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
12130685
label
Ford Press Releases, July - December 1967
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
12130685
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Ford Press Releases, July - December 1967
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Press Releases Chronological Files
subjects
Republican Party (U.S. : 1854- )
U.S. House of Representatives. 3/4/1789-
Johnson, Lyndon B. (Lyndon Baines), 1908-1973
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
12130685
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1967-12-31
month
12
year
1967
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-07-01
month
7
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
16675004f1b51561
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D4, folder "Ford Press Releases, July -
December 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
Digitized from Box D4 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
Distribution: Full, 4:30 p.m., July 10, 1967
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
July 10, 1967
Comment by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., on dispatch of U.S. Transport Planes
to Congo
The President appears to have acted without sufficient concern for the
possible consequences of the move.
The United States should not get into the position of playing fireman every
time incendiaries touch off a local conflagration somewhere in the world. The
lives of American youth are too precious to be risked in such casual fashion.
The President should respond in these instances only when the interests of
the United States are involved and only after proper consultation with the
Congress.
###
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
July 13, 1967
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD (R.-MICH.), HOUSE MINORITY LEADER
I whole-heartedly endorse the effort of my distinguished colleague from
Maryland (Mr. Mathias) to arouse this Congress to action on the long overdue
review and reform of the Executive Branch of the Government. I joined with him
and other Republican members in sponsoring such legislation two years ago, and
again at the outset of the 90th Congress. I believe that the machinery of govern-
ment, like any other machinery upon which our safety depends, requires continuous
upkeep and at regular intervals a thorough inspection and overhaul. Experience
has shown that the best way to go about this is to set up an independent commission,
sufficiently detached from partisan considerations yet sufficiently experienced
in practical governmental problems, such as the first and second Hoover Commissions
of the postwar period.
I do not think this should be a partisan political endeavor. Nor do I think
it should be pigeonholed and postponed forever simply because any objective inquiry
into the operations of the Executive Branch -- whenever it may be undertaken -- is
bound to turn up instances of inefficiency and mismanagement which may have partisan
political repercussions.
This did not deter President Truman, in 1947, nor President Eisenhower, in
1953, from enlisting the great talents of Former President Herbert Hoover and
two commissions of distinguished Americans whose monumental works helped ease
America's entry into this complex era of world leadership and responsibility.
If I might be allowed one moment of partisan pride, I would recall that the
first and second Hoover Commissions were established by the Republican 80th
Congress and the Republican 83rd Congress, respectively. And I assure my friends
on the other side of the aisle that if the Democratic 90th Congress shirks its
plain and present duty to start putting the Federal government's house in order,
as the Democratic 89th Congress did, a Republican 91st Congress will make this
reorganization effort one of its first legislative priorities in 1969!
But I would really rather see reason prevail. To wait will mean at least
two more years' delay, and already a dozen years have slipped past since there
(more)
-2-
has been any long, hard look at the overall structure of Executive Branch depart-
ments, agencies and administrative operations. Such a study cannot be undertaken
overnight, and we now have an opportunity to get it started.
Some members will point to with pride, while others will view with alarm, the
vast wilderness of new legislation and the wild proliferation of new programs and
administrative agencies created by the last Congress under the banner of the Great
Society. Whatever one's opinion, however, these new Executive Branch functions do
exist, and affect the existence of millions of Americans today. They deserve, as
well from the proponents as from the opponents of each particular program, the very
most efficient and economical administration their government can provide.
If there are any valid reasons why we should not seriously attack this problem
of bureaucratic sprawl and do it now, I have not heard them. For our part, the
Republican minority has made its position and the logic of it abundantly clear. On
January 17, 1966, at the start of the 2nd session of the 89th Congress, I said in
our Republican appraisal of the State of the Union:
"There are now 42 separate Federal agencies involved in education
programs alone. There are at least 252 welfare programs today, includ-
ing 52 separate Federal economic aid programs, 57 job training programs
and 65 Federal programs to improve health. In the ten years since the
second Hoover Commission made its report, during five Democratic-
controlled Congresses, employees on the Federal payroll have increased
by 175,000 and Federal expenditures have increased by $57 billion.
"The Executive branch has become a bureaucratic jungle. The time
has come to explore its wild growth and cut it back."
A week later the House Republican Policy Committee went on record with a
strong endorsement of the Hoover-type Commission approach to the problem. More than
a score of us introduced legislation similar to Mr. Mathias' current bill, H.R. 69.
But we were outnumbered more than two to one, and nothing happened.
On Jan. 19, 1967, in our second Republican State of the Union review, I reminde
citizens who had just voted a clear mandate for economy and efficiency that "the
need for streamlining the national government has become even more urgent since we
recommended a new Hoover-type Commission a year ago." Again the House Republican
Policy Committee threw its support behind the reorganization effort. On February 23
1967, it called for an in-depth commission study "now, without further delay."
Unfortunately, delay seems to be the regular order when such constructive pro-
posals come before this Congress. Perhaps this will change some as members return
from communing with their constituents over the Fourth of July holiday. Whether or
not the American people want more or less Federal government, I am absolutely con-
vinced they all want better government. And I hope they will let their Congressmen
know, as they have me, that they will support a solid, sensible step such as H.R. 69
to improve it.
###
Distribution: Full, 11:00 a.m., July 19, 1967
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE --
July 19, 1967
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich.
President Johnson has begun his big buildup for an income tax increase. It
is deliberately low-keyed. He does not want to scare anyone by talking at the
outset of an increase larger than a 6 per cent surtax although it is known his
advisers are urging 10 per cent.
At the same time, the President reportedly has ordered his department heads
to tell him where federal spending can be cut by as much as 15 per cent. Reports
are that Defense Secretary McNamara is planning a $10 billion postponement of
Pentagon purchases but that HEW officials are balking on the economy order.
The President yesterday said there may be "adjustments" in his income tax
increase request but that he has not yet made a decision. He was saying in
effect that he still is unsure what to recommend in the way of a tax increase
on July 18 despite the fact he urged a 6 per cent surtax as of last January to
take effect July 1 of this year.
The economic picture is fuzzy. Although the economy began moving in the
second quarter of this year after stalling during the first three months, there
is no certainty of a big upsurge in the second half of 1967. An income tax
increase could depress the economy to a point where consumers would run for cover.
They are still cautious after being downright timid early this year. According
to Sen. William Proxmire, chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, the second-
quarter gain in Gross National Product represents economic growth of only 2 per
cent on an annual basis.
The President has launched a two-pronged campaign--an apparent move to cut
back federal spending and a bid for more tax revenue. I firmly believe at this
time that only a spending hold-down is needed. If the Defense Department can
postpone spending by $10 billion in fiscal 1968, then other federal departments
also can make meaningful and substantial cutbacks. Avoidance of a tax increase
would give the American consumer the new confidence he needs.
President Johnson has said a tax increase would not be "primarily" due to
either the high level of non-defense spending or to Vietnam War costs. He said
he needs the revenue. The latter statement has the ring of truth. He wants the
tax increase as a vehicle for continuing his present guns-and-butter policy.
I believe the American people are willing to pay for the Vietnam War but
they want all the fat trimmed out of the Johnson budget. I believe they would
prefer an austerity budget to a tax increase.
President Johnson says Americans are actually paying about $24 billion less
in taxes than they did when he assumed the Presidency in late 1963. But he makes
no mention of the disastrous Johnson inflation of 1966 when the loss to savers
was $27 billion during that one year alone, due to the drop in the value of the
dollar.
Mr. Johnson raises the specter of another sharp rise in interest rates, like
the Johnson interest rate jump of 1966 which set a 40-year record. He neglects
to mention that government borrowing forced by high-level government spending was
a big factor in that interest rate climb.
Government spending is a prime source of inflation. Government spending and
borrowing is a compelling factor in pushing up interest rates. The threats of
a fresh round of inflation and a new interest rate rise are directly due to
Mr. Johnson's excessive spending plans. Under the Johnson method of economic
mismanagement, the budget will always be out of control.
The federal government needs a tax increase only if the projected level of
domestic spending is to be continued. What the American people need and want is
a cutback in domestic spending, not more income taxes.
#H
-- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE --
August 3, 1967
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD (R.-MICH.), HOUSE MINORITY LEADER
When Mr. Johnson talks of a $23.6 billion deficit without his
10 percent income tax surcharge, he is talking about continued federal
spending at present and projected levels set by his Administration.
For this and other reasons, I continue to state emphatically
that the President has not made a case for an income tax increase.
I will not concede that the present level of Federal spending
cannot be cut back sufficiently to avoid a tax increase.
The way to avoid the President's 10 percent surcharge is to make
expenditure reductions equal to the anticipated revenue from new taxes.
The President inaccurately labels this a war tax. This is not a
war tax because the need for the tax can be eliminated if sufficient
domestic spending items and non-Vietnam defense items are cut and others
deferred.
As for the proposals which would freeze the automobile and telephone
excises at existing levels and speed up collection of corporate income taxes,
these will have to be considered in the light of their impact on the
industries involved and the economy generally. It must be remembered that
the auto industry is the bellwether of the economy and has only recently
climbed out of the slump into which it was plunged by mismanagement of the
economy by the Johnson Administration.
######
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--Release in PMs of August 3--
Remarks by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., prepared for delivery on the floor of
the House on Thursday, August 3, 1967.
Mr. Speaker, America today is shaken by a deep national crisis--a near-
breakdown of law and order made even more severe by civil disorders in which
criminal elements are heavily engaged.
The law-abiding citizens of America who have suffered at the hands of the
lawless and the extremists are anxiously awaiting a remedy.
This is a time for swift and decisive action. It is a time for early-effect
measures, and a time for longrange solutions which not only repair but greatly
strengthen the fabric of our society. It is long past the time when we should
launch an all-out assault on the criminal in our midst and on the social conditions
which tend to breed crime and civil disorder.
We have before us legislation which we hope will stiffen the will and the
way of local law enforcement. I trust all of us here today will work together
to shape this legislation into the best possible law enforcement aid for our
states and local communities.
I personally feel that in this bill as in other measures needed to rebuild
a badly torn and bleeding America we must take a new approach and in some instances
a bold and imaginative approach.
We must abandon the idea of direct Federal intervention in the cities, with
a Federal administrator deciding arbitrarily who will get what and how much. In
the field of law enforcement as in others we must provide the incentive for
strong state and local action with federal dollar help. That dollar help should
be channeled through the states, through a designated state agency which would
implement a statewide plan for stronger law enforcement as approved by our
Justice Department.
If the legislation now before us is amended to provide for such block grants
to the states to bolster state and local law enforcement, I believe we should
double the authorization requested by the President for fiscal 1968. I also want
an equitable allocation formula written into the bill. I don't want law enforce-
ment grants left solely to the discretion of the attorney general of the United
States.
What is Congress doing about crime in the streets about the arson, looting
(more)
-2-
and murder that have made American cities from coast to coast places of horror,
suffering and shame?
This House has passed an Anti-Riot Act, legislation which has received the
silent treatment by the President and has been labeled unnecessary by the
Attorney General.
We are about to pass landmark legislation to be known as the Law Enforcement
and Criminal Justice Assistance Act of 1967.
What has the President of the United States done to assist the Congress in
meeting the crime and civil disorders crisis of 1967?
Before the most recent outbreaks, he sent the Congress a so-called Safe
Streets Bill which has been amended in more than 20 instances in the House
Judiciary Committee. After the Detroit riot, he appointed a presidential study
commission on civil disorders.
Has there been a flow of proposals from the White House to the Congress .in a
move to deal vigorously with the crime-in-the-streets crisis, which occupies a
national priority second only to the War in Vietnam and has eclipsed even the
war in the minds of the American people?
There have not been any new proposals from the White House. There has been
"business as usual." There has been a fresh push by the President for more of
the same, more millions for his Great Society programs, and charges by the
President, the vice-president and the Secretary of Agriculture that you people
here in the House have been inactive.
I submit that the Johnson Administration has delivered itself of a self-
indictment in blaming the 1967 riots on the Congress. I submit that this attempt
to fasten the blame on the Congress indicates a bankruptcy of ideas within the
Administration.
This is "the game of switch," a move by the Administration to divert the
blame from itself by pinning it on the Congress. The Administration is using
the Congress as a scapegoat for its own troubles. The President is asking the
American people to believe that the proposals he has advanced since he assumed
the Presidency in November, 1963, contained all the answers and Congress just
hasn't given him enough money. My friend, George Mahon, answered that argument
beautifully here on the floor last Monday when he cited the tremendous sums that
Democratic Congresses have voted since 1960 and declared that "Spending is not
the answer to these problems."
All of this should tell us that something is bascially wrong with the
Johnson Administration's approach to the problems of our cities, the evils that
(more)
-3-
help to spawn crime and civil disorder. Yet the President has spurned every new
approach offered by the Loyal Opposition, has refused to seriously entertain any
new proposals.
I challenge him to take a fresh look at the ideas set forth in the Republican
State of the Union Message of last January 19--particularly those of tax credits
as an incentive to industry to attack urban problems, a proposed Industry Youth
Corps to provide private, productive employment for young people as part of a
revamped War on Poverty, the Human Investment Act which would trigger a nationwide
on-the-job training program by industry, and the Percy-Widnall plan to set up a
National Home Ownership Foundation for slum dwellers.
