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
4526479
label
Lock Haven State College, Lock Haven, PA, February 14, 1973
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526479
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Lock Haven State College, Lock Haven, PA, February 14, 1973
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
China
Vietnam (Democratic Republic)
Economic stabilization
Federal budget
Foreign aid
Impoundment of funds
Inflation (Finance)
Vietnam War, 1961-1975
Peace negotiations
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526479
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1973-02-28
month
2
year
1973
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1973-02-01
month
2
year
1973
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
1753c5a9948406ab
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D34, folder "Lock Haven State College, Lock
Haven, PA, February 14, 1973" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
Jerry:
The Lock Haven State College
people want you to talk about Indochina,
further developments in
U.S.-Chinese
relations, The new budget and fears of
cutbacks (Lock Haven Penn State is in a
marginally Appalaching region), and
the economy. Speech, } hr.; Q.&Ao, 1 hr.
The audience will be primarily college
students with a good sprinkiling of
townspeople...and also some
high school students. The school is
located in good GOP territory.
-
-Paul
Digitized from Box D34 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary
and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
Some items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted
materials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to
these materials.
Joch
Haven
StatiColl
THE NATION
of 1972, which authorized $11 billion
Congressman Anderson stressed a re-
over two years in environmental spend-
curring criticism that the Legislative
ing. The President, invoking the dan-
SUN-TIMES
Branch still acted too often as a col-
ger of higher taxes and inflation, ulti-
lection of regional blocs. "It is the
mately impounded more than half of
failure of the Congress to develop a
that money. Said Albert: "It is obvious
rational approach to the budgetary pro-
that what Congress has refused him, the
cess that has produced this crisis," he
President has undertaken to seize. The
said. Hollings added: "The issue is
time has come for the Congress to call
whether the Congress itself will get off
a halt to these wholesale Executive in-
its duff and do its job. The President
vasions of legislative powers and re-
has posed the issue after we both, on a
sponsibilities."
four-year binge, have expended some
The speakers agreed that Congress
$100 billion more than we brought in.
itself must change in order to regain
We are equally guilty."
power; already the concern over erod-
Whether or not Congress recovers
ing strength has generated some re-
power also depends in a sense upon the
forms. Speaker Albert listed the most
conduct of Congressmen and Senators
important: subcommittee chairman-
as individuals. Said Illinois Senator Ste-
ships have spread out to include newer
venson: "We must not only have men
members, party caucuses will elect com-
in the Congress-and in all our insti-
mittee chairmen and ranking minority
tutions of government-of the highest
members, committee and voting proce-
character, integrity, ability, but we must
dures have been opened up to provide
also
greater accountability, standards of
haul
conduct have been tightened.
think
Still more changes are necessary,
conti
however, if the Congress is to achieve
pable
coequality with the Executive Branch.
utive
Some proposed by last week's speakers
E
sounded relatively simple. "Congress,"
ed H
said Scott, "spends too much time read-
capa
ing the minutes and squandering the
is no
hours. It needs the aid of computers and
mule
experts to operate them. In many ways
the H
we are still marching to the measured
will 1
beat of another century's drums."
can (
Ultimately, some speakers agreed
seen
reluctantly that Congress could not re-
I have seen II exercised within the sen-
10
gain power until it demonstrated a
ate. In the words of Walt Kellv's Pogo
appropriated
greater sense of responsibility. Illinois
'We met the enemy and it
win,
The Issue of Impounding
pria
THE THESS "shall have power to lay and collect taxes and pro-
Constitution seems clear enough. It says that Con-
clai
the
vide for the common defense and general welfare of the
that
United States." But when Congress has appropriated mon-
ed 1
ey, must a President spend it? Yes, say most congressional
have
leaders. No, says President Nixon.
