We repeat, there is no right to act against the public safety
by anyone, anywhere, any time -- for any reason.
It is the conviction of the Republican Leadership of the Congress --
and, we believe, of all good Americans everywhere -- that the law must
be enforced and the safety of our people preserved. We pledge our
utmost efforts to this end.
FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
Everett M. Dirksen
THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
of Illinois
Gerald R. Ford
OF THE CONGRESS
of Michigan
Thomas H. Kuchel
of California
Leslie C. Arends
of Illinois
Bourke B. Hickenlooper
of Iowa
Press Release
Melvin R. Laird
of Wisconsin
Margaret Chase Smith
of Maine
John J. Rhodes
of Arizona
George Murphy
of California
H. Allen Smith
of California
Milton R. Young
of North Dakota
Bob Wilson
Issued following a
of California
Hugh Scott
of Pennsylvania
Leadership Meeting
Charles E. Goodell
of New York
PRESIDING:
Richard H. Poff
of Virginia
The National Chairman
Ray C. Bliss
October 26, 1967
William C. Cramer
of Florida
BY THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP:
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The demonstrations that have taken place in Washington and
across the nation in recent months have given the American people
increasing and even frightening concern for the future. We share
that concern, since never before in our history has lack of
confidence in America's leadership been so evident.
We believe, very strongly, that the hour has now passed when
firmness must continue to yield to tolerance in dealing with these
violent few. They are unwilling to demonstrate peacefully. They
are unwilling to debate without violence. They are permitted, never-
theless, to disturb the public peace, to endanger their fellow-citizens
in their lives and property, and to undermine the very well-being of
the nation itself by giving aid and comfort to our enemies.
We are well aware, as all Americans must be, of the Constitutional
rights of freedom of speech and peaceable assembly which are so great
a part of our treasured heritage. We are equally aware, however,
that there is no right to act against the public safety by anyone,
anywhere, any time -- for any reason.
This nation had its origin in dissent. We have always believed in
unlimited criticism -- in time of war and in time of peace. Free
speech -- without violence -- must always be permitted and approved.
But law-breaking and violence can never be condoned. Our country
has prospered and survived as a democracy, in great part through
peaceful, even if at times heated, discussion among men of good-will.
Its future will be equally dependent upon the maintenance of this
great tradition.
(con't)
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-(202) 225-3700
Consultant to the Leadership-John B. Fisher
- 2 -
Oct. 26, 1967
It is our conviction that it is the malcontent, the misguided and,
yes, the malicious, who form the greatest part of these demonstrations.
Fortunately, they represent only a very small fraction of our
population. That there may be many others who share their views on
particular issues is very possible. But it is these, and these alone,
who see fit to breach the public peace, break the nation's laws, defy
established authority, and destroy public property.
These wretched few can no longer be tolerated. They must be held
in check hereafter and, when necessary, be brought to justice, legally
but firmly by the scruff of their collective necks. The safety and
the peace of mind of all decent, hard-working, law-abiding millions of
other Americans must be preserved.
The first duty of those in authority - in Washington and in every
community throughout the land-is the preservation of public order
and the firm enforcement of the law. The rights and the privileges
of those countless millions of good Americans who obey the law and
keep the peace must be given priority above all others, at all times.
Tolerance of marchers and demonstrators is all very well -- up to the
point at which they defy the law and endanger the public safety. We
call upon those in authority everywhere to enforce the law, with our
full backing, in the public interest. We urge them to do so without
undue concern hereafter as to the protests and whinings of these law-
breakers, who have no regard whatever for the good of the community and
who in our view, seek only publicity and selfish personal privilege.
We repeat, there is no right to act against the public safety
by anyone, anywhere, any time for any reason.
It is the conviction of the Republican Leadership of the Congress --
and, we believe, of all good Americans everywhere that the law must
be enforced and the safety of our people preserved. We pledge our
utmost efforts to this end.
FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
Everett M. Dirksen
THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
of Illinois
Gerald R. Ford
Thomas H. Kuchel
OF THE CONGRESS
of Michigan
of California
Leslie C. Arends
Bourke B. Hickenlooper
of Illinois
of Iowa
Melvin R. Laird
Margaret Chase Smith
Press Release
of Wisconsin
of Maine
John J. Rhodes
George Murphy
of Arizona
of California
H. Allen Smith
Milton R. Young
of California
of North Dakota
Bob Wilson
Hugh Scott
Issued Follwing a
of California
of Pennsylvania
Leadership Meeting
Charles E. Goodell
of New York
PRESIDING:
November 3, 1967
Richard H. Poff
of Virginia
The National Chairman
Ray C. Bliss
illiam C. Cramer
of Florida
IMEDIATE RELEASE
Mr. Dirksen.
Contrary to the belief of some - particularly in the Johnson-Hurphrey
Administration - the endless spending of the American people's money is not
the only answer to our many critical problems.
Only when conmon-sense - old-fashioned horse sense - is combined with prudent
planning and calm, clear direction of Federal and State and local programs can
we expect maximum results at minimum cost.
This has never been more painfully and expensively illustrated than in the
waging of this alleged poverty war by the Administration's Office of Economic
Opportunity, where politics takes priority over the poor.
Money alone - no matter how many tons of it - won't do the job. Only as
this program is thoroughly overhauled legislatively and re-directed from top to
bottom can we look for satisfactory results from it.
Neither the Senate nor the House have thus far done much more than tinker
with the poverty problem. Only as those recommendations to be made by Republicans
on the House Floor next week are adopted can we hope for a return to sanity and
efficiency in this multi-million dollar effort.
The Democratic leadership in Congress remains reluctant to help us take
these necessary steps in all our people's interest - especially that of the
poor, who will benefit most.
Nevertheless, we shall do our best to help win the poverty war - in the
Nation's best interest. We hope - very much - that every like-minded American,
in and out of Congress, will stand up and be counted with us. Let us hear from
you - loud and clear.
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-(202) 225-3700
Consultant to the Leadership-John B. Fisher
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
- 2 -
STATEMENT BY CONGRESSMAN FORD.
November 3, 1967
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration's poverty war was proclaimed with noble
objectives - objectives which all good Americans have always shared. But it
has been tragically weak, wasteful and ineffective in achieving those objectives.
Some of its programs such as Head Start - have been worthwhile and deserve
continuance. Too many others - - such as the Job Corps - have, from the beginning,
been woefully misdirected and very badly administered.