The Washington Post, one of the country's great newspapers, called editorially
last Monday for a "great departure" in domestic policy, a "different direction."
Republicans proposed a "New Direction" in our State of the Union Message last
January.
We have repeatedly urged the tax credit approach to the problems of the cities.
So, now, does the Washington Post. So, too, does a prominent Senate Democrat.
To the Washington Post and to Bobby Kennedy, I say, "Welcome to the club."
The Vice-President, who has been admiringly labeled "the President's echo"
by the Washington Post, last night lofted a trial balloon on Lyndon Johnson's
behalf. He called for a domestic Marshall Plan to fight poverty in the United
States. I thought we had an anti-poverty program. Is Mr. Humphrey calling the
Johnson Anti-Poverty Program a failure?
Mr. Humphrey obviously is saying that the $25.6 billion wh ich President
Johnson's 1968 budget message lists as earmarked for the poverty fight this
fiscal year is not enough. Is he proposing that we spend an additional $20 billion
this fiscal year, to be added to the $20 to $30 billion deficit the Johnson-
Humphrey Administration already is running?
Mr. Humphrey appears to be calling the Democratic majority in the Congress a
bunch of pikers, although the President proudly declares in his 1968 budget
message that LBJ spending on "federal aid to the poor" not only has gone up
nearly $16 billion since 1960 but is nearly double the amount spent by John F.
Kennedy in 1963.
Where are all the blessings from this outpouring of federal aid? George
Mahon said on Monday, "The more we have appropriated for these programs, the more
violence we have had." He added, "This refutes the idea that money alone is the
answer to this problem."
I say we need new imaginative proposals, not more of the same. If the
(more)
-4-
President's trial balloon domestic Marshall Plan is simply a dollar-fattening of
his old ideas, then the President is failing to help the Congress meet the great
crisis that confronts the American people.
I challenge the President to cast off his blinders, to open his eyes to
fresh new approaches to our slum sickness. I challenge him to re-think America's
problems, for the sands of time are flowing fast.
#####
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY--
Remarks by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., on the Floor of the House of
Representatives, Tuesday, August 8, 1967.
Mr. Speaker, I rise after much Today reflection to express my grave misgivings,
I
which have been growing for many months, about the way the war in Vietnam is
going. I believe my concern is shared by many millions of my countrymen, and I
know it is shared by those responsible for fighting the war in Vietnam.
My troubled thoughts were brought into sharper focus last Thursday by the
President's message asking for a 10% Federal income tax surcharge. Most of the
comment on this floor and in the press centered initially on his tax increase
proposals For my part I reiterated that President Johnson still has not made
a convincing case for higher taxes.
1th his tax message, as an additional and emotionally-compelling
argument, the President announced his decision to "authorize an increase of at
least 45,000 in the number of men to be sent to Vietnam this fiscal year."
This will swell the total to 525,000 Americans, not counting those in
adjacent areas, surpassing our peak manpower commitment to the Korean War.
Vietnam is a major war, and has become an American war.
At the end of 1963, when President Johnson succeeded to the Presidency, the
United States had approximately 16,000 men in Vietnam. Only 109 had been killed
in action and about 500 wounded.
By grim coincidence, the Pentagon released the latest casualty figures on
the same day we received the President's tax increase message. The toll of
Americans (as of July 29) now stands at 87,000 12,000 dead and 75,000 wounded.
(Figures rounded.)
Mr. Speaker, I blame nobody but the Communist enemy for these sad statistics.
I have supported the President and our country from the outset and to this hour.
I have heard myself branded a hawk, and worse, for counseling firmness against
Communist aggression and using America's awesome arsenal of conventional arms
to compel a swift and sure peace.
But I am troubled, as I think most Americans are troubled. Recent surveys
show that more than half of our people are not satisfied with the way the war
in Vietnam is being conducted.
(more)
GERALD
LIBRARY
-2-
Mr. Speaker, why are we talking about money when we should be talking about
men? The essential element in President Johnson's tax increase message, I
submit, is not higher revenues but human lives not whether every American
should live better but whether hundreds and thousands of Americans are going
to live at all.
This is not an academic exercise with computers. This involves the finest
of our future leaders. This is a question crying for bold leadership and
political courage of the highest order even the courage to admit past policies
have been woefully wrong.
I believe everyone in this House would willingly vote any level of taxes
and the American people would willingly pay them if they were convinced it would
bring the Vietnam War to an end. But as I do not believe the grave challenges
we face at home can be countered simply by pouring out more and more money,
neither do I believe the graver challenge in Southeast Asia can be met merely
by pouring in more and more men and by these brave men pouring out more and more
blood.
I am troubled, Mr. Speaker, that the President's ordering 45,000 more
Americans to Vietnam is almost taken for granted, so hardened have we become to
these creeping commitments. I am troubled that the only apparent result of
Gen. Taylor's and Mr. Clifford's circuit of our Pacific allies, besides arrang-
ing another Asian Summit show, was a promise of some 3,000 to 15,000 South Korean
reservists "to release American troops for combat duty" in Vietnam. Shouldn't
it be the other way around?
President Johnson himself set the groundrules for a great debate about our
nation's priorities and goals. I accept them. I hope others will join. In
his tax increase message, Mr. Johnson said:
"This nation has taken a solemn pledge that its sons and brothers engaged
in the conflict (in Vietnam) shall never lack all the help, all the arms, and
all the equipment essential for their mission and for their very lives. America
must and will honor that pledge. It is for this reason that expenditures for
Vietnam - subject as they are to the variable demands of military operations --
may now exceed our earlier estimates."
After outlining his higher tax plans, the President added:
"The inconveniences this demand imposes are small when measured against
the contribution of a Marine on patrol in a sweltering jungle, or an airman
flying through perilous skies, or a soldier 10,000 miles from home waiting to
(more)
LIBRARY
-3-
join his outfit on the line.
Who can question such a comparison?
But the question we the question Inmust ask -- is this:
Why, and how long, must United States Marines patrol that sweltering jungle?
Why, and how long, must U.S. Navy and Air Force pilots brave increasingly deadly
skies because the flow of sophisticated Soviet weapons has not been stopped?
Why, and how long, must American soldiers -- now nearly half a million -- wait
10,000 miles from home to meet and match Asian enemies man to man, body for body?
Mr. Speaker we must ask another question: Why are we pulling our best
punches in Vietnam?
Is there no end, no other answer except more men, more men, more men?
Of course we will give our fighting men all they need to defend their lives
and carry out their mission. But what is their mission?
Is there any clear, coherent and credible military plan for bringing this
bloody business to a conclusion?
Certainly there are such plans. Our ablest military leaders would be
unbelievably derilict not to have developed a variety of alternative strategies
based on the situation and sound military experience, But up to now they have
not been allowed to put their plans to a real test, or worse, their plans have
been tried piecemeal, in the same senseless way Americans have been fed piecemeal
from 16,000 to 525,000 into this peninsular war, under such high-level restrictions
as to void their validity.
General Eisenhower recently stated pointedly that a "war of gradualism"
cannot be won. The result of our "war of gradualism" against North Vietnam has
been the equivalent buildup of the enemy forces on the ground and the accelerated
hardening of his defenses.
Mr. Speaker, when you have to change a tire, you tighten every lug as hard
as you can. If you only tighten one, or tighten them unevenly, your car will
go on wobbling down the road and wind up in a ditch.
What is especially dishonest is secretly to forbid effective strategic
action and publicly portray it as an honest try. Then, when expected results
are not forthcoming, to belittle the effort and its backers. This is worse than
dishonest for meanwhile brave men have died in vain.
I point no accusing finger. I do not want to be partisan or personal.
This is not a Democratic war nor a Republican war but an American war, as all our
wars have been once we were in them. My party has, in fact, stated its support
(more)
LIBRARY
of the war in Vietnam more explicitly and muted its public criticism and dissent
more successfully than the President's party.
Republican policy on Vietnam generally has been based on a very precise
and wholly nonpartisan statement which I helped to draft and to which I have
consistently subscribed for the past 20 months. It was issued December 13, 1965
by the National Republican Coordinating Committee and its main points were
these:
1. "Our purpose is....to repel Communist aggression, to minimize American
and Vietnamese casualties, and to bring about a swift and secure peace."
(Emphasis mine.)
2. "There is a growing danger that the United States is becoming involved
in an endless land war in Southeast Asia (which) would be to the advantage
of the Communists."
3. "Our first objective should be to impose a Kennedy-type (sea) quarantine
on North Vietnam."
4. "To accomplish our objectives we also recommend the maximum use of
American conventional air and sea power against significant military targets."
Mr. Speaker, when these reasoned, responsible and limited military measures
were urged by the leaders of the loyal opposition party some 20 months ago,
American casualties in Vietnam stood at less than 1500 dead and 6500 wounded;
a total of 8000 as compared to 87,000 today.
Now we are told, and we scarcely question, the President's decision to
dispatch another 10% reinforcement of our ground troops - 45,000 more men to
Vietnam hardly enough to be noticed except by those called and their loved
ones. Surely this is what a nationally respected Washington column has branded
Horror on the Installment Plan." (Reston, May 14, 1967, NYT)
Reviewing our December 1965 policy statement I am compelled to some tragic
and troubling conclusions
First, under policies which the President has just pledged to continue
substantiall unchanged, our purpose of minimizing American casualties has failed.
Our purpose of securing a swift peace has failed, because it was never tried.
And our purpose of repelling Communist aggression remains, at best, a dubious
stalemate and deadly duel of attrition.
leaders
Second, our warning against involvement in a disadvantageous land war in
Asia has gone unheeded. It now is academic. Half a million Americans are deeply
involved, more than 10,000 have lost their lives in the intervening 20 months,
(more)
GERALD FORD VIBRARY
-5-
and the only answer present leadership has to offer is to order 45,000 more into
battle.
Third, our primary recommendation for a quarantine, or any meaningful
form of seapower sanction against Haiphong harbor, has been rejected. The enemy
meanwhile has had time to develop and defend alternative overland and air supply
routes bristling with imported Soviet weapons. After many months the refitting
of the battleship U.S.S. New Jersey has just been authorized, and will take
almost a year to finish. Meanwhile the enemy has installed in heavy concrete
emplacements along the North Vietnamese coast what may well be Soviet surface-
to-surface missiles capable of sinking a warship at 100-mile ranges.
Fourth, only one small portion of one of our recommendations, the use of
conventional American air and sea power against military targets, has been even
belatedly tried. On June 29, 1966, President Johnson permitted air attacks on
some, but not all, of North Vietnam's petroleum storage depots. As Secretary of
Defense McNamara admitted at the time, the enemy already was well advanced on a
major dispersion plan. But to this day, 13 months later, only about one-fourth
of the known oil storage targets in North Vietnam have been hit by American air
strikes and a significant percentage remain officially forbidden.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am deeply troubled. Is this any way to run a war
while casualties increase ten-fold? Is it really necessary, will it do any real
good, to send another 45,000 men to Vietnam?
Before leaving our 20-month, old recommendations, largely rejected, let me
stress two other key words in that Republican statement. Nobody was or is
urging "escalation." It was specific about conventional weapons -- the kind we
have been dropping on jungles and individual trucks in prodigious tonnages -- and
about military targets, not indiscriminate bombing of civilians or cities. But
the Communists, as they proved in Korea and other wars, are quite capable of
shielding their most strategic targets with their own women and children. It is
horrible, but effective.
The very word "escalation" has become a bugaboo and its military meaning
abused. The scope of American involvement in Vietnam was really escalated or
enlarged in February 1965 when President Johnson approved the bombing of North
Vietnam. I accept the President's own definition (August 29, 1964) during the
1964 election campaign when he told Americans:
"I have had advice to load our planes with bombs and to drop them on certain
areas that I think would enlarge the war, and result in our committing a good
FORD
(more)
GERALD
LIBRARY
-6-
many American boys to fighting a war that I think ought to be fought by the boys
of Asia to help protect their own land. And for that reason I haven chosen to
enlarge the war."
Mr. Speaker, I supported the President when he reversed this decision six
months later. I again supported him when he removed his earlier restraints on
bombing some enemy oil storage depots in June, 1966. Neither of these steps
brought Russian or Red Chinese intervention. What they did bring was a loud
Communist clamor for unconditional U.S. cessation of all bombing of North Vietnam,
and much propaganda about civilian casualties.
Thus we already have accepted whatever real risks or propaganda punishment
might be incurred in maximum use of American conventional sea and air power
against significant military targets in North Vietnam. The whole world thinks
that is what we are doing. The American people have been and still are being led
to believe that is what we are doing. Most Americans wonder why North Vietnam
has not been totally destroyed. They remember what conventional bombing did to
Tokyo and Berlin, to London and Warsaw. They wonder what can be left in North
Vietnam worth bombing.
Over this past weekend, Mr. Speaker, there have been successive reports of
massive American air strikes against North Vietnam. On Saturday we read: "197
Missions Set Record for Raids on North Vietnam." On Sunday it was "U.S. Carrier
Jets Meet Heavy Fire in Hanoi Region," and on Monday, "U.S. Raids North 178 Times
in Day." It also was announced we have lost 636 U.S. planes over North Vietnam.
