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
4525764
label
House Speech Veracity and Defense Spending, August 28, 1960
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525764
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
House Speech Veracity and Defense Spending, August 28, 1960
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Department of Defense. 9/18/1947-
Federal budget
National security
Political party platforms
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525764
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1960-08-31
month
8
year
1960
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1960-08-01
month
8
year
1960
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
590e92d32d6788a5
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D15, folder "House Speech Veracity and Defense Spending,
August 28, 1960" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 D15 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
veracity Defence spending
REMARKS ON FLOOR OF HOUSE BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, JR.
Monday, August 28, 1960
Mr. Speaker.
I feel that it is disturbing and demoralising to the American public
for a political party to write a platform containing inaccurate statements.
We find fourteen such insccurate statements incorporated into the Democrat
Platform as adopted recently at Los Angeles.
Is this an example of the "Now Frontiersmanship" to which Democrate
hope to attract forward-looking Americans? Perhaps it might be better
described as an example of a "Now Gemesmanship" to hoodwink Americans.
Republican Congressmen have united in OPERATION-VERACITE in order to
pur ge the record of the Democrat platform of 14 inaccurate statements. We
heard the Gentleman from Arisona expose the first inaccuracy today by
pointing out balanced budgets in fiscal years 1956, 1957 and 1960, thus
exposing the inaccuracy of the Democrat claim that over the past 71 years
the Republicans had failed to balance the budget. This claim just does
not hold up in light of factual analysis.
I would like to call your attention to snother Democrat platform
ALD FORD
statement which even more lacks authenticity, accuracy and even plausibility:
-- 2
"They (the Republicans) have also admitted that our conventional
military forces, on which we depend for defense in any non-nuclear
war, have been dangerously slashed for reasons of 'economy'--and
that they have no plans to reverse this trend."
Mr. Speaker, I challenge the authors of the Deporatic platform to
produce the Administration statements which admit that our conventional
military forces have been slashed for reasons of economy. If no such state-
ments are available, then why place this distorted claim in their platform?
Because, obviously, they did not want to insert in their partisan
document s correct statement, which might have read instead:
"They (the Republicans) have ended the peaks and valleys
characteristic of the preparedness program of previous adminis-
trations and have developed both our conventional and nuclear
capabilities as well as aided in development of over 200 allied
divisions and 250 global bases. Our military posture, in
conjunetion with our alliance system, has deterred both nuclear
and conventional war, a deterrence of which our military posture
and alliance system was not capable in 1950."
Mr. Speaker, now I will address myself to the question of whether our
conventional military forces, on which we depend for defense in any non-
nuclear war, have been dangerously slashed.
First, let us take AIRPOWER.
FOND LIB ($)
- 3 --
Our bombers have the capability of conventional bombing as well as
nuclear bombing. Since 1953 our heavy bomber force has almost doubled, while
in effectiveness their capabilities have increased mmy-fold. For in 1953
our mainstay was the old B-36 and the still older B-29's. Perhaps the
Democrat platform means to complain that we slashed production of B-36's in
order to produce B-47's, B-52's and B-58's, as well as nearly doubling our
bomber force. If so, they criticise progress leading to greater airpower
for our dollars.
Next, let us consider NAVAL POWER.
When President Eisenhower took office, not one single modern first-line
ship had joined the Fleet since the end of the World War II construction
program, with the exception of a few destroyer-type vessels. Since 1953,
however, this Administration has provided for approximately 50 new guided
missile ships and approximately the same number of nuclear-powered vessels.
The aircraft carrier, one of the mainstays of both our conventional and nuclear
war capabilities, is a complete void in the Soviet arsenal of naval power. In
contrast, we presently have fourteen carriers, with more on the way.
FORD
How can the Democrat platform framers complain that this naval GREAT buildup
LIBRARY
-- 4 -
represents a slash of conventional war forces?
Finally, let us examine LAND POWER.
Our forward strategy aimed at repelling any Soviet or Red Chinese
aggression directed at any part of our free world alliance system is in
refreshing contrast with a fortress America appreach, which would result
in disgngagement from both our alliance obligations and our determination
to resist Soviet aggression--in Korea, in Formes, in Berlin or in any
other portion of the Free World.