The Republicans in Congress are trying - as they have been for months - to
correct the evils the so-called poverty war has spawned. We are working hard to
prevent, in the months ahead, the reckless waste of millions of the taxpayers'
dollars that has characterized this "war" from the start.
Next week, with new legislation to be offered on the Floor of the House,
we Republicans will make yet another attempt to salvage the good in the poverty
program and wholly eliminate the bad. Far better job training - more job
opportunities greatly improved educational programs - the full participation
of private enterprise - reater state responsibility and direction. These are
fundamental. These we will insist upon.
Present indications are that we will not have the support of the Democratic
leadership in this constructive endeavor. They seem determined to maintain this
program as it is - regardless of its weaknesses, regardless of its record of poor
and top-heavy, national administration, regardless of its incredible waste of the
American people's money and its failure to help the poor in any substantial way.
We Republicans, therefore, appeal to every American citizen to enlist in the
fight to solve this problem by re-shaping and re-directing this massive endeavor.
Wire, write or telephone your Representatives in Congress to take these firm,
practical, prudent steps - now to make of this poverty war something more than
a terrible expensive exercise in marching up one hill and down another - endlessly -
at the expense of and not for the benefit of the poor.
GERALD LIBRARY
FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
Everett M. Dirksen
THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
of Illinois
Thomas H. Kuchel
OF THE CONGRESS
Gerald R. Ford
of Michigan
of California
Leslie C. Arends
Bourke B. Hickenlooper
of Illinois
of Iowa
Melvin R. Laird
Margaret Chase Smith
Press Release
of Wisconsin
of Maine
John J. Rhodes
George Murphy
of Arizona
of California
H. Allen Smith
Milton R. Young
of California
of North Dakota
Bob Wilson
Hugh Scott
of California
of Pennsylvania
Charles E. Goodell
of New York
PRESIDING:
Richard H. Poff
The National Chairman
Issued following a
of Virginia
Ray C. Bliss
Leadership Meeting
William C. Cramer
of Florida
November 16, 1967
MR. FORD.
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
In the course of our Appraisal of the State of the Union last January, Senator
Dirksen and I said: "Congress must also move ahead on the President's year-old
pledge for a Clean Election Law. Such a law must be on the books before 1968."
Recently, the House Republican Policy Committee in a strong, clear statement
also urged prompt consideration of clean elections legislation.
We cannot emphasize too strongly the need for passage of legislation of this
kind. Immediate action is required of Congress if such reforms are to take effect
and be operative during the 1968 campaigns.
It should be emphasized that this effort is genuinely bi-partisan. The several
reforms spelled out have been advocated and supported by both the Johnson-Humphrey
Administration and the Republican Leadership of the Congress.
It should be emphasized equally that public confidence in the electoral process
will suffer seriously if this reform legislation is not enacted into public law.
The bill as originally proposed contained an encouraging number of desirable
features. To these, the Republicans in Congress added major provisions of importance
and practical value. It is for these reasons that, as the House Republican Policy
Committee put it, " we are surprised and dismayed that the Election Reform Bill
does not now appear on the Administration's list of MUST legislation."
We hope - very much - that the Johnson-Humphrey Administration and the Democratic
majorities in the Congress have lost neither their wish nor their will that clean
elections shall become a standard "to which the wise and honest can repair."
Therefore, Mr. President, our Question of the Week:
"Why the delay in assuring clean elections?"
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-(202) 225-3700
Consultant to the Leadership-John B. Fisher
MR. DIRKSEN.
Page - 2 -
Republicans in the Senate stand firmly beside those in the House of Representatives
in their unqualified support of election reform.
Time, as never before, is of the essence if a measure of this kind is to be
enacted into law and if its provisions are to be effective in the course of the
campaign months just ahead.
Congress cannot ask of other Americans what it is not prepared itself to observe.
Unless this Congress is prepared to take this necessary action in campaign reform,
it cannot require of others that they toe-the-line in other regards. We must, in
short, practice what we preach. We cannot, fairly, urge upon others the conduct
of clean elections unless we make very certain that our own house is in order, unless
we assure the American people that we are fully and willingly prepared to set rules of
conduct for ourselves before we attempt to reform others.
As public office is a public trust, so anything that causes a loss of confidence
in the seeking of public office and the conduct of it thereafter produces a steady
erosion of faith in our free society.
Needless to say, morality cannot be legislated, ethics cannot be established
by law. Political campaigning and political office holding can win public confidence
and achieve the people's respect only as the individuals involved set a worthy example
to all others.
Periodically, however, circumstances and the questionable practices of a few
require review by the many. At such times, helpful legislation can often produce
genuine improvement in the campaigning for office and the conduct of public affairs.
We are mystified by the passage of so many months since this bi-partisan
legislation was first enthusiastically proposed.
Therefore, Mr. President, our Question of the Week:
"Why the delay in assuring clean elections?"
FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
Everett M. Dirksen
THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
of Illinois
OF THE CONGRESS
Gerald R. Ford
Thomas H. Kuchel
of Michigan
of California
Leslie C. Arends
Bourke B. Hickenlooper
of Illinois
of Iowa
Melvin R. Laird
Margaret Chase Smith
of Wisconsin
of Maine
Press Release
John J. Rhodes
George Murphy
of Arizona
of California
H. Allen Smith
Milton R. Young
of California
of North Dakota
Bob Wilson
Hugh Scott
of California
of Pennsylvania
Issued following a
Charles E. Goodell
Leadership meeting
of New York
PRESIDING:
Richard H. Poff
of Virginia
The National Chairman
Ray C. Bliss
December 7, 1967
William C. Cramer
of Florida
"THE STATE OF THE CONGRESS"
RELEASE ON DELIVERY
12:30 pm. Dec.7, 1967
Statement by Senator Dirksen:
In our Appraisal of the State of the Union last January, Mr. Ford
and I, speaking on behalf of the Republicans in Congress, assessed the
situation in which we as a people then found ourselves, both at home and
abroad. We refused, in concluding that assessment, to be dismayed or to
despair. This, despite great provocation by this Administration since,
we refuse to do now.
The sole objective of the Republicans in Congress in these past
months, as over the years, has been the very best interests of all of the
American people, at all times and on every issue. To help achieve those
best interests we have had historic demands made upon us as the party of
loyal opposition -- historic because we have been faced with certain
problems unparalleled in the nation's annals, demands because they have
compelled us from time to time to make harsh and unpleasant judgments and
decisions in order that those best interests might be fully served and fully
protected.
