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
4526068
label
Chamber of Commerce Dinner, Atlanta, GA, November 27, 1967
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526068
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Chamber of Commerce Dinner, Atlanta, GA, November 27, 1967
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Economics
Federal budget
Vietnam War, 1961-1975
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526068
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1967-11-30
month
11
year
1967
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-11-01
month
11
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
b818e9d4cacc15e2
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D23, folder "Chamber of Commerce Dinner,
Atlanta, GA, November 27, 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
Distribution :Full, 11/27/67
12:00
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE AT 6:30 P.M. MONDAY--
November 27, 1967
Excerpts from a Speech by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., at a Chamber of Commerce
Dinner Monday evening, Nov. 27, 1967, in Atlanta, Georgia.
The American people are living in a crisis atmosphere--crisis at home and
crisis abroad.
They are confused and bewildered. The times cry out for strong national
leadership, a way out of the sea of troubles in which this country now is
floundering.
And this is the greatest tragedy--that a crisis of confidence compounds all
of the Nation's difficulties. There is no leader charting a clear course for the
country, no strong voice to which America's millions can respond, for the people
have lost confidence in Lyndon B. Johnson and his administration.
The latest nationwide poll by Lou Harris indicates that only 23 per cent of
the American people approve of the way Mr. Johnson is doing his job as President.
The same low rating, 23 per cent, is given Mr. Johnson's handling of the Vietnam War.
I submit that this lack of confidence in the Johnson-Humphrey Administration
stems from one major cause--that the Administration's record of performance
falls far short of its promises. Newsmen call it a "credibility gap." In fact,
CBS commentator Walter Cronkite and others have bluntly accused the Administration
of lying. I prefer to believe that this Administration has made a series of major
mistakes in judgment--so many as to cause a massive deterioration of the public
trust.
Why have the American people lost faith in their government?
We all remember that in late 1963 Secretary of Defense McNamara said that
"the major part" of America's military task in South Vietnam could be "completed
by the end of 1965." Then there were 14,000 Americans serving in Vietnam--as
advisers to Southvietnamese military commanders. Now there are some 480,000
American military personnel in Vietnam, and the President has said he will
increase this commitment to 525,000.
We all recall the statement made by Lyndon Johnson during the 1964 presi-
dential campaign--that "we don't want our American boys to do the fighting for
Asian boys" and that we don't want to "get tied down in a land war in Asia."
(more)
FORD LIBRARY
Digitized from Box D23 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
-2-
Reminded of this statement at a White House press conference last Nov. 1,
Mr. Johnson said, "There has not been a change of policy." And he added, "That
did not imply then and does not imply now that we would not do what we needed
to do to deter aggression."
For my part, I believe every American interpreted Mr. Johnson's 1964 campaign
statements to mean that he would not send hundreds of thousands of Americans to
fight a land war in Southeast Asia. And I believe Ho Chi Minh may also have
been misled into thinking America's role in Vietnam would continue to be advisory.
In fact, there may be a Credibility Gap between Hanoi and Washington as
long as Lyndon Johnson occupies the White House.
But the Credibility Gap extends beyond the Vietnam War and into many facets
of our domestic affairs.
In December, 1965, President Johnson said he was going to reduce federal
payrolls by 25,000. Instead, the Johnson-Humphrey Administration added 187,506
employes to the payroll over the next seven months. Currently civilian employ-
ment by the federal government stands at nearly 3 million. That reflects a
jump of 243,400 between June 1966 and June 1967.
In his State of the Union Message on Jan. 27, 1966, President Johnson said:
"I intend to ask the Congress to consider measures that, without improperly
invading State and local authority, will enable us to deal effectively with
strikes that may cause irreparable damage to the national interest."
That was the promise--a pledge to send recommendations to Congress aimed at
improving our handling of national emergency strikes. That was in January, 1966.
Has the President fulfilled that promise? Most emphatically not. Instead he
has so mismanaged the economy that 1967 will be a banner year for strikes and
1968 promises to set an even more damaging record.
The Congress simply has been unable to believe this Administration in fiscal
matters. Small wonder the economy is being buffeted by the winds of
uncertainty. As for the wage-earner, his paycheck is slimmer than two years
ago in terms of what it will buy.
A look at the record shows that the President forecast a $1.8 billion
deficit for fiscal 1967 but closed the books 12 months later with a $9.7 billion
deficit. Last January he predicted an $8.1 billion deficit for fiscal 1968,
but now he talks of a deficit of $30 to $35 billion.
As a good friend of Lyndon Johnson's, Walter Reuther, is fond of saying
America is in deep trouble.
(more)
-3-
I suggest the reason we are in trouble is lack of leadership and lack of
honesty in our national government. No government which lacks strong direction
at the top can long retain the trust of the American people. And without the
trust of the people, no government can succeed.
####
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE AT 6:30 P.M. MONDAY--
November 27, 1967
Excerpts from a Speech by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., at a Chamber of Commerce
Dinner Monday evening, Nov. 27, 1967, in Atlanta, Georgia.