But when one reads the official spokesmen's account of what was accomplished
on these air strikes, nothing has changed. Strategic bombers from Guam dropped
their bombs on North Vietnamese weapons positions, base camps, storage areas and
trails. U.S. pilots attacked troop concentrations, three artillery pieces, one
bunker, two armored vehicles, one tank, five trucks. Other strikes hit an oil
storage depot, 28 trucks, 10 undescribed buildings, one warehouse area, one
bridge. These are all the details given for what is touted as the biggest American
air assault of the Vietnam War.
Mr. Speaker, we are still pulling our best punch in North Vietnam.
The distinguished first Secretary of the Air Force, Senator Symington,
recently expressed his exasperation over accounts of U.S. bombing of North
Vietnamese targets by saying "Somebody is making available to the press a vast
amount of misinformation."
(more)
GERALD
LIBRARY
-7-
I believe it is high time the American people knew the truth.
Would the American people believe that in mid-1967, after two and one-half
years of U.S. bombing of North Vietnam -- an area about the size of Michigan --
only 3 out of every 10 significant military targets had ever been struck by
U.S. air power?
Why are we still pulling our sirpower panch?
Would the American people believe that when Secretary McNamara made his
ninth visit to Vietnam last month, publicly opining that U.S. forces there might
be used more effectively, nearly half the identified top priority targets in
North Vietnam were officially off-limits to air attack under high-level orders
from Washington?
Why are we still pulling our airpower punch?
Would the American people believe that more than a hundred vital fixed
enemy positions in North Vietnam, including most of the air defense control
centers that have accounted for more than 600 U.S. planes, most of his major
airfields and all of his naval facilities, could not be attacked under Washington
orders?
Why are we still pulling our airpower punch?
Would the American people believe that despite the much-publicized and
prayerful Presidential decision to allow bombing of some oil depots a year ago,
about three-fourths of the enemy's petroleum storage targets had not yet come
under attack? Or that despite frequent news reports of raids on power plants,
roughly one-third of North Vietnam's total power targets and all enemy hydro-
electric generating facilities were still forbidden targets by orders from on
high.
Why are we still pulling our air power punch?
Would the American people believe that 60 percent of the key targets that
make up North Vietnam's transportation network were immune from our air attack?
That only about one-fourth of these priority transport targets, one-third of his
railroad facilities and bridges had ever been attacked? That all seaport targets
and canal locks were off-limits? That most of the enemy's repair shops could not
be hit?
Why are we still pulling our airpower punch?
Would the American people believe that high-level directives for more than
two years prevented American airmen from hitting 5 out of 6 of North Vietnam's
key industrial targets? That however primitive, nearly 90% of the targets in
the enemy's war-making industrial base remained unscathed?
(more)
-8-
Would Americans believe that even in the category of purely military
facilities, North Vietnamese army, navy, air force and defense installations,
more than two-thirds of the total targets never had been attacked? That only
ammunition dumps have been significantly hit? That almost half of these
military targets remained officially forbidden by high-level policy restraints?
Mr. Speaker, why are we pulling our airpower punch?
Contrary to the calculated public impression, the real argument at the
highest levels of our government which took Mr. McNamara to Saigon last month
and twice brought Gen. Westmoreland to Washington has not been whether to send
250,000 men, or 100,000 men, or 45,000 men, or 20,000 men to Vietnam. It is
high time the American people knew what the real issue was.
The real issue, Mr. Speaker, was whether we really have any hope of winning
the Vietnam war, in the sense of meaningful and concerted military pressure
that could force the enemy to the negotiating table, or not. If not, I can see
no justification for sending one more American over there, let alone 45,000.
Perhaps we all have been diverted in recent weeks, by the Middle East crisis
and the violence in our cities, from the moment of truth that is confronting
this nation on our future course in Vietnam. But the straws have been in the
wind.
On July 24, at the height of the Detroit riots, the New York Times reported
from obviously authoritative Washington sources that "U.S. Won't Modify Vietnam
Bombing." Predictably, it reported President Johnson as firmly rejecting both
pleas for expanding air strikes by approving new targets and counter-proposals
to restrict bombing to the southern zone of North Vietnam.
On August 1 one of our own colleagues from California, one of the
Administration's sharpest war critics on the other side of the aisle (Mr. Brown)
said in Los Angeles that the latest "agonizing reappraisal" in the White House
had been resolved.
"Temporarily at least the President will follow his customary practice of
going down the middle, making no change in the bombing policy, probably until
after the September 3 election in Vietnam," the gentleman forecast.
On the same day Columnist Joseph Kraft in the Washington Post complained
that "nowhere is the assertion that a specified effort continued over a
particular time ought to yield a defined result. The Defense Secretary talks of
progress, but does not say progress toward what. As a result there is no good
measure for asserting what the United States is doing in Vietnam."
"Maybe the President has some scheme for getting the country out of the war
(more)
GERALD
LIBRARY
-9-
as invisibly as he got it into the war," this columnist continued. "Maybe there
is a program for applying military pressure until the other side breaks. Maybe
there is a plan for negotiations after the elections in South Vietnam next month.
"But none of us can know that. On the contrary, all we can see is a shell
game," Mr. Kraft concluded.
Mr. Speaker, I have quoted others who, while not always in agreement with me,
voice the same gnawing doubts I feel. Yet in his tax increase message last week,
President Johnson only confirmed our worst fears. He revealed no recent change
in his policies or his plans. On the contrary, he took pains to strees that his
words about the Viet-Nam War last January "are even more true today."
The President repeated his bleak estimate that "we face more cost, more loss,
and more agony." He reiterated that nearly half a million Americans "have
deprived the Communist enemy of victory" and that the enemy "can no longer succeed
on the battlefield." He did not say our pressure on the enemy would be intensi-
fied or increased, only this:
"I must say to you that our pressure must be sustained - and will be
sustained . until he realizes that the war he started is costing him more than
he can ever gain. I know of no strategy more likely to attain that end than the
strategy of 'accumulating slowly, but inexorably, every kind of material resource'
'of laboriously teaching troops the very element of their trade.' That, and
patience -- and I mean a great deal of patience."
Again I ask: why are we pulling our airpower punch?
Our Navy and Air Force have clear superiority in the air over North Vietnam
and its coastal areas. They have the weapons and resources they need. They
know "the very elements of their trades" superbly. Must we accept as inevitable
that the only way to fight this war is within the territory of South Vietnam,
matching the enemy body for body, bayonet for bayonet, grenade for grenade?
It is one thing to deprive the enemy of victory. It is one thing to say he
can) no longer succeed. It is one thing to increase his cost of continuing the
war. Cannot Ho Chi Minh claim he has done the same to us?
Can we match the Asian Communists even in patience?
I for one am running short of patience, Mr. Speaker. I would like to believe
that the President has been misled or misinformed, that with all his aides and
advisors he has been unable to obtain the evidence which I know is available to
him as it is to me.
In his tax increase message President Johnson concluded that "the test before
(more)
BERAUD FOR (IBRAR)
10
us as people is whether we have the will and the courage to match our
commitments."
Mr. James Reston, commenting in Sunday's New York Times, says this:
The unsolved problem, obvious for a very long time, which Lyndon Johnson
will not face and which the people intuitively understand or seem to understand,
is the problem of priority."
I believe the test of will and courage is not the people's, but the
President's. I believe that ending the war in Vietnam must have the very
highest of national priorities, now.
Without this, we shall continue to wallow and weave and wobble in what
General Eisenhower called "as nasty a mess as we have ever been in." Neither
more men, nor more money, nor more material will do any good unless there is
more will and more courage at the top.
Who knowsbetter than Gen. Eisenhower that there can be only one course
when a nation resorts to force of arms: to give the war first priority among
national aims: to wage it efficiently and with minimum bloodshed an brutalization
of one's own people; to hit hard enough and convincingly enough to bring it to
an early end. The tiny nation of Israel just reaffirmed this axiom of war.
Have we abandoned it? Why are we pulling our airpower punch?
Mr I hope that the apparent step-up in air attacks over North
Vietnam over the past few days signals a reversal of past mistakes, that targets
of real strategic significance will shortly be struck, and that before the
weather turns bad for another long season this will really cripple the enemy's
warmaking capability. I hope this, but the President has only promised to
sustain the same inadequate level of pressure permitted in the past.
Would Americans believe, Speaker, that during all of 1966, handcuffed
by such secret restraints, brave American airmen flew more than 100,000 combat
missions over North Vietnam without attacking one of these significant strategic
targets? Would they believe that under this policy, apparently unchanged, only
about 1000 strikes were directed against top priority pressure points during
1966, while 279 U.S. planes were lost?
Can military morale be sustained under such circumstances? Can peace ever
be won this way?
I am not a military expert, but I have full confidence in many dedicated
Americans who are, and in the facts that support their deep and patriotic concern.
I believe the American people deserve to be told the truth about Vietnam. There
(more)
LIBRARY
11
is no need to conceal such information from the enemy, unless it be to deceive
one's own countrymen.
The enemy in North Vietnam knows where his vital targets are. He knows
which have been attacked and which enjoy privileged sanctuary. He knows many
of his most vital and vulnerable strategic assets have been spared. Ho Chi Minh
probably asks himself: Why are the Americans pulling their airpower punch?
Mr. Speaker I do not know the answer. I doubt that Ho Chi Minh knows the
answer. I hope he does not interpret it as proof of America's lack of will and
courage, I hope it does not encourage him psychologically to prolong the
sluaghter as it surely enables him to continue militarily. It is inhuman even
to an enemy to hack him to death by inches.
I do not want to wait until the September 1967 elections in South Vietnam
to start ending this war.
I do not want to wait until the 1968 elections in the United States to bring
this war to an end.
If bringing peace to Vietnam and bringing half a million Americans home alive
would ensure President Johnson's re-election by a landslide, I would gladly pay
that price.
I don't think the President has made a convineing case for a tax increase.
Let us debate that another day. Even less, in view of the evidence I have, has
the Commander-in-Chief made a convincing case for sending 45,000 more troops to
fight a ground war in Viet-Nam.
It is my earnest plea that he will reconsider.
SAMPLES OF FIRST TWO DAYS' MAIL & WIRES ON AUGUST 8 VIETNAM SPEECH
Favorable to Unfavorable Ratio 10-to-1
NEW YORK --
Your speech I hope may be considered the key step in a break
of the entire Republican Party with Administration policy on
Vietnam
Both morally and politically the new Republican
policy should be quite simple "Fish or cut bait."
ALABAMA --
THANK GOD AT LAST A VOICE OF THE PEOPLE HAS SPOKEN OUT IN
CONGRESS IN DEFENSE OF TRUTH AND SANITY AND RESPONSIBILITY
IN GOVERNMENT. WE ADMIRE YOUR COURAGE
WE ARE BEHIND
YOU
DON'T GIVE UP THE CAUSE.
PENNSYLVANIA -- Please continue your efforts to uncover the failures in our
Vietnam war effort. We find it hard to believe the U.S. can
do so poorly that we are despised by the world.
OKLAHOMA --
CONGRATULATIONS CN YOUR LONG AWAITED STATEMENTS ABOUT THE WEAK
MANNER THE ADMINISTRATION IS CONDUCTING WAR AND PULLING OUR
AIRPOWER PUNCH.
DISTRICT OF --
Your comments and position on the Vietnam situation are in my
COLUMBIA
opinion absolutely sound and correct. Do everything in your
power to force the hand of the Executive to maximize the
proper use of military equipment before one additional service-
man is shipped to that country.
PENNSYLVANIA --
I am appealing to you to do all in your power to hasten an end
to this slaughter of our best manhood needlessly. The
sycophantic so-called advisors who surround our President
should be exposed.
MICHIGAN --
MCNAMARA MAY BE AGAINST THIS BUT BE SURE 90 PERCENT OF TAX-
PAYING PEOPLE ARE FOR USING OUR AIRPOWER AND FEEL IT WOULD END
THIS MESS IN A HURRY. KEEP UP THIS DRIVE WE NEED IT.
NEW YORK --
Congratulations on your Vietnam policy. The Administration
has done everything but kiss the Viet Cong's feet -- while
GIs were dying every day. God bless you.
WASHINGTON --
WE AGREE EMPHATICALLY. KEEP UP PRESSURE.
FLORIDA --
SIR THE MOTHERS OF AMERICA ARE DEEPLY INDEBTED TO YOU AND OUR
KIDS IN VIETNAM WILL REMEMBER YOU FOR FORTHRIGHT COURAGEOUS
STAND IN DEFENSE OF THEIR LIVES.
WEST VIRGINIA -- President Johnson is playing politics with our boys lives.
Let's win or get out! Thank you.
CALIFORNIA
MCNAMARA'S POSITION DOESN'T SAVE AMERICAN LIVES AND CERTAINLY
DOESN'T WIN
SUCH A POSITION DEVOURS RESOURCES MONEY AND
MEN
BELIEVE SUCH CONDUCT OF VIETNAM WAR TO BE IMMORAL.