Most importantly, we have given unhesitating support to every
requirement and need of our fighting forces in Southeast Asia and our armed
services elsewhere in the world. This we will continue to do, however
heavy the burden. Americans prepared to give their lives in conflict must
be given by us every single item of weaponry and other support they may at
any moment need -- and they will be.
The conduct of the conflict in Viet Nam is, as under our Constitution
it must be, the full responsibility of the President in his capacity as
Commander-in-Chief. Only he has the authority, only he has the duty, only
he has the full information available for the execution of that responsibility.
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-(202) 225-3700
(con't)
Consultant to the Leadership-John B. Fisher
"THE STATE OF THE CONGRESS
- 2 -
The decisions made and to be made can and must be made by him and him alone.
In order, however, that his hand may be guided and strengthened
in this, it is imperative that the most thoughtful discussion possible
continue in the Congress and among our people to this end. Let it be
emphasized anew, nevertheless, that as we search together for a solution
to Viet Nam we demonstrate our unity of purpose by conducting such discus-
sion in a fully free but a wholly orderly manner. Dissent is one thing;
disagreement by violence is quite another. Dissent we encourage and approve.
Violence, in any form and for whatever purpose, we condemn, now and hereafter.
We urge again that this Administration - to a degree and with a
vigor not yet evident -- look beyond Viet Nam and consider where we shall
stand and with whom we shall sit when this conflict ceases. The Congress
and the people have seen all too little evidence of genuine effort to explore
and exploit the diplomatic opportunities available to us in this regard.
Channels of diplomacy, economic and otherwise, still remain open for our use.
The Republicans in Congress have not been concerned alone with the
war in Viet Nam. Other aspects of our foreign policy have been given
equally sharp scrutiny. We have not hesitated to recommend or to implore
an immediate re-shaping of it, whenever and wherever we have believed it
necessary in the nation's interest.
In the Middle East a tinderbox of appalling nature Republicans
have hoped for months for the adoption by the Administration of the atomic
desalinization plan placed before it some time ago by Americans of unques-
tioned ability and patriotic purpose. We are now informed by the Department
of State that this extraordinary project - which might well change the
entire atmosphere in the eastern Mediterranean - is "not politically
feasible". This we cannot believe. The proposal represents a thoughtful,
practical instrument for peace without parallel in recent years. It might
well provide the means of achieving political and economic stability in
the Middle East. As Americans, we urge the retrieval and adoption of that
proposal and its implementation at the earliest possible time.
In the American people's interest, we have continued to hold the
line against a unilateral "building of bridges" with the Communist nations
of the world. It is neither sensible nor safe to strengthen in the
(con't)
"THE STATE OF THE CONGRESS"
- 3 -
slightest degree the hand of an enemy which is at this moment striking down
young Americans in Viet Nam and in every corner of the globe conspiring
actively for the destruction of free America. Where and when, in the Senate
as in the House, we have taken this stand, we have done so for this reason
and no other. If, in the months to come, we should be given good and
convincing reason to expect otherwise of the Communists, we shall be pleased
indeed to reassess our own thinking in this somber regard.
The State of the Congress today is one of vexation and deep-seated
concern as we look about us here at home. We see an Administration wholly
blind in its belief that the enormous costs of the war in Viet Nam can and
will be borne by our people while at the same time the Administration seeks
unrestrained license to promote and finance multi-billion dollar social
programs. These have in too many instances proved valueless or dangerous
or both. Yet we are asked to support more and more such projects stamped
out in the same socialistic mint.
At this very moment the international air is filled with conversation
and concern regarding the "defense of the dollar" now that the British
pound has been devalued. The record is crystal-clear that the socialistic
experiments and experience of Great Britain in recent years have been the
primary reason for the near collapse of her economy. A continuation and
multiplication of the so-called Great Society's experiments could bring
identical results here. Socialism and a sound economy simply will not mix.
Despite our nation's enormous resources our economy cannot long stand such
abuse.
Let me make it quite clear, as we have done repeatedly, that ours
is not and has not been opposiion for its own sake. The legislative record
in both the Senate and the House is studded with Republican proposals for
meeting our urban and other domestic needs, proposals which have found
their counterparts in the programs of Republican Governors from coast to
coast. The Congressional Record and the nation's news media have documented
these regularly. Mr. Ford and the House Republican Policy Committee have
recently provided the press and the public with a detailed and comprehensive
review of House Republican accomplishments thus far in this session of the
Congress. I shall, within a few days, present an equally thorough report
of the efforts and achievements of the Republicans in the Senate.
(con't )
"THE STATE OF THE CONGRESS"
- 4 -
In summary, we Republicans in Congress have directed our efforts
at home and abroad to making the most of our people's tax dollars in the
achieving of maximum defense and sound economic progress. The mere spending
of additional billions -- which seems to be this Administration's only
talent -- will not, without sound economic planning, fully competent
management and plain, old-fashioned horse sense, solve the fearful problems
we face. Such a policy can achieve nothing but a total erosion of our
people's confidence in their leadership and of their faith in our country's
future.
In the months ahead, as in these months past, the Republicans
in the Senate as in the House, will continue to hew to these policies
and principles, convinced that the elections of 1966 gave us just this
mandate, confident that the elections of 1968 will confirm it.
In the words of a latter-day Englishman, not of the socialistic
breed: "Give us the tools and we'll finish the job".
"THE STATE OF THE CONGRESS"
STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE GERALD R. FORD
New direction -- new ideas -- new vigor. These the Republican
Minority in the House have contributed in marked degree in this first
session of the 90th Congress. Our chief interest and concern has been not
only the best possible defense of the nation, the full support of our fighting
forces in Southeast Asia and the cutting-back of reckless, wasteful non-
essential Federal expenditure. Our equal interest and concern has been what
lies ahead of us as a people -- what course our government will take -- or
be forced to take -- in the years immediately ahead.
Last January, in offering my domestic Appraisal of the State of the
Union, I listed, on behalf of the Republicans in the House, 40 specific
recommendations for action. These were not merely alternatives to proposals
made by others. They were, in greater part, specific program proposals.
30 of these were purely domestic in nature; 10 related to our national
defense. As of this date, in the House, we have made visible and heartening
progress with 24 of these. This has resulted in great part from 96%
Republican solidarity on roll call votes in support of House Policy Committee
positions. As a Minority, we consider this a good record and we intend
to improve upon it in the months ahead.