Nix
The constitutional conflict could end up before the Su-
preme Court, but a clear-cut answer is unlikely. "Great or-
and
dinances of the Constitution," wrote Oliver Wendell Holmes,
sor
"do not establish and divide fields of black and white. We can-
app
not carry out the distinction between legislative and exec-
Just
utive action with mathematical precision and divide the
son
branches into watertight compartments."
tion
Over the years, laws have been passed to give the Pres-
dire
ident considerable discretion in handling congressional ap-
whe
propriations. The Anti-Deficiency Act of 1906 permitted the
mac
Chief Executive to set aside appropriations because of "some
posi
extraordinary emergency or unusual circumstances." In 1950
eral
the President was granted further power to withhold reserves
or make savings after funds were voted by Congress.
litic
Recent Presidents have not hesitated to impound when
iden
it suited their purpose. In 1942 Franklin Roosevelt ordered
Wai
the Secretary of War to establish monetary reserves by the
and
"deferment of construction funds not essential to the war ef-
over
fort." A year later the Senate was disturbed enough by
tual
F.D.R.'s impoundment policies to impose some restrictions
ever
on them. But the House would not go along, arguing that in
stra
time of war, the Chief Executive's power over the budget
thorities would prefer that the issue be ajudicated not in the
should not be restrained. In 1949 Harry Truman withheld
courts but in the rough and tumble of the political arena,
funds to build a 58-wing Air Force when he thought a 48-
where a workable compromise can be reached.
TIME
2/12/73
Distribution: 20 Copies to Mr. Ford only M Office Copy
REMARKS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
REPUBLICAN LEADER, U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
LOCK HAVEN STATE COLLEGE
LOCK HAVEN, PENNSYLVANIA
8:00 p.m. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1973
FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY
We have achieved a peace settlement in Vietnam. Now we must win the peace.
Some fighting continues. This was to be expected. We are dealing with a
situation where a large number of troops are in the process of standing down. It
is not surprising that after a war that has lasted a generation there has been a
continuation of it in some measure after the hour of cease-fire.
This is a time of talking and waiting in Indochina. We are waiting to see if
the peace agreement will work. There is hope that the cease-fire will stick and
that a genuine peace will evolve. Fortunately, the Soviet Union and the People's
Republic of China, who have given North Vietnam military aid all these years, now
are committed to restraint. Last year in Moscow, President Nixon obtained a Soviet
agreement to avoid action which would "increase international tension." In Peking
the President got a pledge from Red China to settle disputes "without resorting to
the use or threat of force."
This is why I am looking with hope to the Indochina conference which will
begin Feb. 26 in Paris. The countries attending will be the four parties to the
Vietnam War, the four cease-fire supervisory nations, and Britain, the Soviet Union,
France and China.
(more)
GERALD R.FORD LIBRARY
-2-
Meantime Presidential adviser Henry Kissinger has visited Laos and Thailand
and Hanoi and will be visiting Peking Feb. 15 to 19 for talks with Red Chinese
leaders.
Kissinger's entire Asian itinerary is a move by the Nixon Administration to
consolidate the newly achieved peace in Vietnam -- admittedly a fragile peace.
Kissinger's mission to Hanoi was an initial discussion of possible U. S. aid
to North Vietnam. The motivation behind such a discussion was to provide North
Vietnam with an incentive to peace. The Administration is not talking about
reparations. The Administration is talking about rebuilding North Vietnam as an
investment in building peace throughout Indochina.
There is, of course, some fierce opposition in Congress to any aid to North
Vietnam -- and that is absolutely understandable. I personally have made no
decision on aid to North Vietnam. Certainly there will be consultation between the
White House and Congress before any concrete action is taken. Currently, we are
merely talking about economic aid to North Vietnam in principle. Meantime, aid
to South Vietnam continues.
There is no question that improved U. S. relations with Peking and the
agreements we reached last year with Mcscow were instrumental in bringing about an
honorable peace in Vietnam. We now expect the Soviet Union and China to persuade
Hanoi to live up to the peace agreement. We also expect South Vietnam to observe
the provisions of the accord. If not, we reserve the right to sever all assistance
to South Vietnam.
We achieved peace with honor in Vietnam, but we did more than that. Although
(more)
-3-
we did not win a military victory there, we succeeded in thwarting a Communist
takeover of South Vietnam by force.
Consider the conditions which existed when the Vietnam venture began.
Then -- 12 years ago -- the vast periphery of Asia, from Japan through the
Philippines, Indochina, the rest of Southeast Asia, and the great expanses of
Indonesia up to the shores of Australia, was under imminent threat of Communist
expansion and intimidation.
What do we have today? There is no Sukarno in Indonesia. No Sihanouk in
Cambodia. No pressure on Australia or Japan. No serious Communist insurgency in
the Philippines. A relatively secure Thailand. A ceasefire in Vietnam, probably
to be extended to Laos and Cambodia -- and a limit to the North Vietnam-based
revolutionary movement, to be "guaranteed" by China and Russia as well as the
western powers. And there is a reasonable chance of sustaining this improved
position for the West in Southeast Asia. So we have really achieved more than
simply peace with honor.
Let me make some further comment about Henry Kissinger's visit to Peking.
While the 12-nation Indochina conference in Paris will no doubt be high on the
agenda, Dr. Kissinger also will be seeking to further the normalization of relations
which began with the President's trip to China last year.
I, too, have visited China, as you may know. I spent nine full days there
in late June and early July of last year, so I have some grasp of what is involved
in normalizing relations between the United States and the People's Republic of
China.
(more)
-4-
Now that a Vietnam peace agreement is concluded, the chief obstacle to normal
relations between the United States and China is the Taiwan question. We have
recognized that Taiwan is a part of China. We must now hope for the peaceful
settlement of the Taiwan question. This, of course, is a matter between the
Taiwan government and that of the People's Republic of China.
Meantime, I feel sure U. S.-China contacts will continue and expand and that
U. S.-China trade will grow.
I was pleased to see a group of Chinese doctors visit the United States and
I was also pleased to see a national acupuncture center established in Washington.
I personally was greatly impressed by the use of acupuncture as anesthesia prior to
surgery. I witnessed three operations in Peking last June in which acupuncture
anesthesia was employed.
I would like to talk now about Vietnam and the so-called peace dividend in
terms of the Federal budget. There is no peace dividend. Most of it was absorbed
by domestic programs as President Nixon wound down the war in Vietnam, and now
considerable Federal dollars must be used to win the peace there. Meantime, defense
costs have risen because of the impact of inflation on the defense budget --
unavoidable increases in prices and military pay. It's true that the proposed
fiscal 1974 budget recommends a 6 per cent increase in defense spending, but it
also calls for an 8 per cent rise in spending on social programs.
Let's talk about priorities. In 1968, when Richard Nixon was elected
President, 47 per cent of total Federal outlays went for defense and only 32 per
cent for human resource programs. Now, under Nixon, the situation is exactly the
(more)
-5-
reverse. Of total Federal outlays budgeted for fiscal 1974, 47 per cent would go
into human resource programs and 30 per cent into defense.
What about the current cutbacks in Federal spending? The President is trying
to hold Federal spending to $250 billion this fiscal year. Even if he succeeds in
doing that, the Federal deficit for fiscal 1973 will total $25 billion. And, mind
you, our national debt presently totals roughly $450 billion.
It's true that the President's fiscal 1974 budget would eliminate some
programs and cut back others in an attempt to hold Federal spending next fiscal
year to $268.7 billion. Even if we hold Federal spending to $268.7 billion, we
will incur an estimated deficit of $13 billion.
It is for this reason that Democratic leaders like Sen. Mike Mansfield of
montana have agreed that Federal spending in fiscal 1974 should be fitted under a
ceiling of $268.7 billion. Mansfield's only disagreement with the President is on
where to hold back.
I agree with that approach. Congress's cuts need not be the same as those
of the President. Our priorities need not be the same. If they were, maybe we
wouldn't be doing our job. But we must set a rigid spending ceiling of
$268.7 billion -- in line with the theory of a full employment budget -- and then
fit all appropriations under that ceiling.
As for social programs that are being cut back, my hope is that local
communities -- exercising their own judgments -- will use Federal revenue sharing
allocations to continue those programs which they deem to be worthwhile.
The year 1973 gives promise of being a great year --- and this expectation
(more)
-6--
is tied in with the need to keep Federal spending under the $268.7 billion ceiling
and thus restrain inflation.
We have lifted most mandatory controls from the economy with our Phase III
wage and price control program. The success of that program will depend on
cooperation all the way around -- by business, by labor and by the public generally.
I think we are going to win the fight against inflation because of bold actions
taken by the Administration to increase food supplies and thus take the pressure
off prices and because of evidence of labor-management support of the controls
program.
I think the timing of President Nixon's switch to Phase III was excellent.
He moved before mandatory controls became widely unpopular and before they caused
harmful economic distortions. We now have taken a healthy step toward freedom for
the economy. Some people think we now will have only "jawboning." That is not
true. We will have jawboning with teeth. There will be price rollbacks if
anybody gets seriously out of line, and there will be a healthy hold-down on wage
increases through governmental pressure.
We must avoid a new wave of inflation as the economy continues to grow.
To do that we must bring the Federal budget under control and we must limit wage
increases. Permitting huge budget deficits would create a powerful demand
inflation. Allowing unrestrained wage increases would cause fearful cost-push
inflation. Either way, every one of us would lose.
The basic prospect for the economy from now through 1974 is prosperity
without accelerating inflation. In the last quarter of 1972, real growth in the
(more)
-7-
economy -- that is, growth after inflation is accounted for -- was 8.5 per cent
and industrial production rose at a rate of 12 per cent. So the economy's momentum
going into 1973 was definitely powerful.
Between now and spring, we will see some price bulges. This will be a
reflection of winter's sudden run-up in farm prices. But after the spring, when the
price-bulging has slacked off, the inflation rate will drop off to perhaps less than
3 per cent over the second half of 1973. There are likely to be declines in the
prices of farm products and some other commodities that have contributed heavily to
inflation. And the rise in wages this year may very well be tempered by the
moderating trend in labor contracts in the last year or two.
Unemployment declined from 6 to 5.2 per cent in 1972 and continues downward.
The reading for January was, as you know, 5 per cent. It will head lower in the
months ahead, down to about 4.5 per cent.
We can look for vigorous expansion of the economy in 1973, and for
significant progress in cutting the rates of inflation and unemployment. As the
President has said, 1973 could be a great year.
# # #
20 capies to Mr. Ford only
Q office Copy
REMARKS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
REPUBLICAN LEADER, U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
LOCK HAVEN STATE COLLEGE
LOCK HAVEN, PENNSYLVANIA
8:00 p.m. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1973
FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY
We have achieved a peace settlement in Vietnam. Now we must win the peace.
Some fighting continues. This was to be expected. We are dealing with a
situation where a large number of troops are in the process of standing down. It
is not surprising that after a war that has lasted a generation there has been a
continuation of it in some measure after the hour of cease-fire.
This is a time of talking and waiting in Indochina. We are waiting to see if
the peace agreement will work. There is hope that the cease-fire will stick and
that a genuine peace will evolve. Fortunately, the Soviet Union and the People's
Republic of China, who have given North Vietnam military aid all these years, now
are committed to restraint. Last year in Moscow, President Nixon obtained a Soviet
agreement to avoid action which would "increase international tension." In Peking
the President got a pledge from Red China to settle disputes "without resorting to
the use or threat of force."
This is why I am looking with hope to the Indochina conference which will
begin Feb. 26 in Paris. The countries attending will be the four parties to the
Vietnam War, the four cease-fire supervisory nations, and Britain, the Soviet Union,
France and China.