PENNSYLVANIA --
This is the basic reason for failure to get Hanoi to a con-
ference table: a bombing halt is meaningless if the bombing
itself is painless. If real targets were being hit, a
bombing halt -- or the promise of it -- would be sufficient
inducement.
NEW YORK --
THANK HEAVENS WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A REAL OPPOSITION PARTY.
ILLINOIS --
IT'S TIME THE PRESIDENT WAS CALLED TO ACCOUNT FOR THIS TRAGIC
ENDLESS STALEMATE.
VIRGINIA --
I'm truly sick and tired of Mr. McNamara saying the objective
of the war is not to win but to occasionally slap the enemy's
wrist. Mr. McNamara feels that you don't understand the
objectives; I suggest those objectives should be changed.
-2-
MASSACHUSETTS -- I wouldn't hire a plumber to fix my TV set -- civilians don't
know how to fight a war. Where did McNamara get his military
experience -- but I suppose he is not the real one to blame.
(A veteran)
VIRGINIA --
I do so thoroughly agree with you. I am a lifelong Democrat
but the present Administration has made a Republican of me.
NEW YORK --
WE ARE DISGUSTED WITH THE ERRORS AND HALFWAY MEASURES THAT
HAVE CAUSED UNNECESSARY LOSS OF AMERICAN LIVES
WIN OR GET
OUT OF VIETNAM. (A professor)
IDAHO --
I feel as you, the truth about Vietnam should be told our
people. They are the ones paying taxes and offering their
sons as sacrifices -- for what? (A Democratic party worker)
NEW YORK --
Thank God for one in Congress with a backbone. Excuse me for
writing but you are the only man that is for the U.S.A.
OHIO
I wish I could read the entire speech. I believe every word
that was published. The remarks of the Secretary of Defense
are beyond my understanding. To say the restraints on bombing
are designed to save American lives is certainly ridiculous
since they prolong this war of attrition.
IOWA --
The people of our country owe you a debt of gratitude for
your speech concerning the ridiculous management of our
Vietnam activities by McNamara and the President and for
exposing the misinformation the Administration puts out for
political purposes. Thank you for presentation of facts.
NEW YORK --
Today I am writing my Senators and Congressman -- but not to
congratulate them. Rather, to let them know I wish they'd
get in line with you.
TENNESSEE --
The President and McNamara are afraid of killing a civilian
over there but they are not afraid of killing our boys. The
people know you know the facts as well as your duty.
PENNSYLVANIA
:
I often wonder why we have a Congress until I hear a voice
of wisdom such as yours. I'm sure you sleep soundly at night
with your conscience.
TEXAS
Thank Goodness somebody in Congress has decided to speak out.
I have a son who spent 20 months in and out of the war zone
so I've given a great deal of thought to this matter. Get in,
get it over with and get out, fast.
VIRGINIA --
Congratulations! It's about time someone told the American
public the truth.
NEW YORK
How right you are! It's great to hear some common sense talk
from the GOP. In 1968 the people are going to pay their
respects to the Washington intellectuals who are pussyfooting
with the Reds in Vietnam and elsewhere. The people will
elect a man who is for letting the military run and win the
war.
CALIFORNIA
We along with millions of Americans back your statements about
Vietnam made today. We are plain DISGUSTED with this
Administration.
MASSACHUSETTS -- WE PRAY YOU STAND FAST AND END OR STEP UP THIS COWARDLY HALF
BOMBING OF JOHNSON'S AND THE LOSER MCNAMARA. WE AREN'T
WINNING BUT INSTEAD SEE CASUALTIES MOUNTING OUT OF DEFERENCE
TO ENEMIES, HALF FRIENDS AND POWER HUNGRY AMERICAN MINORITY.
IT'S TIME FOR MAJORITY RULE IN THIS DISTURBED COUNTRY.
CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR COURAGE.
MICHIGAN --
HEARTIEST CONGRATULATIONS ON TYING FURTHER DRAFTING TO REMOVAL
OF BOMBING RESTRICTIONS.
-3-
VIRGINIA --
Your analysis of giving the Prsident more money and troops is
as correct as President Lincoln's assessment of Gen.
McClellan -- "Sending that man and more men is like pushing
fleas across a room. "
ILLINOIS --
This present policy that we have is very confusing to me. I
heartily support our objectives in being in Vietnam, but it is
becomming more and more difficult to see how we can send our
young men over there to fight and die while at the same time
protecting the enemy. (A clergyman)
NEW JERSEY
There are millions of Democrats and Republicans who feel as
you do. We were very glad to know that someone in Washington
has the courage to speak out.
OHIO
Congratulations for your most honest and revealing speech.
For the sake of the Nation, keep up your investigations and
then speak out!
NEW YORK --
I watched you on TV this morning explaining your position
against LBJ and his cronies and their one-man war. For too
long a time, the Republican Party has been a gutless group.
I encourage you to continue. You were not critical enough.
MICHIGAN --
I support your position. If we are not fighting to win this
war, if vital targets are in restricted areas, why are we
there? Certainly sending 45,000 more troops is a sign of
escalation as much as bombing restricted areas.
MONTANA --
GOD BLESS YOU FOR HAVING COURAGE TO SPEAK UP. MAY OTHER
REPUBLICANS BACK YOU AND STOP THIS WASTE OF OUR BOYS
FLORIDA --
I agree with you. Let's stop killing our boys off. Congress
should have gotten the Secretary of Defeat and Destruction
out of office long ago -- he never has told the truth.
NEW YORK --
Please be assured this is no casual support -- we have three
in the U.S. Marine Corps. One son was killed leading his
platoon in Vietnam. I hope your point of view prevails.
DISTRICT OF --
As a Democrat, I commend you for your efforts to bring to
COLUMBIA
the attention of the American people our tactical follies
and political and military pussyfooting.
CALIFORNIA --
My bitterness stems from my certain knowledge that the missile
buildup in North Vietnam would not have been possible had
the military been permitted to run this war -- and my son
would be alive.
DISTRICT OF
Although I am not generally with you on matters of partisan
COLUMBIA
concern, I want to thank you and congratulate you for
speaking outside a partisan context yesterday on this seemingly
endless, divisive and corrupting war that we must somehow
come to terms with in Vietnam. Your speech was one of the
better pieces of Statesmanship in this whole rather ineffectual
session of the Congress.
KANSAS --
I am at a complete loss to understand why more of the members
of Congress don't back you up. I am positive that a big
majority of thinking Americans agree with you. It is rotten
politics to trade lives for votes and that is what Johnson
is doing in Vietnam even as he did in Detroit. We'll see a
different story along about election time.
NEGATIVE
NEW YORK --
The American people do not need your insane counsel of
bombing innocent people in Vietnam for the profit of
American merchants of death.
-4-
DISTRICT OF --
I have noted your continuing efforts to offer constructive
COLUMBIA
alternatives to the Administration's involvement in Vietnam.
Your current criticism, I fear, is not in this category. May
I suggest another alternative -- that we put a price on Viet
Cong and North Vietnamese heads.
NEW JERSEY --
U Thant has told the world negotiations would probably take
place if the bombing ceased. But Mr. Johnson and Mr. Ford
encourage the escalation in spite of world opinion.
MICHIGAN --
You are concerned only with the provincial thoughts of your
narrow, small town supporters. How can you be so brazen as to
stand up in front of TV and pretend to represent the American
people? You represent nothing but a fine group of farmers who
have never in their lives read anything except Booth
Tafkington or O. Henry, and I'm dubious about O. Henry.
or 0' HOULD' suq I, qaprone spont 0' HOURA
реде USAGE TU cpers ITAGE Long COACHING excebp Boory
beobjes Ion LOBLESSUE Docution prit S ETUS Sconb of apo
areng nb TO from of IA upq brecong CO que ywelrown
DULLOA ewsit com anbbottera* HOM COU Aon ps 80 presen 110 CO
WICHIEVH
gon THE concesury ouje BISK cpe sponSpre OF dont
suconiste spo TO abrie of moxyq obroxoa*
bjoce TE spe pomprus coweeq* BOG w uug a kozy
NEM TENSEA
n pea FOIG cpe morjq DEBOCTATIONS monja bropupid care
07
1
cous soq yor.p posse*
I en88eep shopper -- cpst as onl
NTCF
Jonz CHILLUF I (GOL' 18 DOE TV up
COMMUNIV
to pe голозава,
DISIKICL 08 --
Skete,
Pentugon
steams
I pase horeq donx effoxte to OFFC
Connecticute Connec
Byrnes res
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE SATURDAY AM's--
August 26, 1967
STATEMENT OF REP. GERALD R. FORD (R-MICH.)
The published statement of Defense Secretary McNamara before the Senate
Preparedness subcommittee appears to be at odds, not only with the views of all
the top military witnesses heard by the committee, but also with the recent
actions of President Johnson. Since my August 8 speech to the House on our
Vietnam policy, the President apparently has authorized increased military
pressure against North Vietnam through selective bombing of more significant
targets previously forbidden to U.S. airmen.
Now we find the Secretary of Defense defending the ineffective and deceptive
airpower policies of the past two and one-half years in contradiction to the
responsible judgment of our best military leaders and the conclusions of both
Democratic and Republican Senators who have heard all the evidence. Mr. McNamara
is entitled to his convictions but before the President commits more than half
a million Americans to the ground war in South Vietnam we, as a nation, should
be very sure the Secretary of Defense is right and all the others are wrong.
This credibility gap is deadly serious. A nation at war cannot afford confusion
and doubt about its basic policies.
I want to support my Commander-in-Chief when we are at war and so do all
Americans. But we must know where he stands, where we are going, and how we
will get there. It does no good to compound public concern by declassifying
more target data and playing meaningless numbers games, as if this terrible war
were merely a debate. Forget the past. What is our present policy? What hope
is there for future U.S. success in Vietnam? That's what the American people
want to know, straight, on the level, from the man in charge.
Only the Commander-in-Chief can clear up this deepening doubt. It should
not be too much for the American people to expect that when our nation has been
committed to the use of force, and since 1965 has paid a high price to pursue
this course, that both the civilian and military leaders responsible should be
in substantial agreement and that some end is in sight.
#HH
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE AT 6:30 p.m.--
Thursday, August 31, 1967
STATEMENT OF REP. GERALD R. FORD, HOUSE MINORITY LEADER
Placed in the Congressional Record Thursday, August 31, 1967.
At the opening of this session, January 19, 1967, Senator Dirksen and I
presented a Republican Appraisal of the State of the Union. In my domestic
portion of this presentation I outlined a 40-point program of constructive
Republican proposals for consideration of the 90th Congress. (List attached.)
Thirty of these proposals were in the area of Republican alternatives to
the tired Democratic approaches of the 1930's, reflecting philosophical and
practical political differences. Ten were in the vital area of national security,
where there is substantial agreement between knowledgeable Democrats and
Republicans on key defense committees but very wide disagreement between Congress
and the Executive Branch.
In reviewing the record of this Congress between the Lincoln's Birthday and
the Labor Day recesses, in which the bulk of the legislative workload is usually
done, Republicans can be gratified by the fact that most of our national security
proposals have received bipartisan backing and approval in the Armed Services,
Merchant Marine, Joint Atomic Energy and Appropriations committees from the whole
House of Representatives. But the President and his Secretary of Defense continue
to resist some of these recommendations, including the ever-more-urgent need to
get going on an Anti-Ballistic-Missile Defense system.
Among the 30 practical, problem-solving Republican legislative proposals
outside the defense field, the House has completed action on only eight, one of
which bears a Republican label (the Cramer Anti-Riot Bill) and one of which was
Guilkipts Worker
belatedly embraced by President Johnson (Restoration of the Protection Investment Tax Credit.)
The other six House actions (though some have not passed the Senate) bear
Equalizes Viedram Veterans
strong Republican imprints and embody the sentiments of a great majority of our
citizens on matters deeply and directly concerning Benefits them. They are:
)
--Creation of a House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
which would never have been approved except for the insistence of
Republican members -- notably some of the 59 newly elected last
(more)
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
-2-
November -- in the wake of Democratic scandals in the Powell, Dodd
and still-pending cases.
--A greatly improved and strengthened Social Security bill,
increasing benefits to help our senior citizens resist the ravagess
of "Great Society" inflation, and providing needed new direction
and constructive state control of welfare programs.
--A balanced package of crime prevention and law enforcement
legislation, including the previously mentioned anti-riot bill, a
companion bill guaranteeing Federal protection to civil rights
workers in lawful exercise of Constitutional rights, amendments to
the Law Enforcement Assistance Act strengthening the role of the
States and local governments in upgrading law enforcement as a
career, and establishing a National Institute of Law Enforcement for
the dissemination of the latest methods of police science.
--Long overdue legislation giving veterans of the Vietnam War
equal benefits with veterans of other conflicts, and increasing
benefits to veterans' widows and children to keep up with rising
costs of living.
Some progress or partial success can be reported on eight more of my
Republican State of the Union proposals, so that we have made visible strides
thus far in this session on 16 of the 30 non-defense programs.