The heart and core of our united Republican effort has been the sharp
cutting-back of Federal expenditures for non-essential purposes. Our position
in this has not changed. And we are not convinced by belated promises of
this Administration to take action in this direction. Our original and
continuing position was and is that Federal expenditures should be reduced
not less than 5 billion dollars in this fiscal year. We know that it can
be done, if the Administration truly wishes it.
In the course of these debt-propelled Sixties, Federal spending has
run wild. This Administration has shown no concern whatever as to the
crushing burden its socialistic policies and programs have placed upon our
people. And for this Administration to use the war in Viet Nam as an excuse
is unfair and unworthy. While defense spending has risen by 68% since 1960,
non-defense spending has increased 97% -- from 48.6 billion in fiscal 1960
to an estimated 95.6 billion for fiscal 1968.
(con't)
"THE STATE OF THE CONGRESS"
- 6 -
Let it be recorded here and now -- as on many occasions past -- that
we Republicans are more than willing, indeed anxious, to provide for
Americans in need at home to the full extent that the nation's resources
and economy make it prudently possible. To us, the word "prudently"
means simply: with a decent, common sense regard for what we and our
children and their children can afford. The economic chaos which this
Administration's policies and practices now threaten to produce will under-
mine and destroy America just as surely as will our enemies at home and
abroad, if permitted to do SO.
Consistent, in the American tradition, with our stand against govern-
ment waste and extravagance has been our effort, encouragingly successful
in this Congress, to transfer some measure of responsibility and control
of the people's affairs from Washington to our states and communities. We
are greatly heartened by our success, even though a Minority, in shifting
a sizeable number of the so-called Great Society's programs away from the
Federal bureaucracies and their categorical grants to our state and local
officials through the Republican system of block grants, These make it
possible for those at home, who know the problemsbest, to solve them with
greatest speed and effect. The Comprehensive Health Act, the Law Enforce-
ment and Criminal Justice Assistance Act. the Juvenile Deliquency
Prevention and Control Act, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
the Air Quality Act and the Meat Inspection Act, in their final House
versions, provide concrete examples of this new direction and approach.
Last Monday, the House Republican Policy Committee published a
detailed and comprehensive documentation of these House Republican accomplish-
ments. I commend that release to your attention and review, now and in
the months to come.
In 1966, the American people strengthened the Republican Minority
in the House with unmistakable emphasis. We interpreted those results as
a mandate to put a check-rein on this willful, wasteful Administration, to
review and, where desirable, to modify its run-away programs and projects
and to initiate proposals of our own that would restore sense and balance
to public service. We believe our record to date represents a faithful
response to that mandate for new direction -- new ideas -- new vigor.
(con't)
"STATE OF THE CONGRESS"
- 7 -
If, as I am confident we will, we continue to produce the Republican soli-
darity and good sense on major legislative items that we have thus far,
we shall have done the American people a signal service and they will know
it. Knowing it, they will, we feel certain, add to our Republican strength
by their action at the polls next year.
In summary, our objectives and our accomplishments thus far in this
Congress have been these:
(1) Full support of our armed services in Southeast Asia and else-
where throughout the world;
(2) Insistence that this Administration, to the extent that it may
still be able to do so, succeed in Viet Nam or be prepared to yield to a
Republican Administration whose new direction, new ideas and new vigor
might well offer our people and the world a more probable prospect of peace;
(3) Insistence upon the immediate establishment of a bi-partisan,
blue ribbon commission of America's best experts to re-examine our short
and long range defense posture in this time of national peril;
(4) To bring about a substantial reduction in non-essential Federal
spending and to insist upon even greater reduction -- an objective in which
we have the full and encouraging support of the distinguished Democratic
Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee;
(5) To demand that this Administration's abuse of the American
farmer cease and cease now and that its inflation-blind indifference to
the American consumer come to an abrupt halt;
(6) To resist, until such satisfactory further reductions have
been written into law, the Administration's proposed tax increase;
(7) To demand of this Administration whole-hearted backing of the
initiative already taken by Republicans in Congress to make our streets and
homes safe for our people;
(8) The continuing transfer of governmental authority, responsibility
and control from Washington to the states and individual communities by the
system of block grants already successfully initiated in a number of legisla-
tive areas;
(9) More and more to establish active, practical, effective co-
operation between government and the private sector, as in the Republican-
(con't)
"THE STATE OF THE CONGRESS"
- 8 -
initiated Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962 and the Republican-
proposed Human Investment Act of 1967;
(10) To continue to urge the reorganization and reform of the
Congress, in order that it might better and more swiftly serve the needs
of the American people and beyond this to assure by next year clean and
orderly elections for all Federal offices.
The record of this Democratic-controlled Congress to date is far
from impressive. Where it has succeeded in meeting our people's basic
needs, it has done so in greatest part through Minority solidarity and
singleness of purpose.
Our people deserve an effective, productive Congress. Republicans
are determined they shall have it. We are fully prepared to do everything
in our power to meet our people's fundamental needs -- in defense and
in human well-being. In so doing, we are resolved to maintain that national
economic good health required to guarantee the continuance of such services
to ourselves and our posterity.
FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
Everett M. Dirksen
THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
of Illinois
OF THE CONGRESS
Gerald R. Ford
Thomas H. Kuchel
of Michigan
of California
Leslie C. Arends
Bourke B. Hickenlooper
of Illinois
of Iowa
Press Release
Melvin R. Laird
Margaret Chase Smith
of Wisconsin
of Maine
John J. Rhodes
George Murphy
of Arizona
of California
H. Allen Smith
Milton R. Young
of California
of North Dakota
Bob Wilson
Hugh Scott
of California
of Pennsylvania
Charles E. Goodell
of New York
PRESIDING:
Richard H. Poff
The National Chairman
of Virginia
Ray C. Bliss
William C. Cramer
of Florida
Issued following a
Leadership Meeting
December 13, 1967
Release at will
We have today sent the following telegram to the presidents of
the three national television networks --
Mr. Leonard H. Goldenson, ABC
Dr. Frank Stanton, CBS
Mr. Julian Goodman, NBC
"In view of the partisan and political content and tone of
President Johnson's address from the AFL-CIO Convention in Miami
Beach last night, as televised nationally over your network, we
demand an equal opportunity for reply under the same conditions --
the same hour, the same number of minutes --- prior to the end of
this week.
We make this demand under and in furtherance of the fairness
doctrine as interpreted and applied by the Federal Communications
Commission."
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-(202) 225-3700
Consultant to the Leadership-John B. Fisher
The Republisan Leadership Reply
to The President
ABC, CBS, NBC Television Networks
December 15, 1967
SEN. DIRKSEN: Fellow citizens, I'm Senator Dirkson, the
Republican Leader in the United States Senate, and sitting here with me
is Gerald Ford, Congressman Ford of Michigan, the Republican Leader in the
House of Representatives. We are here because we made a request to the
networks to let us make something of a response to the address that was
delivered by the President in Miami earlier this week.
Let me take oceasion now to thank the networks for the very prompt
response they made to our request, and we're deeply grateful and really
appreciative for this opportunity.
Now, the President made what I might characterise as a 3-prong
speesh. First, he recited all the benefits that had been voted, and then
be proceeded to castigate the Republican Party. Then be spoke about Vietnam.
or course it's this matter of castigation more than anything else that has
excited us a little bit, to the point where we thought a response ought to
be made.
Now, I thought it was impressive as a speech in this sense, and I
can best illustrate it by the new bride when she made her first attempt at
baking biscuits. When the young husband tried them and made such an
agonized face she was filled with dismay and she said did I put something
in that made them like this, or that I left out? And he said, oh darling,
it's what you left out that made them taste like this. So it was what was
left out of that speech that really range the bell with me.
Now, you remember, he spoke about those wooden soldiers in Vietnam.
He spoke about the wooden soldiers and the status quo. And of sourse I'll
have something to say about status quo a little bit later, but I just warrb
FORD
GERALD
IBRAR
to point out to you when you talk about those wooden Republican soldiers,
don't forget those are the soldiers who have been standing behind the
President doing all this difficulty in Vietnam. His own troops of course
have been polting and pummeling him on the Senate floor and on TV and in
committee sessions, but generally speaking, the wooden soldiers have not
only been sustaining the Commander-in-Chief, but we have been sustaining
the live soldiers in Vietnam, which is infinitely more important.
Now I'd like to hear a little something from my distinguished
associate here, Gerald Ford.
MR. FORD: Well, Senator Dirksen, I'm sure you and I agree that
this 90th Congress in 1967 has been a good Congress. The President himself
recognised that and said this has been a productive Congress and Senator
Mike Manafield, the Democratic Leader in the Senate, just the other day said
that this had been a good, decent, respectable Cengress, and I agree with him
100 percent.
I think we've made a very impressive record in this session of the
Congress, and I like to believe and I think it's a fact that this Congress
has made a good record, primarily because the American people sent to the
Congress in November 1966, 47 more Republicans in the House of Representatives
and Ev you got a few more troops in the United States Senate.
I can reeall very vividly in the middle of the 1965 session of the
89th Congress that Senator Manafield made this appraisal of the last Congress.
Senator Manafield said that the Congress had passed a lot of major bills too
hastily with too many loopholes and too many rough corners, and particularly
it had violated any assessment of the current and ultimate cost of these
programs. That was a pretty bad record, the 89th Congress.
GERALD
Now that Congress didn't heed the advice of Senator Mansfield
and so the American voters in November 1966 made some changes and I think
the changes have been for the good because this Congress has passed for the
first time a spending limitation that reduces the budget by law that
President Johnson sent to the Congress. This Congress has also passed a
good Social Security Bill that gives greater benefits to our senior eitizens
without opposing the onerous taxes that President Johnson recommended. This
Congress has also passed a good comprehensive health act; it's called the
"Partnership In Health Act" that gives to the states the money and tools
to attack the problem of narcotic addistion, rat eradication and other
matters. This Congress has also passed a law to give clean meat to the
American people and I must say that the Republicans have supported all
of these bills, practically 99 persent.
We passed a Clean Air Act with Republican support of 100 percent.
We passed a bill, Flamable Fabrics Bill, with 100 persent Republican support.
This has been a Congress that's been productive from the point of view of
the consumer, the tax payer and others. If I could just take a minute to
talk about the House of Representatives with our 47 new members. We
passed eight strong measures that I think are indicative of what the
American people want. We passed a Criminal Law Enforcement and Jutice
Act. We took the President's rather mild and meek bill and made it #
meaningful legislation with 99 persent Republican support. We passed a
Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act, again 99 persent of the Resblicans
supported it. We passed Federal Anti-Riot Legislation with a 99 persent
Republican vote. We passed Adult Education Legislation. We passed a law
that would prevent the desecration of the American Flag. We passed
GERALD LIBRARY
legislation for equal benefits for the veterans of the Vistnam War, and
we passed legislation extablishing an Independent Maritime Administration
to help belster our maritime forces throughout the world. We put curbs on
nondefense expenditure.
Senator, this is n good Congress and it's because the American
people made some changes from the last one.
SEN. DIRKSEN: Jerry, I've got to got back to the bride's biscuits
and what was left out. Has it oscurred to you that the President never
mentioned farmers once in that speech. If he did, I haven't found it.
And yet here are the tillers of the soil all over the country who have
been struggling with prices that are way below parity, probably the lowest
in a great many years, and at the same time they've got the problem of
inflated prices for the machinery they have to buy and all the things you
have to use when you're running a farm enterprise. Ish't it rather singular
that somehow that was left out of the biscuits; I don't know why. He didn't
say much about foreign aid.
Well, for the first time, this Congress has really come to grips
with foreign aid in a great big way, and I think in so doing they were
responsive to the country. Why, we've been at this business for 22 years
and last year I toted up the total amount. We've spent about 140 billion
dollars. Now it was time for a look-see. We all thought so, and the
House of Representatives particularly thought so and really put its teeth
into it. They came off first best in the struggle with the Senate. Now
we finished action on that and it's down to manageable proportions, what
a Senator once referred to as "frying size," probably the smallest amount
for foreign aid in at least 20 years.
Now nothing was said very much about that. That was simply
FORD LIBRARY
-5-
left out of the biscuits.
But I must get around now to this question of debt and this
question of the deficit. You see, the debt goes up and crime goes up,
the value of gold seems to go down, purchasing power of the money goes
down. Now Jerry you've been active in this whole fiscal field and you may
like to say something about debt and deficits and about the buget. I see
you have the budget here.
MR. FORD: Ev, we Republicans are against the status quo on the
handling of our Federal fiscal affairs. We are soldiers fighting the
Johnson Administration's inflation, the Johnson Administration high interest
rates. We believe the American people deserve a better deal. Ev, I brought
with me a dollar bill. Since a Republican left the White House about seven
years ago, the purchasing power of this dollar bill has gone down 13 percent.