(more)
BERALD LIBRARY
-2-
Meantime Presidential adviser Henry Kissinger has visited Laos and Thailand
and Hanoi and will be visiting Peking Feb. 15 to 19 for talks with Red Chinese
leaders.
Kissinger's entire Asian itinerary is a move by the Nixon Administration to
consolidate the newly achieved peace in Vietnam -- admittedly a fragile peace.
Kissinger's mission to Hanoi was an initial discussion of possible U. S. aid
to North Vietnam. The motivation behind such a discussion was to provide North
Vietnam with an incentive to peace. The Administration is not talking about
reparations. The Administration is talking about rebuilding North Vietnam as an
investment in building peace throughout Indochina.
There is, of course, some fierce opposition in Congress to any aid to North
Vietnam -- and that is absolutely understandable. I personally have made no
decision on aid to North Vietnam. Certainly there will be consultation between the
White House and Congress before any concrete action is taken. Currently, we are
merely talking about economic aid to North Vietnam in principle. Meantime, aid
to South Vietnam continues.
There is no question that improved U. S. relations with Peking and the
agreements we reached last year with Moscow were instrumental in bringing about an
honorable peace in Vietnam. We now expect the Soviet Union and China to persuade
Hanoi to live up to the peace agreement. We also expect South Vietnam to observe
the provisions of the accord. If not, we reserve the right to sever all assistance
to South Vietnam.
We achieved peace with honor in Vietnam, but we did more than that. Although
(more)
,
-3-
we did not win a military victory there, we succeeded in thwarting a Communist
takeover of South Vietnam by force.
Consider the conditions which existed when the Vietnam venture began.
Then -- 12 years ago -- the vast periphery of Asia, from Japan through the
Philippines, Indochina, the rest of Southeast Asia, and the great expanses of
Indonesia up to the shores of Australia, was under imminent threat of Communist
expansion and intimidation.
What do we have today? There is no Sukarno in Indonesia. No Sihanouk in
Cambodia. No pressure on Australia or Japan. No serious Communist insurgency in
the Philippines. A relatively secure Thailand. A ceasefire in Vietnam, probably
to be extended to Laos and Cambodia -- and a limit to the North Vietnam-based
revolutionary movement, to be "guaranteed" by China and Russia as well as the
western powers. And there is a reasonable chance of sustaining this improved
position for the West in Southeast Asia. So we have really achieved more than
simply peace with honor.
Let me make some further comment about Henry Kissinger's visit to Peking.
While the 12-nation Indochina conference in Paris will no doubt be high on the
agenda, Dr. Kissinger also will be seeking to further the normalization of relations
which began with the President's trip to China last year.
I, too, have visited China, as you may know. I spent nine full days there
in late June and early July of last year, so I have some grasp of what is involved
in normalizing relations between the United States and the People's Republic of
China.
(more)
-4-
Now that a Vietnam peace agreement is concluded, the chief obstacle to normal
relations between the United States and China is the Taiwan question. We have
recognized that Taiwan is a part of China. We must now hope for the peaceful
settlement of the Taiwan question. This, of course, is a matter between the
Taiwan government and that of the People's Republic of China.
Meantime, I feel sure U. S.-China contacts will continue and expand and that
U. S.-China trade will grow.
I was pleased to see a group of Chinese doctors visit the United States and
I was also pleased to see a national acupuncture center established in Washington.
I personally was greatly impressed by the use of acupuncture as anesthesia prior to
surgery. I witnessed three operations in Peking last June in which acupuncture
anesthesia was employed.
I would like to talk now about Vietnam and the so-called peace dividend in
terms of the Federal budget. There is no peace dividend. Most of it was absorbed
by domestic programs as President Nixon wound down the war in Vietnam, and now
considerable Federal dollars must be used to win the peace there. Meantime, defense
costs have risen because of the impact of inflation on the defense budget --
unavoidable increases in prices and military pay. It's true that the proposed
fiscal 1974 budget recommends a 6 per cent increase in defense spending, but it
also calls for an 8 per cent rise in spending on social programs.