1. Under constant pressure from Republican members, both
in committee and on the floor, the House so far has trimmed the
President's budget requests by about $4 billion, although it has
rejected additional economy efforts by the minority in many
instances. Republican efforts to have the President submit a
revised budget have been blocked, but the Administration has
admitted that its initial estimates were unrealistic.
2. The Republican principle of rejecting categorical Federal
aid, with its ever-burgeoning Washington bureaucracy and inability
to adapt to local conditions, is winning converts daily. While
our alternative of revenue sharing with the States and local
governments has not been accepted across the board, the principle
prevailed in the final House version of the Elementary and Secondary
(more)
-3-
Education Act and the Republican-amended Law Enforcement Assistance
Act, and may still be applied to important pending legislation such
as the comprehensive Health and Poverty bills.
3. The bipartisan Clean Elections and Campaign Reform bill
(Ashmore-Goodell) now under consideration by the House Administration
committee embodies the major Republican recommendations in this
important area which demands action before the 1968 campaign year.
4. The Senate has effectively pigeonholed the Long Amendment
calling for financing of national political campaigns through a checkoff
of individual income tax dollars, which Republicans opposed.
5. Participation Sales as a devious device of deficit financing
was not repealed, as we proposed, but the Debt Ceiling bill finally
approved by the House does require honest reporting of such borrowings
in future budgets.
6. The imaginative Republican plan for home ownership by low
income Americans advanced in the Widnall-Percy bill has received
attention in both Senate and House committees and is in some danger
of being kidnapped by the Johnson Administration.
7. Our call for tax incentives to encourage reduction of air
and water pollution was partially answered by restoration of the
investment tax credit, though more action in this area is under
study by Republican task forces.
8. Although the Republican reform package for the District of
Columbia government was approved by the D. C. committee, the House
rejected it in favor of the President's reorganization plan. However,
Rep. Ancher Nelson's proposals for an elected school board and a
delegate in the House of Representatives may yet win separate con-
sideration.
There remain 14 of my 30 January 19 State of the Union proposals in the non-
defense domestic category, and one of the ten in the area of national security,
upon which no action has been taken by the House under its present Democratic
control.
Republicans regret that no action has been taken on their proposal for a
bipartisan, blue ribbon commission of the nation's best experts to re-examine our
short and long-range national defense posture.
(more)
-4-
Among the most urgently-needed and possibly stalled programs are the bipartisan
Congressional Reorganization bill, which has passed the Senate, and which under
Republican recommendations would include an investigative committee controlled by
the minority party.
Others pending in the House include the Opportunity Crusade which Republicans
would substitute for the mismanaged Poverty War, and the Human Investment Act
which also seeks to enlist private enterprise in job training programs.
Nothing has been finally done by this Congress on the subject of fair and
equitable division of political time by radio and television, safeguards against
unauthorized wiretapping with defined permissive limits in the public interest,
prevention of national emergency strikes (except the stopgap action on the rail
strike), and streamlining the Executive Branch through another Hoover-type
Commission, all Republican-sponsored proposals.
Considering that we are still the minority by a 31-vote margin, I am
encouraged that Republicans in the House have been able to accomplish as much
as we have in translating the mandate of the American people last November into
actual accomplishment, both through our increased strength on committees and
on the floor. Certainly the vital legislative process has been restored in the
90th Congress and its advantages over the rubber-stamp record of the lopsided
89th Congress already are apparent. It remains obvious, however, that to really
enact a constructive Republican program it will be necessary to win a majority
in the House of Representatives next year. We are building a good record upon
which to do just that.
###
DOMESTIC LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS IN JANUARY 1967 REPUBLICAN "STATE OF THE UNION"
(Listed in order of mention in Ford speech)
1. Restore Investment Tax Credit
23. Electoral College Reform
2. Repeal Participation Sales
24. Fair and Equitable Political Time
on TV-Radio
3. Cut Non-essential Spending;
Revise President's Budget
25. Forbid Interstate Travel to Incite
Riots
4. Tax and Revenue Sharing; Block Grants
26. Protect Lawful Civil Rights
5. National Commission on Urban
Workers
Living
27. Safeguards on Wiretapping & Eves-
6. District of Columbia Reforms
dropping
7. Tax Credits for Higher Education
28. Curb Air and Water Pollution
Costs
29. Upgrade Law Enforcement as Career
8. Improve Social Security & Increase
Benefits
30. National Institute of Law
Enforcement
9. Equalize Vietnam Veterans Benefits
10. Revamp Poverty War-Opportunity
Crusade
NATIONAL SECURITY PROPOSALS
11. Human Investment Act to Expand
31. Blue Ribbon Commission to Re-
Job Training
examine national defense policies
12. Home Ownership for Low-Income
32. Modernize U.S. Navy and Nuclear
Families
propulsion
13. Executive Branch Reforms--Hoover-type
33. Counter Threat of Enemy Missile
Commission
Submarines
14. Merit System for Postmasters
34. Revive and Rebuild American Merchant
Marine
15. Fair Farm Prices in Marketplace
35. Upgrade Independent Maritime
16. Study National Emergency Strike Laws
Administration
17. Congressional Reogranization
36. Develop Advanced Manned Strategic
Bomber
18. House Ethics Committee
37. Develop Improved Manned Inter-
19. Investigating Committee under Minority
ceptor
Control
38. Strengthen Reserve and National
20. Clean Elections & Campaign Reform
Guard
Law
39. Eliminate Inequities in Draft
21. Repeal Long Amendment for
Federal Financing of Major
40. Speed Anti-Ballistic Missile
Party Campaigns
Defense
22. $100 Tax Deduction for Political
Contributions
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE AT 6:30 p.m.--
Thursday, August 31, 1967
STATEMENT OF REP. GERALD R. FORD, HOUSE MINORITY LEADER
Placed in the Congressional Record Thursday, August 31, 1967.
At the opening of this session, January 19, 1967, Senator Dirksen and I
presented a Republican Appraisal of the State of the Union. In my domestic
portion of this presentation I outlined a 40-point program of constructive
Republican proposals for consideration of the 90th Congress. (List attached.)
Thirty of these proposals were in the area of Republican alternatives to
the tired Democratic approaches of the 1930's, reflecting philosophical and
practical political differences. Ten were in the vital area of national security,
where there is substantial agreement between knowledgeable Democrats and
Republicans on key defense committees but very wide disagreement between Congress
and the Executive Branch.
In reviewing the record of this Congress between the Lincoln's Birthday and
the Labor Day recesses, in which the bulk of the legislative workload is usually
done, Republicans can be gratified by the fact that most of our national security
proposals have received bipartisan backing and approval in the Armed Services,
Merchant Marine, Joint Atomic Energy and Appropriations committees from the whole
House of Representatives. But the President and his Secretary of Defense continue
to resist some of these recommendations, including the ever-more-urgent need to
get going on an Anti-Ballistic-Missile Defense system.
Among the 30 practical, problem-solving Republican legislative proposals
outside the defense field, the House has completed action on only eight, one of
which bears a Republican label (the Cramer Anti-Riot Bill) and one of which was
belatedly embraced by President Johnson (Restoration of the Investment Tax Credit.)
The other six House actions (though some have not passed the Senate) bear
strong Republican imprints and embody the sentiments of a great majority of our
citizens on matters deeply and directly concerning them. They are:
--Creation of a House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
which would never have been approved except for the insistence of
Republican members -- notably some of the 59 newly elected last
(more)
-2-
November -- in the wake of Democratic scandals in the Powell, Dodd
and still-pending cases.
--A greatly improved and strengthened Social Security bill,
increasing benefits to help our senior citizens resist the ravagess
of "Great Society" inflation, and providing needed new direction
and constructive state control of welfare programs.
--A balanced package of crime prevention and law enforcement
legislation, including the previously mentioned anti-riot bill, a
companion bill guaranteeing Federal protection to civil rights
workers in lawful exercise of Constitutional rights, amendments to
the Law Enforcement Assistance Act strengthening the role of the
States and local governments in upgrading law enforcement as a
career, and establishing a National Institute of Law Enforcement for
the dissemination of the latest methods of police science.
--Long overdue legislation giving veterans of the Vietnam War
equal benefits with veterans of other conflicts, and increasing
benefits to veterans' widows and children to keep up with rising
costs of living.
Some progress or partial success can be reported on eight more of my
Republican State of the Union proposals, so that we have made visible strides
thus far in this session on 16 of the 30 non-defense programs.
1. Under constant pressure from Republican members, both
in committee and on the floor, the House so far has trimmed the
President's budget requests by about $4 billion, although it has
rejected additional economy efforts by the minority in many
instances. Republican efforts to have the President submit a
revised budget have been blocked, but the Administration has
admitted that its initial estimates were unrealistic.
2. The Republican principle of rejecting categorical Federal
aid, with its ever-burgeoning Washington bureaucracy and inability
to adapt to local conditions, is winning converts daily. While
our alternative of revenue sharing with the States and local
governments has not been accepted across the board, the principle
prevailed in the final House version of the Elementary and Secondary
(more)
-3-
Education Act and the Republican-amended Law Enforcement Assistance
Act, and may still be applied to important pending legislation such
as the comprehensive Health and Poverty bills.
3. The bipartisan Clean Elections and Campaign Reform bill
(Ashmore-Goodell) now under consideration by the House Administration
committee embodies the major Republican recommendations in this
important area which demands action before the 1968 campaign year.
4. The Senate has effectively pigeonholed the Long Amendment
calling for financing of national political campaigns through a checkoff
of individual income tax dollars, which Republicans opposed.
5. Participation Sales as a devious device of deficit financing
was not repealed, as we proposed, but the Debt Ceiling bill finally
approved by the House does require honest reporting of such borrowings
in future budgets.
6. The imaginative Republican plan for home ownership by low
income Americans advanced in the Widnall-Percy bill has received
attention in both Senate and House committees and is in some danger
of being kidnapped by the Johnson Administration.
7. Our call for tax incentives to encourage reduction of air
and water pollution was partially answered by restoration of the
investment tax credit, though more action in this area is under
study by Republican task forces.
8. Although the Republican reform package for the District of
Columbia government was approved by the D. C. committee, the House
rejected it in favor of the President's reorganization plan. However,
Rep. Ancher Nelson's proposals for an elected school board and a
delegate in the House of Representatives may yet win separate con-
sideration.
There remain 14 of my 30 January 19 State of the Union proposals in the non-
defense domestic category, and one of the ten in the area of national security,
upon which no action has been taken by the House under its present Democratic
control.
Republicans regret that no action has been taken on their proposal for a
bipartisan, blue ribbon commission of the nation's best experts to re-examine our
short and long-range national defense posture.
(more)
-4-
Among the most urgently-needed and possibly stalled programs are the bipartisan
Congressional Reorganization bill, which has passed the Senate, and which under
Republican recommendations would include an investigative committee controlled by
the minority party.
Others pending in the House include the Opportunity Crusade which Republicans
would substitute for the mismanaged Poverty War, and the Human Investment Act
which also seeks to enlist private enterprise in job training programs.
Nothing has been finally done by this Congress on the subject of fair and
equitable division of political time by radio and television, safeguards against
unauthorized wiretapping with defined permissive limits in the public interest,
prevention of national emergency strikes (except the stopgap action on the rail
strike), and streamlining the Executive Branch through another Hoover-type
Commission, all Republican-sponsored proposals.
Considering that we are still the minority by a 31-vote margin, I am
encouraged that Republicans in the House have been able to accomplish as much
as we have in translating the mandate of the American people last November into
actual accomplishment, both through our increased strength on committees and
on the floor. Certainly the vital legislative process has been restored in the
90th Congress and its advantages over the rubber-stamp record of the lopsided
89th Congress already are apparent. It remains obvious, however, that to really
enact a constructive Republican program it will be necessary to win a majority
in the House of Representatives next year. We are building a good record upon
which to do just that.
###
DOMESTIC LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS IN JANUARY 1967 REPUBLICAN "STATE OF THE UNION"
(Listed in order of mention in Ford speech)
1. Restore Investment Tax Credit
23. Electoral College Reform
2. Repeal Participation Sales
24. Fair and Equitable Political Time
on TV-Radio
3. Cut Non-essential Spending;
Revise President's Budget
25. Forbid Interstate Travel to Incite
Riots
4. Tax and Revenue Sharing; Block Grants
26. Protect Lawful Civil Rights
5. National Commission on Urban
Workers
Living
27. Safeguards on Wiretapping & Eves-
6. District of Columbia Reforms
dropping
7. Tax Credits for Higher Education
28. Curb Air and Water Pollution
Costs
29. Upgrade Law Enforcement as Career
8. Improve Social Security & Increase
Benefits
30. National Institute of Law
Enforcement
9. Equalize Vietnam Veterans Benefits
10. Revamp Poverty War-Opportunity
Crusade
NATIONAL SECURITY PROPOSALS
11. Human Investment Act to Expand
31. Blue Ribbon Commission to Re-
Job Training
examine national defense policies
12. Home Ownership for Low-Income
32. Modernize U.S. Navy and Nuclear
Families
propulsion
13. Executive Branch Reforms--Hoover-type
33. Counter Threat of Enemy Missile
Commission
Submarines
14. Merit System for Postmasters
34. Revive and Rebuild American Merchant
Marine
15. Fair Farm Prices in Marketplace
35. Upgrade Independent Maritime
16. Study National Emergency Strike Laws
Administration
17. Congressional Reogranization
36. Develop Advanced Manned Strategic
Bomber
18. House Ethics Committee
37. Develop Improved Manned Inter-
19. Investigating Committee under Minority
ceptor
Control
38. Strengthen Reserve and National
20. Clean Elections & Campaign Reform
Guard
Law
39. Eliminate Inequities in Draft
21. Repeal Long Amendment for
Federal Financing of Major
40. Speed Anti-Ballistic Missile
Party Campaigns
Defense
22. $100 Tax Deduction for Political
Contributions
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE IN MONDAY AM's--
September 4, 1967
Comment on Performance of Congress to Date
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich.