Certainly our Administration has not been satisfied with merely
maintaining our 570,000-mm Army, our 175,000-man Marine Corps, our 300,000-
man Army Reserve, our 45,000-man Marine Reserves and our 400,000-mm Army
National Guard. Since our reaction must be quick and since ground-power
must be generated at the spots of potential aggression, we have augmented
our forces with the world-wide collective defense of over 5 million men,
25,000 planes and 2,200 combat ships.
Mr. Speaker, all of these forces become a part of our conventional war
deterrent. They have been built up since 1953, at which time we lacked SEATO
alliance in the Far East, and when we not only lacked a consistent long-range
BRARY
- 5 --
defense policy but also were pinned down in the wrong war, at the wrong
place and at the wrong time.
I submit that anyone who feels that our 900 ships, 35,000 planes and
over 2 million men are mere byproducts of nuclear deterrence and that they
make no great contribution to conventional forces simply do not understand
the strategy of a flexibile deterrent policy. As General Taylor stated,
"If one regards the force structure of our three services, one finds that
nearly all the Army and Marine Corps, much of the Tactical Air Force, some
of the Navy's carriers, and large parts of our strategic air and sea lift
must be associated with limited war forces and are available in any emergency."
In further consideration of the Democrat charge that our conventional
military forces have been dangerously slashed for reasons of economy, I
would like to insert in the Record at this point a statement from a recent
publication of the Institute for Strategic Studies in London, entitled, "The
Soviet Union and the NATO powers: The Military Balance." The statement
points out the weskness of NATO ten years ago, and its great comparative
strength today:
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
"Ten years ago, when the North Atlantic Treaty was signed in
Washington, the military position of the Western powers was very
wesk. Most of the ground forces available were badly equipped
-- 6 --
and were deployed not for defence but for occupation duties. Less
than 1,000 operational aircraft were available in Europe, and only
about 20 airfields. Now, as the facts below indicate, the defensive
position of the NATO powers in Europe, although in cestain respects
it leaves much to be desired, has changed out of all regognition.
The ground forces in the Central area have been built up to about 2/3
of the planned goal of 30 divisions, and equipped with nuclear ground-
to-ground and ground-to-air missiles. The air forces in Europe of
the NATO powers can now muster about 5,000 tactical aircraft
(strategie bombers remain under national control) which operate from
some 220 operational bases. Joint production in NATO countries of
modern weapons such as the Hawk and Sidewinder is about to begin, while
a project for a NATO tank is under discussion."
Next, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the Democrat-controlled
Congresses for six fiscal years have slashed the attempts of the Republican
President to increase further our defense posture. I request unsn imous consent
to include in the Record at this point a table reflecting the slashes of $3.4
billion made by Democrat-controlled Congresses in the defense requests of
the President from fiscal year 1955 through 1960.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE: PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUESTS AND CONGRESSIONAL
APPROPRIATIONS, FY 1955-60. IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
From chart supplied by Assistant Secretary of Defense Lincoln
DOD Hearings, House, FY 1961, III, 115-7.
FISCAL YEAR
REQUEST
APPROPRIATION
NET CHANGE
1955
30,942
29,583
-1,359
1956
33,700
33,082
-618
1957
35,197
36,134
plus937
1958
39,257
36,648
1959
40,830
FORD LIBRARY
-2,609
41,232
plus 402
1960
40,811
40,592
-219
OVERALL,55-60
220,738
217,271
-3.467
-- 7 --
Mr. Speaker, to sum up:
The Democrat platform has made an insecurate statement that Republicans
have admitted "that our conventional military forces ...
have been dangerously
slashed for reasons of 'economy'." I ask the Democrate this--to what source
in this Administration can they attribute such a statement? As a matter of
record, a 15-member task force of the House Republican Policy Committee stated
on June 20, 1960, that "we can afford all the defense that is needed, if we
will soundly finance the full cost." Furthermore, in the Republican platform
ratified by delegates at Chicago, our official statement of policy for the
future, we affirmed that "there is no price ceiling on America's security."