Just to give you another indication, the cost of living in 1966
went up 3.3 percent. The cost of living this year, everyone estimates, will
probably be close to 4 percent, and in the next year it appears that the
cost of living might even be higher than that.
Well, I think the American people deserve a better break and we
as Republicans are fighting to do something about inflation, the higher and
higher cost of living and the high interest rates. Talking about high
interest rates, let me point out that just a week or so ago our Government,
Uncle Sam, sold Federal securities and paid 6.4 percent interest, the highest
in 100 years. Now this problem is created, I think, by the fact that the
Administration has failed to manage effectively and responsibly our Federal
taxes and our Federal expenditures.
I do have in my hand a copy of the Federal Budget for 1968, that's
FORD 3 LIBRARY GERALD
-
this fiscal year. We think the mismanagement of this budget had precipitated
high interest rates, inflation, but let me point out the problem that we
face in the Congress. When the President submitted this budget to us in
Jamuary he said the deficit would be 8.1 billion dollars. In August he
finally conceded that the deficit would be 29 billion dollars and just a.
few weeks ago the President (I think quite irrespensively) said the deficit
might reach as high as 35 billion dollars.
The trouble is we just cannot believe the mathematics that they
this year
submit to us every year in January, and the situation was almost as bad/as
it was last year. But you know, with all the errors they' ve made in that
budget, I often wonder what would happen, Ev, to a taxpayer If he made those
kind of mistakes on his Federal Income Tax Return. I think any ordinary
taxpayer would really be in trouble.
Now when we e ome right down to it, the Repblicans for the last
three years have tried to make specific, constructive recommendations to
attack inflation and high interest rates. The Coordinating Committee, of
which both you and I are members, recomended in 1965 a 9-point program
to straighten out the fiscal problems that we face. The Coordinating
Committee in April 1966 made a 13-point recomendation to fight inflation,
high interest rates. We in the House of Representatives have been trying to
out Federal expenditures as you have in the Senate. We believe we have a
better solution to the problems facing this nation, the loss in purchasing
power. We believe it's better to reduce expenditures than to pass the
President's tax increase.
SEN. DIRKSEN: In his speech, Jerry, the President said #I shall
advance." Well, if you're going to complete that thought so far as we're
&
concerned, we too like to advance, but not contimually on borrowed money
and a big deficit which is the hole in the doughmut, and a constantly rising
debt. I remember some years age I was on a platform in New York with three
governors and one got up and said wouldn't it be wonderful if our great,
great grandshildren could be here tonight and help us celebrate as we spend
thir money, the money that they're going to have to pay back with a high
interest rate. That would really be something now.
MR. FORD: Do you realise, (I'm sure you do) Senator, that in the
last 6 or 7 years since a Republican left the White House, there have been
accumulated deficits in the Federal Government of over 60 billion dollars.
SEN. DIRKSEN: Pm fully aware of it. But Jerry I can't forget
now, since we have to watch the time a little, we have to be thinking not
only of those wooden soldiers who've been standing up behind the live
soldiers in Vietnam, 475,000, but I think of that buggy that the President
referred to. That buggy that was running downhill. Well, you know it's
rather interesting to contemplate that old buggy and even thinking of old
dobbin in front of that buggy because all this session we've been struggling
with our buggy to pull that 500 horsepower "great society" special out
of the fiscal mudhole, just exactly as you described it a moment ago. So
let them make light of the wooden soldiers and that buggy, but it somes in
very useful when we get into a hols.
But now you mentioned status quo a moment ago. He said the
wooden soldiers of the status que, Well I heard two fellows talking about
this and are said, Joe what is that business, that status quo. Well, he said,
Sam, that's Latin for the fix we're in and are we in a fix? Well you can
recite than as well as I can: the imbalance of payments runs into the
billions down, down, down and it's & terribly serious business right now.
Our gold is down 4½ billion since 1961 and they're talking now abat taking
the gold cover off the Federal Reserve notes. But the debt goes up while
the gold goes down.
MR. FORD: And prices go up.
SEN. DIRKSEN: Yeah, and crime goes up.
MR. FORD: May I say a word about crime, Senator? I think it's
interesting to point out the problem we face in crime. In the last 8 years
our population has gone up 10 percent, but in the last 8 years the crime in
this country has gone up 67 percent. The FBI reported just the other day
that crime in this country has gone up in 9 months of 1967, 15 percent. of
course we're all familiar with the 120 or more riots in our major metro-
politan areas in 1967, where I think 118 people lost their lives, where
millions and millions of dollars in damage was done to public and private
property. Yes, we're against this kind of a status quo. The Republicans
are righting to do something about the crime problem.
Now the President early this year sent up a bill to try and have
the Federal Government involve itself in the crime problem. Well, the House
of Representatives under Republican Leadership threw out the President's
crime bill and we passed a meaningful piece of legislation that does away
with the President's demand which was in effect for a Federal police force
under the control of the Attorney General. Our bill, as we passed it, does
give to the states Federal funds and Federal guidance, providing each state
does have a state plan coordinating the local police organisations with the
state police organizations. We think that the Regblican answer to crime is
a constructive one, I'm proud to say that 99 perdent of the Republicans in
the House supported this bill, rather than the one that the President
GERALD LIBRARY
recommended.
SEN. DIRKSEN: Jerry, I would put in there: the bill is pending
over in the Senate Judiciary Committee. We believe it's subject to further
improvement. We believe we ought to deal with the so-called Miranda case,
the Mallory rule passed on by the Supreme Court, because the law enforcing
authorities in this country, the policementand the sheriffs, have got to
have something more than an equal break with the oriminal, and we're determined
that it's going to be a better bill than what we've had heretofore.
Now there's one thing I don't want to get away from. I notice
(and I have the speech here) and speaking now about these wooden soldiers,
"they close their ears and ranks; vote after vote lined up like wooden soldiers
of the status quo; 93 percent voted to kill this, 90 percent to kill that, 66
percent to kill this." Well semebody ought to tell the whole story. This is
another one of those things that was left out of the biscuits because when
you vote on a motion to send a bill back to Committee, it's not to kill its
it's to improve it, and let the Committee work its will and do it rather than
be
try to amend the bill oft times that may/prolix in character on the Senate
floor. Am I right or am I wrong?