The performance of Congress to date is a mixed bag. I naturally view the
results in terms of the objectives I believe Congress should seek. Those
objectives are wrapped up in the goal of substituting joint problem-solving by
the federal, state and local governments and the private sector for the Johnson
Administration's federalized categorical grant-in-aid approach.
I say the job Congress has done this year constitutes a mixed bag because
we have made some progress toward bringing state and local governments into
problem-solving initiated at the federal level but we have failed thus far to
move toward tax-sharing with states and local units of government through
either tax credits or a percentage rebate of the federal income tax take.
The Congress still is following tired leadership in the White House which
rejects the tax credit approach to urban problems and is caught in the vise of
a projected $30 billion deficit. This points up the need for a change, and the
people know it.
On the side of progress in this Congress we must count the restoration-of-
local-authority amendments in the Elementary-Secondary Education Act giving
states control over experimental education centers and funds for strengthening
state boards of education, the localizing of the Teacher Corps with assurances
of firm congressional support, House passage of a Law Enforcement Assistance
Act with funds to be channeled through the states on the basis of comprehensive
state plans to fight crime and improve riot controls, House approval of an
Anti-Riot Act and a Civil Rights Worker Protection Act, restoration of the
investment tax credit to bolster a sagging economy, House approval of a 12½
per cent increase in Social Security benefits to aid pensioners hurt by
Johnson-Humphrey Administration inflation, enactment of legislation equalizing
Vietnam veterans benefits, creation of a House Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct (Ethics Committee), and substantial House cuts in Presidential
spending requests. This progress was made through Republican leadership and/or
(more)
-2-
strong support.
When Congress comes back to work after the Labor Day recess, the big
questions will be spending and taxes.
The House has cut the President's budget by roughly $4.3 billion, with
more cuts to come. Now we have the spectacle of the President, facing a
possible $30 billion deficit, urging the Senate to give him every penny he
asked for in January. He should want Congress to cut his budget where possible
and then seek to make additional cuts himself. Instead he is asking Congress
to appropriate the full amounts he originally requested, with a vague promise
that he will then reduce spending by $2 billion. This is one-man government.
If this is the proper approach, why have a Congress?
Congress has properly adopted a wait-and-see attitude toward the President's
proposed 10 per cent tax surcharge. There is a serious possibility that the
proposed surtax would deal a heavy blow to the economy, judging by the leading
business indicators for July.
The Congress has rebuffed President Johnson because of his dictatorial
attitude in the conduct of our foreign affairs. The House has made substantial
reductions in Presidential spending requests. The Senate now should follow
the House lead on domestic matters, rejecting the President's insistence on
butter as well as guns in time of war. There is no question that the
President's relations with Congress have deteriorated, and the only question
is why this did not happen sooner.
On a possible adjournment date, I don't know whether to convey my guess
by saying "Happy Thanksgiving" or "Merry Christmas" but it looks like late
November or maybe even December.
#
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
October 6, 1967
STATEMENT OF REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH., HOUSE MINORITY LEADER
There is great rejoicing among Republicans, as there is in Heaven, over one
sinner that repenteth.
I can only commend and applaud, therefore, President Johnson's confession
that "all taxes are burdensome, but the cruelest tax of all is the inflation tax."
Mr. Johnson certainly has seen a great light since that day (June 30) when
he ventured to the grassroots to try out his 1966 campaign defenses, and told
an audience in Des Moines:
"On the inflation front, if you are distraught, if you are worried about
high prices, if you have a stomach ulcer because of high wages, if you are
concerned about hogs bringing too much, calves bringing too much, or wages
getting too high, and you are really worked up about inflation, it may be that
you ought to vote Republican."
Well, last November the American people were really worked up about inflation,
and they took the President at his word -- they voted Republican and sent us a
net reinforcement of 47 anti-inflation Republicans in the House of Representatives.
With their help, we have been able in this Congress to serve notice on the
President that the American people won't accept his political formula of guns
and butter, more war and more welfare, higher taxes and higher inflation.
"When these folks start talking to you about inflation," President Johnson
defiantly declared 15 months ago, "you tell them that is something you only
have to worry about in Democratic Administrations."
He was right then and he is right now when he calls inflation "the cruelest
tax of all." But he is wrong to blame all inflation on the "inaction" of this
Democratic Congress, just as he was wrong last year to blame it all on Democratic
Administrations. We had serious inflation then and we have it worse now. The fact
is it is the fault of spendthrift Democratic Administrations and spendthrift
Democratic Congresses. The American people may have to wait until November 1968 to
correct this situation, but in the meantime Republicans in the Congress accept
the President's new attitude toward the evils of inflation with gladness.
Republicans will continue to do all we can to check inflation and effect wartime
economies.
###
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
November 10, 1967
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
As one who has long championed the role of competitive sports in American
life, I find it difficult to believe that the President of the United States
would demean college football before 120 guests at a White House luncheon
honoring distinguished foreign visitors from Southeast Asia. I'm sure millions
of Americans will share my shocked reaction to President Johnson's reported
remarks yesterday to Crown Prince and Princess Vong Savang of neutralist Laos.
"I know of your interest in sports and that you are to attend a football
game," said the President, referring to the Prince's date on November 18 at
Stanford University Stadium in Palo Alto, California, when Stanford plays the
University of California, according to the Washington Post.
"College football is a great spectacle, but I am not sure that it gives
an accurate picture of America," the President reportedly continued. "To see
some of our best-educated boys spending an afternoon knocking each other down --
while thousands cheer them on -- hardly gives a picture of a peace-loving nation."
I couldn't disagree more. For several generations "some of our best-
educated boys" and many whose educations have been interrupted have used the
physical stamina, the lesson in teamwork and the strong character developed on
the football field and in other rugged athletic contests to defend their
country's freedom and fight for lasting peace all over the world. Right now half
a million Americans who might prefer to be watching or participating in the foot-
ball season are risking their lives in Southeast Asia and some, such as the late
(more)
-2-
Maj. Don Holleder and Capt. Bill Carpenter, recently decorated by the President
himself, first won fame on the West Point eleven.
President Eisenhower played football and baseball as a youth and remains an
active advocate of physical fitness. The late President Kennedy's interest in
competitive sports, even after his back injury, also set an example for young
Americans. President Johnson has continued their President's Council on
Physical Fitness and I find it incredible that he should publicly belittle the
all-American autumn game of football to his royal Laotian guests.
Personally I am glad that thousands of fine young Americans can spend this
Saturday afternoon "knocking each other down" in a spirit of clean sportsmanship
and keen competition instead of assaulting Pentagon soldiers or policemen with
"peace" placards and filthy words. I also pray for the safe homecoming of
thousands more from Vietnam where, as on the football fields of the nation, this
generation is indeed giving "an accurate picture of America" that is neither
physically flabby nor spiritually soft.
# # #
Distribution Full, 11:00a.m., 11/10/69
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
-- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
Nov. 16, 1967
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich.
The Democratic majority in the House yesterday sold out the poor to the big
city political bosses by turning control of local Community Action Programs over
to City Hall through the Green Amendment.
Rep. Augustus Hawkins, D-Calif., described the situation exactly when he
said that giving control of community action programs to the political bosses
will force the poor to "go hat in hand to City Hall."
I agree 100 per cent with Mr. Hawkins on this point. This is one reason
I and many other Republicans could not vote for the Democratic majority's
anti-poverty bill on final passage. Another reason is that the Democrats
rejected most Republican moves to make the program more successful and every
attempt to enlist private enterprise as a full-fledged partner in the War on
Poverty.
We have already had far too much politics in the anti-poverty program.
Now, as a result of the Northern Democrat-Southern Democrat coalition, we will
have much more and the poor will suffer. I repeat: The poor were sold out
to City Hall politicians.
#######
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
November 17, 1967
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich.
It is natural that a man about to go into bankruptcy blames everybody but
himself.
President Johnson will rue the day that he promoted a $30 to $35 billion
deficit for fiscal 1968 and four previous deficits totalling nearly $24 billion
in fiscal years 1964 through 1967. These Johnson-Humphrey Administration deficits,
it should be noted, total nearly $60 billion
President Johnson continues to play the game of switch--trying to shift
the blame for his own mistakes an shortcomings /to the 90th Congress and par-
ticularly the House. The House is close to the people and responsive to their
wishes. I'll take my chances with the people anytime. They know that President
Johnson has repeatedly ignored Republican pleas that he set priorities on
federal non-defense spending at a time when this Nation is fighting a costly
war halfway around the world I trust the judgment of the American people.
They have said overwhelmingly that they prefer spending cuts to a tax increase
as a means of fighting inflation
I find it inter sting that the President now talks of a possible $35 billion
deficit for fis al 196 This is the first time he or any Administration official
has admitted the ficit figure may be that astronomical.
This roves that the President as not been acting with any urgency to hold
down non-essential federal spending. And it underscores the need for Congress
to insist on the Republican-sponsored, House-approved spending ceiling of
$131.5 billion. This is $5 billion under the President's spending requests, and
$5 billion higher than fiscal 1967.
####
Distribution Full - 2:00 pm. pm. 11/17/67
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
November 17, 1967
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich.
It is natural that a man about to go into bankruptcy blames everybody but
himself.
President Johnson will rue the day that he promoted a $30 to $35 billion
deficit for fiscal 1968 and four previous deficits totalling nearly $24 billion
in fiscal years 1964 through 1967. These Johnson-Humphrey Administration deficits,
it should be noted, total nearly $60 billion.
President Johnson continues to play the game of switch--trying to shift
the blame for his own mistakes and shortcomings to the 90th Congress and par-
ticularly the House. The House is close to the people and responsive to their
wishes. I'll take my chances with the people anytime. They know that President
Johnson has repeatedly ignored Republican pleas that he set priorities on
federal non-defense spending at a time when this Nation is fighting a costly
war halfway around the world. I trust the judgment of the American people.
They have said overwhelmingly that they prefer spending cuts to a tax increase
as a means of fighting inflation.
I find it interesting that the President now talks of a possible $35 billion
deficit for fiscal 1968. This is the first time he or any Administration official
has admitted the deficit figure may be that astronomical.
This proves that the President has not been acting with any urgency to hold
down non-essential federal spending. And it underscores the need for Congress
to insist on the Republican-sponsored, House-approved spending ceiling of
$131.5 billion. This is $5 billion under the President's spending requests, and
$5 billion higher than fiscal 1967.
####
Distribution Full - 11:45 a.m. - 11/21/67
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
November 21, 1967
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich.
Federal spending reductions amounting to at least $4 billion this fiscal
year must and will be written into the income tax increase bill to be considered
by the House Ways and Means Committee.
This means that President Johnson finally has conceded House Republicans
were right in demanding a spending limitation with the force of law before
any action is taken on his 10 per cent income tax surcharge. Because of
Republican insistence the American people will be given this assurance of
$4 billion in spending reductions.
The fiscal crisis facing this Nation is deepening in the light of recent
developments--President Johnson's revised estimate that the fiscal 1968 deficit
could run as high as $35 billion without corrective action, the British decision
to devaluate the pound, and the Federal Reserve Board action raising the basic
U.S. interest rate.
The chickens are coming home to roost. The crisis now confronting us
could have been avoided had the President listened to Republican pleas for a
setting of spending priorities in 1965 and 1966 instead of plunging headlong
down the road toward a $9.7 billion fiscal 1967 deficit and a $35 billion fiscal
1968 red ink figure.
In meeting next Tuesday, the Ways and Means Committee should examine our
overall fiscal situation to see whether the dollar is as safe from the threat of
devaluation as President Johnson would have the American people believe. After
all, there are disturbing similarities between the British situation and our
own. The health of the economy and the impact a tax increase would have on it
should be the main focus of the committee hearings.
It should be pointed out that if President Johnson had agreed earlier to
accept a spending limitation, the tax bill could have received earlier con-
sideration. It now is questionable whether there is time enough left to act on
it in this session.
The Federal Reserve Board raised the basic interest rate to help keep short-
term money from flowing out of this country to England. But the action also will
dampen the American economy. This breather provides time for thoughtful
reconsideration of the President's proposed income tax increase.
####
Distribution Full, 1:15 g.m., 11/22/67
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
November 22, 1967
Remarks by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., on The Floor of The House, Wednesday,
November 22, 1967.