The American people are living in a crisis atmosphere--crisis at home and
crisis abroad.
They are confused and bewildered. The times cry out for strong national
leadership, a way out of the sea of troubles in which this country now is
floundering.
And this is the greatest tragedy--that a crisis of confidence compounds all
of the Nation's difficulties. There is no leader charting a clear course for the
country, no strong voice to which America's millions can respond, for the people
have lost confidence in Lyndon B. Johnson and his administration.
The latest nationwide poll by Lou Harris indicates that only 23 per cent of
the American people approve of the way Mr. Johnson is doing his job as President.
The same low rating, 23 per cent, is given Mr. Johnson's handling of the Vietnam War.
I submit that this lack of confidence in the Johnson-Humphrey Administration
stems from one major cause--that the Administration's record of performance
falls far short of its promises. Newsmen call it a "credibility gap." In fact,
CBS commentator Walter Cronkite and others have bluntly accused the Administration
of lying. I prefer to believe that this Administration has made a series of major
mistakes in judgment--so many as to cause a massive deterioration of the public
trust.
Why have the American people lost faith in their government?
We all remember that in late 1963 Secretary of Defense McNamara said that
I
"the major part" of America's military task in South Vietnam could be "completed
by the end of 1965." Then there were 14,000 Americans serving in Vietnam--as
advisers to Southvietnamese military commanders. Now there are some 480,000
American military personnel in Vietnam, and the President has said he will
increase this commitment to 525,000.
We all recall the statement made by Lyndon Johnson during the 1964 presi-
dential campaign--that "we don't want our American boys to do the fighting for
Asian boys" and that we don't want to "get tied down in a land war in Asia."
(more)
GERALO R.FORD NERVEY
-2-
Reminded of this statement at a White House press conference last Nov. 1,
Mr. Johnson said, "There has not been a change of policy." And he added, "That
did not imply then and does not imply now that we would not do what we needed
to do to deter aggression."
For my part, I believe every American interpreted Mr. Johnson's 1964 campaign
statements to mean that he would not send hundreds of thousands of Americans to
fight a land war in Southeast Asia. And I believe Ho Chi Minh may also have
been misled into thinking America's role in Vietnam would continue to be advisory.
In fact, there may be a Credibility Gap between Hanoi and Washington as
long as Lyndon Johnson occupies the White House.
But the Credibility Gap extends beyond the Vietnam War and into many facets
of our domestic affairs.
In December, 1965, President Johnson said he was going to reduce federal
3
payrolls by 25,000. Instead, the Johnson-Humphrey Administration added 187,506
employes to the payroll over the next seven months. Currently civilian employ-
ment by the federal government stands at nearly 3 million. That reflects a
jump of 243,400 between June 1966 and June 1967.
In his State of the Union Message on Jan. 27, 1966, President Johnson said:
4
"I intend to ask the Congress to consider measures that, without improperly
invading State and local authority, will enable us to deal effectively with
strikes that may cause irreparable damage to the national interest."
That was the promise--a pledge to send recommendations to Congress aimed at
improving our handling of national emergency strikes. That was in January, 1966.
Has the President fulfilled that promise? Most emphatically not. Instead he
has so mismanaged the economy that 1967 will be a banner year for strikes and
1968 promises to set an even more damaging record.
5
The Congress simply has been unable to believe this Administration in fiscal
matters. Small wonder the economy is being buffeted by the winds of
uncertainty. As for the wage-earner, his paycheck is slimmer than two years
ago in terms of what it will buy.
A look at the record shows that the President forecast a $1.8 billion
deficit for fiscal 1967 but closed the books 12 months later with a $9.7 billion
deficit. Last January he predicted an $8.1 billion deficit for fiscal 1968,
but now he talks of a deficit of $30 to $35 billion.
As a good friend of Lyndon Johnson's, Walter Reuther, is fond of saying
America is in deep trouble.
(more)
-3-
I suggest the reason we are in trouble is lack of leadership and lack of
honesty in our national government. No government which lacks strong direction
at the top can long retain the trust of the American people. And without the
trust of the people, no government can succeed.
####
Reasons - / LOCAL /SSUES
at habrel
But
CRIES ii out
2
Jack fempliner in J/H
"
for we ipd.
" credulity in mac J/H.
a
Viit Nam TBJ.
"65"
6
Ant employees
Discood
187,506,
c
fair / Management
1245,000 66/6
d
Final affairs )
Indpendent
Int. Rw. Ami
F.Y. 1968 ("30 (18.1
(8
F.Y. 1967 (8.8
Mesmanyament
1
be
Z
High Inflation Interest mate
Cant 6.6.P.
america is in TROUBLE
Problems
Party
I.D.J. "more tapes"
Republicans -
2 there h defference -
emocots
GERALD FORD FIBRAST
that big though
Poverty -
12 Whim
-
federal introl
perpetuate errors
Republicans -
#1, 1,4 4
rederect, prwate industry
yes - Regublicans 1 do recognize "portlems"
air 4 W ater Pallution
0
2
Human Investment
3
/digher education
Brnd/Brrad
Coe Haimlin
Dutrit Ohio , Nn. 13, 1967
yord
Introduction
-
Hor, I Vergin John
LOST
Great, great man
Boe Callong
Ben Flitcher
Othi
Roson, produtt
Bill statem
-
Prggy" (Kelly Mani)
chuch Anne dopan make
I'm Rhadas -
2f 2 had been have two years before
Deplored the trughly of 1964
Rubber stamp Engliss.