I would also assert that this Administration has vastly increased the
total capability of the free world to resist Communist aggression, conventional
or nuclear. In 1953, we and our allies were weak in conventional war capabili-
ties. In Europe and in Asia, our conventional war capabilities were being
sucked into the Korean War in a manner that left freedom of action to the
Communists. In contrast, I now note that even Senator Kennedy told the VFW
last Friday in Detroit that we were first in military power in the world.
Air Force magazine recently gave an example of how this
Administra- LD FORD LIBRARY
-- 8 --
tion changed vascillation to victory in the field of intereontinental
ballistic missiles. Dr. Vennevar Bush, wartine Director of the Office of
Scientific Research and Development, said in 1945 that a 3,000 mile rocket
was impossible and would be for years to come. He stated that "people have
been talking about a 3,000-mile high-angle rocket, shot from one continent
to another.
...
I say, technically, I don't think anybody in the world
knows how to do a thing.
...
I wish the American people would leave it
out of their thinking."
The Eisenhower Administration ended this negative policy. By 1954, Dr.
Von Neumann told the Air Force they could achieve an operational ICBM in from
6 to 9 years, provided an all-out devel opment effort was initiated immediately.
We not only achieved operational status of the Atlas in 5 years instead of 6-9,
but also have vastly improved the 5,500 range set by the Von Neumann committee
as well as more than halving their 5-mile accuracy goal.
Mr. Speaker--we have not slashed, we have surpassed. We have not faltered,
we have achieved. American strategy and strength is secure today despite the
sorry state of our defenses in 1953, despite the budget outs of a Democrat-
controlled Congress, and despite the insccuracies of the 1960 Democrat platform.
RARY
Defense sprd
From the office of Rep. Gerald R. Ford, Jr.
For 10:30 a.m. release,
Monday, August 29.
Rep. Gerald R. Ford, Jr., of Michigan, today refuted a statement contained
in the 1960 Democratic platform which claimed that "they (the Republicans) have
also admitted that our conventional military forces
...
have been dangerously
slashed for reasons of economy." Ford, ranking minority member of the Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee in the House, asserted in contrast that "we have not
slashed--we have surpassed. We have not faltered-we have achieved. American
strategy and strength is secure today despite the sorry state of our defenses
in 1953, despite the budget cuts of a Democrat-controlled Congress, and despite
the inaccuracies of the 1960 Democrat platform."
Congressman Ford was one of 14 Congressmen uniting in "Operation Veracity"
in order to purge the record of the Democrat platform of certain inaecurate
statements. He enumerated the Republican Administration's record in air, sea
and land power, showing how both our own conventional war deterrent and the
world-wide collective defense of over 5 million men, 25,000 planes and 2,200
combat ships have vastly increased "the total capability of the Free World
to resist Communist aggression, conventional or nuclear."
AS for the Democrat claims of economy overriding security, Ford mentioned
that a recent task force of the House Republican Policy Committee stated that
"we can afford all the defense that is needed, if we will soundly finance the
full cost", and also cited the Republican platform for 1960, in which the
delegates affirmed that "there is no price ceiling on America's security."
One example of Administration progress given by Rep. Ford was the operational
Atlas ICBM. The Von Neumann Committee, in 1954, told the Air Force they could
achieve operational status of a 5,500-mile ICBM with a 5-mile accuracy goal within
6-9 years. Instead, we achieved Atlas operational status in 5 years, with a range
far greater and an accuracy far more precise than the Committee's predictions,
This type of thinking and action, according to Ford, marked a change from that of
the Truman Administration. In 1945, for example, Dr. Vannevar Bush stated that
a 3,000 mile rocket was impossible, and that "I don't think anybody in the world
knows how to do such a thing.
...
I wish the American people would leave it out
of their thinking." This, to Ford, illustrates the change from vascillation to
victory.
Rep. Ford concluded that despite cuts of $3.4 billion in the President's defense
budget by a Democratic-controlled Congress, our present Administration has "ended
the peaks and valleys characteristic
...
of previous administrations.
Our
military posture has deterred both nuclear and conventional war, a deterrence of
LIBRARY
which our military posture and alliance system was not capable in 1950."