Mr. Speaker: The distinguished majority leader of the House. Mr. Albert,
charged Monday night in Atlanta, Georgia, that the massive anti-Vietnam demon-
stration staged at the Pentagon Oct. 21 was "basically organized by international
communism" and that "the marchers included every communist and communist
sympathizer in the United States who was able to make the trip."
Mr. Speaker, this statement apparently is based on the kind of information
given orally to Republican leaders of the House by the President at a White House
meeting after the Pentagon demonstration. I presume the same information was
made available to the Democratic leaders. I subsequently urged that the White
House make public the information it has on the true nature of the so-called
peace demonstration at the Pentagon. As a result, the Attorney General of the
United States visited me in my office and argued against release of the infor-
mation.
I believed then and I believe now that the American people should be given
full information on the degree of communist participation in the anti-American
policy demonstration so that the people may judge just how deep or widespread
anti-Vietnam War sentiment is in this country.
If the evidence in the hands of the Executive Branch of our government
indicates manipulation of the peace movement in this country by Hanoi, then the
propaganda impact of such demonstrations will be lessened and perhaps destroyed.
This would be a highly beneficial result, indeed.
Mr. Speaker, one of the national news magazines has quoted the Secretary of
State as saying that the release of this information would trigger a new wave
of McCarthyism in this country. I dislike taking issue with the distinguished
Secretary of State, but I believe the American people are now mature enough to
receive such information and to react without hysteria.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the distinguished Majority Leader
of the House has made charges of a most serious nature regarding the communist
role in the demonstration at the Pentagon, I urge that the President order a
(more)
-2-
full report made to the American people on the extent of communist participation
in organizing, planning and directing the disgraceful display which took place
at the Pentagon last Oct. 21. Such a report will be most helpful and
constructive to all Americans. In addition, such a disclosure would be bene-
ficial to the well-intentioned Americans who participated in this demonstration
not knowing who had organized the demonstrations at the Pentagon and elsewhere
throughout the free world.
###
'Bank.
City Life
B&O Announces Changes in Schedule
Adjustments in the sched-
side of the menu levels off
facilities have been located,
ules of its passenger service
a bit. Chris Vanture, sales
after a protest Monday by
between Washington and
manager for the grand
Center patrons to Deputy
the west were announced
Mayor Thomas W. Fletcher.
yesterday by the Baltimore
champion's purchasers, ex-
They're still going through
& Ohio Railroad.
plained, however, that the
channels, thanks to an in-
Effective Nov. 27, the Na-
$1520 price tag on the grand
itial delay by the Recreation
tional Limited's through cars
champion included the whole
Department in getting them
serving points west of Cum-
Purdue University flock. It's
started, officials explained.
berland will be handled on
the Capitol Limited which
just the way they sell lamb
leaves Washington at 4:15
at the Exposition, Vanture
Red-Inspired?
p.m. The eastbound Capitol
added. A flock is judged by
Rep. Carl Albert (D-Okla.),
arrives here at 9:35 a.m.
the grand champion that's
House Minority leader,
Commuter service be-
in it, he said.
charged in Atlanta Monday
the the recent antiwar
tween Washington and Cum-
berland will continue to
N.Y. Gallery Tour
march on the Pentagon "in-
cluded every Communist
operate on the National
The Washington Gallery
sympathizer in the United
Limited's old schedule, but
of Modern Art is sponsoring
States who was able to make
trains will be renumbered
a Dec. 15-17 weekend tour
51 and 52. Westbound No.
of the New York Museum of
the trip." He told a meeting
51 leaves Washington at
The Washington Post
Modern Art's Picasso sculp-
of the Cotton Producers As-
REP. CARL ALBERT
ture show and other New
sociation that the heads of
6:50 p.m. with stops at Sil-
ver Spring, Harpers Ferry
calls protest Red-led
York art museums. Reserva-
all free nations close to the
and Martinsburg. Eastbound
tions for the bus trip can
action in Vietnam are back-
No. 52 leaves Cumberland
be made through the Mu-
ing U.S. troops there. "They
at 4:30 a.m., arriving in
urday in Chicago for a grand
seum until next Monday.
are under fire," he said.
Washington at 7:40 a.m.
champion lamb entered by
"Surely they are in a better
Purdue University. It figures
'Lost' Funds Found
position to judge the true
High-Priced Lamb
nature of the Vietnam war
out to about $16 a pound
The leftover summer en-
than our so-called intellec-
The District Hotel Supply
for the lamb-or enough to
richment program funds
Co., of 500 E st. sw., shelled
remind Washington hotel
which were to keep open the
tuals and foreign affairs
drug store cowboys thous-
out $1520 at the Internation-
diners to pass up the lamb
Teen Youth Center, 4401
ands of miles away."
al Livestock Exposition Sat-
chops until the right-hand
Sheriff rd. ne., and similar
From staff reports and news dispatches
1967]
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
STATEMENT OF REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH., HOUSE MINORITY LEADER
There is great rejoicing among Republicans, as there is in Heaven, over one
sinner that repenteth.
I can only commend and applaud, therefore, President Johnson's confession
that "all taxes are burdensome, but the cruelest tax of all is the inflation tax."
Mr. Johnson certainly has seen a great light since that day (June 30) when
he ventured to the grassroots to try out his 1966 campaign defenses, and told
an audience in Des Moines:
"On the inflation front, if you are distraught, if you are worried about
high prices, if you have a stomach ulcer because of high wages, if you are
concerned about hogs bringing too much, calves bringing too much, or wages
getting too high, and you are really worked up about inflation, it may be that
you ought to vote Republican."
Well, last November the American people were really worked up about inflation,
and they took the President at his word -- they voted Republican and sent us a
net reinforcement of 47 anti-inflation Republicans in the House of Representatives.
With their help, we have been able in this Congress to serve notice on the
President that the American people won't accept his political formula of guns
and butter, more war and more welfare, higher taxes and higher inflation.
"When these folks start talking to you about inflation," President Johnson
defiantly declared 15 months ago, "you tell them that is something you only
have to worry about in Democratic Administrations."
He was right then and he is right now when he calls inflation "the cruelest
tax of all." But he is wrong to blame all inflation on the "inaction" of this
Democratic Congress, just as he was wrong last year to blame it all on Democratic
Administrations. We had serious inflation then and we have it worse now. The fact
is it is the fault of spendthrift Democratic Administrations and spendthrift
Democratic Congresses. The American people may have to wait until November 1968 to
correct this situation, but in the meantime Republicans in the Congress accept
the President's new attitude toward the evils of inflation with gladness.
Republicans will continue to do all we can to check inflation and effect wartime
economies.
###
1967]
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
STATEMENT OF REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH., HOUSE MINORITY LEADER
There is great rejoicing among Republicans, as there is in Heaven, over one
sinner that repenteth.
I can only commend and applaud, therefore, President Johnson's confession
that "all taxes are burdensome, but the cruelest tax of all is the inflation tax."
Mr. Johnson certainly has seen a great light since that day (June 30) when
he ventured to the grassroots to try out his 1966 campaign defenses, and told
an audience in Des Moines:
"On the inflation front, if you are distraught, if you are worried about
high prices, if you have a stomach ulcer because of high wages, if you are
concerned about hogs bringing too much, calves bringing too much, or wages
getting too high, and you are really worked up about inflation, it may be that
you ought to vote Republican."
Well, last November the American people were really worked up about inflation,
and they took the President at his word -- they voted Republican and sent us a
net reinforcement of 47 anti-inflation Republicans in the House of Representatives.
With their help, we have been able in this Congress to serve notice on the
President that the American people won't accept his political formula of guns
and butter, more war and more welfare, higher taxes and higher inflation.
"When these folks start talking to you about inflation," President Johnson
defiantly declared 15 months ago, "you tell them that is something you only
have to worry about in Democratic Administrations."
He was right then and he is right now when he calls inflation "the cruelest
tax of all." But he is wrong to blame all inflation on the "inaction" of this
Democratic Congress, just as he was wrong last year to blame it all on Democratic
Administrations. We had serious inflation then and we have it worse now. The fact
is it is the fault of spendthrift Democratic Administrations and spendthrift
Democratic Congresses. The American people may have to wait until November 1968 to
correct this situation, but in the meantime Republicans in the Congress accept
the President's new attitude toward the evils of inflation with gladness.
Republicans will continue to do all we can to check inflation and effect wartime
economies.
###
Distribution: Full 12:00 12/15/67
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
-- FOR RELEASE UPON
ADJOURNMENT OF THE CONGRESS --
END-OF-SESSION STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
The 90th Congress compiled a good record during its first year of existence.
It was constructive and productive--and, very importantly, it was responsible.
First of all, the Congress deserves a vote of taxpayer thanks for cutting
federal spending this fiscal year by $4.1 billion in an attack on inflation and high
interest rates. The Johnson-Humphrey Administration still will incur a huge
deficit, now estimated at $19.8 billion, but without a Republican-led campaign to
force spending cuts it would have been far worse.
Congress refused to go along with President Johnson's plans to increase
income tax bills by 10 per cent. That was a wise decision. Not only are the
American people already heavily burdened with taxes, but there is good reason to
believe a federal income tax increase at this time might damage the economy.
The 90th Congress passed some good legislation. Republicans and Democrats
together launched a massive, regional attack on air pollution, laid the groundwork
through House action for a nationwide War on Crime, revamped and extended the
Teacher Corps, greatly improved federal and state meat inspection, acted in the
House to give more responsibility and control to the states in using federal school
aid, passed a Comprehensive Health Act allowing states and local communities to use
federal funds in line with their own priorities to fight rats, communicable diseases
and drug addiction, increased Social Security benefits, sought to improve the
operation of Medicare, tightened up on Medicaid, and revised the welfare laws to
put able-bodied welfare recipients to work.
Where legislation was clearly in the national interest, Republicans joined
hands with Democrats to pass it. House Republicans succeeded in giving some pro-
grams New Direction. We fought what we thought was bad for the country.
Republicans represented a unified force in the House. In the 24 instances
where House Republican Policy stands were put to the test on a rollcall vote,
96 per cent of the Republican members present and voting supported the party
policy position. On these 24 rollcalls, the GOP position prevailed 18 times.
The Democratic majority was so divided in the House this year that I am not
surprised the President again is calling for a rubber-stamp-sized majority for
his party in the Congress.
There were, of course, areas where Congress fell short. The President should
have proposed and Congress should have approved a measure to improve our handling
of national emergency strikes. Strong anti-crime legislation, as beefed up by
House Republicans, should have been written into law this year. Election reform and
congressional reform bills pushed by Republicans should have been passed but were
sidetracked by House Democratic leaders. This should have been a Reform Congress.
But, on the whole, the 90th Congress did a good job.
###
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE IN SUNDAY AM's--
December 17, 1967
The following is an exchange of correspondence between House Republican Leader
Gerald R. Ford (R-Mich.) and Rep. Richard H. Poff (R-Va.), Chairman of the House Re-
publican Task Force on Crime, summarizing legislative action taken in the 1st
Session, 90th Congress, and the prospects for additional action on the part of the
Congress and the Administration in 1968.
December 12, 1967
Honorable Richard H. Poff
Chairman
House Republican Task Force on Crime
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D. C.
Dear Dick:
As we approach the close of the first session of the 90th Congress, I want to
express to you as Chairman of the House Republican Task Force on Crime the sincere
appreciation I feel for the fine work you and all Task Force members have done this
year. I have just had an opportunity to review the summary of performance, and the
record is truly outstanding. You have made specific and positive proposals for
legislation dealing with the prevention and control of crime in America and have
stimulated legislative action which otherwise would never have been taken.
Conspicuous among Republican contributions to the legislative successes of the
House in the field of crime control were the interstate anti-riot bill authored by
Bill Cramer of Florida, the bill introduced by Tom Railsback authorizing prosecu-
tion appeals in suppression of evidence orders, the bill granting disability bene-
fits as well as survivorship benefits to local police officers wounded or killed
in pursuit of federal law-breakers, the McClory amendment to the crime bill to
establish a National Institute on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, and the
Bill Cahill bloc grant amendment to the crime bill and the juvenile delinquency
bill.
I would be interested to have your estimate of the prospects for a genuine
crackdown on crime in 1968. Specifically, do you think that the President's re-
cent statements on crime, particularly yesterday's aimed at the Congress, re-
presents a true change of direction? If so, how does the Attorney General fit into
this picture?
Wishing you a happy Holiday Season, I am
Very truly years,
Gerald R. Ford, M. C.
Honorable Gerald R. Ford
December 14, 1967
Minority Leader
U. S. House of Representatives
Washington, D. C.
Dear Jerry:
Your letter concerning the Task Force is most gracious. I know all members
would want me to express their appreciation not only for these kind words but for
the leadership and assistance you have given so faithfully in connection with all
our projects.
I will do my best to reply responsively, candidly and yet briefly to your
questions. Actually, all three questions are intimately interwoven into one, viz.,
will there be any escalation in the Administration's war on crime in 1968?