Let's talk about priorities. In 1968, when Richard Nixon was elected
President, 47 per cent of total Federal outlays went for defense and only 32 per
cent for human resource programs. Now, under Nixon, the situation is exactly the
(more)
-5-
reverse. Of total Federal outlays budgeted for fiscal 1974, 47 per cent would go
into human resource programs and 30 per cent into defense.
What about the current cutbacks in Federal spending? The President is trying
to hold Federal spending to $250 billion this fiscal year. Even if he succeeds in
doing that, the Federal deficit for fiscal 1973 will total $25 billion. And, mind
you, our national debt presently totals roughly $450 billion.
It's true that the President's fiscal 1974 budget would eliminate some
programs and cut back others in an attempt to hold Federal spending next fiscal
year to $268.7 billion. Even if we hold Federal spending to $268.7 billion, we
will incur an estimated deficit of $13 billion.
It is for this reason that Democratic leaders like Sen. Mike Mansfield of
montana have agreed that Federal spending in fiscal 1974 should be fitted under a
ceiling of $268.7 billion. Mansfield's only disagreement with the President is on
where to hold back.
I agree with that approach. Congress's cuts need not be the same as those
of the President. Our priorities need not be the same. If they were, maybe we
wouldn't be doing our job. But we must set a rigid spending ceiling of
$268.7 billion -- in line with the theory of a full employment budget -- and then
fit all appropriations under that ceiling.
As for social programs that are being cut back, my hope is that local
communities -- exercising their own judgments -- will use Federal revenue sharing
allocations to continue those programs which they deem to be worthwhile.
The year 1973 gives promise of being a great year --- and this expectation
(more)
-6--
is tied in with the need to keep Federal spending under the $268.7 billion ceiling
and thus restrain inflation.
We have lifted most mandatory controls from the economy with our Phase III
wage and price control program. The success of that program will depend on
cooperation all the way around -- by business, by labor and by the public generally.
I think we are going to win the fight against inflation because of bold actions
taken by the Administration to increase food supplies and thus take the pressure
off prices and because of evidence of labor-management support of the controls
program.
I think the timing of President Nixon's switch to Phase III was excellent.
He moved before mandatory controls became widely unpopular and before they caused
harmful economic distortions. We now have taken a healthy step toward freedom for
the economy. Some people think we now will have only "jawboning." That is not
true. We will have jawboning with teeth. There will be price rollbacks if
anybody gets seriously out of line, and there will be a healthy hold-down on wage
increases through governmental pressure.
We must avoid a new wave of inflation as the economy continues to grow.
To do that we must bring the Federal budget under control and we must limit wage
increases. Permitting huge budget deficits would create a powerful demand
inflation. Allowing unrestrained wage increases would cause fearful cost-push
inflation. Either way, every one of us would lose.
The basic prospect for the economy from now through 1974 is prosperity
without accelerating inflation. In the last quarter of 1972, real growth in the
(more)
-7-
economy -- that is, growth after inflation is accounted for -- was 8.5 per cent
and industrial production rose at a rate of 12 per cent. So the economy's momentum
going into 1973 was definitely powerful.
Between now and spring, we will see some price bulges. This will be a
reflection of winter's sudden run-up in farm prices. But after the spring, when the
price-bulging has slacked off, the inflation rate will drop off to perhaps less than
3 per cent over the second half of 1973. There are likely to be declines in the
prices of farm products and some other commodities that have contributed heavily to
inflation. And the rise in wages this year may very well be tempered by the
moderating trend in labor contracts in the last year or two.
Unemployment declined from 6 to 5.2 per cent in 1972 and continues downward.
The reading for January was, as you know, 5 per cent. It will head lower in the
months ahead, down to about 4.5 per cent.
We can look for vigorous expansion of the economy in 1973, and for
significant progress in cutting the rates of inflation and unemployment. As the
President has said, 1973 could be a great year.
# # #