MR. FORD: You're absolutely sorrest, Senator. We've talked abot
the good things this Congress has done, primarily, we believe, because of
the increased mmbers of the Republican Party that the American people in
33 states sent to us to help us in this battle against the Johnson Administration's
status quo. But the job of this Congress is not yet completed. We think
this Congress should write a good record as a reform Congress. For example,
we believe that there should be clean election legislation. We've been
operating in this country for a number of years with antiquate, out-dated
election legislation. In the House of Representatives the Republicans have
⑉10⑉
really carried the ball to try and got neaningful, effective legislation
so we could have clean Federal elections in the Presidential race, in the
Senate races and in the House races. We believe that there should be strict
disclosure as to funds received by candidates and to the expenditures that
are made on behalf of a candidate.
Unfortunately, under existing law that is not thecase. We strongly
disagree with the President's proposal which is to finance elections out of
the Federal Treasury. We think that's the wrong way to get the public
interested in good Government.
SEN. DIRKSEN: Jerry, that's another item that did not go in the
biscuits because we struggled with that in the Senate Finance Committee for
the longest time and it hasn't hit the light of ddy yet in the form of a public
law. I'm rather confident that it won't before we get all through.
Now there's one other thing on which I think a cament is forth-
sending. They talked about these wooden soldiers. You've got 47 new members
in that last election and certainly they probably were a little agrieved by
that. You may want to make a. little commentabout it because if I were a
freshman Congressman, had done my best, stood by what I thought was the
interest of the country and my Party as well, I wouldn't like the kind of a
comment at all. So what do you want to say about your 47 new troops that
you've got over there last year?
MR. FORD: Well, Ev, they're attractive, they' re articulate, they're
vigorous, they've got lots of good idease. One of the things that they pushed
the hardest on (and I'm proud of their efforts and of the results), they said
we should establish in the House of Representatives a code of ethics for
members of Congress. They took the lead in getting the Congress, or the
-11-
House of Representatives, to establish a committee on official conduct. That
sommittee, as a result of the efforts on our side and the help of Democrate,
has put together and is about to announce 8. code of ethics for members of the
House of Representatives. We think this is overdue, necessary and I think it
will be effective.
This new group of Republicans, Ev, they're a very vigorous lot.
They sometimes come up with ideas that should have been thought of before
and believe me, they're a very helpful group when we shallenge the status quo
of the Johnson Administration on fiscal matters, on crime and law enforcement,
on other matters. I just hope that in the next election the American people
will send to us an additional 31 Republicans in the House of Representatives,
so that we can continue the job of trying to straighten out some of the basic
problems, to try and get away from the status que that we're in today.
SEN. DIRESEN: Jerry, that hints to me another thing, that isn't
too often thought about when they assess and appraise a Congress. Sometimes
there are intangibles that are extremely important, and I think there are some
in this Congress. First we had what you might call the moral problem of
dealing with human conduct in its breadest aspect, and we took action. In
your body on the Powell matter and our body on the Dodd matter, But there's
another thing. You remember they refer to Congress so often as a rubber stamp
Congress. For the first time in years this has been the assertive, aggressive
Congress that has really gone to bat to retrieve its Constitutional position.
Don't forget, when they wrote that Constitution they made the Legislative
Branch first. That's Article 1 in the Constitution. There was a reason for
it. President Monroe said that's the core of Government, and it is the core
of Government with all thesd powers, and it's the exclusive law-making branch
GERALD LIBRARY
-12-
and has explusive power over the purse and they're about to retrieve it and
take it back and to exercise it. That is one of the intangibles.
There are others just as well and I do not let to see those go
by when they go to assessing a Congress and add up the total and say well
this is what we passed and this is how much it cost and this group got that
and this group got that and that group got that. We're interested inwhat
the country gots and generally speaking in the vitality of the country and its
survival in an anxious hour of the world.
MR. FORD: This is not a rubber stamp Congress. The last Congress
was President Johnson's Congress, but Ev, this is the Christmas season and
only minutes ago President Johnson turned the lights on on the White House
Christmas tree on behalf of all Americans. We didn't agree and frankly we
didn't like the President's unfair assessment of the 90th Congress in 1967,
but now that we have set the record straight, theye's something far more
important I would like to say.
As Republicans we're not only proud of the work that we're done
in this session of the Congress just ending, we're real proud of the Congress
itself. With increased strength as Republicans, we have immensely improved
the quality of laws under which all Americans live and we continue to play our
proper part in the Constitutional process. We hope the President and the
Judicial Branch will do the same. We're proud of the way representative
democracy works and we'll keep on fighting to make it work. We're proud of
America and we have faith in American, and with new Republican leadership in the
White House and Republican majorities in the Congress, we pledge our scuntrymen
that everybne can really be proud of being American, Let's never forget that
we're all Americans.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
-13-
On that note, Ev, Marry Christmas to you, Mr. President, and
Marry Christmas to everybody who may be listening or watching. This great,
good, compassionate and charitable land has been good to all of us.
SEN. DIRKSEN: One thought. You know, Lincoln once wrote to an
old friend and he berrowed from Chronicles this thing. He said "sometimes
it's well to stand still and see the salvation of God."
Sen. Dirksen
"In the first part of his speech, the President catalogued
innumerable benefits to be given all our people. But what happens to
all those benefits if the dollar slips in its purchasing power and
value? There are any number of fiscal authorities who fairly wring
their hands about this -- like the Chairman of the Federal Reserve
Board. He and other people knowledgeable in that field are worried
that the dollar may drop to a 40 cent value or even further before
we get through. What do you think is doing to happen then to all
those benefits that the President listed?"
"The President referred to the 'status quo' which to me and
a good may others is Latin for 'the fix we are in'. The 345 billion
dollar debt is an example. That's a 'status quo'. The probalbe
30 billion dollar debt as well. That's a 'status quo'. The increase
in crime across the country, in the cities, in the suburbs, in the
rural areas. That's a 'status quo'. These and many others are
glaring examples of the'fix we are in'."
"As for that old Republican buggy he referred to, I've been
thinking and I've remembered all of his appeals and all his Adminis-
tration's efforts directed to the Republican side of the Congress
to have this buggy pull his cromium-plated five-hundred-horse-power
'Great Society Special' out of the mud. He may make light of the
old buggy but it gets no dirt in its carburetor, it gets no flat tires
its sparkplugs never fail and 1ts motor never gets out of whak.
'Get a horse!" Maybe there. is something in that old saying."
"That this has been a productive Congress is one point at
least on which we can agree with the President, but for entirely dif-
ferent reasons. It was a productive Congress, not only for what
it has done but for what it hasn't done. I make the point that when
you keep bad legislation off the books, or when you modify it very
sharply in the public interest that that's a real service and it
makes a productive Congress. It was a productive Congress. It was
a productive Congress because the Congress asserted itself as no
other Congress has done in a long time. It's been determined to
recapture its Constitutional place in the sun because the Constition
makes it the exclusive law-making body in the government and it
has the exclusive power of the purse."
EXCERPTS FROM COMMENTS OF SENATOR DIRKSEN IN THE RPEUBLICAN LEADER
SHIP REPLY TO THE PRESIDENT -- ABC, CBS, NBC TELEVISION NETWORKS --
DECEMBER 15, 1967, 7 to 7:30 p.m.
RELEASE 7 pm DECEMBER 15, 1967
"The President's speech in 1ami brought to mind a little story
about the bride who made her first biscuits and when her husband tried
them with an agonizing expression, she was filled with dismay. She
said, "Did I put something in that I shouldn't have?" "Oh, darling,"
he said, "it isn't what you put in, it's what you left out. So this
speech was impressive, somewhat at least, for what it left out."
"I wonder if it had occurred to the President that these wooden
soldiers, as he called us, are the same Congressional soldiers that
stood squarely behind our soldiers on the line when many of his own
troops in the House and Senate were flaying him day him day after day
on Viet Nam -- not only in the House and Senate, but over TV and radio
These soldiers of his didn't give their Commander-in-Chief much
comfort!"
"Still another area in which the 'wooden soldiers' have done a
good job is that of law enforcement. The Crime Control Bill the
Administration wanted was blocked simply because it would have given
the Attorney General a whole hatful of money to distribute to law
enforcement agencies, but virtually cutting out the Governors and
authorities at the state level. Is that any way to bring about law
enforcement in this country?"
"Again, it's not what the President said, it's what he didn't
say that was really impressive, such as the subject of foreign aid.
I think that both the Congress and the country -- the taxpayers --
have had an abiding interest in the 140 billion dollars of our money
that we have doled out on foreign aid and have decided that some-
thing ought to be done aobout. it: the smallest foreign aid appro-
priation bill in the last 20 years. This is to the credit of the
Congress and, I think, to the comfort of the country. The President's
speech didn't make not e of this."
"I noticed other glaring ommissions of his. I found no
reference to the public debt or to the probable deficit of 30 billion
dollars this year. Deficit, you know, is that ducky word for spending
more than you take in. Nor did I find any reference to his tax
increase proposal, which started out on such an adventurous career and
came to naught."
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE AT 7:00 P. M., EST--
Friday, December 15, 1967
Excerpts from the comments of Representative Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., House
Republican Leader, on the Republican Leadership of the Congress' reply to
President Johnson over ABC, CBS and NBC Television Networks, 7:00 to 7:30 P.M.,
EST, December 15, 1967.
This Congress has been a good Congress. President Johnson admits it has
been a productive Congress. His Majority Leader in the Senate, Senator Mansfield,
says the record of this Congress has been "good, decent and respectable," and I
agree, as I'm sure Senator Dirksen does.
Congress in 1967 has been productive and constructive, primarily because
the voters of the nation in November 1966 gave us a net gain of 47 Republicans
in the House and additional strength in the Senate. These new Republicans came
from 33 states-- from the length and breadth of America. They are attractive,
articulate young men and women who are responsive to their voters and who are
fighting hard for constructive solutions to the Nation's problems at home and
abroad.
This Congress with 50 more Republicans has produced this record:
(1) Spending Limitations -- Totaling more than $4 billion from the
President's budget for fiscal 1968. This effort to
curb runaway inflation and avoid another tax increase
succeeded only because of virtually solid Republican
support.
(2) Social Security Improvements More benefits for Senior Citizens
who have been hurt by Johnson-Humphrey inflation--
without the additional payroll taxes on working citizens
that President Johnson wanted. 99% of House Republicans
supported this legislation.
(3) Comprehensive Health Legislation -- A partnership for health bill
providing funds for the federal government and the states
to attack rats and other pests, narcotics addiction, etc.
98% of Republicans supported this legislation.
(4) Clean Meat Inspection Law -- 99½% of Republicans supported.
(more)
GERALOR FORD (NBRAB)
-2-
(5) A Flamable Products Control Bill to Protect Families and Children
from Deadly Garments, Toys and Home Products -- 100%
Republican support.
(6) A Law to Clean up the Air We Breathe -- 100% Republican support.
In the House of Representatives this session, with Republicans reinforced
and on the march, we have passed many forward-looking and much-needed bills. Here
are eight of them:
(1) A Law Enforcementand Criminal Justice Assistance Act -- Modified
to permit state and local agencies to play their right-
ful role -- 99% Republican support.
(2) Juvenile Deliquency Prevention and Control Legislation -- 991/2%
Republican support.
(3) Federal Anti-Riot Legislation -- 99% Republican support.
(4) Adult Education Legislation -- 100% Republican support.
(5) Law to Stop Desecration of the American Flag -- 100% Republican
support.
(6) Equal Benefits for Vietnam Veterans and Their Families -- 100%
Republican support.
(7) Independent Maritime Administration Legislation -- Opposed by the
Johnson-Humphrey Administration but backed by 97% of
House Republicans to try to salvage the neglected U.S.
Merchant Marine.
(8) Curbs on Excessive Non-Defense Spending -- Federal spending in 1960
under the last Republican Administration was $48.6 billion.
Estimated non-defense spending for fiscal 1968 is nearly
double that figure--$95.6 billion. The accumulative
federal deficit since President Johnson entered the
White House is expected to exceed $60 billion. As a
result, the U.S. dollar is in trouble abroad and buys
less and less at home.
Ev, this is the Christmas season, and only minutes ago President Johnson
turned the lights on the White House Christmas tree on behalf of all Americans.
Now that we've set the record straight, there's something far more important I'd
like to say. As Republicans, we're not only proud of the work we've done in the
session just ending, we're proud of the Congress itself. With increased strength
we have immensely improved the quality of laws under which all Americans live, and
we intend to continue to play our proper part in the constitutional process of
government. We hope the President and the Judicial Branch will play theirs. We're
proud of the way representative democracy works, and we'll keep on fighting to make
it work. We're proud of America and have faith in America, and with new Republican
leadership in the White House and Republican Majorities in the Congress we pledge
our countrymen that everyone can be really proud of being an American. Let's
never forget that we are all Americans and on that note, Merry Christmas to you,
Mr. President, and Merry Christmas to everybody in this great, good, compassionate
and charitable land.
Good night.