(more)
- 2 -
My answer depends upon many imponderables and unpredictables. There is nothing
uncertain about the need for escalation; the crime problem is bigger than ever be-
fore, growing faster than ever and neglected more than any other. In fairness,
it should be said that so far as the President is concerned, neglect has been more
unavoidable than purposeful. The President has been necessarily preoccupied with
other grave domestic problems and with the tragic war in Vietnam. While it may be
that the President's recent statements concerning the crime problem foreshadow a
deliberate, methodical campaign in the election year to blame Congress for the
problem, I doubt that it is accurate to say that his statements represent any
change in philosophical approach.
What is imponderable and unpredictable is how, in your words, the Attorney
General fits into the picture. During his short time in office, Attorney General
Clark, formerly attached to the lands division of the Justice Department, has
shown himself to be something less than a "crime fighter." It was he who per-
suaded the President to veto the District of Columbia crime package last year and,
in the year since, major crime in the District has increased by 34%, a rate more
than twice that of the nation at large. It was Clark who issued instructions to
all Federal investigative agencies strictly limiting the use of on-person trans-
mitters with remote recorders, an evidence-gathering technique repeatedly and
presently sanctioned by the courts. It was Clark who opposed and still opposes
legislation conformed carefully to the Constitutional mandates of the Supreme Court
which authorizes wiretaps by police officers investigating specific crimes under
court warrant and continuing court supervision; persists in his negative posture
in the face of endorsements by his three immediate predecessors in office, the
Judicial Conference of the United States and every major national organization of
law enforcement officials. It was Clark who allowed the whole hot summer of 1967
to pass without even calling public attention to the existence of a Federal crime
statute making it a Federal crime to travel from one state to another with the
intent to promote or incite arson. It was Clark who delayed until last week end
even a minimum administrative and organizational effort to deal with the mass
violations of Selective Service laws, and then he was content simply to establish
a new unit which functionally can do little more than can already be done under
traditional procedures.
More recently, a syndicated columnist reported sharp disagreement between
the President and his Attorney General on how to proceed in the matter of Stokely
Carmichael.
From the foregoing, you will see that what is unpredictable is how long Mr.
Clark will fit into the picture at all. I am sure that you have heard as I have
heard speculation that, as the election grows nearer, if the nation's chief law
enforcement officer continues to rest on the oars, Clark may go the way McNamara
and Goldberg are going and others may go.
In summary, I think that beginning early next year there is likely to be a
Presidential crusade to blame Congress for the crime crisis. And there will
doubtless be some surface escalation of the war on crime, a political pageant,
with or without Ramsey Clark.
Sincerely,
Richard H. Poff, M.C.
###
(NOT PRINTED Moffice
Copy
Congressional Record
United States
of America
PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE
90ᵗʰ
CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION
Vol. 113
WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, JANUARY 2, 1968
No. 209
House of Representatives
More Republicans Improved the 90th
cent of House Republicans supported this
Republicans are against the status quo
Congress
legislation.
in the handling of our Federal fiscal af-
Third. Comprehensive health legisla-
fairs. We are soldiers fighting the John-
tion: A partnership-for-health bill pro-
son administration's inflation and the
SPEECH
viding funds for the Federal Government
Johnson administration's high interest
OF
and the States to attack rats and other
rates. We believe the American people
HON. GERALD R. FORD
pests, narcotics addiction, and so forth.
deserve a better deal. Look at this dollar
Ninety-eight percent of Republicans sup-
bill. Since a Republican left the White
OF MICHIGAN
ported this legislation.
House about 7 years ago, the purchasing
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Fourth. Clean meat inspection law:
power of this dollar bill has gone down
Friday, December 15, 1967
99½ percent of Republicans supported.
13 percent.
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker,
Fifth: A flammable products control
Just to give you another indication, the
bill to protect families and children from
cost of living in 1966 went up 3.3 percent.
this Congress has been a good Congress
because of more Republicans in both the
deadly garments, toys, and home prod-
The cost of living this year will probably
ucts: 100 percent Republican support.
be close to 4 percent, and next year it
House and Senate. President Johnson
Sixth. A law to clean up the air we
appears that the cost of living may even
admits it has been a productive Congress.
breathe: 100 percent Republican support.
be higher than that.
His majority leader in the Senate, Sen-
In the House of Representatives this
I think the American people deserve a
ator MANSFIELD, says the record of this
session-with Republicans reinforced
better break and we as Republicans are
Congress has been "good, decent, and re-
and on the march-we have passed many
fighting to do something about inflation,
spectable," and I agree, as I am sure
forward-looking and much-needed bills.
the higher and higher cost of living and
Senator DIRKSEN does.
Here are eight of them:
the high interest rates. Talking about
I recall vividly in the middle of the
First. A Law Enforcement and Crimi-
high interest rates, let me point out that
1965 session of the 89th Congress-the
nal Justice Assistance Act-modified to
just a week or so ago our Government,
last Congress-Senator MANSFIELD said
permit State and local agencies to play
Uncle Sam, sold Federal securities and
that the Congress had passed a lot of
their rightful role-99 percent Republi-
paid 6.4 percent interest, the highest in
major bills too hastily, with too many
can support.
100 years. Now this problem is created, I
loopholes and too many rough corners,
Second. Juvenile delinquency preven-
think, by the fact that the administra-
and particularly it had failed to make a
tion and control legislation-99½ per-
tion has failed to manage effectively and
proper assessment of the current and
cent Republican support.
responsibly our Federal taxes and our
ultimate cost of these vast programs.
Third. Federal antiriot legislation-
Federal expenditures.
But the 89th Congress did not listen
99 percent Republican support.
I have here in my hand a copy of the
to Senator MANSFIELD, while the Ameri-
Fourth. Adult education legislation-
Federal budget for 1968, that is this fiscal
can people did.
100 percent Republican support.
year. We think the mismanagement of
The 90th Congress in 1967 has been
Fifth. Law to stop desecration of the
this budget has precipitated high interest
productive and constructive, primarily
American flag-100 percent Republican
rates and inflation.
because the voters of the Nation in No-
support.
Let me point out the problem that we
vember 1966 gave us a net gain of 47
Sixth. Equal benefits for Vietnam vet-
face in the Congress. When the President
Republicans in the House and additional
submitted this budget to us in January
erans and their families-100 percent
strength in the Senate. These new Re-
he said the deficit would be $8.1 billion.
Republican support.
publicans came from 33 States-from the
In August he finally conceded that the
Seventh. Independent Maritime Ad-
length and breadth of America. They are
deficit would be $29 billion and just a
ministration legislation-opposed by the
attractive, articulate young men and
few weeks ago the President-I think
Johnson-Humphrey administration but
women who are responsive to their voters
quite irresponsibly-said the deficit
backed by 97 percent of House Republi-
and who are fighting hard for construc-
might reach as high as $35 billion.
cans to try to salvage the neglected U.S.
tive solutions to the Nation's problems
The trouble is we just cannot believe
merchant marine.
at home and abroad.
the mathematics that the Johnson ad-
Eighth. Curbs on excessive nondefense
This Congress, with 50 more Republi-
ministration submits to us every year in
cans, has produced this record:
spending-Federal spending in 1960 un-
January. With all the errors they have
der the last Republican administration
First. Spending limitations totaling
made in every budget, I often wonder
was $48.6 billion. Estimated nondefense
more than $4 billion from the President's
what would happen to a taxpayer if he
spending for fiscal 1968 is nearly double
budget for fiscal 1968: This effort to curb
made similar mistakes on his Federal
that figure-$95.6 billion. The cumula-
runaway inflation and avoid another tax
income tax return. I think any ordinary
tive Federal deficit since President John-
increase succeeded only because of vir-
taxpayer would really be in trouble.
son entered the White House is expected
tually solid Republican support.
Now when we come right down to it,
to exceed $60 billion. As a result, the
Second. Social security improvements:
the Republicans for the last 3 years have
U.S. dollar is in trouble abroad and buys
More benefits for senior citizens who
tried to make specific, constructive rec-
less and less at home.
have been hurt by Johnson-Humphrey
ommendations to attack inflation and
inflation-without the additional pay-
This is & good Congress and it is be-
high interest rates. The national Repub-
roll taxes on working citizens that Presi-
cause the American people made some
lican coordinating committee, of which
dent Johnson wanted. Ninety-nine per-
changes from the last one.
both Senator DIRKSEN and I are mem-
bers, recommended in 1965 a nine-point
House supported this crime remedy
next election the American people will
program to straighten out the fiscal
rather than the dangerous one that the
send at least 31 more to the House of
problems we face. The coordinating com-
President recommended.
Representatives, so we can continue try-
mittee in April 1966 made a 13-point rec-
We have talked about the good things
ing to straighten out some of our basic
ommendation to fight inflation and high
this Congress has done, primarily be-
problems, trying to get away from the
interest rates. We in the House of Repre-
cause of the increased numbers of Re-
status quo that we are in today.
sentatives have been trying to cut Fed-
publican Congressmen the American
This is not a rubberstamp Congress.
eral expenditures as Republicans also
people in 33 States sent us a year ago
The last Congress was President John-
have in the Senate. We have a better
to help us battle against the Johnson ad-
son's Congress, but this Congress is more
solution to the fiscal problems facing this
ministration's status quo. But the job
nearly representative of the American
Nation which result in such a severe loss
of this Congress is not yet completed.
people.
in purchasing power for every American
We think this Congress should write a
But, this is the Christmas season, and
family. We believe it is better to reduce
good record as a reform Congress. For
only minutes ago President Johnson
expenditures than to pass the President's
example, we believe that there should
turned the lights on the White House
tax increase. We believe in responsible,
be clean election legislation. We have
Christmas tree on on behalf of all
realistic Federal financing. Do you real-
been operating in this country for a num-
Americans.
ize that in the last 7 years since a Repub-
br of years with antiquated, inadequate,
We did not agree and frankly we did
lican left the White House, there have
and ineffective Federal election laws. In
not like the President's unfair assess-
been accumulated deficits in the Federal
the House of Representatives, the Re-
ment of the 90th Congress in 1967. But
Government of over $60 billion? This
publicans have really carried the ball to
now we have set the record straight,
can not go on much longer or our dollar
try and get meaningful, effective legis-
there is something far more important
will be worth even less than it is today.
lation to guarantee clean Federal elec-
I would like to say. As Republicans, we
Now let me point out the problem we
tions in the 1968 presidential race, in the
are not only proud of the work we have
upcoming Senate races, and in the House
done in the session just ending, we are
face in crime. In the last 8 years our
population has gone up 10 percent, but in
races. We believe that there should be
proud of the Congress itself. With in-
the last 8 years crime in this country has
strict disclosure as to funds-received by
creased strength we have immensely im-
gone up 67 percent. The FBI reported
candidates and to the expenditures that
proved the quality of laws under which
just the other day that crime in this
are made on behalf of a candidate.
all Americans live, and we intend to con-
tinue to play our proper part in the con-
country went up 16 percent in the first 9
We strongly disagree with the Presi-
stitutional process of government. We
months of 1967. There have been 120 or
dent's proposal to finance elections out
more riots in our major metropolitan
hope the President and the judicial
of taxpayers' money from the Federal
areas in 1967, in which 118 people lost
branch will play theirs. We are proud of
Treasury. We think that is the wrong
their lives, some 4,000 have been injured
the way representative government
way to get the people interested in good
and $270 million in damage was done to
works, and we will keep on fighting to
government.
public and private property. Yes, we are
make it work. We are proud of America
One of the good ideas that our new
against this kind of a status quo. Repub-
and have faith in America, and with new
Republican Members pushed the hardest
Republican leadership in the White
licans are fighting to do something about
on-and I am proud of their efforts and
House and Republican majorities in the
the crime problem.
of the results-was to establish in the
The President early this year sent
Congress we pledge our countrymen that
House of Representatives a code of ethics
everyone can be really proud of being an
up a bill to involve the Federal Govern-
for all Congressmen. They took the lead
American. Let us never forget that we are
ment in the crime problem. The House of
in getting the House of Representatives
all Americans.
Representatives under Republican lead-
to establish a Committee on Standards of
On that note, Merry Christmas to you,
ership threw out the President's crime
Official Conduct. This committee has put
Mr. President, and Merry Christmas to
bill and we passed a meaningful piece
of legislation that denies the President's
together and is about to announce a code
everybody in this great, good, compas-
of ethics for Members of the House of
sionate and charitable land, which has
demand for what could become a Fed-
Representatives. We think this is long
been good to all of us.
eral police force under the control of the
Attorney General. Our bill, as the House
overdue, and I hope it will be effective.
passed it, gives to the States needed
This new group of Republicans is a
Federal funds and Federal guidance, pro-
very vigorous lot. They are articulate and
viding each State has a State plan co-
attractive and they work hard. They
(Excerpts from the comments of Repre-
sometimes come up with ideas that
sentative GERALD R. FORD, Republican-
ordinating the local and State law-en-
should have been thought of before and,
Michigan, House Republican Leader in re-
forcement organizations. We think the
Republican approach to crime is the con-
believe me, they are a very helpful group
ply to President Johnson over ABC, CBS,
structive one. I am proud to repeat that
when we challenge the status quo of the
and NBC television networks, December 15,
matters, on crime and law enforcement,
1967)
99 percent of the Republicans in the
and on other matters. I hope that in the