Manufull.
Despite the "olds" we faced 2
would have been optimatic
1 ultimate wrodom of character
7 the people
Q our from of good,
This Optimism has been Instructional
Grown
1966
1
Unto Lignatures
Brook/Brand
Engons Tood offer
1967 -
However -
BERNLD FORD
Ligislature -
Metopolition Gains
FISCAL POLICY - LOOKING AHEAD
MAURICE H. STANS
SEPTEMBER 11, 1967
Most of our thinking on fiscal policy today focuses on
the President's proposed 1.0% tax increase. The general
assumption is that an increase, for a limited period, will
carry over our fiscal policies until the budget is somehow
back under control. But I fear that a tax increase now is
only a temporary aspect of a much longer predicament -- one
that will plague our fiscal policies for a long time to come,
unless we deal with deeper causes and deeper solutions than
we have been.
:
The amounts likely to be enacted as tax increases are
only a token contribution to the deficits the government faces.
The President has said that without a tax increase the deficit
could be as high as $29 billion this year. While this may be
slightly exaggerated, my own estimate is that with a tax
increase the deficits will probably be about $22 billion this
year and $16 billion next year,
Where does all this leave us for the longer future? What
can we expect to happen in the years after 1969? When do we
get rid of the rest of the deficit?
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
-2-
Amid all the current confusion and uncertainty over
fiscal policy, it is easier to see into the distance than
it is to be sure of the foreground. And in that distant view
there are prospects that are very disturbing and almost
frightening. And they raise questions as to whether, over
the long run, we are dealing with the issue of government
spending in the most effective way. Perhaps in the inter-
mittent drives for economy we are just treating symptoms
rather than causes.
RECENT HISTORY
To put all this into perspective, here are some figures
as to the growth of government spending since 1930:
1930
3 billion
1940
9 billion
1950
40 billion
1960
80 billion
In each of those decades spending more than doubled. Two
wars intervened, but each return to peacetime found a much
higher plateau. In this thirty year period the budget was
balanced just six times, and the national debt grew from about
$20 billion to $300 billion.
-3-
Eight years and eight budgets have ensued since then,
and here's what has happened in those 8 years:
The population of the country grew 10%
The civilian of the government grew 25%
federal bureaucracy employees
Civilian payrolls of the government grew 75%
Government spending grew 80%
There were 8 deficits in a row
But we're in a war now in Vietnam and that may have
distorted the figures for this period. If we break them
down some more we find that in these eight years:
:
Defense spending grew 68%
Nondefense spending grew. 97%
Welfare and health spending grew 210%
42 million people now receive a regular monthly check
from the government.
So the major thrust of increased spending in the 1960's
is in civilian programs, not in defense and the Vietnam war.
There are two years still to go in the 1960's. By the
time they are in we can expect that for the decade:
The budget will have doubled to $160 billion
The deficits will have totalled almost $100 billion
FORD
The national debt will have gone up to about $400 billion
GERAL
of
-4-
At this point you may have one question. What if the war
in Vietnam is ended? Won't that change things?
If we trust history, it would be a mistake to expect very
much of a reduction. There will certainly be a significant
decline in some defense costs. But new demands for Federal
spending are ready to absorb most of the savings, possibly
before the taxpayers can get much relief. There are fully
developed new programs in the Pentagon and in the civilian
agencies right now to more than replace any reduction in
war costs.
:
The military wants new and better aircraft, and improved
missiles and warheads; there will be strong demand for an
anti-missile device. And the civilian agencies are geared
up with social programs almost beyond measure.
THE NEXT DECADE
With all this as background, how can we determine what
the major influences will be on government spending in the
1970's? Is there any reason to expect the sharp upward trend -
doubling every 10 years - to come to an end now? Has government
outgo reached a level that meets all the needs of our society?
GENATO FORD LIBRARY
-5-
Quite surely, the answers are in the negative. There is
too much momentum in government growth for it suddenly to
level out. Here are just a few statistics on some of these
forces that will carry spending higher, even if nothing
new is undertaken.
The unfunded commitments of the government to pay
in the future, for retirement benefits, for social security,
for veterans pensions, for completion of public works, for
subsidies, and for many other items, are now about $1,000
billion and are growing each year.
Hundreds of government programs and projects have
been started on a "thin edge of the wedge" basis, for small
amounts that are surely destined to mushroom.
Government welfare program authorizations have grown
from 239 in 1964 to 399 in 1966 to about 450 in 1968, and no
end is in sight.
As a result of all this, the annual built-in growth in
the cost of present government activities is probably around
$5 billion a year and there is little likelihood of any of
this coming to an end.
So the next question is: what else is ahead? Here is
where the answer becomes formidable.
-6-
Public clamor and government promises for more government
funds are evidenced in the public press daily:
The Postmaster General says that quite a few
billions are necessary for new facilities to move the mail.
The space agency wants large sums to go to Mars
and Venus.
Transportation is scheduled for new billions of
government help, including the supersonic transport.
Educational interests want many billions of dollars
more a year for their causes.
There are proposals to build as many as 500,000 units
!
of government housing a year, at a cost in billions.
Proposed manpower training and retraining could
cost billions; and some want guaranteed employment by the
government at much higher cost.
An anti-missile missile, more military planes, and
more powerful warheads may be on the way, and these could
cost $10 to $20 billions.
Cleaning up water pollution is talked about as a
$100 billion job, and air pollution may be equally costly.
GERALD FORD VIBRARY
-7-
The mayor of a large city says he needs a billion
dollars more a year from Washington, and others speak of
needs for the cities totaling hundreds of billions. One
plan is Philip Randolph's Freedom Budget of $185 billion
over ten years; Whitney Young calls for a $165 billion
Domestic Marshall Plan.
Rent subsidies and home purchase subsidies could
grow into billions.
The President says that grants in aid, which now
amount to $15 billion a year, could quadruple to $60 billion
:
in five years.
Guaranteed annual incomes or the negative income
tax, if enacted, could range from $10 billion to $30 billion,
or more.
Revenue sharing with the states could take billions
from the Federal Treasury each year. And so on and on.
Not all of these are inevitable. Some overlap, and some
will never mature. But many of these, and many others, will
be forcefully promoted and some will surely come to pass. If
much of this does come, the budget will be engulfed in a wave
of spending that will destroy all hope of fiscal control. A
nuclear-sized explosion in government spending threatens us - with
more force and urgency than at any other time in history.
-8-
If we want to determine how to cope with such a threat,
we need to know more of the forces behind the proposals. Why
is so much being demanded of our government - at a time when
the well-being of the people is at its highest?
I believe that, in varying degrees of importance, there
are five principal causes:
(1) An impatience for progress - At no time in the
world's history has there been such a broad revolt against
the status quo, such a public demand for more and better
:
things, such a revolution of rising expectations. Under
conditions of social revolution, cost is always secondary.
(2) Politics - Candidates for office and office-holders
have come to believe that the way to power is to promise more
and more, even though the promises may far exceed the fiscal
capacity of the government or of the country. And some of
these promises get to be performed, however wasteful they may be.
(3) Economic experimentation - To stimulate growth
with less sacrifice, there have risen new theories designed to
evolve a finely tuned economic structure with a constant upward
momentum. How well these experiments will survive under changing
conditions still remains to be seen.
-9-
(4) The philosophy of the "affluent society" - This
is the belief that much of our productive system has grown
from synthetically created demands for unimportant products
and unnecessary services, while real needs of the people are
neglected and, therefore, must be provided by government.
This is the creed of many in and out of government today.
(5) The "crash" approach - This is the proposition
that money in unlimited quantities will solve any problem
overnight.
These five forces, feeding on each other, are what have
:
compounded government spending in the last few decades. If
they continue unchecked over the next decade, I fear these
consequences:
There is little likelihood of a balanced budget in
the next ten years.
Deficits will continue and even grow, and the
national debt will mount still more.
There is a strong probability that government spending
may double again in the 1970's.
Only a drastic change in national attitudes will prevent
these developments from the present trends.
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
-10-
CONCLUSIONS
These results are not inevitable but they are more likely
than you may think. A $300 billion budget in 1980 is no
less probable today than a $160 billion budget seemed in
1960. And the surging forces for social change, for economic
equality, for government beneficence, are far more strong
and better organized than they were 10 years ago.
On matters such as this, there is always the danger of
exaggeration. But the circumstances exist, and the only
difference in probable outcome is one of degree. I hope I
am
overstate the case.
Having expressed these concerns, I wish I could give you
a simple 5-point program for resolving them. I do feel that
we are beyond the point at which occasional slogans for
economy in government will do much good, at which sporadic
drives for budget cutting will stem the flood. We need
somehow to approach the causes more directly and find better
and less costly solutions for the nation's problems -- to
eliminate the crash psychòlogy, to thwart "promising" politicians,
to fight the "affluent society" theme that government knows
best, to restrict dangerous economic experimentation.
FORD JARARY
-11-
Most important of all, we need somehow to bring realism into
the expections of the people, to do what is possible to
help the underprivileged to help themselves, and to stop
those agitators who whet public appetites with slogans and
undeliverable promises. At the heart of it all, we need
somehow to get people to realize that there is no instant
tomorrow.
Jacques Rueff, the French economist, recently questioned
whether a democratic society could ever exercise fiscal
!
discipline. Somehow, it seems to me that the trends I
have described may be asking the same question. And that
is something for all of us to think about.
1 GERALD LIBRARY FORD
Address of Rep. Carl Albert, Majority Leader, U. S. House of Representatives, before the
annual meeting of the Cotton Producers Association in Atlanta, Ga., Nov. 20, 1967.
WHY VIETNAM?
Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am highly honored by and very appreciative of your invitation to address
you during this the annual meeting of the Cotton Producer Association. I find
additional pleasure in the fact that on this occasion your meeting is held in this
great city of Atlanta, a splendid metropolis, a leader in the business and indus-
trial growth of the great southern states and of the nation- a city rich in material
resources, and rich again in its heroic past and in the promise of its future.
Of course, before proceeding, I know you will forgive me for extending the
hand of greeting and of friendship to those among you who hail from my district
in the State of Oklahoma, a district which has much in common with the old and
new south with the old in that many of its citizens of today are descendants of
those who followed Jackson and Lee in battles of eternal glory, and descendants of
those who were the followers of the great Chiefs of the Creeks, the Choctaws, the
Chickasaws and the Seminoles. In common with the new South, from a blending of
these racial sources, Oklahoma today possesses a citizenry of marked intelligence,
courage, bravery, and patriotism---a people who are proud of their native State,
and proud of our magnificent Republic.
It gives me great pleasure, indeed, to address a farmer's cooperative,
especially a cotton cooperative, because in my youth I worked hard in the cotton
fields around Bug Tussle where I grew up as a boy with a sympathy for the farmer
that will endure throughout my lifetime. I think that in doing business through
a cooperative, the farmer is bringing to bear upon the matter of his farm income
the greatest possible force for improving not only farming as a business, but
improving the individual living standards of the farmer himself. Consequently,
you find me always in the front ranks of those, the farmer, and the farmer's
cooperative, count as their loyal friends.
We have all been disappointed in the amount of farm income for 1967.
However, we must remember that the year seems worse because it follows immediately
behind the year which broke all records of income for agriculture. In 1966,
under the same farm programs of our national administration, net farm income
climbed to $16.4 billion dollars; that was forty percent more than 1960 and
18 percent higher than 1965. There is certainly one thing we have to be thankful
for as we approach a new Thanksgiving Day, and that is we have whittled away the
surplus of commodities built up during the fifties until now we are virtually
free of unnecessary carry over stocks. With the 1967 harvest season well underway,
- 2 -
the Commodity Credit Corporation investment in farm commodities is down to
$2.9 billion dollars, and that represents a reduction of nearly $2 billion
dollars from the year before, and it is a reduction of about $5.5 billion from
the peak investment years of 1956 and 1959. Meanwhile cotton has remained
competitive, farm income has improved, and government expenditures have been
materially reduced. Since the supply has been reduced to a mere manageable
level, the agricultural department will increase production for 1968.
I have now arrived at the issue which I have decided should be discussed
with you this evening, an issue which involves not only American agriculture,
but labor, capital and every avenue of American social, industrial and economic
interest. Tonight, I wish to add my voice to those of others in support of
our present policy concerning Vietnam.
I invite your consideration of this question: WHY ARE WE IN VIETNAM?
So that we may arrive at a proper conclusion, I deem it proper at this time to
review first, the general historical background of our policy, and second,
the particular, or immediate chronology of events which have brought four
hundred fifty thousand American servicemen, forty thousand Koreans, and an in-
creasing number of troops from other nations in the Asiatic theatre, into the
jungles and the swamps of South Vietnam.
The historians, in my judgment, will eventually write that President
Johnson has pursued the only wise and sound course to be taken in this struggle
against the enemies of our country. They will point out, when time has placed
things in proper perspective, that after all, he did not begin the war---
he did not initiate the policy he inherited it. He inherited it from
President Truman, from President Eisenhower, and from President Kennedy.
The policy back of our fighting has been pursued by every president
since World War II. It was the policy which lead to the Grecian-Turkish
loans a policy to stem the tide of international communism during the
Truman administration. In February, 1949, President Truman said: "The very
existence of the Greek State is today threatened by terrorist activities of
several thousand armed men led by communists who defy the government's
authority. I believe it must be the policy of the United States to support free
peoples who are resisting subjugation by armed minorities or outside pressures.
Should we fail to aid Greece and Turkey in this fateful hour, the effect will be
far reaching to the west as well as to the east. We must take immediate and
resolute action." President Truman saved Greece. He followed the same policy
- 3 -
in regard to South Korea. He saved South Korea from communist dictatorship
and tyranny.
President Eisenhower pursued the same sound policy when he intervened
in Lebanon to prevent successful communist aggression in that nation. In
1959, President Eisenhower said, "Strategically, South Vietnam's capture by
the communists would bring their power several hundred miles into a hitherto
free region. The remaining countries in Southeast Asia would be menaced by a
great flanking movement. The freedom of 12 million people would be lost
immediately, and that of 150 million in adjacent lands would be seriously
endangered. The loss of Vietnam would set in motion a crumbling process that
could as it progressed, have grave consequences for us and for freedom."
In 1962, President Kennedy told the people of this nation: "Withdrawal in the
case of Vietnam and the case of Thailand might mean a collapse of the entire
area." Many months later, he said: "We are not going to withdraw from that
effort. In my opinion, for us to withdraw from that effort would mean a
collapse not only of South Vietnam, but Southeast Asia. So, we are going to
stay there." Thus, three predecessors of President Johnson, each elected
President by the free votes of the nation, established the Vietnam policy
before him. I repeat, it is not his policy alone, it has been our national
policy for more than twenty years.
For our people to understand fully why we are at war in Vietnam, and
why we should remain there until victory is ours, demands a review of the
immediate historical occurrence of events which have led to our action to
contain communism in Southeast Asia. Let us go back fifty years---back until
the day the bolsheviks, a minority, by violence, terror and torture, seized
power in Russia. They then proclaimed their international goal that all
the world would be ruled by communist governments as a result of a global
revolution by which all free governments, all capitalistic societies such as
ours, would be overthrown and totally destroyed, and replaced by communist
governments which would deny the existence of a God, condemn religious belief,
destroy individual liberty and freedom, and make every man a pawn of the state.
To cap it all, these governments would take away the right of the individual to
own property by placing the ownership of all means of producing wealth in
the hands of the communist state. Fifty years ago they first aimed their guns
- 4 -
at our heads. Fifty years ago Lenin, their original leader, proclaimed: "THE ROAD
TO WASHINGTON IS NOT THROUGH PARIS--IT IS THROUGH PEKING."
It was not until after World War II that our leaders began clearly to
understand the determined, relentless, aggressive and tyrannical policy of
international communism. It now appeared in its true colors. Hypocritically
referring to nations conquered by it as "peoples democracies," or "peoples
republics," it proceeded by sabotage, insurrection, and outright violence
and force when necessary to gobble up, as did Russia, all the nations of
Eastern Europe, Turkey and Greece alone escaping because of aid from our nation.
We watched the spread of the tentacles of this Octopus of tyranny and of evil
as it probed in every direction, on every continent to bring more and more
free peoples into the slavery of its command. Our people saw China and Cuba
brought within the realm of communistic control and power. A control which
when once established is relentlessly maintained, as in the case of revolting
Hungary, when Russian tanks shot down and murdered Hungarian children in the
streets of Budapest.
Communism continues to probe and will continue to probe for new lands
to conquer until finally they find themselves in a position to realize their
dream of fifty years--the downfall and destruction of the United States of
America. Edmund Burke once said, "Civilization is a contract between the great
dead, the living, and the unborn." We know the great dead, the martyrs who
died for our liberties throughout our history, have kept their contract with
us. Unborn Americans have the right to expect us to pass on to them the same
freedom and liberty which the past won for us. As President Johnson has
said: "I would rather stand in Vietnam, in our time, and by meeting this danger
now and facing up to it, thereby reduce the danger for our children and for
our grandchildren." David Lawrence, eminent news analyst, warns us with these
words: "Do the American people know the true meaning of the communist menace?
Or, do they think the Vietnam war is simply a colossal blunder by which American
troops have been dragged into fighting a small nation in Southeast Asia--many
Americans have forgotten the periodic news reports from different parts of the
world in the last few years disclosing the activities of communist infiltrators,
5
and indeed, in the case of Cuba, the actual building and equipping of missile bases
by the Soviets within 90 miles of our own sea coast American policy in Vietnam is
regarded by the communists as in the critical stage today. For, if as Moscow and Pe-
king hope, the United States tries to wiggle out of Vietnam, the pressure by the
communists in Africa, as well as in Europe, will be intensified too many Americans
forget that communism is a world wide apparatus the Vietnam war is a part of a
global mechanism."
Ho Chi Minh, the communist dictator of North Vietnam, is now the oldest living
communist leader trained and taught by the bolsheviks of Russia. He has been re-
sponsible for building the communist party strength in North Vietnam and for
staging the revolution following World War II and which forced the French to capitu-
late, and which brought about the Geneva Convention and the treaty to which
Ho Chi Minh pledged his solemn word. This treaty provided:
First: Laos and Cambodia to be left as separate and independent states.
Second: Vietnam to be divided at the 17th parallel, the north under communist
control, the south to remain free.
Third: Troops or guerilla forces under Hanoi's control in South Vietnam to
be recalled north, and,
Fourth: An international Control Commission, composed of representatives of
Poland, India, and Canada to police the provisions of the Geneva Convention.
Fifth: An election to be held at the end of two years in South Vietnam to
determine if it should by popular vote become a part of the North, or remain free.
Instead of abiding by the agreement, Ho Chi Minh reduced it to a scrap of paper.
As always in the history of communism, expediency and duplicity took the place of a
solemn promise, and hypocrisy took the place of honor. Hanoi forces in the South
were never removed. They became stronger. The 17th parallel became meaningless.
The communists chose to use a route of conquest through Laos and Cambodia. Hanoi
violations of the Geneva conference became rampant. Communist conspirators re-
organized their military forces in the south, and by extortion, murder and cruelty,
and torture sought to force and compel the people to follow their command. 7,500
civilians, largely teachers and local officials and their families were assassinated
by the Viet Cong, 36,500 were kidnapped in the attempt to beat a free nation down
upon its knees. Finally, the South Vietnamese government asked for help and aid from
the United States. President Eisenhower, following our long-established policy of
- 6
containment of communism, responded. However, the communist world had its mind set
upon the fact that its next victim is South Vietnam. This should be abundantly
clear. From all over the various communist countries have come supplies, arms,
modern weapons, mortars and missiles to be used in bringing South Vietnam to
submission and its allies to defeat. Now fighting along with our troops are soldiers
from Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, and medical teams from many other free nations.
There are those who contend that the war in Vietnam is a mere civil war between
the North and the South, and that we have no right to interfere. How can those who
hold this view be so blind as to the facts? What explanation do they advance to
justify the presence of 45,000 North Vietnamese regular soldiers in the country of
Laos where Ho Chi Minh has seized twenty per cent of Laotian territory in a military
aggression aimed at conquering the entire nation? I wonder what explanation they have
for the action of all communist countries supporting Hanoi. If their contention is
true why is it that Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Armenia, China, Russia, and
all the Balkan States, all communist dictatorships, are pouring their resources into
the struggle? Let us face the truth! The war in Vietnam is a war aggressively fought
by communism to carry out its plan of world domination. Here is authority to prove
that this is so:
The President of the Philippines has this to say: "Vietnam is the focus of
attention now--it may happen to Thailand or the Philippines, or anywhere, where
there is misery, disease, ignorance--for you to renounce your position of leadership
in Asia is to allow the Red Chinese to gobble up all of Asia." The Foreign Minister
of Thailand has said: "The American decision will go down in history as the move that
prevented the world from having to face another conflagration." Before the United
Nations, Australia's External Affairs Minister has said: "Those who criticize nations
supporting South Vietnam are using double standards falsifying the issues."
The Prime Minister of Australia has said: "We are there because while communist
aggression persists the whole of Southeast Asia is threatened." In the past month
he has added: "The resolution of the American Administration to see the Vietnam war
through is not only a mark of statesmanship, but of political courage, for it is not
a popular or easy course."
The President of South Korea has said: "For the first time in our history,
we decided to dispatch our combat troops overseas, because in our belief any aggression
against the Republic of South Vietnam represents a direct and grave menace against
the security and peace of free Asia, and therefore directly jeopardizes the very
7 -
security and freedom of our own people."
The Prime Minister of New Zealand said: "We can thank God that America
at least regards aggression in Asia with the same concern as it regards
aggression in Europe and is prepared to back up its concern with action."
The Prime Minister of Singapore said: "I feel the fate of Asia
south and southeast Asia will be decided in the next few years by what happens
in Vietnam. Prince Souvanna Phouma, Laotian Prime Minister, pleaded with United
Nations delegates not to forget that his country has been invaded by North
Vietnam forces and wants something more than a peace between cease fires.
These nations include surrounding neighbors of South Vietnam. They are
near the fire. Surely they are in a better position to judge the true nature
of the Vietnam war than our so-called intellectuals and foreign affairs
drug store cowboys thousands of miles away. There are those who dissent from
our chosen course of action in this war, and they have a right to dissent.
However, I have never received a letter from a serviceman in Vietnam who
agrees with these dissenters. Like the case of Captain James Spruill,
who two months before he gave his life in Vietnam wrote to his wife: "Please
don't let them back there where you are sell me down the river with talk of
despair and defeat. Talk rather of steadfastness, loyalty, and victory
for we must and we can win here. There is no backing out of Vietnam for
it will follow us wherever we go. We have drawn the line here and the
America we all know and love best is not one to break away."
Undoubtedly two weeks ago, most of you through your newspaper or
television became aware of the so-called Peace March whose participants
erupted in violence in our national Capitol while attempting to close down the
Pentagon. These people were ostensibly expressing their right to dissent a right
our Republic does not question.
No doubt, there were many well-meaning citizens
Excerpt
among them who have honest differences of opinion with the Administration, but
in my judgment, we would be naive to think that these marchers included only
those who have a distaste for war. The group certainly was basically
organized by international communism, and the marchers included every communist
and communist sympathizer in the United States who was able to make the
trip. It is passing strange that on the very day this protest was made in
Washington, similar demonstrations took place in all communist countries,
in Latin America, Europe,
Bank
8 -
and even in Australia whose troops are in battle in Vietnam. Of course, the common
denominator, the common organizer of all these events is the communist world wide
apparatus. It is a strange coincidence that counter demonstrations in support of the
struggle for liberty in South Vietnam did not occur in various countries as they did
in the United States.
There are many people in this country who are helping the communist cause
in Vietnam by centering their dissent upon the President by vicious personal attack,
contending loudly that we should withdraw from Vietnam, contending our war there is
aggressive, cruel, and immoral. I recognize the right of people to dissent, that is
their privilege as citizens of a free country. However, in a time of war, when
450,000 of the fellow citizens of these dissenters are engaged in battle, when many
are literally pouring their life blood out upon the soil of a foreign land, there is
duty as well as right, there is responsibility as well as dissent.
These dissenters
now howling around the country are nothing more than a communist-serving fifth column in
our midst. They should consider the words of General Giap, defense minister of
North Vietnam, when he said of them and their actions: "Their views are a valuable
mark of sympathy" A VALUABLE MARK OF SYMPATHY FOR THE ENEMY.
Those words and the
source of those words should be indelibly imprinted upon the mind of every American.
Some weeks ago, with Giap's phrase upon his lips, Speaker McCormack drew a standing
ovation from the House when he declared: "If I were one of those who loudly proclaim
their dissent, my conscience would be such that it would disturb me for the rest
of my life." During the past month, General Eisenhower in speaking of dissenters,
made this significant statement: "I am saddened by Americans who give divided counsel
to the fighting forces in Vietnam. Those speaking against administration practices
are exercising their right of dissent but we need to be moderate in tone and emphasis.
No one can be all seeing or can afford to be dictatorial." Senator Dirkson,
Senate Republican Minority Leader, has strongly condemned the dissenters who
speak out against our policy in Vietnam. Yes, everyone who makes a speech, everyone
who writes an article lambasting our war action in time of war shows a lack of re-
sponsibility, and is like another bullet aimed at the back of an American soldier
fighting for freedom and liberty on the battlefields of Vietnam. Let us say to these
dissenters, stop stabbing our soldiers in the back. Stop helping the enemy. Stop
encouraging Ho Chi Minh. Stop prolonging the war. Pitch in and help until the war
is won, and do your dissenting afterwards. We have no alternative but to push courageous-
ly forward to certain victory in Vietnam. We must never quail in the face of the
determined resistance of a stubborn foe. Our enemy is depending upon the critics
9
of the President, the dissenters to our policy. He thinks that they will win the
war for him. These dissenters say to us and to the President, LET US NEGOTIATE.
Fling the answer to them. The President has sought at every opportunity to bring the
war to an end, to establish peace, to negotiate. The reply of Ho Chi Minh has in
each instance been---we will negotiate after you stop bombing, after you completely
withdraw from South Vietnam-- in other words, you must abjectly surrender before we
will negotiate. Of course, you know what would be the result of such a course. He
would conquer and seize all South Vietnam, and as communists have always done,
liquidate those who have fought for liberty, murder its leaders, and its headmen and
its school teachers, and everyone who has fought the war against him. Our only course
is the policy now pursued by the President of the United States.
The fact is that there is no basis for pessimism over the way things are going
in Vietnam. In addition to our troops, the south Vietnamese have 735,000 combat
soldiers, out of a population of fifteen million, in the field. They now capture
more than three weapons to every one they lose to the enemy, which is a reversal from
two years ago. Also, there are 54,000 troops from other nations now engaged in the
fighting and these are on the increase. Some people ask, are we winning? The answer
is to be found in the fact that forty per cent of enemy bases in South Vietnam have
been neutralized. Enemy defections have risen to forty thousand in this year alone.
In North Vietnam our bombing has destroyed 85% of its electrical power, 30% of its
railways, half of its Mig Jets, 3,500 trucks and 4,000 water craft. The disastrous
effects of our bombing is now openly admitted by the Hanoi regime. No wonder that it
and its supporters cry, "halt the bombing!" Yes, we are winning. All we must do is
persevere and we can throw back this attempt of modern tyrannical aggression to carve
off yet another piece of the free world!
We have the resources to overcome both our domestic evils and our foreign foes.
This is a strong country. Today, our nation is the most powerful, the richest, most
progressive land in all the world. Our annual production now surpasses $740 billion
dollars--half of that of all the rest of the world. Eleven of our States have more
productive power than all of Soviet Russia. The State of California has productive
power as great as that of all communist China. The eastern half of the United States
equals the productive power of all of western Europe. Illinois alone produces wealth
equal to that of all of Africa. New York, Connecticut and Rhode Island produce
as much as all of France, and Ohio alone produces as much as all of India. But the
real strength of America goes beyond its material resources and its productive power.
10
Our strength lies in the ideals of our people and in their determination to
preserve those ideals at whatever cost.
We can, and we will win this war. We will stem the tide of communist cruelty.
In Vietnam we will bar the door to further communist aggression. All we need is
patience, national unity, and trust in our leaders. Let us move out from the shadow
of pessimism and despair and into the sunshine of a new hope, rejoicing in the
strength of our great democracy, determined to sustain and preserve it for our posterity,
convinced that our nation will surmount and conquer the problems of the day and
move into an era of peace and prosperity and the progress of future years.