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.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4525692
label
House Speech House Appropriations, June 12, 1951
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525692
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
House Speech House Appropriations, June 12, 1951
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Appropriations and expenditures
Waterways
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525692
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1951-06-30
month
6
year
1951
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1951-06-01
month
6
year
1951
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
b5ea11c6d2e61a16
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D14, folder "House Speech House
Appropriations, June 12, 1951" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 D14 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE GERALD R. FORD, JR., MEMBER OF
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CIVIL FUNCTIONS OF HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS IN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 1951
MR. SPEAKER - - It is easy to talk about economy in government; it is
difficult to achieve it. The Committee on Appropriations has been sincere
and homest in its study of requests from the Department of the Army to carry
on its civil functions. This is the work done by the Corps of Engineers.
The original request by President Truman was for more than $640,000,000; the
bill being considered today totals about $514,000,000. The committee has
thus made about a 20 per cent reduction below the President's budget. This
is the way to reduce the costs of government. In my estimation the committee
is to be commended for its work on behalf of the American taxpayers.
To achieve this very substantial reduction it has been necessary to
eliminate funds entirely for some of the 110 projects recommended by the
White House. For many other projects it has been necessary to slow down
the work. But, I ask you, by what other means are you going to reduce the
costs of government? The American people as a whole simply have to be satis-
fied with less in the way of public works. Sacrifices all along the line must
be made. Each projected considered and recommended by the committee is worth-
while; each one will provide benefits exceeding costs. This must be the case
not only legally but economically.
In order to make the savings that have been made and to bring to the
House a bill which it can accept, our subcommittee of the Appropriations
Committee has had to make very difficult decisions. Obviously it has been
necessary to weigh the importance of this project against the importance
of that one. Our criteria was simply this. Where could the maximum of savings
FORD i LIBRARI GERALD
Page Two
be made with the minimum of sacrifice? It hasn't been any easy job, not by
any means. But I do say that it has been done objectively, sincerely and
honestly by the five members of the Civil Functions subcommittee.
The committee knows very well that the reductions it has made may
not be entirely acceptable to every Member of this House. One or more of the
projects eliminated or curtailed may be in your District. You have fought
hard for it from the beginning and now you don't want it stopped or slowed
down. But again, I must remind you that if savings in the cost of government
are to be made, sacrifices have to be made. Locally a certain project may
have great attraction, but when considered from a national point of view its
importance may be much less. And that is just what the Committee on Appropria-
tions must do - it must adopt an over-all perspective. It must weigh the
relative advantages of this project against that one from a national viewpoint.
That is exactly what has been done in this bill. The committee could not do
otherwise and survive - it must be and has been impartial. In addition, and
this is important, the five members of the subcommittee were unanimous in
recommending this bill to the Congress.
The committee has been consistent in its action with respect to
eliminating projects. The Corps of Engineers proposed starting three new
projects in the rivers and harbors category with a total estimated cost of
$471,385,000. The request for next year's work on these three projects was
$30,000,000. The committee has recommended that none of these projects be
started in the next fiscal year. Certainly, these projects are desirable and
when completed would add to the nation's assets. But the point is this:
Once started the Congress on these three projects would be committed to
very heavy future appropriations - nearly half a billion dollars, as I have
Page Three
already indicated. It was the considered judgment of the committee that under
present conditions the government could not and should not assume such an
obligation.
Similarly, there were several projects that had progressed to a
point where suspension of operations at this time would not seriously impair
their usefulness. Again it was realized that under different world and domestic
conditions it might be desirable to complete the work. But today we must cut
government costs, SO the committee selected with great care those projects on
which work could be logically and economically suspended. The reductions thus
achieved totaled a little over $8,000,000. Sooner or later it will be necessary
to appropriate funds to complete these projects already under way.
The committee also concluded that some projects could be slowed down
and has recommended smaller appropriations than requested by the President.
This accounts for several million dollars savings for rivers and harbors alone,
and becomes a substantial figure when applied to flood control projects in
addition.
The same general procedure was followed with respect to flood control
projects. All new projects were rejected for the identical reasons discussed
above. In the same way several projects will be slowed or stopped completely
where that can be accomplished without serious impairment to work already done.
The justification advanced for many of these projects, and especially
the new ones, was the contribution they would make to national defense. This is
an appealing argument but not always cogent. For many projects the benefits
to be derived would become available in five, six, even eight years hence. I
do not deny that it may be desirable to have these projects ready for use and
FORD production at those future dates, but we must realize that a state of national
GERALD
emergency also exists right now. It is entirely possible that the immediate drain
Page Four
on our steel supplies, labor force, and other equipment to build these
structures would be very serious and would overbalance benefits to be derived
several years hence. We all hope most sincerely that the present national
and international crisis will be of short duration and if such proves to
be the case then the present drain on our economy would be difficult to justify.
If the duration of the current emergency is short, then there is ample time
to start construction of these projects which have been eliminated as well as
complete the projects now suspended.
The arguments with respect to those projects whose progress will be
retarded are much the same. Many scarce materials can be diverted to other
and more important uses. It is also possible that the generally tight labor
market can be eased if the work of the Corps of Engineers is curtailed some-
what. This would be especially true in certain areas of the country. It is
not anticipated that the really important and vital parts of any projects
will be seriously delayed. It makes relatively little difference, for example,
whether the corps buys a few less acres of land for a particular project this
year or next, or whether a highway is relocated in the next fiscal year or
the one following. It might be desirable to maintain a production schedule,
but not to do so will, in many cases, have relatively little effect on the
project, at least for a year or SO.
The committee could have gone much further in reducing the appropria-
tions for the Corps of Engineers, as, indeed, it did during World War II.
During that period practically all work of this agency was stopped, and
that was fitting and proper, and I might add, essential, I do not doubt
for a moment but what Congress would do the same thing again if an all-out
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Page Five
mobilization effort became necessary. In fact, there would be no
alternative. However, I don't think it can be argued that such drastic
action is either desirable or called for under present day conditions,
There are undoubtedly those, both in and out of government, who think
the committee has been too liberal in its recommendations. I can under-
stand their reasoning but unless conditions become more severe it seems
to me that the bill recommended can be justified. In the light of the cur-
rent world situation, however, I think it would be very difficult to argue
for a larger appropriation.
Inevitably as soon as pet projects are brought up for discussion
welfish or partisan viewpoints are expressed. We in the Congress and the
American people generally immediately are faced with the ever-present problem--
"I believe in government economy SO long as my interests are not affected."
We simply cannot have both a defense economy and business as usual. Many
of the projects in the total program of the Corps of Engineers falls within
the category of "business as usual. II Some of its work must be postponed
SO that greater efforts can be made in the direction of national defense.
There may be room for further cuts; there is no room for upward revision.
Frankly, it just isn't in the cards.
The bill is before you for action. It is a good bill. It is not
"pork-barrel" legislation. The work of the Appropriations Committee should
be affirmed. To do this requires that all of us put national interests above
local interests. If a pet project in any Congressional district is to be
delayed somewhat, then the sacrifice in local benefits is made solely in behalf
of greater national welfare. I am confident the American people will unsel-
fishly accept the recommendations of the subcommittee on Civil Functions
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Page Six
and the full Committee on Appropriations. It is the responsibility and
obligation of the House of Representatives to do likewise.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD