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
4526327
label
Debate with Mrs. Jean McKee Before the Grand Rapids Bar Association, Grand Rapids, MI, October 14, 1970
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526327
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Debate with Mrs. Jean McKee Before the Grand Rapids Bar Association, Grand Rapids, MI, October 14, 1970
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Crime
Environmental protection
Federal budget
Inflation (Finance)
Legislation
Vietnam War, 1961-1975
Water pollution
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526327
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1970-10-31
month
10
year
1970
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1970-10-01
month
10
year
1970
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
e15d4ad47d8060d4
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D30, folder "Debate with Mrs. Jean McKee
Before the Grand Rapids Bar Association, Grand Rapids, MI, October 14, 1970" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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:
60 copies 4/mr Ford
envelopes news media for fifth District office Copy
OPENING STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD OF GRAND RAPIDS
IN DEBATE WITH MRS. JEAN McKEE
BEFORE THE GRAND RAPIDS BAR ASSOCIATION
AT 12 NOON, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1970
FOR RELEASE AT 12 NOON WEDNESDAY, OCT. 14
My opponent is a Democrat--an active, participating Democrat. She is proud
of it.
I am a Republican. I am proud of it. But on the other hand I am just as
proud that in 11 elections I have received the support of many Democrats in the
Fifth Congressional District. I am also proud that I have supported, on many
occasions, three Democratic Presidents. I have supported Democratic Presidents
more often and on tougher issues than many Democrats in the House and the Senate.
I have letters of appreciation from those Democratic Presidents.
This campaign is an adversary proceeding in the best tradition of American
politics. Therefore, as Al Smith was fond of saying, let's look at the record.
What was the legacy left behind by the previous Democratic Administration?
A war in which the United States had been massively involved for four years.
Federal deficits which totalled $60.6 billion from 1961 through 1968.
Nearly runaway inflation which has reduced the value of the 1960 dollar to
76 cents.
Air and water pollution that grew steadily worse during the eight years that
Democrats controlled both the Congress and the White House.
A crime rate that rose 10 times faster than the population during the eight
Democratic years of the Sixties.
It's tough to deal with that kind of legacy but Republicans are making
progress. We could have made far greater progress if the Congress for the past two
years had been controlled by the Republican Party.
As lawyers, you gentlemen are accustomed to dealing with evidence. What,
then, is the hard evidence of progress under the present Administration on the
war, control of Federal spending, air and water pollution control, and crime
control? First, Vietnam.
We have reduced the authorized strength of our armed forces in Southeast
Asia from 549,500 as of Dec. 31, 1968, to 384,000 as of Oct. 15, 1970, and we will
be reducing our authorized strength to 284,000 by May 1, 1971. This means that
reductions in authorized strength by next May 1 will total 265,500.
(more)
Digitized from Box D30 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
-2-
President Nixon did not put half a million men into Vietnam, but he is
clearly getting them out. And he is doing so with reduced losses, with an increase
in the ability of the South Vietnamese to resist Communist aggression, and with a
decrease in the ability of the North Vietnamese to achieve military success in
Southeast Asia.
The Presidential candidate my opponent supported in 1964 escalated the
Vietnam War. The Presidential candidate I supported in 1968 has deescalated the
Vietnam War and is ending the U.S. role in it.
What additional progress can we point to in Vietnam?
During the past several months, the weekly toll of Americans killed in
Vietnam has dropped steadily to a point that in the week ended Oct. 3 was the
lowest in 4 1/2 years. While any Americans dead in Asia are too many, that toll
of 38 is vastly better than the 562 killed in the most deadly week of the war-the
week which ended May 11, 1968. In 1968, the average weekly loss of American lives
was 300. In 1969, it was 200. Since July 1, after Cambodia, the number of weekly
war deaths has averaged 61.
At the same time, draft calls have been reduced from 299,000 in 1968 to
163,500 this year, a drop of 42 per cent. Military manpower, meantime, is being
reduced from 3.5 million in mid-1968 to 2.9 million in mid-1971-- reduction of
639,000.
The same political candidates who demand a precipitate U.S. pullout from
Vietnam are demanding a reordering of our priorities. The truth is that we have
already accomplished a massive reordering of our priorities, and we are continuing
to shift priorities.
My opponent is correct in pointing out that our priorities were all askew
during the Sixties while the Democrats controlled both the White House and the
Congress. Why didn't she speak out then?
In 1962 the Federal Government spent 48 per cent of its budget on national
defense and only 32 per cent on human resources. In 1968 we were still spending
44 per cent of our budget on defense and only 34 per cent on human resources. Now,
in fiscal 1971, under a Republican President, we have reversed our priorities. We
are spending 41 per cent of our Federal budget on human resources and 37 per cent
on defense. I might mention that defense spending has declined to 7 per cent of
our Gross National Product, the lowest percentage since 1951.
At the same time that we have reordered our priorities, Republicans have
sought to hold down Federal spending to help fight the inflation we inherited from
(more)
-3-
the previous Democratic Administration. The present Administration cut the
expansion rate of Federal spending in half in 1970 and will reduce it by half again
in 1971. This has enabled us to keep the Federal budget close to balance while
at the same time recognizing important national priorities in the fields of
environment, welfare and transportation. We have exercised firm control over
defense spending. We have cut back less urgent non-defense programs. And we have
employed greater efficiency throughout the Federal Government.
We have made substantial progress against inflation through policies of
restraint, both fiscal and monetary. There is dramatic proof of this in the fact
that the cost of living rose just .2 of 1 per cent in August 1970--an annual rate
of 2.4 per cent--as compared with a rise of .4 of 1 per cent in August 1968--an
annual rate of 4.8 per cent. The rise in the cost of living in August of this
year was the lowest in 20 months and just one-half what it was in the comparable
month in 1968. And the three-month period of June, July and August 1970 showed the
lowest cost of living rise for any three-month period since the fall of 1967.
While Republicans in Congress have sought to hold down Federal spending to
aid in the fight against inflation, the Democrats have pressed for budget-busting
appropriations.
During the same period that they have sought to escalate Federal spending,
the Democrats have refused to act on President Nixon's plans for financing a
$10 billion Federal-State-local water pollution control program for the construction
of municipal waste treatment facilities over the next four years. The program calls
for the establishment of an Environmental Financing Authority to make sure that all
municipalities needing treatment plants would be able to finance local costs. The
Democrats have even refused to hold hearings on this legislation--and yet some of
their candidates accuse the Administration of lack of action on environmental
problems. President Nixon has promised to put modern waste-treatment plants in
every place needed to make our waters clean again. But he needs the help of a
cooperative Congress to keep that promise.
What of my own record on the environment? In 1965 I voted for the Water Pollutio
Control Act and the Air Pollution Control Act; in 1966, for the Water Pollution Cont~
Act and the Clean Air Act; in 1967, for the Clean Air act; in 1968, for establish-
ment of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Water Pollution Control Act;
in 1969, for the Water Pollution Control Act, the Clean Air Act, establishment of
the Council on Environmental Quality, the Water Resources Development Act, the
Public Works Appropriation Bill; in 1970, Clean Air Act Amendments, the Clean Air
(more)
-4--
and Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Resource Recovery Act of 1970, and the Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1970.
Here are copies of environmental bills I introduced or co-sponsored in the
91st Congress, including a bill to prohibit the dumping of dredgings and other
refuse into the Great Lakes or any navigable water and a bill to establish the
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore.
Here is a list of National Park bills I voted for, with photos of these
national park areas.
Here is a list of Federal grants I was instrumental in obtaining for Kent
and Ionia Counties, including $3,106,837 for additional parklands and $1,480,610
for sewer and water improvements. And this is just for the period 1968 through
1970.
I and other Republicans in Congress have also made the war on crime a top
priority. Here there has been heel-dragging on the part of some Democrats in the
Congress. But despite the heel-dragging, it now appears that the bulk of the
Administration's 13 major anti-crime bills will be enacted into law. To that I say
better late than never.
I sponsored the major anti-crime legislation which has been enacted or is
nearly through both Houses of the Congress--the District of Columbia Omnibus Crime
Bill, which is a model for the Nation; the Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 1970,
which more than doubles law enforcement aid to States and local communities; and
the Organized Crime Control Act, comprehensive legislation which puts new crime
control tools in the hands of authorities.
Speaking of the war on crime, I might also mention that in 1969 the rise in
the nationwide crime rate was 11 per cent as compared with a 17 per cent rise in
1968. Here is a graph which clearly shows how the rate of increase fell in 1969
in all categories but one.
This year there has been a marked upturn in Federal indictments and
prosecutions of key organized crime figures as a result of the Administration's
stepped up attacks on the syndicate.
This, then, is how Republicans have dealt with the legacy left by the
previous Democratic Administration.
I think we have made substantial progress in the face of tremendous
difficulties. We are on our way to solving problems that have defied the most
generous spenders ever to handle the taxpayers' money. And that is an accomplishment.
# # #